TheoremBase

Conditional-Variance Lower Bound for the Completed-Square Control Energy

Statement

Adopt the setting, hypotheses (H1)--(H2), and notation of the completion-of-squares theorem for the fluctuation cost: in particular the fluctuation processes st\mathfrak{s}_t and at\mathfrak{a}_t of a solution of the controlled NN-agent dynamics about a mean-field trajectory pair (S,A)(S,A), the symmetric positive definite matrices RtR_t (conclusion (a) of that theorem, under (H1)) with inverses Rt−1R_t^{-1} (existing, symmetric, and positive definite), the Riccati family ZZ of (H2) with Wt=ZtBt+12VtW_t=Z_t\mathsf{B}_t+\tfrac{1}{2}V_t, the completed-square control deviation ut=at+Rt−1Wt⊤stu_t=\mathfrak{a}_t+R_t^{-1}W_t^{\top}\mathfrak{s}_t, and the matrix entry notation x⋅My=∑p,qMpqxpyqx\cdot My=\sum_{p,q}M^{pq}x^py^q, (MM′)pq=∑rMprM′rq(MM')^{pq}=\sum_{r}M^{pr}M'^{rq}, (M⊤)qp=Mpq(M^{\top})^{qp}=M^{pq}. Let (Gt)t∈[0,T](\mathcal{G}_t)_{t\in[0,T]} be the observation filtration of the solution definition, as in the adaptedness lemma, and write E\mathbb{E} for the expectation.

Fix t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and assume that each component atj\mathfrak{a}^j_t (j∈{1,…,m}j\in\{1,\dots,m\}) is square-integrable. Each component stγ\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_t is square-integrable, being a random variable with (stγ)2≤2N(\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_t)^2\le2N everywhere (the probability simplex having squared Euclidean diameter at most 22). By the existence and uniqueness theorem for conditional expectation, for each γ∈{1,…,l}\gamma\in\{1,\dots,l\} there is a conditional expectation s^tγ\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^\gamma_t of stγ\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_t given Gt\mathcal{G}_t; fix such a choice, write s^t=(s^t1,…,s^tl)\hat{\mathfrak{s}}_t=(\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^1_t,\dots,\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^l_t), and set εt=st−s^t\varepsilon_t=\mathfrak{s}_t-\hat{\mathfrak{s}}_t componentwise. Then:

1. (Conditional-variance lower bound.) The random variables ut⋅Rtutu_t\cdot R_tu_t and εt⋅(WtRt−1Wt⊤)εt\varepsilon_t\cdot(W_tR_t^{-1}W_t^{\top})\varepsilon_t are integrable, and

E[ut⋅Rtut] ≥ E[εt⋅(WtRt−1Wt⊤) εt].\mathbb{E}\big[u_t\cdot R_tu_t\big]\ \ge\ \mathbb{E}\big[\varepsilon_t\cdot(W_tR_t^{-1}W_t^{\top})\,\varepsilon_t\big].

2. (Trace form and independence of the choice.)

E[εt⋅(WtRt−1Wt⊤)εt]=∑γ=1l∑δ=1l(WtRt−1Wt⊤)γδ E[εtγ εtδ],\mathbb{E}\big[\varepsilon_t\cdot(W_tR_t^{-1}W_t^{\top})\varepsilon_t\big]=\sum_{\gamma=1}^{l}\sum_{\delta=1}^{l}\big(W_tR_t^{-1}W_t^{\top}\big)^{\gamma\delta}\,\mathbb{E}\big[\varepsilon^\gamma_t\,\varepsilon^\delta_t\big],

and each E[εtγεtδ]\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_t\varepsilon^\delta_t] is unchanged if the conditional expectations s^tγ\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^\gamma_t are replaced by any other conditional expectations of the stγ\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_t given Gt\mathcal{G}_t.

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…