TheoremBase

Comparison of the N-Agent System with the Mean-Field Flow and Cost along the Realized Control

Statement

Let ll and mm be natural numbers with l≥2l\ge2 and m≥1m\ge1, let (β0,β1)(\beta_{0},\beta_{1}) be an affine-controlled transition-rate family on ll states with control set A⊆Rm\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{m} and let β\beta be its transition-rate family, with rate bound BB, aggregate state drift bb and state-Lipschitz constant Λb\Lambda_{b}, so that ∣b(Σ,a)−b(Σ′,a)∣≤Λb∣Σ−Σ′∣|b(\Sigma,a)-b(\Sigma',a)|\le\Lambda_{b}|\Sigma-\Sigma'| for all Σ,Σ′\Sigma,\Sigma' in the probability simplex Δl\Delta^{l} and every a∈Aa\in\mathcal{A} by claim 4 there, where ∣⋅∣|\cdot| is the Euclidean norm. As part of the data of the rate family, A\mathcal{A} is a nonempty compact convex subset of Euclidean space Rm\mathbb{R}^{m}.

Let β~\tilde{\beta} be an observation-rate family on ll states with l~\tilde{l} channels, where l~\tilde{l} is a natural number with l~≥1\tilde{l}\ge1, let T>0T>0 be a real number, and let (L,G)(L,G) be population cost data on ll states with control dimension mm that is convex in the control on A\mathcal{A}, meaning that for every Σ∈Δl\Sigma\in\Delta^{l} the function sending aa to L(Σ,a)L(\Sigma,a) is convex on A\mathcal{A}; these are the standing hypotheses of the boundedness, lower-semicontinuity and attainment theorem for the mean-field cost. Let CC be the bound of claim 1 of the lemma on cost data over a compact control set, so that ∣L(Σ,a)∣≤C|L(\Sigma,a)|\le C and ∣G(Σ)∣≤C|G(\Sigma)|\le C for every Σ∈Δl\Sigma\in\Delta^{l} and every a∈Aa\in\mathcal{A}, and let CFC_{F} be the bound of claim 1 of the boundedness, lower-semicontinuity and attainment theorem. Let S(x0,ξ)S(x_{0},\xi) be the mean-field flow of claim 2 of the flow stability lemma and let FF be the mean-field cost of a control from an initial state under (L,G)(L,G). Let UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} be the set of A\mathcal{A}-valued controls and let ρ\rho, dΔd_{\Delta}, XX and dXd_{X} be as in the compactness lemma for the simplex, the control set and their product. Write λ[0,T]\lambda_{[0,T]} for the restricted Lebesgue measure on [0,T][0,T].

Let NN be a natural number with N≥1N\ge1, let (Ω,F,P)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P) be an NN-agent driving system, let hh be an observation-driven control policy with horizon TT, control dimension mm and l~\tilde{l} channels that is A\mathcal{A}-valued, and let (σi,Υυ,α)(\sigma^{i},\Upsilon^{\upsilon},\alpha) be a solution of the controlled NN-agent dynamics on [0,T][0,T] for β\beta, β~\tilde{\beta}, this driving system and this policy, with regular event Ω0\Omega_{0} and empirical state measure Σ\Sigma. Let α^\hat{\alpha} be the realized control of the realized-control lemma, so that α^(ω)∈UA\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} for every ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega, the pair (Σ0,α^)(\Sigma_{0},\hat{\alpha}) is a random element of (X,dX)(X,d_{X}), and α^(t,ω)=αt(ω)\hat{\alpha}(t,\omega)=\alpha_{t}(\omega) for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and every ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_{0}.

Let MM be the martingale part of the martingale decomposition of the empirical state measure, and let Ω∗⊆Ω0\Omega_{*}\subseteq\Omega_{0} and M‾\overline{M} be the event of probability 11 and the random variable furnished by the martingale bound for the empirical state measure, so that ∣Mt(ω)∣≤M‾(ω)|M_{t}(\omega)|\le\overline{M}(\omega) for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and every ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_{*}, the path t↦Σt(ω)t\mapsto\Sigma_{t}(\omega) is right-continuous on [0,T)[0,T) for every ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_{*}, and E[M‾ 2]≤8l(l−1)BT/N\mathbb{E}\bigl[\overline{M}^{\,2}\bigr]\le 8l(l-1)BT/N. Let JN[h]J^{N}[h] be the NN-agent cost of the policy hh.

Then the following hold.

1. (Pathwise comparison of the flows.) Let ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_{*} and write Sω=S(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))S^{\omega}=S\bigl(\Sigma_{0}(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\bigr) for the mean-field flow started at the realized initial state and driven by the realized control. Then

∣Σt(ω)−Stω∣≤eΛbT M‾(ω)for every t∈[0,T].\bigl|\Sigma_{t}(\omega)-S^{\omega}_{t}\bigr|\le e^{\Lambda_{b}T}\,\overline{M}(\omega)\qquad\text{for every }t\in[0,T].

2. (The realized mean-field cost, and finiteness of the NN-agent cost.) The map ω↦F(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))\omega\mapsto F\bigl(\Sigma_{0}(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\bigr) is a random variable, and ∣F(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))∣≤CF\bigl|F\bigl(\Sigma_{0}(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\bigr)\bigr|\le C_{F} for every ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega. Moreover, fix a point e∈Δle\in\Delta^{l} and let Σ∗:[0,T]×Ω→Rl\Sigma^{*}:[0,T]\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{l} be the map with Σt∗(ω)=Σt(ω)\Sigma^{*}_{t}(\omega)=\Sigma_{t}(\omega) for ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_{*} and Σt∗(ω)=e\Sigma^{*}_{t}(\omega)=e for ω∉Ω∗\omega\notin\Omega_{*}, so that Σt∗(ω)∈Δl\Sigma^{*}_{t}(\omega)\in\Delta^{l} for every tt and every ω\omega. Then

W(ω)=∫[0,T]L(Σt∗(ω),α^(t,ω)) dλ[0,T](t)+G(ΣT∗(ω))W(\omega)=\int_{[0,T]}L\bigl(\Sigma^{*}_{t}(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(t,\omega)\bigr)\,d\lambda_{[0,T]}(t)+G\bigl(\Sigma^{*}_{T}(\omega)\bigr)

defines a random variable with ∣W(ω)∣≤C(T+1)|W(\omega)|\le C(T+1) for every ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega, the NN-agent cost JN[h]J^{N}[h] is a real number, and JN[h]=E[W]J^{N}[h]=\mathbb{E}[W].

3. (Uniform comparison of the costs.) For every real ε>0\varepsilon>0 there is a natural number N0N_{0}, depending only on ε\varepsilon, ll, BB, TT, Λb\Lambda_{b}, A\mathcal{A}, LL and GG, and not on NN, on the driving system, on the policy or on the solution, such that

∣JN[h]−E[F(Σ0,α^)]∣≤ε\Bigl|J^{N}[h]-\mathbb{E}\bigl[F\bigl(\Sigma_{0},\hat{\alpha}\bigr)\bigr]\Bigr|\le\varepsilon

holds for every N≥N0N\ge N_{0}, every NN-agent driving system, every A\mathcal{A}-valued observation-driven control policy hh with horizon TT, control dimension mm and l~\tilde{l} channels, and every solution of the controlled NN-agent dynamics for those data, with Σ0\Sigma_{0} and α^\hat{\alpha} the initial empirical state measure and the realized control of that solution.

Proofs

Log in to submit a proof.

Loading...

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Loading…

Related

0 relations

Curated associations between results. These are editable and subjective — they do not replace the dependency graph, which is derived from the references in the text.

No relations recorded yet.

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…