1: \documentclass{amsart}
2: \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{eufrak}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
7: \usepackage{color}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%change margins
10:
11: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0pt} \setlength{\marginparsep}{0pt}
12: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.4in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
13: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.125in}
14: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.125in}
15: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.1in} % original -0.3
16:
17: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2} % can be reduced
18:
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20:
21: \theoremstyle{plain}
22: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
23: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
24: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
25: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
26:
27: \theoremstyle{definition}
28: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
29:
30: \theoremstyle{remark}
31: \newtheorem*{notation}{Notation}
32:
33: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
34:
35: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
36:
37:
38: \include{come}
39:
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: \title[A Statistical Theory for the Analysis of Uncertain Systems] {A Statistical Theory for the Analysis of Uncertain Systems}
44:
45:
46: \author{Xinjia Chen, Kemin Zhou and Jorge L. Aravena}
47:
48: \address{Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\\
49: Louisiana State University\\
50: Baton Rouge, LA 70803}
51:
52: \email{chan@ece.lsu.edu\\
53: kemin@ece.lsu.edu\\
54: aravena@ece.lsu.edu}
55:
56: \thanks{This
57: research was supported in part by grants from NASA (NCC5-573), LEQSF (NASA /LEQSF(2001-04)-01), the NNSFC Young
58: Investigator Award for Overseas Collaborative Research (60328304) and a NNSFC grant (10377004).}
59:
60: \keywords{Robustness analysis, risk analysis, randomized algorithms, uncertain system, computational complexity}
61:
62: \date{March 2007}
63:
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66:
67: This paper addresses the issues of conservativeness and
68: computational complexity of probabilistic robustness analysis. We
69: solve both issues by defining a new sampling strategy and
70: robustness measure. The new measure is shown to be much less
71: conservative than the existing one. The new sampling strategy
72: enables the definition of efficient hierarchical sample reuse
73: algorithms that reduce significantly the computational complexity
74: and make it independent of the dimension of the uncertainty space.
75: Moreover, we show that there exists a one to one correspondence
76: between the new and the existing robustness measures and provide a
77: computationally simple algorithm to derive one from the other.
78:
79:
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \maketitle
83:
84:
85: \sect{Introduction}
86:
87: {\em Robustness analysis} is used to predict if a system will
88: perform satisfactorily in the presence of uncertainties. It is
89: generally accepted as an essential step in the design of
90: high-performance control systems. In practice, the analysis has to
91: be very efficient because it has to use models as realistic as
92: possible and, usually, it takes many cycles of analysis-design to
93: come up with a satisfactory controller. The outcome of the
94: robustness analysis should allow the designer not only to evaluate
95: the robust performance of a controller, but also to compare
96: various controllers in order to obtain the best control strategy.
97: Needless to say, unnecessary conservativeness prevents a realistic
98: analysis.
99:
100: Aimed at overcoming the computational complexity and conservatism
101: of the classical deterministic worst-cast approach, there are
102: growing interests in developing probabilistic methods and
103: randomized algorithms (see, \cite{bai}-\cite{C2},
104: \cite{Kan}-\cite{Wang} and the references therein). Specially, a
105: probabilistic robustness measure, referred to as the {\it
106: confidence degradation function} or {\it robustness function} is
107: proposed in \cite{BLT}. Such robustness measure has been
108: demonstrated to be much superior than the classical deterministic
109: robustness margin in terms of conservatism, computational
110: complexity and generality of application.
111:
112:
113: The computation of the {\em robustness function} using Monte Carlo
114: simulations requires {\it uniform sampling} from bounding sets in
115: the uncertainty space, which can reach high dimensions very
116: quickly; for example if the uncertainty is modelled by a $5\times
117: 5$ complex-valued matrix then the dimension of the uncertainty
118: space is 50. We will show here that such sampling suffers from
119: what we term {\em surface effect} and may introduce undue
120: conservativeness in the evaluation of system robustness. We
121: address this conservativeness with a new sampling technique and a
122: new probabilistic robustness measure that is significantly less
123: conservative. Moreover, with a suitable computing structure it can
124: be evaluated for arbitrarily dense gridding of uncertainty radius
125: with a computational complexity that is very low and {\em is
126: independent of the dimension of uncertainty.}
127:
128: We shall use the following notation throughout this paper. The
129: uncertainty is denoted as boldface $\bs{\vDe}$ and its realization
130: is denoted as $\vDe$. The probability density function of
131: $\bs{\vDe}$ is denoted as $f_{\bs{\vDe}}$. We measure the size of
132: uncertainty by a function $||.||$ which has the {\it scalable
133: property} that $||\ro \vDe|| = \ro || \vDe||$ for any uncertainty
134: instance $\vDe$ and any $\ro > 0$. Obviously, the most frequently
135: used $H_\iy$ or $l_p$ norm of uncertainty possesses such scalable
136: property. The uncertainty bounding set of radius $r$ is denoted as
137: $\mcal{B}_r = \{ \vDe: ||\vDe|| \leq r \}$. We use $\pa \mcal{B}_r$
138: to denote $\{ \vDe: ||\vDe|| = r \}$. Specially, $\mcal{B}$ denotes
139: $\{ \vDe: ||\vDe|| \leq 1 \}$ and $\pa \mcal{B}$ denotes $\{ \vDe:
140: ||\vDe|| = 1 \}$. For a subset $S_r$ of $\pa \mcal{B}_r$, its
141: ``area'' is defined as \be \la{defarea}
142: \mrm{area}(S_r) = \lim_{\vep_1
143: \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } } \f{ \int_{q \in \li
144: \{\f{\ro}{r} \vDe : \; r - \vep_1 \leq \ro \leq r + \vep_2 , \; \vDe
145: \in S_r \ri \} } d q } { \vep_1 + \vep_2 } \ee where ``$\int$''
146: denotes the multivariate Lebesgue integration and the down arrow
147: ``$\downarrow$'' means ``decreases to''.
148:
149: The indicator function $\bb{I} (.)$ means that $\bb{I} (\vDe) = 1$
150: if the robustness requirement is guaranteed for $\vDe$ and $\bb{I}
151: (\vDe) = 0$ otherwise. The probability of an event is denoted as
152: $\Pr \{. \}$. The conditional probability is denoted as $\Pr \{.
153: \mid . \}$. The set of complex number is denoted as $\bb{C}$. The
154: set of real matrices of size $m \times p$ is denoted as $\bb{R}^{m
155: \times p}$. The set of complex matrices of size $m \times p$ is
156: denoted as $\bb{C}^{m \times p}$. The real and complex parts of a
157: number is denoted as $\Re(.)$ and $\Im(.)$ respectively. The largest
158: and the second largest singular values of a matrix are denoted as
159: $\overline{\si}(.)$ and $\si_2(.)$ respectively. The ceiling
160: function is denoted as $\lc . \rc$ and the floor function is denoted
161: as $\lf . \rf$.
162:
163:
164:
165: \subsection{The Surface Effect of Uniform Sampling}
166: In order to illustrate the {\em surface effect}, consider a {\it
167: uniform sampling} extracting samples from the uncertainty set
168: $\mcal{B}_r$. Let $E_\rho$ denote the event that {\it a sample
169: chosen uniformly from $\mcal{B}_r$ lies outside the bounding set
170: $\mcal{B}_\rho$ of radius $\ro < r$}. Under the assumption of
171: uniform distribution it is easy to see that such event will have the
172: probability $\Pr \{E_\rho\} = 1-\left(\frac{\rho}{r}\right )^d$
173: where $d$ is the dimension of uncertainty. As $d$ increases this
174: probability approaches one for all $\rho<r$. For example when
175: $\f{\rho}{r}=0.9$ and $d=50$ then $\Pr \{E_\rho \}=0.9948$. {\bf
176: Hence out of 1000 samples extracted uniformly from the bounding set
177: of radius $r$ one would expect that about 995 will be outside the
178: bounding set with radius $\rho = 0.9 r$}. If the uncertainty is well
179: modeled one can reasonably assume that large uncertainties are less
180: likely than small ones and we are faced with the fact that the
181: uniform sampling selects cases that are not indicative of the actual
182: situation but present a very unfavorable picture. In Section 2 we
183: discuss in detail the modeling of uncertainties and show that
184: uniform sampling can give a very conservative evaluation of system
185: robustness. In Section 3 we introduce a new sampling technique and a
186: new robustness measure which overcomes the conservativeness issue.
187: Section 4 establishes a one to one mapping between our measure and
188: the existing one and considers other capabilities of the new
189: robustness function. The detail algorithms are presented in Section
190: 5. Section 6 addresses the issue of computational complexity for
191: the evaluation of robustness function. In particular we show that by
192: using a special type of {\em hierarchial} data structure it is
193: possible to design computational algorithms that have a complexity
194: that is independent of the dimension of the uncertainty. The proofs
195: of theorems are given in the Appendix.
196:
197:
198:
199: \section{Modeling Uncertainty}
200:
201: In this section, we shall discuss the characteristics of uncertainty from the perspective of modelling
202: practices.
203: \begin{figure}
204: \centering
205: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Diag_Sys.eps}
206: \caption{Uncertain System} \label{fig_Diag_Sys}
207: \end{figure}
208:
209:
210: Consider an uncertain system shown in Figure \ref{fig_Diag_Sys}. In
211: control engineering, one usually takes into account all possible
212: directional information about the uncertainty by introducing
213: weighting matrices and absorbing it into the generalized plant $P$.
214: Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the uncertainty
215: $\bs{\vDe}$ is {\it radially symmetrical} in distribution in the
216: sense that, for any $r > 0$ and any $S_r \subseteq \{ \vDe :
217: ||\vDe|| = r \}$,
218: \[
219: \Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in S_r \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| = r \} = \f{
220: \mrm{area}(S_r) } {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}_r) }
221: \]
222: if $f_{||\bs{\De}||}(.)$ is continuous at $r$, where the conditional
223: probability in the left hand side is defined as \[ \lim_{\vep_1
224: \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } } \f{ \Pr \li \{ \bs{\vDe}
225: \in \{ \vDe \in S_\ro: \; r - \vep_1 \leq \ro \leq r + \vep_2 \}
226: \ri \} } { \Pr \{ r - \vep_1 \leq ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq r + \vep_2 \}
227: }.
228: \]
229: On the other hand, one usually attempts to make the magnitude of
230: modelling error, measured by $||\bs{\vDe}||$, as small as possible.
231: Due to the effort to minimize $||\bs{\vDe}||$ in modelling, it is
232: reasonable to assume that {\it small modelling error is more likely
233: than large modelling error}. This gives rise to the rationale of
234: treating $||\bs{\De}||$ as a random variable such that its density,
235: $f_{||\bs{\De}||}(r) = \f{d [\Pr \{ ||\bs{\De}|| \leq r \}] } {d r
236: }$, is {\it non-increasing} with respect to $r$. In the sequel, we
237: shall use $\mscr{F}$ to denote the family of radially symmetrical
238: and non-increasing density function $f_{\bs{\vDe}}$. It should be
239: noted that a wider class of probability density functions, denoted
240: by $\mscr{G}$, has been proposed in \cite{BLT} to model uncertainty.
241: Such family $\mscr{G}$ consists of radially symmetrical density
242: function $f_{\bs{\vDe}}$ that is non-increasing in the sense that
243: $f_{\bs{\vDe}} (\vDe_1) \leq f_{\bs{\vDe}} (\vDe_2)$ if $||\vDe_1||
244: \geq ||\vDe_2||$. It can be shown that $\mscr{G}$ is a superset of
245: $\mscr{F}$, i.e., $\mscr{G} \supseteq \mscr{F}$ (see Lemma 2 in
246: Appendix A).
247:
248: \subsection{Existing Robustness Function} \la{3A}
249:
250: The existing robustness function, proposed in \cite{BLT}, is given by
251: \[
252: \underline{\bb{P}} (r) \DEF \inf_{\ro \in (0, r]} \bb{P} (\ro) \]
253: with
254: \[
255: \bb{P} (r) = \Pr \{ \bb{I}(\bs{\vDe}^\mrm{u} )
256: = 1 \}
257: \]
258: where $\bs{\vDe}^\mrm{u}$ is uniformly distributed over $\mcal{B}_r$.
259: It has been shown in \cite{BLT} that $\underline{\bb{P}} (r)$
260: is a lower bound of the probability of guaranteeing the robustness requirement if the density of uncertainty
261: belongs to $\mscr{G}$ and the uncertainty is bounded in $\mcal{B}_r$.
262:
263: An attracting feature of the existing robustness function is that it
264: relies on very mild assumptions about uncertainty. However, as can
265: be seen from Theorem 6.1 (in page 856) of \cite{BLT}, the associated
266: computational complexity can be very high for large uncertainty
267: dimension. Another issue of the existing measure is that it can be
268: very conservative from the perspective of modelling practices. For
269: illustration of this point, we consider a conceptual example as
270: follows.
271:
272: Suppose it is known that the norm of uncertainty $\bs{\vDe}$ cannot exceed $\ga$. Without loss of generality,
273: assume $\ga = 1$. That is, all instances of $\bs{\vDe}$ are included in the bounding set $\mcal{B} = \{ \vDe :
274: ||\vDe|| < 1 \}$. We partition $\mcal{B}$ as $m$ layers $S_\ell = \{ \vDe: r_{\ell -1} \leq ||\vDe|| < r_\ell
275: \}, \; \ell = 1, 2, \cd, m$ by radii $r_\ell = \f{\ell}{m}, \; \ell = 0, 1, \cd, m$. From the consideration of
276: modelling practices, it is reasonable to assume that the density of uncertainty $\bs{\vDe}$ belongs to
277: $\mscr{F}$. Hence, for sufficiently large $m$, we have $\Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in S_\ell \} \geq \Pr \{ \bs{\vDe}
278: \in S_{\ell + 1} \}, \; \ell = 1, 2, \cd, m - 1$. In reality, it is not impossible that not only the outer
279: layers are ``bad'' and some inner layer is also ``bad''. Such scenario is described as follows:
280:
281: The robustness requirement is violated for $\vDe \in S_i$ and for $\vDe \in S_\ell, \; \ell = j, j+1, \cd, m$
282: where $i$ and $j$ are integers such that $2 \leq i + 1 < j < m$. See Figure \ref{fig_Ring} for an illustration.
283: Let $d$ be the dimension of uncertainty space. By direct computation, we obtain the existing robustness
284: function as $\underline{\bb{P}}(r) = \inf_{\ro \in [0, r]} \bb{P}(\ro)$ where {\small \[
285: \bb{P}(\ro) = \bec 1, & \tx{for} \; \ro < r_{i-1};\\
286: \f{(i-1)^d }{(m \ro)^d}, & \tx{for} \; r_{i-1} \leq \ro < r_i;\\
287: \f{(m \ro)^d - i^d + (i-1)^d}{(m \ro)^d}, & \tx{for} \; r_i \leq \ro < r_{j-1};\\
288: \f{(j - 1)^d - i^d + (i-1)^d}{(m \ro)^d}, & \tx{for} \; r_{j-1} \leq \ro < 1. \eec
289: \]}
290: Clearly, $\lim_{d \to \iy} \underline{\bb{P}}(r) = 1$ for $r < r_{i-1}$ and $\lim_{d \to \iy}
291: \underline{\bb{P}}(r) = 0 $ for $r_{i-1} \leq r < 1$. This indicates that the existing robustness function
292: tends to be a discontinuous function as $d$ increases. An undesirable feature of existing measure resulted from
293: such discontinuity is that a very small variation in the knowledge of the uncertainty bound, $\ga$, may lead to
294: an opposite evaluation of the system robustness.
295:
296:
297:
298: \begin{figure}
299: \centering
300: \includegraphics[height=3.0cm]{Ring.eps}
301: \caption{Conceptual Example (The robustness requirement is violated
302: for red layers and is satisfied for green layers. Existing
303: robustness measure tends to completely ignore uncertainty instances
304: in the inner layers as $d$ increases. Based on the existing
305: robustness measure, a very thin bad layer may lead to an unrealistic
306: judgement that the system has very poor robustness. However, the
307: instances in the inner layers are more probably to occur in reality.
308: Hence, they should have at least equal impact on the evaluation of
309: system robustness as compared to the instances in the outer layer.)}
310: \label{fig_Ring} % Give a unique label
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: For practical systems, large uncertainty instance is less probably while the robustness requirement is more
314: likely to be violated for larger uncertainty instance. Consequently, unduly conservatism may be introduced if
315: the uncertainty instances near the surface of uncertainty bounding sets assume a dominant role. This is indeed
316: the case for the existing probabilistic robustness measure. This can be illustrated as follows. Suppose $\Pr
317: \{ ||\bs{\vDe}|| < \ga \} = 1$. For the existing measure, the corresponding density of $||\bs{\vDe}||$ of the
318: sampling distribution that determines $\underline{\bb{P}} (\ga)$ is often times close to {\small
319: $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r) = d \li ( \f{r}{\ro^*} \ri )^{d-1}$} where $\ro^* = \max \{\ro : \bb{P}(\ro) =
320: \underline{\bb{P}} (\ga) \}$. For $\ro \ap \ro^*$, the probability that a sample falls into $\{ \vDe : \ro <
321: ||\vDe|| \leq \ro^* \}$ is $1 - \li ( \f{\ro}{\ro^*} \ri )^d$ which is very close to $1$ when the dimension $d$
322: is high. This shows that the uncertainty instances near the surface of $\mcal{B}_{\ro^*}$ are dominating in the
323: evaluation of system robustness.
324:
325:
326: \section{New Sampling Technique and Robustness Function}
327:
328: We have shown before that uniform sampling in high dimensional sets suffers from a {\em surface effect}. In the following we introduce a new sampling technique that offsets such effect and we use the modified sampling technique to define the new robustness measure.
329:
330: \subsubsection{A New Sampling Technique}
331: To offset the surface effect for uncertainties with radial symmetry we define two independent random variables.
332: One, $\bs{U}$ is uniformly distributed in the surface of the unit bounding set, $\{ \vDe: ||\vDe|| = 1 \}$, in
333: the uncertainty space. The second random variable is $\bs{R}$ which is a scalar variable uniformly distributed
334: over $[0, r]$. Clearly, for a given value of the scalar random variable $\bs{R}$, the uncertainties lay on the
335: surface of a ball and since $\bs{R}$ is scalar the surface effect is reduced.
336:
337: \subsubsection{A New
338: Robustness Function} Now that have established the sampling technique to be used, we define the robustness
339: measure for the radius $r$ as
340: \[
341: \underline{\mscr{P}} (r) = \inf_{ \ro \in (0, \; r]} \mscr{P} (\ro) \;\; \tx{with} \;\; \mscr{P} (r) = \Pr \{
342: \bb{I}(U R) = 1 \} \]
343: where $U$ is a sample from $\bs{U}$ and $R$ a sample from
344: $\bs{R}$. The probabilistic implication of such robustness measure
345: can be seen from the
346: following theorem.
347:
348: \beT \la{uniform_rad} For any robustness requirement,
349: \[
350: \inf_{f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F}} \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1
351: \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \underline{\mscr{P}} (\ga) \geq
352: \underline{\bb{P}} (\ga).
353: \]
354: \eeT
355:
356: See Appendix A for a proof. The intuition behind Theorem
357: \ref{uniform_rad} is that, in the worst-case, the uncertainty
358: instances in the inner layers should assume equal importance as that
359: of uncertainty instances in the outer layers in the evaluation of
360: system robustness. It should be noted that the density $f_{
361: ||\bs{\vDe}|| } (.)$ can be unbounded and has infinitely many and
362: arbitrarily distributed discontinuities. An example of unbounded
363: density is $f_{ ||\bs{\vDe}|| } (\ro) = \f{k-1}{\ro^k}, \; k > 1$.
364:
365:
366: Now we revisit the conceptual example discussed in Section \ref{3A}. Our robustness function is
367: $\underline{\mscr{P}}(r) = \inf_{\ro \in [0, r]} \mscr{P}(\ro)$ where
368: \[
369: \mscr{P}(\ro) = \bec 1, & \tx{for} \; \ro < r_{i-1};\\
370: \f{i-1}{m \ro}, & \tx{for} \; r_{i-1} \leq \ro < r_i;\\
371: \f{m \ro - 1}{m \ro}, & \tx{for} \; r_i \leq \ro < r_{j-1};\\
372: \f{j - 2}{m \ro}, & \tx{for} \; r_{j-1} \leq \ro < 1. \eec
373: \]
374: As can be seen from Figure \ref{fig_Curve4}, our robustness measure is significantly less conservative than the
375: existing one.
376:
377:
378: \begin{figure}
379: \centering
380: \includegraphics[height=9cm]{Curve4.eps}
381: \caption{Comparison of Robustness Functions ($m = 20, \; i = 11$ and $j = 19$. The dimension of uncertainty
382: space is $d = 50$, which is equivalent to a complex block of size $5 \times 5$.)}
383: \label{fig_Curve4} % Give a unique label
384: \end{figure}
385: \sect{Mapping of Robustness Functions}
386:
387: In this section, we shall demonstrate that there exists a fundamental relationship between our robustness
388: measure and the existing probabilistic robustness measure. This relationship can be exploited, for example, to reduce the
389: computational complexity of existing probabilistic robustness measure.
390:
391:
392:
393: \subsection{Integral Transforms} The following theorem shows that there exists an integral transform between our proposed robustness function and existing robustness
394: function.
395:
396:
397: \beT
398: \la{trans} Define $\phi(r) = \Pr \{ \bb{I}(r U) = 1 \}$
399: where $U$ is a random variable uniformly distributed over $\{ \vDe : ||\vDe || = 1 \}$.
400: Suppose that the distribution of uncertainty $\bs{\vDe}$ is radially symmetrical
401: and that both $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ and $\phi(.)$ are piece-wise
402: continuous. Then, for any $r > 0$,
403: \bee \mscr{P}(r) & = & \f{
404: \bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ 0}^1 \bb{P}(r \ro) \; d \ro,\\
405: \bb{P}(r) & = & n \; \mscr{P}(r) - n (n-1)
406: \int_{ 0}^1 \mscr{P}(r \ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro \eee where $n$
407: is the dimension of uncertainty space. \eeT
408:
409: See Appendix B for a proof. Theorem \ref{trans} shows that once one
410: of $\mscr{P}(.)$ and $\bb{P}(.)$ is available from Monte Carlo
411: simulation, the other can be obtained without simulation.
412:
413:
414: \subsection{Recursive Computation} For a transform to be useful,
415: we shall develop efficient method for its computation. The efficiency can be achieved by recursive computation.
416: We first discuss the computation of transform from $\mscr{P}(.)$ to $\bb{P}(.)$.
417:
418: It can be seen that the expression of $\bb{P}(.)$ in terms of
419: $\mscr{P}(.)$ is not amenable for recursive computation. By a
420: change of variable, we rewrite the second equation of Theorem
421: \ref{trans} as $\bb{P}(r) = n \; \mscr{P}(r) - \f{ n (n-1) } { r^n}
422: \int_{ 0}^r \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro$. Clearly, the major
423: computation is on the integration {\small $I(r) = \int_{ 0}^r
424: \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro$, } which can be computed
425: recursively because of the relationship {\small $I(r + h) = I(r) +
426: \int_{ r}^{r+h} \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro$. } Unfortunately,
427: there will be a numerical problem for computing the product {\small
428: $\f{ n (n-1) } { r^n} \times I(r)$} in the situation that $n$ is
429: large and $r < 1$. For example, {\small $\f{ n (n-1) } { r^n}$} can
430: be a huge number and cause intolerable numerical error when $n = 36$
431: and $r = 0.5$. To overcome this problem, we derive the following
432: recursive relationship {\small \bee \bb{P}(r + h) & = & n \mscr{P}
433: (r + h) - \li ( \f{r}{r + h} \ri )^n \li [ n \mscr{P}(r) - \bb{P}(r)
434: \ri ] - \f{ n (n-1) } { (r + h)^n} \int_{ r}^{r + h} \mscr{P}(\ro)
435: \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro. \eee} Since $\mscr{P}(.)$ can be approximated by
436: a simple function, we can decompose {\small $\f{ n (n-1) } { (r +
437: h)^n} \int_{r}^{r + h} \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro$ } as a
438: summation of integrations of the form {\small $\f{ n (n-1) } {
439: (r+h)^n} \int_{ \al}^\ba \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro$ } with
440: $\mscr{P}(\ro) = c, \; \fa \ro \in [\al, \ba]$. Clearly, we have the
441: explicit formula {\small $\f{ n (n-1) } { (r+h)^n} \int_{ \al}^\ba
442: \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro
443: = (n-1) c \li( \f{\al}{r + h} \ri )^n \li [ \li( \f{\ba}{\al} \ri )^n - 1 \ri ]$. }
444:
445:
446:
447: In a similar manner, $\mscr{P}(.)$ can be computed recursively by relationship \bee \mscr{P}(r + h) & = & \f{
448: \bb{P}(r + h) } { n } + \f{ r } { r + h } \li [ \mscr{P} (r) - \f{\bb{P}(r) } { n} \ri ] + \f{ n - 1 } { n }
449: \f{1}{r + h} \int_r^{r + h} \bb{P} (\ro) d \ro. \eee
450:
451:
452: \section{Computational Algorithms and Hierarchial Sample Reuse}
453:
454: In this section we shall discuss the evaluation of $\mscr{P}(.)$ for
455: uncertainty radius $\li [\f{a}{\lm}, a \ri ]$ with sample size $N$
456: and $m$ grid points $\f{a}{\lm} = r_1 < \cd < r_m = a$.
457: First, we shall introduce basic subroutines. Second, we present sample
458: reuse algorithm based on sequential data merging method. Third, we shall demonstrate that the sequential sample
459: reuse algorithm is impractical and propose hierarchy sample reuse algorithms.
460:
461: The basic idea of our algorithms is as follows. Let $U^k, \; k = 1,
462: \cd, N$ be $N$ i.i.d. samples uniformly generated from $\{\vDe:
463: ||\vDe|| = 1 \}$. For $i = 1, \cd, m$, we can estimate
464: $\mscr{P}(r_i)$ as $\f{ \sum_{k = 1}^N \bb{I}(\vDe^{k,i}) } { N }$
465: with $\vDe^{k,i} = U^k R^{k,i}$ where $R^{k,i}$ is uniformly
466: distributed over $[0, r_i]$ and is independent of $U^k$ for $k = 1,
467: \cd, N$. It should be noted that $R^{k,i}, \; i = 1, \cd, m$ are
468: not necessarily mutually independent to ensure that $\vDe^{k,i}, \;
469: k = 1, \cd, N$ are i.i.d samples. Due to the uniform distribution
470: of $R^{k,i}$, sample reuse techniques can be employed to save a
471: substantial amount of computation for the generation of $R^{k,i}, \;
472: \vDe^{k,i}$ and the evaluation of $\bb{I}(\vDe^{k,i})$ in the
473: following manner. Let $k$ be fixed. Let $R$ be a sample uniformly
474: generated from interval $[0, r_p]$. Then, for any index $j$ such
475: that $r_j \in [R, r_p]$, we can use $R$ as $R^{k,j}$, $U^k R$ as
476: $\vDe^{k,j}$, and $\bb{I}(U^k R)$ as $\bb{I}(\vDe^{k,j})$. It can be
477: shown that the minimum index $j$ can be computed by explicit formula
478: (\ref{locate}) as \be \la{locate} j = \li \{ \begin{array}{l}
479: 1 + \max \li (0, \; \li \lf \f{ (\lm R - a)(m - 1) } { a( \lm - 1) } \ri \rf \ri ) \; \tx{for uniform gridding;}\\
480: 1 + \max \li (0, \; \li \lf (m-1) \li ( 1 + \f{ \ln \f{R}{a} } { \ln \lm } \ri ) \ri \rf \ri ) \; \tx{for
481: geometric gridding} \end{array} \ri. \ee where ``uniform gridding'' means that $r_i - r_{i-1}$ is the same for
482: $i = 2, \cd, m$ and ``geometric gridding'' means that $\f{r_i}{r_{i-1}}$ is the same for $i = 2, \cd, m$.
483:
484: For a specific $k$, the sample $U^k$ is referred to as a directional sample and the simulation with sample reuse
485: techniques to obtain $\bb{I}(\vDe^{k,i}), \; i = 1, \cd, m$ is referred to as ``Radial Sampling''. Clearly,
486: $\bb{I}(\vDe^{k,i}), \; i = 1, \cd, m$ can be expressed as a matrix $D$ of $3$ columns and random number of rows
487: such that its $i$-th row $[D_{i1}, \; D_{i2}, \; D_{i3}]$ means that
488: \[
489: \bb{I}(\vDe^{k,j}) = \bec 1 & \tx{if} \; D_{i3} = 1;\\
490: 0 & \tx{if} \; D_{i3} = 0 \eec
491: \]
492: for $D_{i1} \leq j \leq D_{i2}$. The algorithm of ``Radial Sampling'' is formally described in Section
493: \ref{Radial Sampling}.
494:
495: The process of obtaining the summation $\sum_{k =1}^N \bb{I}(\vDe^{k,j}), \; i = 1, \cd, m$ is accomplished by
496: the subroutine ``Merging'', which is described in Section \ref{Merging}.
497:
498:
499:
500: \subsection{Radial Sampling} \la{Radial Sampling}
501:
502: For a directional sample $U$, the goal of radial sampling is to create a matrix $D$. The input of the
503: subroutine ``Radial Sampling'' is $U, \lm, a, m$ and the corresponding output is $D = \mrm{RS} (U, \lm, a, m)$.
504: The algorithm is presented as follows.
505:
506: \hrulefill
507:
508: \bei
509:
510: \item Let $p \leftarrow m$ and do the following.
511: \bei
512: \item Generate a sample $R$ uniformly from $[0, r_{p}]$.
513:
514: \item Let $\vDe \leftarrow U R$ and evaluate
515: $\bb{I}(\vDe)$.
516:
517: \item Determine the smallest index $j$ such that $r_{j} \geq R$ by (\ref{locate}).
518:
519: \item Let $D \leftarrow [j, \; p, \; \bb{I}(\vDe)]$ and $s \leftarrow \bb{I}(\vDe)$.
520:
521: \item Let $p \leftarrow j - 1$.
522: \eei
523:
524: \item While $p > 0$ do the following.
525:
526: \bei
527: \item Generate a sample $R$ uniformly from $[0, r_p]$.
528:
529: \item Let $\vDe \leftarrow U R$ and evaluate $\bb{I}(\vDe)$.
530:
531: \item Determine the smallest index $j$ such that $r_{j} \geq R$ by (\ref{locate}).
532:
533:
534: \item If $\bb{I}(\vDe) \neq s$, add $[j, \; p, \; \bb{I}(\vDe)]$ to $D$ as the first row and let
535: $s \leftarrow \bb{I}(\vDe)$. Otherwise, update the first element of the first row of $D$ as $j$.
536:
537: \item Let $p \leftarrow j - 1$.
538:
539: \eei
540:
541: \item Return $D$ as the outcome of radial sampling.
542:
543: \eei
544:
545: \hrulefill
546:
547:
548: \subsection{Merging} \la{Merging}
549:
550: The operation of merging involves two matrices $D$ and $H$. Matrix $D$ defines a segmented function $f_D(.)$
551: over domain $\{1, \cd, m\}$ in the sense that, for the $j$-th row of $D$, $f_D(i) = D_{j3}$ for any $i$ such
552: that $D_{j1} \leq i \leq D_{j2}$. Similarly, matrix $H$ defines a segmented function $f_H(.)$ over domain $\{1,
553: \cd, m\}$ in the sense that, for the $j$-th row of $H$, $f_H(i) = H_{j3}$ for any $i$ such that $H_{j1} \leq i
554: \leq H_{j2}$. For input matrices $D$ and $H$, the merging operation finds $M = \mrm{Merge}(D,H)$ such that
555: \[
556: f_M(i) = f_D(i) + f_H(i), \qqu i = 1, \cd, m \]
557: where $f_M(.)$ is a segmented function $f_M(.)$ over domain $\{1,
558: \cd, m\}$ in the sense that, for the $j$-th row of $M$, $f_M(i) = M_{j3}$ for any $i$ such that $M_{j1} \leq i
559: \leq M_{j2}$.
560:
561:
562: \subsection{Sequential Sample Reuse Algorithm (SSRA)}
563:
564: The sequential algorithm derives its name from the sequential nature
565: of the data merging process. The input variable is $N, \lm, a, m$
566: and the output is a matrix $H$ of random number of rows and $3$
567: columns. The main algorithm is presented as follows.
568:
569: \hrulefill
570:
571: \bei
572:
573: \item Let $k \leftarrow 1$ and do the following.
574:
575: \bei
576: \item Generate a directional sample $U$.
577:
578: \item Perform radial sampling and let $D \leftarrow \mrm{RS} (U, \lm, a, m)$.
579:
580: \item Let $H \leftarrow D$.
581:
582: \eei
583:
584: \item While $k < N$ do the following.
585: \bei
586:
587: \item Generate a directional sample $U$.
588:
589: \item Perform radial sampling and let $D \leftarrow \mrm{RS} (U, \lm, a, m)$.
590:
591: \item Perform merging and let $H \leftarrow \mrm{Merge}(D, H)$.
592:
593: \item Let $k \leftarrow k + 1$.
594:
595: \eei
596: \item Return $H$.
597:
598: \eei
599:
600: \hrulefill
601:
602: \bsk
603:
604:
605: Once we have $H$ from the execution of SSRA, we can estimate
606: $\mscr{P}(r_i)$ as $\f{\sum_{k = 1}^N \bb{I}(\vDe^{k,i})}{N} =
607: \f{f_H(i)}{N}, \; i = 1, \cd, m$.
608:
609: \subsection{Hierarchy Sample Reuse Algorithm (HSRA)}
610:
611: A major problem with the sequential algorithm is that the computational effort devoted to merging becomes an
612: enormous burden as the sample size $N$ becomes large.
613:
614: \begin{figure} \centering
615: \includegraphics[height=9cm]{merging_time.eps}
616: \caption{Merging Time}
617: \label{fig_merging_time} % Give a unique label
618: \end{figure}
619:
620:
621: The merging time for $N = 1000, \; 5,000, \; 10,000$ and $50,000$ are respectively $4, \; 120, \; 722$ and
622: $92119$ seconds, which is obtained by simulation on a PC of $1024$M RAM and $3.2$G CPU. As can be seen from
623: Figure \ref{fig_merging_time}, the merging time required for $N = 10^5, \; 10^6$ and $N = 5 \times 10^6$ is
624: predicted respectively as, $12$ days, $366$ years, and $9 \times 10^5$ years, by fitting the simulation data
625: into a quadratic function (in log scale) based on regression techniques. For a better understanding of the
626: complexity issue, a theoretical analysis of the computational complexity of data merging is as follows.
627:
628: From the merging process, it can be seen that the computational
629: complexity of merging two matrices can be quantified by the sum of
630: the numbers of the rows of the two input matrices. Thus, it
631: suffices to study how the number of rows is growing when matrices
632: $D^k = \mrm{RS} (U^k, \lm, a, m), \; k = 1, \cd, N$ are sequentially
633: merged.
634:
635: Note that the average numbers of rows for all $D^k$ are identical.
636: Let this average be $L$. To merge $D^1$ with $D^2$, the required
637: computation is $2L$. The computation to merge the outcome with
638: $D^3$ is $3L$. The computation for all steps of merging forms a
639: series, $2L, \; 3L, \; \cd, NL$, of constant increment $L$. Hence,
640: the total number of computation is {\small $\f{L(N + 2) (N-1)}{2}$.
641: } This can be a huge number because $N$ is usually large.
642:
643:
644: To overcome the difficulty of sequential algorithm, we propose a
645: merging method of hierarchy structure. We first introduce a
646: subroutine called {\it successive binary merging} for $N = 2^p$ data
647: matrices as follows.
648:
649: Divide these $N$ matrices $D^1, \cd, D^N$ into $\f{N}{2}$ groups so
650: that each group has two matrices. After merging each group, we have
651: $\f{N}{2}$ matrices. Repeating the operations of dividing and
652: merging, we obtain a matrix in the final stage. This process can be
653: associated with a binary tree as illustrated by Figure \ref{SBM}.
654:
655:
656: \begin{figure}
657: \centering
658: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{Binary_Merg.eps}
659: \caption{Illustration of Successive Binary Merging with $N = 8$. }
660: \label{SBM} % Give a unique label
661: \end{figure}
662:
663:
664:
665: For the general case that $N$ is not a power of $2$, we decompose
666: $N$ as a summation of numbers which are powers of $2$. For example,
667: for $N = 1000$, we have $N = 512 + 256 + 128 + 64 + 32 + 8$. Such
668: decomposition corresponds to the decimal-to-binary conversion. In
669: general, for $N = \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau N_\ell$ with $N_\ell =
670: 2^{p_\ell}$ and $N_1 < N_2 <\cd < N_\tau$, the merging can be
671: performed as follows.
672:
673: \hrulefill
674:
675: \bei
676:
677: \item Let $\ell \leftarrow 1$. Applying successive binary merging to $N_1$ to create data matrix $M_1$.
678: Let $H \leftarrow M_1$.
679:
680: \item While $\ell < \tau$ do the following.
681:
682: \bei
683: \item Applying successive binary merging to $N_\ell$ to create data matrix $M_\ell$.
684: \item Let $H \leftarrow \mrm{Merge}(H, M_\ell)$.
685: \item Let $\ell \leftarrow \ell + 1$.
686: \eei
687:
688: \eei
689:
690: \hrulefill
691:
692: The merging for $N = 1000$ is shown by Figure \ref{DM}.
693: \begin{figure}
694: \centering
695: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{Decimal_Merg.eps}
696: \caption{Merging with $N = 1000$. }
697: \label{DM} % Give a unique label
698: \end{figure}
699:
700:
701: The complexity of such hierarchy can be analyzed as follows. For
702: successive binary merging with $N = 2^p$, the computation is $p
703: \times N L$. For $N = \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau N_\ell$, the computation
704: is bounded by $L \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau N_\ell \log_2(N_\ell) + L
705: \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau (\tau - \ell + 1) N_\ell - L N_1$. Therefore,
706: the computation is reduced from the sequential algorithm by a factor
707: of {\small $\Up = \f{(N+2) (N-1)} { 2 \li [ \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau
708: N_\ell \log_2(N_\ell) + \sum_{\ell = 1}^\tau (\tau - \ell + 1)
709: N_\ell - N_1\ri ] }$. } Specially, for $N = 2^p$, we have $\Up =
710: \f{(N+2) (N-1)} { 2 \log_2 (N) } > \f{N}{2 \log_2(N) }$, which is
711: usually a very large number.
712:
713:
714:
715:
716: \section{Computational Complexity}
717:
718: In this section, we discuss the computational complexity for the
719: evaluation of $\mscr{P}(.)$ over uncertainty radius interval
720: $(\f{a}{\lm}, a]$. For practical designs, the robustness
721: requirement is guaranteed for the nominal model. Hence, $\mscr{P}
722: (\ro) = 1$ for small $\ro$, and we have $\inf_{ \ro \in (0, a]}
723: \mscr{P} (\ro) = \inf_{ \ro \in (\f{a}{\lm}, \ga]} \mscr{P} (\ro)$
724: for a sufficiently large $\lm$. A direct Monte Carlo simulation
725: method is to partition the interval $(\f{a}{\lm}, a]$ by $m$ grid
726: points $\f{a}{\lm} = r_1 < \cd < r_m = a$ and estimate $\mscr{P}
727: (r_i)$ by $N$ i.i.d. Monte Carlo simulations. The estimate of
728: $\inf_{ \ro \in (\f{a}{\lm}, a]} \mscr{P} (\ro)$ is obtained by
729: taking the minimum of the results for the $m$ grid points. Such
730: direct method requires $m N$ simulations. As $m$ gets large, the
731: computing time and the memory complexity becomes a challenging
732: problem. Fortunately, by employing our hierarchy sample reuse
733: algorithms, {\it the computational complexity is absolutely bounded
734: and very low for arbitrarily dense griding and arbitrarily large
735: dimension of uncertainty}.
736:
737: For quantifying the computational complexity, we define the {\it equivalent number of grid points},
738: $m_{\mrm{eq}}$ as the ratio \[ m_{\mrm{eq}} = \f{\tx{ Average total number of simulations} } { N }.
739: \]
740:
741:
742: We shall interpolate the value of $\mscr{P}(r)$ for $r \in [r_i, r_{i+1}]$ as {\small
743: \[
744: \mscr{P}^*(r) = \f{ (r - r_i) \; \mscr{P} (r_{i+1}) + (r_{i+1} - r ) \; \mscr{P} (r_{i}) } { r_{i+1} - r_i }.
745: \]
746: }
747:
748: For a uniform gridding, we have
749: \beT \la{grid_uni} Let $\ep \in (0,1)$ and $m = 2 + \li \lf \f{ 2(\lm -1)} { \ep } \ri \rf$. Let
750: {\small $r_i = \f{a}{\lm} + \f{ (i-1) \li ( a - \f{a}{\lm} \ri ) } { m - 1 }$} for $i = 1, \cdots, m$. Then,
751: \[
752: |\mscr{P} ( r ) - \mscr{P}^* ( r)| < \ep, \qu \fa r \in [r_i, r_{i+1}]
753: \]
754: for $i = 1, \cd, m-1$. Moreover,
755: {\small $m_{\mrm{eq}} (\epsilon) = m - \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}
756: \li ( 1 - \f{1} { \f{m-1} {\lm-1} + i } \ri ) < 1 + \ln \lm$} for any $\ep \in (0,1)$. \eeT
757:
758: \bsk See Appendix C for a proof.
759: For a geometric gridding, we have
760: \beT \la{Grid_geometric} Let $\ep \in (0,1)$ and
761: {\small $m = 2 + \li \lf \f{ \ln \lm } { \ln \li ( 1 + \f{\ep}{2} \ri ) } \ri \rf$}.
762: Let $r_i = a \li ( \f{1}{\lm} \ri )^ {\f{m - i} {m-1} }$ for $i = 1, \cdots, m$. Then,
763: \[
764: |\mscr{P} ( r ) - \mscr{P}^* ( r)| < \ep, \qu \fa r \in [r_i, r_{i+1}]
765: \]
766: for $i = 1,\cd,m - 1$. Moreover,
767: {\small $m_{\mrm{eq}}(\epsilon) = 1 + \li ( m - 1 \ri ) \; \li [ 1 - \left( \frac{1}{\lm} \right)^{ \f{1}{
768: m - 1 } } \ri ] < 1 + \ln \lm $} for any $\ep \in (0,1)$.
769:
770: \eeT
771:
772: See Appendix C for a proof. For completeness, we note that, for
773: arbitrarily large $m$, the memory complexity is also absolutely
774: bounded and independent of uncertainty dimension.
775:
776: \bsk
777:
778: To compare the computational complexity of our probabilistic
779: measure with that of \cite{BLT}, we recall Theorem 6.1 of
780: \cite{BLT}, which states that if \be \la{Bar_La_Te} m \geq 1 + \f{ 2
781: (\lm -1) d } { \ep } \ee then $|\bb{P} ( r ) - \bb{P}( r_i)| < \ep
782: \qu \fa r \in [r_i, r_{i+1}]$ for $i = 1, \cd, m-1$. This bound
783: shows that, for fixed error $\ep$, the complexity is polynomial.
784: From another perspective, it also shows that the number of grid
785: points and computational complexity tend to infinity as the
786: tolerance tends to zero. The computational complexity can be
787: reduced by the sample reuse techniques of \cite{C0}. It is recently
788: shown in \cite{Chen_SIAM} that the equivalent number of grid points
789: is bounded by $1 + d \ln \lm$ (see Appendix C for a proof). In
790: applications, $d$ can be very large. For example, the dimension $d$
791: is $2 n^2$ for a complex block of size $n\times n$. Since the
792: complexity of computing $\mscr{P}(.)$ is independent of dimension
793: $d$, the integral transform can be applied to obtain $\bb{P}(.)$
794: from $\mscr{P}(.)$ and thus significantly reduced the computational
795: complexity.
796:
797: \section{Examples}
798:
799: In this section, we shall demonstrate the power of our techniques by examples. By the definition of the
800: indicator function $\bb{I}(.)$, for $N$ i.i.d. samples $\vDe_1, \cd, \vDe_N$ generated from $\mcal{B}_r$,
801: \[
802: \bb{I} (\vDe_i) = \bec 1 & \tx{if the robustness requirement is satisfied for $\vDe_i$};\\
803: 0 & \tx{otherwise}. \eec
804: \]
805: Specially, for the robustness stability problem in the $M-\vDe$ setup with $M(s) = C(sI - A)^{-1} B$,
806: \[
807: \bb{I} (\vDe_i) = \bec 1 & \tx{if} \; A + B \vDe_i C \; \tx{is stable};\\
808: 0 & \tx{otherwise}. \eec
809: \]
810: Of course, the $N$ samples are obtained by the HSRA. A minimum
811: variance unbiased estimator of $\mscr{P}(r)$ is taken as
812: $\wh{\mscr{P}}(r) = \f{\sum_{i=1}^N \bb{I} (\vDe_i)}{N}$. Since
813: $\bb{I} (\vDe_i), \; i = 1, \cd, N$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli random
814: variables with a success probability $\mscr{P}(r)$, the Chernoff
815: bound \cite{Chernoff} asserts that, for any $\vep, \; \de \in
816: (0,1)$, $\Pr \li \{ \li | \wh{\mscr{P}}(r) - \mscr{P}(r) \ri | <
817: \vep \ri \}
818: > 1 - \de$
819: if the sample size $N > \f{ \ln \f{2}{\de} } { 2 \vep^2 }$.
820:
821: In all examples, we first apply our previous method in \cite{C2} to obtain an estimate of the probabilistic
822: margin with a risk probability $\al = 0.05$ (Roughly speaking, we are only interested in the curve of robustness
823: function above $1 - \al = 0.95$). Then, we evaluate the robustness function $\underline{\mscr{P}}(r)$ for $r \in
824: [\f{a}{e}, a]$ by our hierarchy sample reuse algorithms. The existing robustness measure is computed from our
825: measure by the integral transform. The algorithms are implemented in MATLAB and all programs are executed on a
826: PC of $1024$M RAM and $3.2$G CPU.
827:
828: We first consider the case that the uncertainty is of a single
829: block. A typical robustness problem is to determine the robustness
830: margin which is specified as the maximum size of uncertainty under
831: the condition that all poles of the closed-loop system are
832: restricted in a certain domain $\bb{C}_g$. For single blocked
833: uncertainty, there exists formulas for computation of the robustness
834: margin in a $M - \De$ setup with $M(s) = C(sI - A)^{-1} B$ (see,
835: e.g., \cite{ZDG} for illustration). For complex uncertainty, the
836: robustness margin is \bee r_{\bb{C}} & = & \inf \{
837: \overline{\si}(\vDe) : \vDe \in \bb{C}^{m \times p} \; \mrm{and \;
838: all\; eigenvalues \; of} \; A + B \vDe C \; \mrm{are \; in} \;
839: \bb{C}_g \} = \f{ 1 }{ \sup_{s \in \pa \bb{C}_g } \overline{\si} [C
840: (s I - A)^{-1} B] } \eee where $\pa \bb{C}_g$ denotes the boundary
841: of domain $\bb{C}_g$. This formula was essentially obtained by
842: Doyle and Stein \cite{Doyle}. For real uncertainty, the robustness
843: margin is \bee r_{\bb{R}} & = & \inf \{ \overline{\si}(\vDe) : \vDe
844: \in \bb{R}^{m \times p} \; \mrm{and \; all\; eigenvalues \; of} \; A
845: + B \vDe C \; \mrm{are \; in} \; \bb{C}_g
846: \}\\
847: & = & \f{ 1 } { \sup_{s \in \pa \bb{C}_g } \inf_{\ga \in (0,1]}
848: \si_2 \li ( \bem \Re (M) & - \ga \;
849: \Im (M) \\
850: \ga^{-1} \; \Im (M) & \Re (M) \eem \ri ) }
851: \eee
852: where the function to be minimized is a unimodal function on
853: $(0,1]$. This formula was established by Qiu and his coworkers \cite{Qiu}.
854:
855:
856: To compare the power of our randomized algorithms with that of these
857: formulas, we revisit two examples of \cite{Qiu}. In example $2$ of
858: \cite{Qiu}, the domain $\bb{C}_g$ is defined as $\bb{C}_g = \{s \in
859: \bb{C} : \Re(s) < 0 \}$. The data of matrices $A, \; B,\; C$ can be
860: found in page $889$ and is thus omitted here. The robustness
861: margins for the complex and real uncertainty are obtained,
862: respectively, as $r_{\bb{C}} = 0.3914$ and $r_{\bb{R}} = 0.5141$.
863: The robustness functions are shown in Figures
864: \ref{fig_Qiu_Exam2_complex} and \ref{fig_Qiu_Exam2_real} for the
865: cases of complex and real uncertainty respectively. It can be seen
866: that our randomized algorithms can provide useful information for
867: the system robustness beyond the deterministic robustness margin.
868: Specially, the deterministic robustness margin can be estimated from
869: both types of robustness functions. Moreover, it can be seen that
870: our robustness measure is significantly less conservative than the
871: existing robustness measure.
872:
873:
874:
875: \begin{figure}[htbp]
876: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Qiu_Exam2_complex.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions
877: (Sample Size $N = 26482$). The vertical line marks the deterministic robustness margin.}
878: \label{fig_Qiu_Exam2_complex}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881: \begin{figure}[htbp]
882: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Qiu_Exam2_real.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions (Sample
883: Size $N = 26482$). The vertical line marks the deterministic robustness margin.} \label{fig_Qiu_Exam2_real}
884: \end{figure}
885:
886:
887: In example $3$ of \cite{Qiu}, the domain $\bb{C}_g$ is defined as
888: $\bb{C}_g = \{s \in \bb{C} : |s| < 1 \}$ and the data of matrices
889: $A, \; B,\; C$ are given in page $889$. The robustness margins for
890: the complex and real uncertainty are obtained as $r_{\bb{C}} =
891: 0.7472$ and $r_{\bb{R}} = 1.0374$ respectively. The robustness
892: functions are shown in Figures \ref{fig_Qiu_Exam3_complex} and
893: \ref{fig_Qiu_Exam3_real} for the cases of complex and real
894: uncertainty respectively.
895:
896: \begin{figure}[htbp]
897: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Qiu_Exam3_complex.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions
898: (Sample Size $N = 26482$). The vertical line marks the deterministic robustness margin.}
899: \label{fig_Qiu_Exam3_complex}
900: \end{figure}
901:
902: \begin{figure}[htbp]
903: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Qiu_Exam3_real.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions (Sample
904: Size $N = 26482$). The vertical line marks the deterministic robustness margin.} \label{fig_Qiu_Exam3_real}
905: \end{figure}
906:
907: We now consider the stability margin problem where the uncertainty
908: consists of multiple blocks. A particularly important special case
909: is that the uncertainty is real parameters. When the number of
910: uncertainty blocks is more than one, the formulas of \cite{Doyle}
911: and \cite{Qiu} are not applicable and the branch and techniques are
912: needed. We explore the application of our HSRA for the stability
913: margin problem studied in \cite{GS} by a deterministic approach. The
914: system considered in \cite{GS} is represented by
915: Figure~\ref{fig_Drawing1}. The compensator is
916: $C(s)=\frac{s+2}{s+10}$ and the plant is {\small
917: $P(s)=\frac{800(1+0.1\delta_1)}{s(s+4+0.2\delta_2)(s+6+0.3\delta_3)}$
918: } with parametric uncertainty $\vDe =[\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3]$.
919:
920: \begin{figure}[htbp]
921: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Drawing1.eps, height=1.0in, width=2.7in }} \caption{Uncertain System }
922: \label{fig_Drawing1}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925:
926: The deterministic robustness margin is found to be $3.44$ by a
927: branch and bound technique (see, page 163 of \cite{GS}). The
928: robustness functions are shown in Figure \ref{fig_Sofonov_system},
929: which provides more insight for the system robustness than the
930: deterministic robustness margin.
931:
932: \begin{figure}[htbp]
933: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Safonov_system.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions (Sample
934: size $N = 119,830$.)} \label{fig_Sofonov_system}
935: \end{figure}
936:
937:
938: We now consider the robustness problem involving time-domain specifications for the same system shown by Figure
939: \ref{fig_Drawing1}. The robustness requirement is that the rise time and settling time should be no more than
940: $0.25$ and $3.5$ seconds respectively and the overshoot should be no more than $70 \%$ under the condition that
941: the closed-loop system is stable. It is well-known that this type of problems are, in general, intractable by
942: the deterministic approach. However, our HSRA can readily provided insightful solution. The robustness
943: functions are shown in Figure \ref{fig_Sofonov_system_time}.
944:
945: \begin{figure}[htbp]
946: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Safonov_system_time.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions
947: (Sample size $N = 26482$.)} \label{fig_Sofonov_system_time}
948: \end{figure}
949:
950:
951: Now we present more extensive numerical experiments for testing the
952: efficiency of our hierarchy sample reuse algorithms. We consider the
953: robust stability of a system of transfer function $H(s) = C (s I -
954: A)^{-1} B + D$ with uncertain matrix $A = - 10 \; I_{k \times k} +
955: \sum_{\ell=1}^d q_\ell \; \sq{\ell} \; W$ where $I_{k \times k}$ is
956: a $k$ by $k$ identity matrix, $d = k^2$ is the dimension of
957: uncertainty and $W$ is a matrix with all elements equal to $1$. This
958: is a special case of multiple blocks of real uncertainty. Although
959: this may not be a realistic system, it can be representative for
960: realistic systems in the respect of computational complexity.
961:
962:
963: When the size of matrix $A$ increases from $2$ to $10$, the dimension of uncertainty increases from $4$ to
964: $100$. The robustness functions for the case that $A$ is of size $10 \times 10$ is shown in Figure
965: \ref{fig_RC_al005dim100}. The computing time is shown in Figure \ref{fig_Simulation_Time} for various problem
966: sizes. The sample size is chosen by the Chernoff bound {\small $N = \li \lceil \f{ \ln \f{2}{\de} } { 2 \vep^2
967: } \ri \rceil$} as $738, \; 26482, \; 119830, \; 3800452$ corresponding to $\vep = \de = 0.05, \; 0.01, \; 0.005,
968: \; 0.001$ respectively.
969:
970: \begin{figure}[htbp]
971: \centerline{\psfig{figure=RC_al005dim100.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Robustness Functions
972: (Dimension $d = 100$. Sample size $N = 119,830$.)} \label{fig_RC_al005dim100}
973: \end{figure}
974:
975: \begin{figure}[htbp]
976: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Simulation_Time.eps, height=3.8in, width=5in }} \caption{Simulation Time}
977: \label{fig_Simulation_Time}
978: \end{figure}
979:
980:
981: Traditionally, it is widely believed that the classical deterministic robustness analysis are usually more
982: efficient than randomized algorithms. However, as can be seen from Figure \ref{fig_Simulation_Time}, our
983: numerical experiments indicates that, if one is willing to accept our probabilistic robustness measure, the
984: robustness analysis via hierarchy sample reuse algorithms can be generally far more efficient.
985:
986:
987: \sect{Conclusion}
988:
989: In this paper, we develop a new statistical approach for robustness
990: analysis which requires an extremely low complexity that is
991: independent of the dimension of uncertainty space. Our proposed
992: robustness measure is less conservative as compared to the existing
993: probabilistic robustness measure. The fundamental connection
994: between our measure and the existing one is also established.
995:
996: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
997:
998: \bibitem{bai}E. W. BAI, R. TEMPO, AND M. FU,
999: ``Worst-case properties of the uniform distribution and randomized
1000: algorithms for robustness analysis,'' {\it Mathematics of Control,
1001: Signals and Systems}, vol. 11, pp. 183-196, 1998.
1002:
1003: \bibitem{BL}
1004: B. R. BARMISH AND C. M. LAGOA, ``The uniform distribution: a
1005: rigorous justification for its use in robustness analysis,'' {\it
1006: Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems},
1007: vol. 10 (1997), pp. 203-222.
1008:
1009:
1010: \bibitem{BLT} B. R. BARMISH, C. M. LAGOA, AND R. TEMPO,
1011: ``Radially truncated uniform distributions for probabilistic robustness of control systems,'' {\it Proc. of
1012: American Control Conference}, pp. 853-857, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1997.
1013:
1014:
1015: \bibitem{Barmish2} B. R. BARMISH AND P. S. SHCHERBAKOV, ``On avoiding
1016: vertexization of robustness problems: The approximate feasibility concept,'' {\it IEEE Transactions on Automatic
1017: Control}, vol. 42, pp. 819-824, 2002.
1018:
1019: \bibitem{C0} X. CHEN, K. ZHOU, AND J. ARAVENA, ``Fast construction of
1020: robustness degradation function,'' {\it SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization}, vol. 42, pp. 1960-1971, 2004.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{C2} X. CHEN, K. ZHOU, AND J. ARAVENA, ``Fast universal algorithms for robustness analysis,''
1023: {\it Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 1926-1931, Maui, Hawaii, December 2003.
1024:
1025: \bib{Chen_SIAM} X. CHEN, K. ZHOU, AND J. ARAVENA, ``Probabilistic robustness analysis --- Risks, complexity and
1026: algorithms,'' submitted for publication.
1027:
1028: \bib{Chernoff} H. CHERNOFF, ``A measure of asymptotic
1029: efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations,'' {\it Annals of Mathematical
1030: Statistics}, vol. 23, pp. 493-507, 1952.
1031:
1032: \bib{Doyle} J. C. DOYLE AND G. STEIN, ``Multivariable feedback
1033: design: concepts for a classical/modern synthesis,'' {\em IEEE
1034: Trans. Autom. Control}, vol. 26, pp. 4-16, 1981.
1035:
1036: \bibitem{GS} R. R DE GASTON AND M. G. SAFONOV,
1037: ``Exact calculation of the multiloop stability margin,'' {\em IEEE
1038: Trans. Autom. Control}, vol. 33, pp. 156-171, 1988.
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: \bib{Kan} S. KANEV, B. De SCHUTTER, AND M. VERHAEGEN, ``An ellipsoid
1043: algorithm for probabilistic robust controller design,'' {\it Systems and Control Letters}, vol. 49, pp. 365-375,
1044: 2003.
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048: \bib{Ko} V. KOLTCHINSKII, C.T. ABDALLAH, M. ARIOLA, P. DORATO, AND D.
1049: PANCHENKO, ``Improved sample complexity estimates for statistical learning control of uncertain systems,'' {\it
1050: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control}, vol. 46, pp. 2383-2388, 2000.
1051:
1052: \bib{Qiu} L. QIU, B. BERNHARDSSON, A. RANTZER, E. J. DAVISON, P.
1053: M. YOUNG, AND J. C. DOYLE, ``A formula for computation of the real stability radius,'' vol. 31, pp. 879-890,
1054: 1995.
1055:
1056: \bibitem{SR}
1057: R. F. STENGEL AND L. R. RAY, ``Stochastic robustness of linear time-invariant systems,'' {\it IEEE Transaction
1058: on Automatic Control}, vol. 36, pp. 82-87, 1991.
1059:
1060:
1061: \bib{Wang} Q. WANG AND R. F. STENGEL, ``Robust control of nonlinear
1062: systems with parametric uncertainty,'' {\it Automatica}, vol. 38, pp. 1591-1599, 2002.
1063:
1064: \bibitem{ZDG} K. ZHOU, J. C. DOYLE, AND K. GLOVER,
1065: {\it Robust and Optimal Control}, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996.
1066:
1067: \end{thebibliography}
1068:
1069: \appendix
1070:
1071: \section{Proof of Theorem 1}
1072:
1073: The following Lemma \ref{uniform_rad} is due to \cite {BLT}. \beL
1074: \la{uniform_rad} For any robustness requirement,
1075: $\inf_{f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{G}} \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1
1076: \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \underline{\bb{P}} (\ga)$.
1077: \eeL
1078:
1079:
1080: \beL \la{include} $\mscr{G}$ is a superset of $\mscr{F}$, i.e., $\mscr{G} \supseteq \mscr{F}$. \eeL
1081:
1082: \bpf Let $f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F}$. We need to show
1083: $f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{G}$. Let $0 < r_1 < r_2$ be two numbers
1084: such that, for any $\vDe_1, \; \vDe_2$ satisfying $||\vDe_1|| = r_1,
1085: \; ||\vDe_2|| = r_2$, both $f_{\bs{\vDe}} (\vDe_1)$ and
1086: $f_{\bs{\vDe}} (\vDe_2)$ exist. By the radial symmetry of the
1087: distribution of $\bs{\vDe}$, we can write $f_{\bs{\vDe}} (\vDe_i)$
1088: as $g(r_i)$ for $i =1, \; 2$. Clearly, the existence implies that
1089: $g(.)$ is continuous at $r = r_i, \; i = 1 ,2$. Let $c = \int_{v
1090: \in \mcal{B}_1} d v$. By the radial symmetry of the distribution of
1091: $\bs{\vDe}$ and the scaling property of the function $||.||$, we
1092: have $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r_i) = \lim_{\vep \to 0} \f{1}{2 \vep}
1093: \int_{r_i - \vep}^{r_i + \vep} g(\ro) \; n c \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro$
1094: for $i = 1, 2$, where $n$ is the dimension of $\bs{\vDe}$. Hence,
1095: $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r)$ is continuous at $r = r_i, \; i = 1 ,2$.
1096: Recall that $f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F}$, we have $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}
1097: (r_1) \geq f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r_2)$. On the other hand, by the
1098: radial symmetry of the distribution of $\bs{\vDe}$ and the scaling
1099: property of the function $||.||$, we have $g(r_i) = \lim_{\vep
1100: \downarrow 0} \f{ \int_{r_i - \vep}^{r_i + \vep} f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}
1101: (\ro) \; d \ro }{c (r_i + \vep)^{n} - c (r_i - \vep)^{n} }$ for $i
1102: = 1, 2$. By the continuity of $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r)$ at $r_i$, we
1103: have $g(r_i) = \f{ f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r_i) } { n \; c \; r_i^{n-1}}$
1104: for $i = 1, 2$. It follows that $\f{ g(r_1) } { g(r_2) } = \li( \f{
1105: r_2 } { r_1 } \ri )^{n-1} \f{ f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r_1) } {
1106: f_{||\bs{\vDe}||} (r_2) } \geq \li( \f{ r_2 } { r_1 } \ri )^{n-1}
1107: \geq 1$, implying that $f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{G}$. Hence,
1108: $\mscr{G} \supseteq \mscr{F}$.
1109:
1110: \epf
1111:
1112: \beL \la{scale} For any $S \subseteq \pa \mcal{B}$, $\mrm{area}(S_r)
1113: = r^{n-1} \; \mrm{area}(S)$ where $S_r = \{r \vDe: \; \vDe \in S\}$
1114: and $n$ is the dimension of $\mcal{B}$.
1115:
1116: \eeL
1117:
1118: \bpf
1119:
1120: By the scalable property of $||.||$, {\small \bee \li \{\f{\ro}{r}
1121: \vDe : r - \vep_1 < \ro < r + \vep_2, \; \vDe \in S_r \ri \} & = &
1122: \li \{\ro \vDe : r - \vep_1 < \ro < r + \vep_2, \; \vDe \in S \ri
1123: \} = \li \{\vDe : r - \vep_1 < \ro < r + \vep_2, \; \f{\vDe}{\ro}
1124: \in S \ri \}. \eee} Hence, by invoking the definition
1125: (\ref{defarea}), $\mrm{area}(S_r) = \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{
1126: \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } } \f{ \int_{ q \in \li \{\vDe : \; r - \vep_1
1127: < \ro < r + \vep_2, \; \f{\vDe}{\ro} \in S \ri \} } d q } { \vep_1 +
1128: \vep_2 }$. Making a change of variable $q = r q^\prime$ yields
1129: \bee \mrm{area}(S_r)
1130: & = & r^n \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } }
1131: \f{ \int_{ q^\prime \in \li \{\vDe : \; r - \vep_1 < \ro < r +
1132: \vep_2, \; \f{r \vDe}{\ro} \in S \ri \} } d
1133: q^\prime } { \vep_1 + \vep_2 }\\
1134: & = & r^{n-1} \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0
1135: } }
1136: \f{ \int_{ q^\prime \in \li \{\f{\ro}{r} \vDe : \; -
1137: \f{\vep_1 }{r} \leq \f{\ro}{r} - 1 \leq
1138: \f{\vep_2}{r}, \; \vDe \in S \ri \} } d q^\prime } { (\vep_1 + \vep_2) \sh r }\\
1139: & = & r^{n-1} \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0
1140: } }
1141: \f{ \int_{ q^\prime \in \li \{\ro \vDe : \; - \vep_1
1142: \leq \ro - 1 \leq \vep_2, \; \vDe \in S \ri \}
1143: } d q^\prime } { \vep_1 + \vep_2 }\\
1144: & = & r^{n-1} \mrm{area}(S). \eee
1145:
1146: \epf
1147:
1148: \beL \la{eqi} Suppose the distribution of $\bs{\vDe}$ is radially
1149: symmetrical. Let $S$ be a subset of $\pa \mcal{B} = \{ \vDe: ||\vDe
1150: || = 1 \}$. Then, $\Pr \li \{ \li. \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1151: \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \; \ri | \; || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro \ri \} = \f{
1152: \mrm{area}(S) } {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}) }$ for any $\ro
1153: > 0$ such that $f_{|| \bs{\vDe}||} (\ro)$ is
1154: continuous. \eeL
1155:
1156: \bpf By the definition of the conditional probability,
1157: \[
1158: \Pr \li \{ \li. \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \; \ri | \;
1159: || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro \ri \} = \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{
1160: \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } }
1161: \f{ \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1162: \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro +
1163: \vep_2 \ri \} } {\Pr \li \{ \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq
1164: \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} }.
1165: \]
1166: We claim that $\li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \;
1167: \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} = \{
1168: \bs{\vDe} \in S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2} \}$ where $S_{\ro, \vep_1,
1169: \vep_2} = \{ \vDe : \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \in S, \; \ro - \vep_1 \leq
1170: \ro^\prime \leq \ro + \vep_2 \}$. To show this claim, it suffices
1171: to show that $\li \{ \vDe : \f{ \vDe } { || \vDe ||} \in S, \; \ro -
1172: \vep_1 \leq || \vDe || \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} = S_{\ro, \vep_1,
1173: \vep_2}$. Let $\vDe \in S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2}$. By definition,
1174: there exists $\ro^\prime \in [\ro - \vep_1, \ro + \vep_2 ]$ such
1175: that $\f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \in S$. Therefore, by the scalable
1176: property of the function $||.||$, we have $|| \vDe|| = \li | \li
1177: |\ro^\prime \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \ri | \ri | = \ro^\prime \li | \li
1178: | \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \ri | \ri | = \ro^\prime \in [\ro - \vep_1,
1179: \ro + \vep_2]$ and $\f{ \vDe } { || \vDe||} = \f{
1180: \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} } { \f{||\vDe||}{\ro^\prime}}
1181: =\f{ \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} } { \li | \li | \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \ri | \ri |}
1182: = \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \in S$. This implies that $\vDe \in \li \{
1183: \vDe : \f{ \vDe } { || \vDe ||} \in S, \; \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \vDe
1184: || \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \}$.
1185:
1186: Now let $\vDe \in \li \{ \vDe : \f{ \vDe } { || \vDe ||} \in S, \;
1187: \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \vDe || \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \}$ and
1188: $\ro^\prime = ||\vDe||$. By definition, $\ro - \vep_1 \leq
1189: \ro^\prime \leq \ro + \vep_2, \; \f{\vDe}{\ro^\prime} \in S$. Hence,
1190: $\vDe \in S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2}$. The claim is thus proved and we
1191: have
1192: \[
1193: \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; \ro -
1194: \vep_1 \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} = \Pr \{
1195: \bs{\vDe} \in S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2} \}.
1196: \]
1197: Let $S_{\ro^\prime} = \{\ro^\prime \vDe : \vDe \in S \}$. Then,
1198: $S_{\ro^\prime}\subseteq \pa \mcal{B}_{\ro^\prime}$ and $S_{\ro,
1199: \vep_1, \vep_2} = \{\vDe: \vDe \in S_{\ro^\prime}, \ro - \vep_1 \leq
1200: \ro^\prime \leq \ro + \vep_2 \}$. By the notion of the radially
1201: symmetrical distribution of $\bs{\vDe}$ and the property of the area
1202: function shown in Lemma \ref{scale}, we have $\Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in
1203: S_{\ro^\prime} \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| = \ro ^\prime \} = \f{
1204: \mrm{area}(S_{\ro^\prime}) } {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}_{\ro^\prime})
1205: } = \f{ {\ro^\prime}^{n-1} \mrm{area}(S) } { {\ro^\prime}^{n-1}
1206: \mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}) } = \f{ \mrm{area}(S) } {\mrm{area} (\pa
1207: \mcal{B}) }$. On the other hand, by the definition of the
1208: conditional probability,
1209: \[
1210: \Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in S_{\ro^\prime} \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| = \ro
1211: ^\prime \} = \lim_{\vep_1 \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0
1212: } } \f{ \Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2} \} } {\Pr
1213: \li \{ \ro - \vep_1 \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \}
1214: }.
1215: \]
1216: It follows that $\Pr \li \{ \li. \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||}
1217: \in S \; \ri | \; || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro \ri \} = \lim_{\vep_1
1218: \downarrow 0 \atop{ \vep_2 \downarrow 0 } } \f{ \Pr \{ \bs{\vDe} \in
1219: S_{\ro, \vep_1, \vep_2} \} } {\Pr \li \{ \ro - \vep_1 \leq ||
1220: \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} } = \f{ \mrm{area}(S) }
1221: {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}) }$.
1222:
1223: \epf
1224:
1225:
1226: \beL \la{lem55} Suppose $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is continuous in $(a,
1227: b)$. Then,
1228: $\Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \mid a < ||
1229: \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} = \f{ \mrm{area}(S) } {\mrm{area} (\pa
1230: \mcal{B}) }$. \eeL
1231:
1232: \bpf
1233:
1234: Let $\eta > 0$ and $\de \in \li ( 0, \f{b-a}{2} \ri )$. For
1235: notational simplicity, let $c = \f{ \mrm{area}(S) } {\mrm{area} (\pa
1236: \mcal{B}) }$. By Lemma \ref{eqi}, for any $\ro \in [a + \de, b -
1237: \de]$, we can find $\vep = \vep(\ro)$ such that $\li | \Pr \li \{
1238: \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \mid \ro - \vep_1 \leq ||
1239: \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro + \vep_2 \ri \} - c \ri | < \eta$ for any
1240: positive $\vep_1, \vep_2$ less than $\vep(\ro)$. Hence, the union
1241: of the open intervals $\cup_{\ro \in [a+ \de, b- \de]} (\ro -
1242: \vep(\ro), \ro + \vep(\ro))$ will cover interval $[a+ \de, b -
1243: \de]$. By the {\it finite coverage theorem}, we can choose finite
1244: number of $\ro_i$ from $[a+ \de, b - \de]$ such that $\cup_{i = 1}^k
1245: (\ro_i - \vep(\ro_i), \ro_i + \vep(\ro_i))$ covers interval $[a +
1246: \de, b - \de]$ and that none of $(\ro_i - \vep(\ro_i), \ro_i +
1247: \vep(\ro_i))$ is nested in another. By using the mid-points of the
1248: intersections of every two consecutive intervals as dividing points,
1249: we can partition $[a + \de, b - \de]$ as $k$ intervals $[a_i, b_i]$
1250: such that $\li | \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S
1251: \mid a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \} - c \ri | < \eta$ for
1252: $i = 1, \cd, k$. Therefore, $\li | \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1253: \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \} - c
1254: \Pr \li \{ a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \} \ri | < \eta \Pr
1255: \li \{ a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \}$ for $i = 1, \cd, k$
1256: and
1257: \[
1258: \li | \sum_{i=1}^k \li [ \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq
1259: b_i \ri \} - c \Pr \li \{ a_i \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \} \ri ] \ri | < \eta \sum_{i=1}^k \Pr \li \{ a_i
1260: \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b_i \ri \}.
1261: \]
1262: That is, $\li | \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S,
1263: \; a + \de \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} - c \Pr \li \{ a
1264: + \de \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} \ri | < \eta \Pr \li
1265: \{ a + \de \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \}$. As a result,
1266: $\li | \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \mid a +
1267: \de \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} - c \ri | < \eta$. Since
1268: $\eta$ can be arbitrarily small, we have
1269: \[
1270: \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a + \de
1271: \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} = c \Pr \li \{ a + \de
1272: \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \}.
1273: \]
1274: By the assumption that $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is piece-wise
1275: continuous, we have $\Pr \li \{ \ro \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ro +
1276: \de \ri \} \to 0$ as $\de \downarrow 0$ for all $\ro \geq 0$. Hence,
1277: \bee & & \lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \li | \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} }
1278: { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a + \de \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b -
1279: \de \ri \} - \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S,
1280: \; a < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} \ri |\\
1281: & = & \lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \li [ \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1282: \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a < || \bs{\vDe}|| < a + \de \ri \} + \Pr
1283: \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; b - \de < ||
1284: \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} \ri ]\\
1285: & \leq & \lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \li [ \Pr \li \{ a < ||
1286: \bs{\vDe}|| < a + \de \ri \} + \Pr \li \{ b - \de < || \bs{\vDe}|| <
1287: b \ri \} \ri ] = 0, \eee and so $\lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \Pr \li
1288: \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a + \de \leq ||
1289: \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} = \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1290: \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \}$. Similarly,
1291: \bee & & \lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \li | \Pr \li \{ a + \de
1292: \leq || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} - \Pr \li \{ a < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} \ri |\\
1293: & = & \lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \li [ \Pr \li \{ a < || \bs{\vDe}|| <
1294: a + \de \ri \} + \Pr \li \{ b - \de < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} \ri
1295: ] = 0, \eee and so $\lim_{\de \downarrow 0} \Pr \li \{ a + \de \leq
1296: || \bs{\vDe}|| \leq b - \de \ri \} = \Pr \li \{ a < || \bs{\vDe}|| <
1297: b \ri \}$. It follows that
1298: \[
1299: \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; a < ||
1300: \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri \} = c \Pr \li \{ a < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b \ri
1301: \}.
1302: \]
1303: This completes the proof.
1304:
1305: \epf
1306:
1307:
1308: \beL \la{independence} Suppose that the distribution of $\bs{\vDe}$
1309: is radially symmetrical and that $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is
1310: piece-wise continuous over $(0, \iy)$. Then, $\f{ \bs{\vDe} } { ||
1311: \bs{\vDe}||}$ is independent with $|| \bs{\vDe}||$. Moreover, $\f{
1312: \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||}$ is uniformly distributed over $\{
1313: \vDe: ||\vDe || = 1 \}$. \eeL
1314:
1315: \bpf
1316:
1317: Since $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is piece-wise continuous over
1318: $(0, \iy)$, we can represent $(0, \iy)$ as a union of open intervals
1319: $(a_i, b_i)$ where $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is continuous and the set
1320: of discrete values $\ro_j, \; j = 1, 2, \cd$ for which
1321: $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is discontinuous. We can enumerate the
1322: intervals and the discrete values such that $b_i - a_i$ is
1323: non-increasing with respect to $i$ and that $\ro_j - \ro_{j-1}$ is
1324: non-increasing with respect to $j$. Then, $\Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe}
1325: } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro_j \ri \} = 0, \;
1326: j = 1, 2, \cd$ and, by Lemma \ref{lem55},
1327:
1328: \bee \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \ri \} & =
1329: & \sum_{i} \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \;
1330: a_i < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b_i \ri \} + \sum_j \Pr \li \{ \f{
1331: \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S, \; || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro_j \ri
1332: \}\\
1333: & = & \f{ \mrm{area}(S) } {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}) } \li [
1334: \sum_{i} \Pr \li \{ a_i < || \bs{\vDe}|| < b_i \ri \} + \sum_j \Pr
1335: \li \{ || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro_j \ri \} \ri ] = \f{ \mrm{area}(S) }
1336: {\mrm{area} (\pa \mcal{B}) }. \eee
1337:
1338: Therefore, invoking Lemma \ref{eqi}, we have $\Pr \li \{ \f{
1339: \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \mid || \bs{\vDe}|| = \ro \ri \}
1340: = \Pr \li \{ \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||} \in S \ri \}$ for any
1341: $\ro$ such that $f_{||\bs{\vDe}||}(.)$ is continuous. This implies
1342: the independence between $\f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||}$ and $||
1343: \bs{\vDe}||$. Moreover, since the argument holds for any $S
1344: \subseteq \{ \vDe : ||\vDe|| = 1 \}$, we have that $\f{ \bs{\vDe} }
1345: { || \bs{\vDe}||}$ is uniformly distributed over $\{ \vDe : ||\vDe||
1346: = 1 \}$. The proof is thus completed.
1347:
1348: \epf
1349:
1350: \beL \la{eqphi} Suppose that $\phi(.)$ is continuous over $(a, b)$ and that the distribution of uncertainty $\bs{\vDe}$ is radially
1351: symmetrical and continuous over $(a, b)$. Then $\Pr \{ \bb{I}(\bs{\vDe} ) = 1, \; a < || \bs{\vDe} || < b \} =
1352: \int_a^b \phi(r) f_R(r) d r$.
1353: \eeL
1354:
1355: \bpf
1356: Define $U = \f{ \bs{\vDe} } { || \bs{\vDe}||}, \; R = ||\bs{\vDe}||$
1357: and $f_R(\ro) = \f{d \li [ \Pr \{ R \leq \ro \} \ri ] } { d \ro
1358: }$. By Lemma \ref{independence}, we have that $U$ and $R$ are
1359: independent and that $U$ is uniform over $\pa \mcal{B}$. Hence, the
1360: probability density function of $UR$ is $\f{1}{ \mrm{area}(\pa
1361: \mcal{B}) } \times f_R(r)$ and, by the Fubini's Theorem, \bee \Pr \{
1362: \bb{I}(\bs{\vDe} ) = 1, \; a <
1363: || \bs{\vDe} || < b \} & = & \Pr \{ \bb{I}(U R) = 1, \; a < R < b \}\\
1364: & = & \int_{r = a}^b \int_{\{ u : \; \bb{I}(r u) = 1, \; u \in \pa
1365: \mcal{B}
1366: \} } \f{1}{ \mrm{area}(\pa \mcal{B}) } f_R(r) \; d u d r\\
1367: & = & \int_{r = a}^b \li [ \int_{\{ u : \; \bb{I}(r u) = 1, \; u \in \pa \mcal{B}
1368: \} } \f{1}{ \mrm{area}(\pa \mcal{B}) } d u \ri ] f_R(r) d r\\
1369: & = & \int_{r = a}^b \phi(r) f_R(r) d r \eee where the last
1370: equality follows from the definition of $\phi(.)$.
1371:
1372: \epf
1373:
1374:
1375:
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379: \beL \la{lemdec} Suppose that $\phi(.)$ is piece-wise continuous and
1380: that $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(.)$ is piece-wise continuous and
1381: non-increasing. Then, $\Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1, \;
1382: ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{||
1383: \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro$. \eeL
1384:
1385: \bpf
1386:
1387: Let $\vep > 0$. Since $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro)$ is non-increasing,
1388: we have $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) \leq \f{ \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} ||
1389: \leq \vep \} } { \vep }$ for $\ro \in [\vep, \ro]$. It follows that
1390: $\phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro)$ is piece-wise continuous and
1391: bounded for $\ro \in [\vep, \ro]$. Hence, the Riemann integral
1392: $\int_{ \vep}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro$
1393: exists. Note that $\int_{ \vep}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe}
1394: ||}(\ro) d \ro \leq \int_{ \vep}^\ga f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d
1395: \ro \leq 1$ and that $\int_{ \vep}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe}
1396: ||}(\ro) d \ro$ is non-increasing with respect to $\vep$. Thus,
1397: $\lim_{\vep \downarrow 0} \int_{ \vep}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{||
1398: \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro$ exists. This limit is denoted as $\int_{
1399: 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro$.
1400:
1401: Note that we can partition interval $(0, \ga)$ as a sequence of
1402: intervals $(a_i, b_i), \; i = 1, \cd, \iy$ such that $a_i, \; b_i,
1403: \; i = 1, 2, \cd$ are discontinuities of $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro)$
1404: and that $b_i - a_i$ is non-increasing with respect to $i$. To
1405: ensure that the partition is unique, we can handle the situation
1406: that some intervals have the same length by enforcing the following
1407: criterion: if $b_i - a_i = b_j - a_j, \; i < j$ then $a_i < a_j$.
1408: Then, by the property of the Riemann integral, we have $\int_{
1409: 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro = \sum_{i=1}^\iy
1410: \int_{ a_i}^{b_i} \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro$. On
1411: the other hand, since $\Pr \{ ||\bs{\vDe}|| = a_i \} = \Pr \{
1412: ||\bs{\vDe}|| = b_i \} = 0$ for $i = 1, 2 \cd, \iy$, we have \bel
1413: \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1, \; ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} & = &
1414: \sum_{i=1}^\iy \Pr \{ \bb{I}
1415: (\bs{\vDe}) = 1, \; a_i < ||\bs{\vDe}|| < b_i \} \nonumber\\
1416: & = & \sum_{i=1}^\iy \int_{ a_i}^{b_i} \phi(\ro) \; f_{||
1417: \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro \la{use5} \\
1418: & = & \int_{ 0}^{\ga} \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro) d \ro
1419: \nonumber
1420: \eel
1421: where the equality (\ref{use5}) follows from Lemma \ref{eqphi}.
1422:
1423: \epf
1424:
1425: \beL \la{chen} For any $r > 0$, $\mscr{P}(r) = \f{1}{r} \int_{ 0}^r
1426: \phi(\ro) \; d \ro$. \eeL
1427:
1428: \bpf
1429:
1430: By the definition of $\mscr{P}(.)$, we have $\mscr{P}(r) = \Pr \{
1431: \bb{I}(U R) = 1 \} = \Pr \{ \bb{I}(U R) = 1, \; ||UR|| \leq r \}$
1432: where $U$ and $R$ are independent random variables such that $U$ is
1433: uniformly distributed over $\pa \mcal{B}$ and $R$ is uniformly
1434: distributed over $[0, r]$. Applying Lemma \ref{lemdec} to random
1435: variable $\bs{\vDe} = U R$, we have $\mscr{P}(r) = \int_{ 0}^r
1436: \phi(\ro) \; f_R(\ro) \; d \ro = \f{1}{r} \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \;
1437: d \ro$.
1438:
1439: \epf
1440:
1441: \beL \la{debound} Let $0 < r_1 < r_2$. Then, $| \mscr{P}(r_2) -
1442: \mscr{P}(r_1) | < \f{ 2 (r_2 - r_1) }{ r_1 }$. \eeL
1443:
1444: \bpf By Lemma \ref{chen}, \bee | \mscr{P}(r_2) - \mscr{P}(r_1) | &
1445: = & \li | \f{ \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro } {r_2 } + \li
1446: (\f{1}{r_2} -
1447: \f{1}{r_1}\ri ) \int_0^{r_1} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro \ri |\\
1448: & \leq & \f{ \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro } {r_2 } + \li
1449: (\f{1}{r_1} - \f{1}{r_2}\ri ) \int_0^{r_1} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro\\
1450: & \leq & \f{ r_2 - r_1 } { r_2 } + \f{ r_2 - r_1 } { r_1 r_2 }
1451: r_1\\
1452: & = & \f{ 2 (r_2 - r_1) }{ r_2 } \leq \f{ 2 (r_2 - r_1) }{ r_1 }
1453: \eee where we have used the fact that $0 \leq \phi(\ro) \leq 1$.
1454:
1455: \epf
1456:
1457: \beL \la{dense} $\inf_{0 < \ro \leq \ga \atop{ \f{\ro}{\ga} \in
1458: \bb{Q}} } \mscr{P}(\ro) = \inf_{0 < \ro \leq \ga} \mscr{P}(\ro)$
1459: where $\bb{Q}$ denotes the set of all rational numbers.
1460:
1461: \eeL
1462:
1463: \bpf Let $a = \inf_{0 < \ro \leq \ga \atop{ \f{\ro}{\ga} \in \bb{Q}}
1464: } \mscr{P}(\ro)$ and $b = \inf_{0 < \ro \leq \ga} \mscr{P}(\ro)$.
1465: Clearly, $a \geq b \geq 0$. Suppose $a > b$. Then, there exists a
1466: real number $\ro^* \in (0, \ga]$ such that $\mscr{P}(\ro^*) < \f{a
1467: + b}{2}$. By the dense property of the rational numbers, for any
1468: $\de \in (0, \ro^*)$, there exists a number $\se$ such that
1469: $\f{\se}{\ga} \in \bb{Q}$ and that $\li | \se - \ro^* \ri | < \de$.
1470: Thus, by Lemma \ref{debound}, $| \mscr{P}(\se) - \mscr{P}(\ro^*)|
1471: \leq \f{2 \de}{\ro^* - \de}$, leading to $\mscr{P}(\se) \leq
1472: \mscr{P}(\ro^*) + \f{2 \de}{\ro^* - \de} < \f{a + b}{2} + \f{2
1473: \de}{\ro^* - \de}$. Since $\de$ can be arbitrarily small, we have
1474: $\mscr{P}(\se) \leq \f{a + b}{2}$. Hence, $a \leq \f{a + b}{2}$,
1475: i.e., $a \leq b$, contradicting to $a > b$. This shows that $a >
1476: b$ is not true. Therefore, $a = b$.
1477:
1478: \epf
1479:
1480:
1481:
1482:
1483: We are now in the position to prove Theorem 1. For every $f_{
1484: \bs{\vDe} } \in \mscr{F}$, define {\small $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro,
1485: \ga) = \f{d \; \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ro \; \mid \; ||
1486: \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ga \} } {d \ro }$}. Then, $f_{|| \bs{\vDe}
1487: ||}(\ro, \ga) = \f{1}{\Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ga \}} \f{d \;
1488: \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ro \} } {d \ro } = \f{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe}
1489: ||}(\ro) } { \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ga \} }$, and the set of
1490: all such functions constitute a family of conditional density
1491: functions, denoted by $\mscr{F}_\ga$. Clearly, every conditional
1492: density $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga)$ in $\mscr{F}_\ga$ is
1493: non-increasing with respect to $\ro$. For every positive integer
1494: $k$, we use $\mscr{F}_{\ga, k}$ to denote the set of conditional
1495: density functions of the form: $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) =
1496: \sum_{i=1}^k \xi_i \; I_{(r_{i-1}, r_i]} (\ro), \; \fa \ro \in (0,
1497: \ga]$ where $r_i = \frac{i \; \ga}{k}, \; i = 0, 1 , \cdots, k$,
1498: \[
1499: I_{(r_{i-1}, r_i]} (x) = \bec 1 & \tx{if} \; x \in
1500: (r_{i-1}, r_i];\\
1501: 0 & \tx{otherwise} \eec
1502: \]
1503: and $\xi_1 \geq \xi_2 \geq \cdots \geq \xi_k \geq 0$ with
1504: $\frac{\ga}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \xi_i = 1$. By Lemma \ref{lemdec},
1505: \bee \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1 \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} & =
1506: & \f{\Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1, \; ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga
1507: \}}{ \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ga \} } = \f{\int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro)
1508: d \ro}{ \Pr \{ || \bs{\vDe} || \leq \ga \} } = \int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga)
1509: d \ro.
1510: \eee Therefore, \be \la{bri}
1511: \inf_{ f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F} } \Pr
1512: \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1 \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \inf_{
1513: f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in \mscr{F}_\ga } \int_{0}^\ga
1514: \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro. \ee Since $\phi(\ro)
1515: \; I_{(r_{i-1},
1516: r_i]} (\ro)$ is bounded and piece-wise continuous over $(0,\ga]$, it
1517: is Riemann integrable. It follows that, for a conditional density
1518: $f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga)$ in the family $\mscr{F}_{\ga, k}$,
1519: \bee \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro & = &
1520: \int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro) \; \li [ \sum_{i=1}^k \xi_i \; I_{(r_{i-1},
1521: r_i]} (\ro) \ri ]
1522: d \ro = \sum_{i=1}^k \li [ \int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro)
1523: \; I_{(r_{i-1},
1524: r_i]} (\ro) \; d \ro \ri ] \xi_i = \sum_{i=1}^k a_i \; \xi_i \eee
1525: where $a_i = \int_{ 0}^\ga \phi(\ro)
1526: \; I_{(r_{i-1},
1527: r_i]} (\ro) \; d \ro$ for $i = 1, \cd, k$. Since $a_i$ is
1528: independent of $(\xi_1, \cd, \xi_k)$ for $i = 1, \cd, k$, we have
1529: that $\sum_{i=1}^k a_i \; \xi_i$ is a linear function of $\xi_i, \;
1530: i = 1, \cd, k$ for any given $k > 0$. Therefore, the infimum
1531: $\inf_{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in \mscr{F}_{\ga, k} }
1532: \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro$ equals
1533: to the minimum of $\sum_{i=1}^k a_i \; \xi_i$ subject to the
1534: constraint that $\xi_1 \geq \xi_2 \geq \cdots \geq \xi_k \geq 0$
1535: and $\frac{\ga}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \xi_i = 1$. Note that the minimum of
1536: a linear program over a bounded set is achieved at the extreme
1537: points. By Lemma 2.2 of \cite{BL}, for every extreme point of the
1538: convex set $\{ (\xi_1, \cd, \xi_k): \xi_1 \geq \xi_2 \geq \cdots
1539: \geq \xi_k \geq 0, \; \frac{\ga}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \xi_i = 1 \}$, we
1540: can find an integer $\ell$ such that $\xi_i = \f{k } { \ga \ell }$
1541: for $i = 1, \cd, \ell$ and $\xi_i = 0$ for $i = \ell + 1, \cd, k$.
1542: For such extreme point associated with $\ell$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^k
1543: a_i \; \xi_i = \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga)
1544: d \ro = \int_{0}^{\f{\ell}{k} \ga} \phi(\ro) \f{ 1 } { \f{\ell}{k}
1545: \ga } d \ro = \mscr{P} \li ( \f{\ell}{k} \ga \ri )$, where the last
1546: equality follows from Lemma \ref{chen}. Therefore,
1547: \[
1548: \inf_{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in \mscr{F}_{\ga, k} }
1549: \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro = \min
1550: \li \{ \mscr{P} \li ( \f{\ell}{k} \ga \ri ): 0 \leq \ell \leq k \ri
1551: \}.
1552: \]
1553: It follows that {\small \[ \inf_{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in
1554: \cup_{k=1}^\iy \mscr{F}_{\ga, k} } \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{||
1555: \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro = \inf \bigcup_{k=1}^\iy \li \{
1556: \mscr{P} \li ( \f{\ell}{k} \ga \ri ): 0 \leq \ell \leq k \ri \} =
1557: \inf \li \{ \mscr{P}(\ro) : 0 < \ro \leq \ga, \; \f{\ro}{\ga} \in
1558: \bb{Q} \ri \}.
1559: \]}
1560: It can be shown that
1561: \[
1562: \inf_{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in \cup_{k=1}^\iy
1563: \mscr{F}_{\ga, k} } \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro,
1564: \ga) d \ro = \inf_{ f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||} (., \ga) \in \mscr{F}_{\ga}
1565: } \int_{0}^\ga \phi(\ro) f_{|| \bs{\vDe} ||}(\ro, \ga) d \ro.
1566: \]
1567: Hence, by (\ref{bri}),
1568: \[
1569: \inf_{ f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F} } \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1
1570: \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \inf \li \{ \mscr{P}(\ro) : 0 < \ro
1571: \leq \ga, \; \f{\ro}{\ga} \in \bb{Q} \ri \} = \inf_{0 < \ro \leq
1572: \ga} \mscr{P}(\ro),
1573: \]
1574: where the last equality follows from Lemma \ref{dense}. Finally, by
1575: Lemma \ref{uniform_rad} and Lemma \ref{include}, we have
1576: $\underline{\mscr{P}} (\ga) = \inf_{f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{F}} \Pr
1577: \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1 \mid ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} \geq
1578: \inf_{f_{\bs{\vDe}} \in \mscr{G}} \Pr \{ \bb{I} (\bs{\vDe}) = 1 \mid
1579: ||\bs{\vDe}|| \leq \ga \} = \underline{\bb{P}} (\ga)$. The proof
1580: is thus completed.
1581:
1582: \section{Proof of Theorem 2}
1583:
1584: We shall first define some terminologies that will be used in the proof.
1585:
1586: \begin{definition}
1587: A value of the uncertainty radius is said to be a discontinuity if $\phi(.)$ is discontinuous for that value.
1588: \end{definition}
1589:
1590: \begin{definition}
1591: An open interval $(a, b)$ is said to be a continuous interval if $\phi(r)$ is continuous for any $r \in (a, b)$.
1592: \end{definition}
1593:
1594: \begin{definition}
1595: A discontinuity, $p$, is said to be a cluster point if, for any $\ep >0$, there exists another discontinuity,
1596: $q$, such that $|p - q| < \ep$.
1597: \end{definition}
1598:
1599:
1600: The proof of the transform formulas is largely focused on the investigation of discontinuities, cluster points
1601: and continuous intervals. By the assumption that $\phi(.)$ is piece-wise continuous, we can see that the
1602: distributions of discontinuities and cluster points can be arbitrary. For example, it is possible that there are
1603: infinitely many discontinuities distributed over $(0, r)$ as $\f{r}{(i+1)(j+1) }$ where $i = 1, \cd, \iy$ and $j
1604: = 1, \cd, \iy$. In this example, there are infinitely many cluster points $\f{r}{i+ 1 }, \; i = 1, \cd, \iy$.
1605:
1606: Despite the complexity of the distributions of discontinuities and cluster points, it suffices to prove the
1607: transform formulas for the following four cases:
1608:
1609: \bed
1610:
1611: \item [Case (1)] There are a finite number of discontinuities.
1612:
1613: \item [Case (2)] There are infinitely many discontinuities such that $r= 0$ is the unique cluster point.
1614:
1615: \item [Case (3)] There are infinitely many discontinuities such that there is a cluster point at $r= 0$
1616: and that there is at least one more cluster point at $r > 0$.
1617:
1618: \item [Case (4)] There are infinitely many discontinuities such that there is no cluster point at $r= 0$.
1619:
1620: \eed
1621:
1622:
1623:
1624: Before addressing each case in details, we need to establish some preliminary results.
1625:
1626:
1627:
1628: The following lemma is on the enumeration and classification of
1629: continuous intervals.
1630:
1631: \beL \la{lemm4} For any $\vep > 0$, the set of all continuous
1632: intervals defined by the end points $q, r$ or discontinuities of
1633: interval $(q, r)$ can be divided into two classes such that i) the
1634: first class, denoted by ${\wh{\mscr{I}}}_\vep$, has a finite number
1635: of intervals; ii) the second class, denoted by $\mscr{I}_\vep$, has
1636: infinitely many intervals and the total length is less than $\vep$.
1637: \eeL
1638:
1639: \bpf Such classification can be performed as follows. Let $k = 1$
1640: and $c_k = \f{1}{2^k}$. Find all intervals with length greater than
1641: $c_k$. Rank these intervals by the lengths and include it in set
1642: $\mscr{A}$. Include the remaining intervals in set $\mscr{B}$.
1643: Increment $k$ and update $c_k = \f{1}{2^k}$. From $\mscr{B}$ find
1644: all intervals with length greater than $c_k$. Add these intervals to
1645: set $\mscr{A}$ and rank all intervals by the lengths. Eliminate
1646: those intervals from set $\mscr{B}$.
1647:
1648: Repeating these steps for infinitely many values of $k$ leads to a
1649: sequence of intervals of decreasing lengths. Let $(a_i, \; b_i), \;
1650: i = 1, 2, \cd$ denote this sequence. Let $L_i = b_i - a_i$. Then,
1651: $\sum_{i=1}^\iy L_i = r-q $ and $L_i$ is decreasing with respect to
1652: $i$. Thus, by Cauchy's theorem, there must be an integer $K$ such
1653: that $\sum_{i=K}^\iy L_i < \vep$. This implies that we have the
1654: desired two classes. The first class ${\wh{\mscr{I}}}_\vep$
1655: consists of intervals $(a_i, b_i), \; i = 1, \cd, K-1$ and the
1656: second class $\mscr{I}_\vep$ consists of intervals $(a_i, b_i), \; i
1657: = K, \cd, \iy$. \epf
1658:
1659:
1660: \beL \la{Barm} For any $r > 0$, $\bb{P}(r) = \f{n}{r^n} \int_{ 0}^r
1661: \phi(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro$ where $n$ is the dimension of
1662: uncertainty space. \eeL
1663:
1664: \bpf Since $\bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}}$ is uniformly distributed over
1665: $\mcal{B}$, we can derive the density function of $||
1666: \bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}} ||$ as $f_{ || \bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}} || } (\ro) =
1667: \f{n \ro^{n-1}}{r^n}$. By definition, $\bb{P}(r) = \Pr \{
1668: \bb{I}(\bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}} ) = 1 \} = \Pr \{
1669: \bb{I}(\bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}} ) = 1, \; || \bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}} || \leq
1670: r \}$. By Lemma \ref{lemdec},
1671: \bee
1672: \bb{P}(r) & = & \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \; f_{ || \bs{\vDe}^{\mrm{u}}
1673: || } (\ro) \; d \ro = \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \f{n \ro^{n-1}}{r^n}
1674: d \ro = \f{n}{r^n} \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro.
1675: \eee
1676:
1677: \epf
1678:
1679:
1680:
1681: The following two lemmas establish connections between $\phi(.)$, $\bb{P}(.)$ and $\mscr{P}(.)$.
1682:
1683: \beL \la{lemm7} For any continuous interval $(a, b)$ with $0 < a < b$,
1684: \[
1685: \int_{ a}^b \phi(\ro) \; d \ro = \f{b \bb{P}(b) - a \bb{P}(a) } { n
1686: } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ a}^b \bb{P}(\ro) \; d \ro.
1687: \]
1688: \eeL
1689:
1690: \bpf By Lemma \ref{Barm}, we have $\bb{P}(r) = \f{n}{r^n} \int_{
1691: 0}^r \phi(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro$. Since $\phi(\ro)$ is
1692: continuous over $(a, b)$, we have that $\bb{P}(r)$ is
1693: differentiable with respect to $r$ and that $\phi(\ro) = \f{ \f{
1694: d[\ro^n \bb{P}(\ro)] } { d \ro } } { n \ro^{n-1} }$ for any $\ro
1695: \in (a, b)$. Consequently, \bel \int_{ a}^b \phi(\ro) \; d \ro & =
1696: & \int_{ a}^b \f{ \f{ d[\ro^n \bb{P}(\ro)] } { d \ro } } { n
1697: \ro^{n-1} } \;
1698: d \ro \nonumber\\
1699: & = & \int_{ a}^b \f{ 1 } { n \ro^{n-1} } \; d[\ro^n
1700: \bb{P}(\ro)] \nonumber\\
1701: & = & \lim_{\ep \to 0} \f{ (b - \ep) \bb{P}(b - \ep) - (a + \ep) \bb{P}(a + \ep) } { n } +
1702: \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ a}^b \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \la{part}\\
1703: & = & \f{b \bb{P}(b) - a \bb{P}(a) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{
1704: a}^b \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \la{last} \eel where we have used the
1705: technique of integration by part in (\ref{part}) and the fact that
1706: $\bb{P}(\ro)$ is continuous for any $\ro > 0$ in (\ref{last}).\epf
1707:
1708: \beL \la{lemm8}
1709: For any continuous interval $(a, b)$ with $0 < a < b$,
1710: \[
1711: \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro = [b^n \; \mscr{P}(b) -
1712: a^n \; \mscr{P}(a)] - (n-1) \int_{ a}^b \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1}
1713: d \ro.
1714: \]
1715:
1716: \eeL
1717:
1718: \bpf By Lemma \ref{chen}, we have $\mscr{P}(\ro) = \f{1}{r} \int_0^r
1719: \phi(\ro) \; d \ro$. Since $\phi(\ro)$ is continuous over $(a, b)$,
1720: we have that $\mscr{P}(\ro)$ is differentiable with respect to $\ro$
1721: and that $\phi(\ro) = \f{ d[\ro \; \mscr{P}(\ro)] } { d \ro }$ for
1722: any $\ro \in (a, b)$. Hence, \bee \int_0^r \ro^{n-1} \phi(\ro) \; d
1723: \ro
1724: & = & \int_{ a}^b \ro^{n-1} d[\ro \;
1725: \mscr{P}(\ro)]\\
1726: & = & \lim_{\ep \to 0} \li [ (b - \ep)^n \; \mscr{P}(b - \ep) - (a +
1727: \ep)^n \; \mscr{P}(a + \ep) \ri ]- \int_{ a}^b \ro \; \mscr{P}(\ro)
1728: \; (n-1) \ro^{n-2} d
1729: \ro\\
1730: & = & [b^n \; \mscr{P}(b) - a^n \; \mscr{P}(a)] - (n-1) \int_{
1731: a}^b \mscr{P}(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} d \ro \eee where we have used the
1732: technique of integration by part and the fact that $\mscr{P}(\ro)$
1733: is continuous for any $\ro > 0$.
1734:
1735: \epf
1736:
1737: \beL \la{lemm9} Let $q \leq a < b \leq r$. Then, $|b \bb{P}(b) - a
1738: \bb{P}(a)| \leq \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) (b - a)$. \eeL
1739:
1740: \bpf Note that, for $q \leq a < b \leq r$, we have \bee |b \bb{P}(b) - a \bb{P}(a)| & = & |b \bb{P}(b) - b
1741: \bb{P}(a) + b \bb{P}(a) - a \bb{P}(a)|\\
1742: & \leq & b |\bb{P}(b) - \bb{P}(a)| + (b - a) \bb{P}(a) \\
1743: & \leq & b \f{ n(b-a) } { a } + (b - a) \leq \li ( \f{ n r } {q} +
1744: 1 \ri ) (b - a) \eee where we have used the bound $|\bb{P}(b) -
1745: \bb{P}(a)| \leq \f{ n(b-a) } { a }$, which was derived in the proof
1746: of Theorem $6.1$ in page $856$ of \cite{BLT}. \epf
1747:
1748:
1749: \beL \la{lemm11} Let $q \leq a < b \leq r$. Then, $| b^n \;
1750: \mscr{P}(b) - a^n \; \mscr{P}(a)| < \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + n
1751: r^{n-1} \ri ) (b-a)$. \eeL
1752:
1753: \bpf
1754:
1755: Note that, by Lemma \ref{debound}, $|\mscr{P}(b) - \mscr{P}(a) | \leq \f{2 (b-a)} { a }$, we have \bee | b^n \;
1756: \mscr{P}(b) - a^n \; \mscr{P}(a)| & = &
1757: | b^n \; \mscr{P}(b) - b^n \; \mscr{P}(a) + b^n \; \mscr{P}(a) - a^n \; \mscr{P}(a)| \\
1758: & \leq & b^n |\mscr{P}(b) - \mscr{P}(a) | + (b^n - a^n)
1759: \mscr{P}(a)\\
1760: & \leq & \f{2 b^n (b-a)} { a } + (b^n - a^n)\\
1761: & < & \f{2 b^n (b-a)} { a } + n b^{n-1} (b-a)\\
1762: & = & \li ( \f{2 b^n} { a } + n b^{n-1} \ri ) (b-a)\\
1763: & \leq & \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + n r^{n-1} \ri ) (b-a) \eee where
1764: we have used the inequality $b^n - a^n < n b^{n-1} (b-a)$ which can
1765: be shown by using Taylor's expansion formula $b^n = a^n + n
1766: \xi^{n-1} (b -a) < a^n + n b^{n-1} (b-a)$ with some $\xi \in (a,
1767: b)$.
1768:
1769: \epf
1770:
1771:
1772:
1773:
1774: We are now in the position to prove the transform formulas for each cases.
1775:
1776:
1777: \bed
1778:
1779: \item [Case (1)] Let $0 = p_0 < p_1 <
1780: \cd < p_k < p_{k+1} = r$ where $p_1, \cd, p_{k}$ are $k \geq 0$
1781: discontinuities. By Lemma \ref{lemm7}, we have \bee \int_{0}^r
1782: \phi(\ro) d \ro & = & \lim_{\ep \downarrow 0} \int_{\ep}^r
1783: \phi(\ro) d \ro\\
1784: & = & \lim_{\ep \downarrow 0} \int_{ \ep}^{p_{1}} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro + \sum_{i=1}^k \int_{ p_i}^{p_{i+1}} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro\\
1785: & = & \lim_{\ep \downarrow 0} \li [
1786: \f{p_1 \bb{P}(p_1) - \ep \bb{P}(\ep) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ \ep}^{p_1} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ]\\
1787: & & + \sum_{i=1}^k \li [ \f{p_{i+1} \bb{P}(p_{i+1}) - p_i
1788: \bb{P}(p_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{
1789: p_i}^{p_{i+1}} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ]\\
1790: & = & \lim_{\ep \downarrow 0} \li [ \f{ - \ep \bb{P}(\ep) } { n } +
1791: \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ \ep}^{p_1} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ] + \f{r
1792: \bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{p_1}^r \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro. \eee
1793: Since $0 \leq \bb{P}(\ro) \leq 1, \; \fa \ro > 0$, we have
1794: $\lim_{\ep \downarrow 0} \ep \bb{P}(\ep) = 0$ and $\lim_{\ep
1795: \downarrow 0} \int_{ \ep}^{p_1} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro = \int_{ 0}^{p_1}
1796: \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$. It follows that $\int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro =
1797: \f{r \bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{0}^r \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$
1798: and that $\mscr{P}(r) = \f{1}{r} \int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro =
1799: \f{\bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n r} \int_{0}^r \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$.
1800:
1801: By Lemma \ref{lemm8} and similar techniques, we can show the
1802: expression for $\bb{P}(r)$ in this case.
1803:
1804: \item [Case (2)] In this case, the discontinuities can be represented as a monotone decreasing sequence $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^\iy$ such
1805: that $r = p_0 > p_1 > p_2 > \cd > p_k > \cd$ and $\lim_{k \to \iy} p_k = 0$. By Lemma \ref{lemm7}, we have \bee
1806: \int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro
1807: & = & \lim_{k \to \iy} \sum_{i=1}^k \int_{ p_i}^{p_{i-1}} \phi(\ro) \; d \ro\\
1808: & = & \lim_{k \to \iy} \sum_{i=1}^k \li [ \f{p_{i-1} \bb{P}(p_{i-1}) - p_i \bb{P}(p_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n}
1809: \int_{ p_i}^{p_{i-1}} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ]\\
1810: & = & \lim_{k \to \iy} \li [ \f{r \bb{P}(r) - p_k \bb{P}(p_k)}{n} +
1811: \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ p_k}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ]. \eee Since
1812: {\small $0 \leq \bb{P}(\ro) \leq 1, \; \fa \ro > 0$} and {\small
1813: $\lim_{k \to \iy} p_k = 0$}, we have {\small $\lim_{k \to \iy} p_k
1814: \bb{P}(p_k) = 0$} and {\small $\lim_{k \to \iy} \int_{p_k}^{r}
1815: \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro = \int_{0}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$}. It follows
1816: that $\int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro = \f{r \bb{P}(r) } { n } +
1817: \f{n-1}{n} \int_{0}^r \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$ and $\mscr{P}(r) = \f{1}{r}
1818: \int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro = \f{\bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n r}
1819: \int_{0}^r \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$.
1820:
1821: By Lemma \ref{lemm8} and similar techniques, we can show the expression for $\bb{P}(r)$ in this case.
1822:
1823: \item [Case (3)] In this case, let $r_*$ be the smallest positive cluster point.
1824: Let $q = \f{r_* } {2}$. We can write $\int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro =
1825: \int_{0}^{q} \phi(\ro) d \ro + \int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro$. Applying
1826: the result of Case (2), we have $\int_{0}^{q} \phi(\ro) d \ro = \f{q
1827: \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{0}^q \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$. We
1828: consider $\int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro$. For any $\vep > 0$, by Lemma
1829: \ref{lemm4}, we can write \be \la{eq10} \int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro =
1830: \sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro
1831: + \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro
1832: \ee where $\int_{(a, b)}$ means the integration over interval $(a,
1833: b)$ and $\sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} }$ means the summation
1834: over all intervals of $\wh{\mscr{I}_\vep}$. The notion of
1835: $\sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep }$ is similar.
1836:
1837:
1838: To evaluate $\sum_{(a, b) \in
1839: \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro$, we arrange the
1840: intervals in $\wh{\mscr{I}_\vep}$ as $(a_i, b_i), \; i = 1, \cd, k$
1841: such that $a_1 = q, \; b_i < a_{i+1}, \; i = 1, \cd, k - 1$ (Here
1842: $k$ is the total number of intervals). Note that, by Lemma
1843: \ref{lemm7}, \bel \sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} } \int_{(a,
1844: b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro & = & \sum_{i = 1}^k \li [ \f{b_i \bb{P}(b_i) -
1845: a_i \bb{P}(a_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n}
1846: \int_{ a_i}^{b_i} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ] \nonumber\\
1847: & = & \f{r \bb{P}(r) - q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{
1848: q}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \la{eq11}\\
1849: & & - \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \li [ \f{a_{i+1} \bb{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i
1850: \bb{P}(b_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \bb{P}(\ro) d
1851: \ro \ri ] \nonumber. \eel By Lemma \ref{lemm9}, we have $|a_{i+1}
1852: \bb{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i \bb{P}(b_i)| < \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri )
1853: ( a_{i+1} - b_i), \;\; i = 1, \cd, k-1$ and \bel \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1}
1854: \li | \f{a_{i+1} \bb{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i \bb{P}(b_i) } { n } \ri | &
1855: < & \sum_{i =
1856: 1}^{k-1} \li [ \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) ( a_{i+1} - b_i) \ri ] = \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} ( a_{i+1} - b_i) \nonumber\\
1857: & = & \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) \vep \la{eq12}. \eel Since $0
1858: \leq \bb{P}(\ro) \leq 1$, we have \be \la{eq13} \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1}
1859: \li | \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri | \leq
1860: \f{n-1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} ( a_{i+1} - b_i) = \f{n-1}{n} \vep.
1861: \ee By (\ref{eq11}), (\ref{eq12}), and (\ref{eq13}), \bel \li |
1862: \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \li [ \f{a_{i+1} \bb{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i
1863: \bb{P}(b_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \bb{P}(\ro)
1864: d \ro \ri ] \ri |
1865: & < & \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) \vep + \f{n-1}{n} \vep \nonumber\\
1866: & = & \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 + \f{n-1}{n} \ri ) \vep . \la{eq14} \eel Now we bound $\sum_{(a, b) \in
1867: \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro$. By Lemmas \ref{lemm7} and \ref{lemm9}, \bel \sum_{(a, b) \in
1868: \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro & = & \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \li [ \f{b \bb{P}(b) - a
1869: \bb{P}(a) } { n
1870: } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ a}^b \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ] \nonumber\\
1871: & < & \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \li [ \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 \ri ) (b - a) + \f{n-1}{n} (b - a) \ri
1872: ] \nonumber\\
1873: & = & \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 + \f{n-1}{n} \ri ) \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } (b - a) \nonumber\\
1874: & = & \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 + \f{n-1}{n} \ri ) \vep. \la{eq15}
1875: \eel Therefore, by (\ref{eq10}), (\ref{eq11}), (\ref{eq14}) and
1876: (\ref{eq15}), \bee & & \li | \int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro - \li [
1877: \f{r \bb{P}(r) - q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ q}^{r}
1878: \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ] \ri
1879: |\\
1880: & \leq & \li | \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \li [ \f{a_{i+1} \bb{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i \bb{P}(b_i) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n}
1881: \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro \ri ] \ri | + \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) d \ro\\
1882: & < & 2 \li ( \f{ n r } {q} + 1 + \f{n-1}{n} \ri ) \vep. \eee
1883: Since the above argument holds for arbitrarily small $\vep > 0$, it
1884: must be true that $\int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) \; d \ro = \f{r \bb{P}(r) -
1885: q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ q}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$.
1886: It follows that \bee \int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro & = & \int_0^{q} \phi(\ro) d \ro + \int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro\\
1887: & = & \f{q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{0}^q \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro + \f{r \bb{P}(r) - q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ q}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro\\
1888: & = & \f{r \bb{P}(r) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{ 0}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro)
1889: d \ro,\eee leading to the formula for $\mscr{P}(r)$.
1890:
1891: To show the formula for $\bb{P}(r)$, recall that $r^n \bb{P}(r) = n
1892: \int_{ 0}^r \phi(\ro) \; \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro$. We write \be \int_{
1893: 0}^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro = \int_{ 0}^q \phi(\ro)
1894: \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro + \int_{ q}^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro.
1895: \la{sep} \ee By Lemma \ref{lemm4}, we can write \be \int_{ q}^r
1896: \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro = \sum_{(a,b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep}
1897: } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro + \sum_{(a,b) \in
1898: \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} \; d \ro.
1899: \la{sep2} \ee To evaluate $\sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} }
1900: \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro$, we arrange the intervals
1901: in $\wh{\mscr{I}_\vep}$ as $(a_i, b_i), \; i = 1, \cd, k$ such that
1902: $a_1 = q, \; b_i < a_{i+1}, \; i = 1, \cd, k - 1$ (Here $k$ is the
1903: total number of intervals). Note that, by Lemma \ref{lemm8},
1904: \bel \sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep}
1905: } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro
1906: & = & \sum_{i = 1}^k \li [ b_i^n \mscr{P}(b_i) - a_i^n
1907: \mscr{P}(a_i)
1908: - (n-1) \int_{ a_i}^{b_i} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro \ri ] \nonumber\\
1909: & = & r^n \mscr{P}(r) - q^n \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ q}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro \la{eq17}\\
1910: & & - \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \li [ a_{i+1}^n \mscr{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i^n
1911: \mscr{P}(b_i) - (n-1) \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1}
1912: d \ro \ri ]. \nonumber\eel By Lemma \ref{lemm11}, we have $|
1913: a_{i+1}^n \; \mscr{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i^n \; \mscr{P}(b_i)| < \li (
1914: \f{2 r^n} { q } + n r^{n-1} \ri ) (a_{i+1} - b_i)$. Hence, \bel
1915: \li | \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \li [ a_{i+1}^n \mscr{P}(a_{i+1}) - b_i^n
1916: \mscr{P}(b_i) \ri ] \ri | & < &
1917: \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + n r^{n-1} \ri ) \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} (a_{i+1} - b_i) \nonumber\\
1918: & = & \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + n r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep. \la{eq18} \eel
1919: On the other hand, observing that $\int_{ a}^b \mscr{P}(\ro) \;
1920: \ro^{n-1} d \ro < r^{n-1} (b-a)$, we have \be \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1}
1921: \int_{ b_i}^{a_{i+1}} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro < r^{n-1}
1922: \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} (a_{i+1} - b_i) = r^{n-1} \vep. \la{eq19} \ee By
1923: (\ref{eq17}), (\ref{eq18}) and (\ref{eq19}), \bel & & \li |
1924: \sum_{(a, b) \in \wh{\mscr{I}_\vep} } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro)
1925: \ro^{n-1} d \ro - \li [ r^n
1926: \mscr{P}(r) - q^n \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ q}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro \ri ] \ri | \nonumber\\
1927: & < & \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + n r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep - (n-1) r^{n-1} \vep \nonumber\\
1928: & = & \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep. \nonumber \\
1929: \la{eqB12} \eel
1930:
1931: Now we bound $\sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro$. By Lemmas \ref{lemm8}
1932: and \ref{lemm11}, \bel \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \int_{(a, b)} \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro & = & \sum_{(a,
1933: b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \li [ b^n \mscr{P}(b) -
1934: a^n \mscr{P}(a) - (n-1) \int_{ a}^b \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro \ri ] \nonumber\\
1935: & < & \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } \li [ \li ( \f{ 2 r^n } {q} + n r^{n-1} \ri ) (b - a) - (n-1) r^{n-1}
1936: (b - a) \ri
1937: ] \nonumber\\
1938: & = & \li ( \f{ 2 r^n } {q} + r^{n-1} \ri ) \sum_{(a, b) \in \mscr{I}_\vep } (b - a) \nonumber\\
1939: & = & \li ( \f{ 2 r^n } {q} + r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep. \la{eqB13}\eel
1940: Therefore, by (\ref{sep2}), (\ref{eqB12}) and (\ref{eqB13}),
1941: \bee & & \li | \int_q^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro - \li [ r^n
1942: \mscr{P}(r) - q^n \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ q}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro \ri ] \ri |\\
1943: & < & \li ( \f{2 r^n} { q } + r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep + \li ( \f{ 2 r^n
1944: } {q} + r^{n-1} \ri ) \vep = 2 \li ( \f{ 2 r^n } {q} + r^{n-1}
1945: \ri ) \vep. \eee Since the argument applies to arbitrarily small
1946: $\vep
1947: > 0$, it must be true that $\int_q^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro = \li [ r^n \mscr{P}(r) - q^n
1948: \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ q}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro
1949: \ri ]$. Therefore, \bee \int_0^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro
1950: & = & \int_0^q \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro + \int_q^r \phi(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro\\
1951: & = & q^n \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ 0}^{q} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro + r^n \mscr{P}(r) - q^n \mscr{P}(q) - (n-1) \int_{ q}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro) \ro^{n-1} d \ro\\
1952: & = & r^n \mscr{P}(r) - (n-1) \int_{ 0}^{r} \mscr{P}(\ro)
1953: \ro^{n-1} d \ro, \eee from which we find the formula for
1954: $\bb{P}(r)$.
1955:
1956:
1957: \item [Case (4)] In this case, let $r_*$ be the smallest positive cluster point.
1958: Let $q = \f{r_* } {2}$. We can write $\int_{0}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro =
1959: \int_{0}^{q} \phi(\ro) d \ro + \int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) d \ro$. Applying
1960: the result of Case (1), we have $\int_{0}^{q} \phi(\ro) d \ro = \f{q
1961: \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{0}^q \bb{P}(\ro) d \ro$. By a
1962: method similar to that of Case (3), we have $\int_{q}^r \phi(\ro) \;
1963: d \ro = \f{r \bb{P}(r) - q \bb{P}(q) } { n } + \f{n-1}{n} \int_{
1964: q}^{r} \bb{P}(\ro) \; d \ro$. Combining the two integrals gives the
1965: formula for $\mscr{P}(r)$. The proof for the formula of $\bb{P}(r)$
1966: is similar.
1967:
1968: \eed
1969:
1970: \section{Proofs of Theorem 3 and 4}
1971:
1972: For completeness of argument, we need to quote a general complexity result established in \cite{Chen_SIAM} as
1973: Theorem \ref{Bound_General} at below. This theorem concerns the sampling complexity of the Sample Reuse
1974: Algorithm proposed in page 1963 of \cite{C0}.
1975:
1976: \beT \la{Bound_General} Let $d$ be the dimension of uncertainty parameter
1977: space. Then, for arbitrary gridding scheme, the equivalent number of
1978: grid points based on the Sample Reuse Algorithm \cite{C0} is
1979: strictly bounded from above by $1 + d \; \ln \lm$, i.e.,
1980: $m_{\mrm{eq}} < 1 + d \; \ln \lm$. \eeT
1981:
1982: \bpf We first establish the following inequality (\ref{inc}) that will be used to prove Theorem
1983: \ref{Bound_General}.
1984:
1985: \be \la{inc} \frac{1}{x} + \ln x > 1, \qqu \fa x > 1. \ee
1986:
1987:
1988: To prove \ref{inc}, let $f(x) = \frac{1}{x} + \ln x$. Then $f(1) =
1989: 1$ and $\frac{d \; f(x) } {d x } = \frac{x - 1}{x^2} > 0, \; \forall
1990: x
1991: > 1$. It follows that $f(x) > 1, \; \forall x > 1$.
1992:
1993: Now we are in the position to prove Theorem \ref{Bound_General}.
1994: Observing that $\li ( \frac{r_m}{r_1} \ri )^d = \prod_{i=1}^{m-1}
1995: \li ( \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \ri )^d$, we have $\ln \left(
1996: \frac{r_m}{r_1} \right )^d = \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \ln \left (
1997: \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \right )^d$. Therefore, \begin{eqnarray*}
1998: \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \li( \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} \ri )^d + \ln \left(
1999: \frac{r_m}{r_1} \right )^d
2000: & = & \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \left [ \frac{1 } { \li ( \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \ri )^d} + \ln \left (
2001: \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \right )^d \right ].
2002: \end{eqnarray*} Since $\li( \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \ri )^d > 1, \; i = 1,
2003: \cdots, m-1$, it follows from (\ref{inc}) that $\frac{1 } { \li (
2004: \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i} \ri )^d } + \ln \left ( \frac{r_{i+1}}{r_i}
2005: \right )^d > 1$ for $i = 1, \cdots , m-1$. Hence, $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}
2006: \li ( \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} \ri )^d + \ln \left( \frac{r_m}{r_1}
2007: \right )^d
2008: >m - 1$,
2009: or equivalently, $m - \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \li ( \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} \ri
2010: )^d < 1 + \ln \left( \frac{r_m}{r_1} \right )^d = 1 + d \ln \lm$.
2011:
2012: Finally, by Theorem 1 of \cite{C0} and the definition of
2013: $m_{\mrm{eq}}$, we have $m_{\mrm{eq}} = m - \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \li (
2014: \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} \ri )^d < 1 + d \ln \lm$.
2015:
2016: \epf
2017:
2018: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{grid_uni}}
2019:
2020: By Lemma \ref{chen}, $|\mscr{P} ( r ) - \mscr{P}^* ( r)| \leq \f{ 2
2021: \; (r_{i+1} - r_i) } {r_i}, \qu \fa r \in [r_i, r_{i+1}]$. Thus, it
2022: suffices to show $\f{ 2 \; (r_{i+1} - r_i) } { r_i} < \ep$, i.e.,
2023: \be \la{con3} \f{ r_{i+1} }{ r_i } < 1 + \f{\ep}{2}. \ee By the
2024: definition of uniform griding, for $i = 1, \cd, m-1$, \bee \f{
2025: r_{i+1} } {r_i} & = & \f{ a - \f{ (m - i - 1) (\lm - 1) } { (m -1)
2026: \lm } a } { a - \f{ (m - i) (\lm - 1) }{ (m -1) \lm } a } = 1 + \f{
2027: \lm - 1 } { m- 1 + (\lm -1) (i -1) } \leq 1 + \f{ \lm - 1 } { m - 1
2028: }. \eee By virtue of (\ref{con3}), to guarantee that the gridding
2029: error is less than $\ep$, it suffices to ensure $1 + \f{ \lm - 1 } {
2030: m - 1 } < 1 + \f{\ep}{2}$, i.e., $m > 1 + \f{2 (\lm -1)}{ \ep}$.
2031: Hence, it suffices to have $m \geq 2 + \li \lf \f{ 2(\lm -1) } { \ep
2032: } \ri \rf$. It can be verified that $\f{ r_i } { r_{i+1} } = 1 -
2033: \f{ 1 } { \f{m-1} {\lm -1} + i }$ for $i = 1, \cd, m-1$.
2034:
2035: Let $\bs{n}^k$ be the total number of simulations on the direction
2036: associated with directional sample $U^k, \; k = 1, \cd, N$. Applying
2037: Theorem 1 of \cite{C0} and Theorem \ref{Bound_General} in this
2038: paper to a sample reuse process conditioned upon a direction with
2039: grid points $r_1, \cd, r_m$ and sample size $N = 1$, we have $\bb{E}
2040: [\bs{n}^k \mid U^k] = m - \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} < 1 +
2041: d \ln \lm$ and consequently $\bb{E} [\bs{n}^k] = \bb{E}[ \bb{E}
2042: [\bs{n}^k \mid U^k] ] = m - \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \frac{r_i}{r_{i+1}} < 1
2043: + d \ln \lm$ for $k = 1, \cd , N$. Finally, the proof is completed
2044: by invoking the definition of equivalent number of grid points.
2045:
2046:
2047: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Grid_geometric}}
2048:
2049: By the definition of uniform griding, we have $\f{ r_{i+1} }{ r_i }
2050: = \lm^{ \f{1}{m-1} }$. Hence, by (\ref{con3}), it suffices to show
2051: $\lm^{ \f{1}{m-1} } < 1 + \f{\ep}{2}$, which can be reduced to $m >
2052: 1 + \f{ \ln \lm } { \ln \li ( 1 + \f{\ep}{2} \ri ) }$. This
2053: inequality is equivalent to $m \geq 2 + \li \lf \f{ \ln \lm } { \ln
2054: \li ( 1 + \f{\ep}{2} \ri ) } \ri \rf$. By letting $\bs{n}^k$ be the
2055: total number of simulations on the direction associated with
2056: directional sample $U^k, \; k = 1, \cd, N$ and applying Theorem 1 of
2057: \cite{C0} and Theorem \ref{Bound_General} in this paper to a sample
2058: reuse process conditioned upon a direction with grid points $r_1,
2059: \cd, r_m$ and sample size $N = 1$, we have $\bb{E} [\bs{n}^k \mid
2060: U^k] = m - (m-1) \left( \frac{1}{\lm} \right)^{ \f{1}{m -1} } < 1 +
2061: d \ln \lm$ and consequently $\bb{E} [\bs{n}^k] = \bb{E}[ \bb{E}
2062: [\bs{n}^k \mid U^k] ] = m - (m-1) \left( \frac{1}{\lm} \right)^{
2063: \f{1}{m -1} } < 1 + d \ln \lm$ for $k = 1, \cd , N$. The proof is
2064: completed by using the definition of equivalent number of grid
2065: points.
2066:
2067:
2068: \end{document}
2069: