Reason: First publication: proof of the post-exit comparison lemma.
Proof
Throughout, λ[a,b] and B[a,b] are the restricted Lebesgue measure and σ-algebra on a compact interval, linearity and monotonicity of the integral are used freely (in particular the scalar bound ∣∫h∣≤∫∣h∣, from monotonicity applied to ±h≤∣h∣), a bounded measurable real-valued function on a compact interval is integrable, and expectations of bounded random variables exist by the same facts on (Ω,F,P). Write KM′=1+2(l−1)BT for the everywhere bound ∣Mtγ∣≤KM′ of claim 2 of the stopped covariation lemma; by the same claim, for ω∈Ω0 each path t↦Mtγ(ω) and t↦Σtγ(ω) is right-continuous at every t∈[0,T) in the ε-η sense, and the families 1Ω0Mγ and 1Ω0Σγ are progressively measurable; taking the time index T in the definition of progressive measurability, both are also measurable with respect to the product σ-algebraB[0,T]⊗F, and their paths are measurable on [0,T]. By part (a) of the first-order expansion lemma, (t,ω)↦1Ω0Dt and (t,ω)↦1Ω0L(Σt,αt) are product-measurable with ∣Dt∣≤CD and ∣L(Σt,αt)∣≤CLG at every point at which Σt∈Δl and αt∈A (hence everywhere, by the solution definition), so their paths at each ω∈Ω0 are measurable and bounded. For γ∈{1,…,l} put fγ(s)=∂γHs(Ss,As); each fγ is continuous on [0,T] with ∑γ=1l∣fγ(s)∣≤C∂, as recorded in the expansion lemma. Finally, the paths t↦Stγ, t↦Atj and t↦Ptγ are continuous (clause 1 of the trajectory-pair and co-state definitions), with ∑γ∣Ptγ∣≤CP; and by clause 1 of the cost extension definition and part (i) of the regularity of the extended drift, L=Lˉ on Δl×Rm, G=Gˉ on Δl, and bδ=bˉδ on Δl×A, so that at every (t,ω) with Σt∈Δl, αt∈A,
where gδ(s)=bδ(Σs,αs)−bδ(Ss,As), the first identity by the definition of H and the second by the definition of Dt in the expansion lemma.
Step 0: interval identities. Exactly as in the proof of the time-shift lemma we use, for real numbers a<b, c, and a measurable bounded φ on the relevant interval: (0.1) the map s↦φ(s+c) on [a,b] is measurable and bounded whenever φ is so on [a+c,b+c], with equal integrals — via the zero extensions of claim 2 of the toolkit, which satisfy g~(x)=φ~(x+c) pointwise, the positive and negative parts of the integral definition, and claims 1 and 2 of translation invariance; (0.2) for a<c<b, ∫[a,b]φ=∫[a,c]φ+∫[c,b]φ (restrictions), via the decomposition of φ into the products of φ with the indicators of [a,c] and (c,b] — measurable by arithmetic of measurable functions — claim 2 of the toolkit, and claim 2 of the null-set lemma for the single-point discrepancy at c; and (0.3) for r∈[a,b] and φ measurable bounded on [a,b], ∫[0,T]-type cut identities ∫[a,b]1{s≥r}φ(s)ds=∫[r,b]φ for r<b, and =0 for r=b (in the first case by the same indicator decomposition and null-set step; in the second because the integrand vanishes off the null set {b}, claim 1 of the null-set lemma).
Step 1: forward form of the co-state. For γ∈{1,…,l}, the function −fγ is the integrand of clause 2 of the co-state definition, and exactly as in Step 2 of the proof of the mean-field expansion lemma — clause 2 of the co-state definition at the two times, claim 3 of the toolkit, and the splitting (0.2) — one obtains
the last display also holding for r=T with the convention ∫[T,T]=0.
Step 2: proof of claim 1. The path measurability and boundedness statements were collected above (ytγ=Σtγ−Stγ with ∣ytγ∣≤1, both terms lying in [0,1]). Fix ω∈Ω0 and write r=ς(ω).
If r=T: the two time integrals and the integral in RM,ς are 0 by convention, MTγ−Mςγ=0, so RM,ς=0, and the identity reduces to G(ΣT)−G(ST)+∑γPTγyTγ=DG, which holds because G=Gˉ on Δl, PTγ=−∂γGˉ(ST), and DG=Gˉ(ΣT)−Gˉ(ST)−∑γ∂γGˉ(ST)yTγ.
Assume r<T. By part (b) of the martingale decomposition theorem at the times t and r (with 1Ω0(ω)=1) and (0.2), for every t∈[r,T] and every γ,
the second by clause 2 of the trajectory-pair definition, claim 3 of the toolkit, and Riemann additivity (or trivially when r=0 or t=r); subtracting,
ytγ=yrγ+∫[r,t]gγ(s)ds+Mtγ−Mrγ(t∈[r,T]).(2.1)
The path s↦gγ(s) is measurable and bounded by 4(l−1)B (part (a) of the decomposition theorem for the first term; continuity for the second). Define wtγ=yrγ+∫[0,t]1{s≥r}gγ(s)ds for t∈[0,T]; the integrand is measurable (arithmetic of measurable functions, the indicator being that of the Borel set [r,T]) and bounded, and by (0.3) and (0.2), wtγ=yrγ for t≤r while wtγ=yrγ+∫[r,t]gγ(s)ds=ytγ−(Mtγ−Mrγ) for t∈[r,T], by (2.1). Apply part (ii) of integration by parts for indefinite Lebesgue integrals with u0=P0γ, f=fγ (Step 1), v0=yrγ and g=1{⋅≥r}gγ:
Adding G(ΣT)−G(ST)=Gˉ(ΣT)−Gˉ(ST)=DG+∑γ∂γGˉ(ST)yTγ=DG−∑γPTγyTγ and then ∑γPrγyrγ to both sides yields the identity of claim 1. Finally, splitting the difference of integrals by (0.2) shows both ∫[r,T]L(Σt,αt)dt and ∫[r,T]L(St,At)dt exist separately, as claimed.
Measurability in ω. The pre-stopping-time indicator I=(It) of ς is progressively measurable (claim 1 of the stopped-integral lemma), so, taking the time index T, the map (t,ω)↦1−It(ω)=1{ς(ω)≤t} is product-measurable. By (0.3), at every ω∈Ω0,
1Ω0∫[ς,T]Dtdt=∫[0,T](1−It)1Ω0Dtdt,
and the right-hand side vanishes at ω∈/Ω0; the integrand is product-measurable (products of measurable maps being again measurable, as sequentially continuous functions of them) and bounded by CD, so splitting it into positive and negative parts and applying the Tonelli theorem (the trace Lebesgue measure and P being finite), the right-hand side is the difference of two measurable [0,∞]-valued functions of ω that are bounded by CDT, hence a bounded random variable. The same argument applies to ∫[0,T](1−It)fγ(t)1Ω0Mtγdt. Next, 1Ω0Mγ and 1Ω0Σγ are progressively measurable, so their sampled functions at ς are Fς-measurable random variables (claim 4(ii) of the stopping-time toolkit), and these equal 1Ω0Mςγ and 1Ω0Σςγ pointwise; ς is a random variable (claim 1 of the same toolkit), so ω↦Pς(ω)γ and ω↦Sς(ω)γ are random variables by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps (Pγ and Sγ being continuous on [0,T]). Hence 1Ω0yςγ and 1Ω0∣sς∣2=N∑γ(1Ω0yςγ)2 are bounded random variables. Finally, at every ω∈Ω0 (using (0.3) at r=ς(ω), Step 1, and the constancy of Mςγ(ω) in t),
and multiplying through by 1Ω0 (which reproduces RM,ς, this being 0 off Ω0) exhibits RM,ς as a finite sum and product of the bounded random variables just listed; ∣RM,ς∣≤2KM′(CP+C∂T) everywhere, since ∣Mtγ−Mςγ∣≤2KM′ while ∑γ∣PTγ∣≤CP and ∑γ∣fγ(t)∣≤C∂.
Step 3: proof of claim 2. Fix γ and let D∈Fς. Since RM,ς vanishes off Ω0, we may work with (2.3) multiplied by 1Ω01D. The process Mγ satisfies the hypotheses of the optional stopping theorem for the filtration (Ftsys)t∈[0,T]: it is a square-integrable martingale by part (b) of the decomposition theorem, ∣Mtγ∣≤KM′ everywhere, and its paths are right-continuous at every t∈[0,T) in the required sense at every point of the probability-one event Ω0.
(i) Terminal term. The constant T is a stopping time (claim 1 of the stopping-time toolkit) and ς≤T pointwise, so part (b) of the optional stopping theorem with σ=ς, τ=T and the event D∈Fς gives E[1Ω01D(MTγ−Mςγ)]=0.
(ii) The set D∩{ς≤t}. Fix t∈[0,T] and put D′′=D∩{ς≤t}. We claim D′′∈Fmin(ς,t), the σ-algebra prior to the stopping time min(ς,t) (a stopping time by claim 1 of the toolkit). Indeed, for s∈[0,T]: if s≥t then D′′∩{min(ς,t)≤s}=D′′=D∩{ς≤t}∈Ft⊆Fs (by the definition of Fς at the time t, and the filtration property); while if s<t then {min(ς,t)≤s}={ς≤s} and D′′∩{ς≤s}=D∩{ς≤s}∈Fs (the definition of Fς at the time s, and {ς≤s}⊆{ς≤t}).
(iii) One time slice. Part (b) of the optional stopping theorem with σ=min(ς,t), τ=t (constant; min(ς,t)≤t pointwise) and the event D′′∈Fσ gives E[1Ω01D′′Mtγ]=E[1Ω01D′′Mmin(ς,t)γ], and Mmin(ς,t)γ=Mςγ at every point of D′′; hence
(iv) The integral term. The map (t,ω)↦1D1Ω0(1−It)fγ(t)Mtγ is product-measurable and bounded (fγ continuous, hence its extension (t,ω)↦fγ(t) product-measurable as a sequentially continuous function of (t,ω)↦t, whose preimages of Borel sets are rectangles), and likewise with Mtγ replaced by the random variable 1Ω0Mςγ (constant in t; preimages are rectangles). By the Fubini theorem for bounded (hence integrable) product-measurable functions over the finite product measure, together with (3.1),
the last equality by (0.3) and Step 1 at r=ς(ω), pointwise in ω. Taking the expectation of 1Ω01D times (2.3) and inserting (i) and the display above, the three contributions cancel for each γ: E[1DRM,ς]=∑γ(0+E[1Ω01DMςγ(PTγ−Pςγ)]−E[1Ω01DMςγ(PTγ−Pςγ)])=0.
Step 4: proof of claim 3. For each γ let Mγ be the random variable furnished by the supremum lemma for the bounded process ∣Mtγ∣1Ω0 (whose paths are right-continuous at every point of Ω0), so that 0≤Mγ≤KM′ and Mγ(ω)=supt∈[0,T]∣Mtγ(ω)∣ for ω∈Ω0, and put M^=∑γ=1lMγ. By the fourth-moment maximal inequality applied to the martingale Mγ (its hypotheses verified in Step 3) and part (b) of the restricted moments lemma, using (MTγ)4≤∣MT∣4 (claim 1 of the componentwise toolkit and monotonicity of squaring on nonnegative reals),
E[(Mγ)4]≤4E[(MTγ)4]≤4cMκTN−2.(4.1)
(4a) A pointwise lower bound on D. Let ω∈D, so ω∈Ω0 and ∣yr∣≤εtg with r=ς(ω), where yr abbreviates yς(ω)(ω). We show
If r=T: the time integral and RM,ς vanish (Step 2), M^≥0, and yr=yT. The second display of conclusion (b) of the first-order expansion lemma for the mean-field cost, applied at Σ=ΣT(ω)∈Δl — its hypotheses being the compactness and convexity of A, part of the data of the affine-controlled family, together with the stationary triple already fixed — bounds exactly the quantity DG=Gˉ(ΣT)−Gˉ(ST)−∑γ∂γGˉ(ST)yTγ:
since Ctg∨≥2lKc; so (4.2) holds. (Only this hypothesis-free bound on the terminal remainder is used; the coercive part (d) of the recentred expansion lemma, which additionally assumes (H1) and (U), is not invoked anywhere in this proof.) Assume now r<T and write T♯=T−r.
The shifted realized control. By claim 3 of the realized-control lemma, the path p:t↦α^(t,ω) on [0,T] is measurable with every value in A, and α^(t,ω)=αt(ω) for every t (claim 2 there, ω∈Ω0). By the measurability part of (0.1), the shifted path a♯:t↦pr+t on [0,T♯] is measurable; it takes values in A, is bounded (by the constant R of the realized-control lemma), hence its components are square-integrable, so a♯∈L2([0,T♯];Rm) and, by the definition of the control set, its class η=[a♯] lies in UA[T♯] with admissible representativea♯.
The per-path mean-field flow and its tracking. Let x♮=S[T♯](Σr(ω),η), by claim 2 of the flow stability lemma (horizon-T♯ instance, admissible representative a♯; Σr(ω)∈Δl by the solution definition) the continuous Δl-valued solution of xt♮γ=Σrγ+∫[0,t]b^γ(xs♮,as♯)ds, with b^γ(xs♮,as♯)=bγ(xs♮,as♯) by claim 6 of the affine rate-family lemma. Set et=Σr+t(ω)−xt♮ for t∈[0,T♯]. By the first display of Step 2 at the time r+t, shifted with (0.1) and using αs(ω)=ps for every s and pr+s=as♯ — so that Σr+tγ=Σrγ+∫[0,t]bγ(Σr+s,as♯)ds+Mr+tγ−Mrγ — subtracting the flow equation and using the scalar integral triangle inequality componentwise,
Summing over γ and using claim 1 of the componentwise toolkit twice (∣vγ∣≤∣v∣ and ∑γ∣vγ∣≤lmaxγ∣vγ∣≤l∣v∣) together with the state-Lipschitz bound ∣b(Σ,a)−b(Σ′,a)∣≤Λb∣Σ−Σ′∣ of claim 4 of the affine rate-family lemma, the function u(t)=∑γ∣etγ∣ — measurable in t (paths of Σ measurable, x♮ continuous, absolute values and sums of measurable functions measurable) and bounded by 2l — satisfies
Comparison of costs. By (0.1) and (0.2), ∫[r,T]L(Σt,αt)dt=∫[0,T♯]L(Σr+t,at♯)dt. By the definition of the mean-field cost for the horizon-T♯ instance with the admissible representative a♯ (its provisions recording that the integrand below is measurable and bounded), F[T♯](Σr,η)=∫[0,T♯]L(xt♮,at♯)dt+G(xT♯♮). By (LipC), (4.3) and the scalar integral triangle inequality,
using ΣT(ω)=Σr+T♯(ω) and λ[0,T♯]([0,T♯])=T♯≤T. By conclusion 2 of the to-go comparison lemma — applicable at t0=r∈[0,T), x=Σr(ω)∈Δl with ∣x−Sr∣≤εtg, and ξ=η, under the assumed (LipC)-independent hypotheses [A]∈MS0∗ and (TG) —
is nonnegative at every point of Ω (every term vanishes off D, and on D the nonnegativity is exactly (4.2)), and it is a bounded random variable: the first and last terms by claim 1 (DG is a random variable bounded by CDG at every point, by part (a) of the expansion lemma and the solution definition, and D⊆Ω0 allows the insertion of 1Ω0 throughout), the middle terms by claim 1 and Step 4's construction of M^. Hence E[NZ]≥0, and by linearity, claim 2 (with the event D∈Fς), and N∣yς∣2=∣sς∣2 on Ω0,