1: \documentclass[]{preprint}

2: \usepackage{times}

3: \usepackage{mhequ}

4: \usepackage{mhfig}

5: \usepackage{mhenvs}

6: \usepackage{Symbols}

7: \usepackage{ScriptFonts}

8: 

9: \def\prob{{\bf P}}

10: \def\expect{{\bf E}}

11: \def\from{:}

12: 

13: {

14: \theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}

15: \newtheorem{notation}[lemma]{Notation}

16: }

17: 

18: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

19: \else

20: 	\pdfinfo{

21: 		/Title			(fBm.pdf)

22: 		/Author		(M. Hairer)

23: 		/Subject		(Fractional Brownian motion)

24: 		/Keywords	(Ergodicity, fractional Brownian motion, memory)

25: 		/Creator		(TeXShop)

26: 		}

27: 	\input protcode.tex

28: \fi

29: 

30: \makeatletter

31: \def\Kern{\@ifnextchar({\Kern@par}{\Kern@nopar}}

32: \def\Kern@par(#1){(#1)^{H-{1\over 2}}}

33: \def\Kern@nopar#1{{#1}^{H-{1\over 2}}}

34: \def\maketag#1#2{(#1)\def\@currentlabel{#1}\label{#2}}

35: \makeatother

36: 

37: \def\Noise{\CW}

38: \def\State{\CX}

39: \def\pNoise{{\prob_{\! w}}}

40: \def\Evol{{\cscr Q}}

41: \def\Coupl{{\cscr C}}

42: \def\BigSpace{{\cscr X}}

43: \def\Dens{{\cscr D}}

44: \def\C#1{{C^{\mathbf{A1}}_{#1}}}

45: \def\nb{\penalty10000}

46: 

47: \def\iCond{{\cscr M}_1^{w}}

48: \def\pMeas{{\cscr M}_1}

49: \def\Meas{{\cscr M}_\phi}

50: \def\cadlag{c\`adl\`ag}

51: \def\Wien{{\mathsf W}}

52: \def\TV{{\mathrm TV}}

53: \def\step#1{{\textbf #1}}

54: 

55: \begin{document}

56: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

57: \else

58:     \setprotcode\font

59:     {\it \setprotcode\font}

60:     {\bf \setprotcode\font}

61:     {\bf \it \setprotcode\font}

62:     \pdfprotrudechars=1

63: \fi

64: 

65: \title{Ergodicity of Stochastic Differential Equations Driven by

66: Fractional Brownian Motion}

67: %  Short title:  "Ergodicity of SDEs Driven by fBm"

68: 

69: \author{Martin Hairer}

70: \institute{Mathematics Research Centre, University of Warwick\\

71: \email{hairer@maths.warwick.ac.uk}\\

72: Homepage: \texttt{http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/\char`~hairer/}}

73: 

74: 

75: \maketitle

76: 

77: \begin{abstract}

78: We study the ergodic properties of finite-dimensional systems of SDEs driven by 

79: non-degenerate additive fractional Brownian motion with

80: arbitrary Hurst parameter $H\in(0,1)$. A general framework is constructed to make

81: precise the notions of ``invariant measure'' and ``stationary state'' for such a system.

82: We then prove under rather weak dissipativity conditions that such 

83: an SDE possesses a unique stationary solution and that the convergence

84: rate of an arbitrary solution towards the stationary one is (at least) algebraic. A lower bound on the

85: exponent is also given.\\

86: \\

87: Keywords: Ergodicity, fractional Brownian motion, memory\\

88: Subject Classification: 60H10, 26A33

89: \end{abstract}

90: 

91: \tableofcontents

92: 

93: \section{Introduction and main result}

94: 

95: In  this paper, we investigate the long-time behaviour of stochastic differential equations driven by fractional

96: Brownian motion. Fractional Brownian motion (or fBm for short) is a centred Gaussian process satisfying $B_H(0) = 0$ and

97: \begin{equ}[e:deffBm]

98:  \expect|B_H(t) - B_H(s)|^2 = |t-s|^{2H}\;,\qquad t,s>0\;,

99: \end{equ}

100: where $H$, the Hurst parameter, is a real number in the range $H\in(0,1)$. When $H={1\over 2}$, one recovers 

101: of course the usual Brownian motion, so this is a natural one-parameter family of generalisations

102: of the ``standard'' Brownian motion. It follows from \eref{e:deffBm} that fBm is also self-similar, but with the scaling law

103: \begin{equ}

104: t \mapsto B_H(at) \qquad\approx\qquad t \mapsto a^H B_H(t)\;,

105: \end{equ}

106: where $\approx$ denotes equivalence in law. Also, the sample paths of $B_H$ are $\alpha$-H\"older continuous for every

107: $\alpha < H$. The main difference between fBm and the usual Brownian motion is that it is neither

108: Markovian, nor a semi-martingale, so most standard tools from stochastic calculus 

109: cannot be applied to its analysis.

110: 

111: Our main motivation is to tackle the problem of ergodicity in non-Markovian systems.

112: Such systems arise naturally in several situations. In physics, stochastic forces are used to describe the

113: interaction between a (small) system and its (large) environment. There is no a-priori reason to assume that

114: the forces applied by the environment to the system are independent over disjoint time intervals.

115: In statistical mechanics, for example, a  non-Markovian

116: noise term appears when one attempts to derive 

117: the Langevin equation from first principles \cite{MR98h:82049,MR90a:82002}. 

118: Self-similar stochastic processes like fractional Brownian motion

119: appear naturally in hydrodynamics \cite{MR39:3572}.

120: It appears that fractional Brownian motion is also useful to model long-time correlations in stock markets \cite{MR2001g:60129,fbmfinance}.

121: 

122: Little seems to be known about the long-time behaviour of non-Markovian systems.

123: In the case of the non-Markovian Langevin equation (which is \textit{not} covered 

124: by the results in this paper

125: due to the presence of a delay term), the stationary solution is explicitly known to be distributed according to

126: the usual equilibrium Gibbs measure. The relaxation towards equilibrium is a very hard problem that was

127: solved in \cite{MR98h:82049,MR2001c:82006}. It is however still open in the non-equilibrium case, where the

128: invariant state can not be guessed a-priori. 

129: One well-studied general framework for the study of systems driven by noise with extrinsic 

130: memory like the ones considered in this paper is given by the theory of Random Dynamical Systems (see the

131: monograph \cite{RDS} and the reference list therein). In that framework, the existence of random attractors,

132: and therefore the \textit{existence} of invariant measures

133: seems to be well-understood. On the other hand, the problem of \textit{uniqueness} (in an appropriate sense, see

134: the comment following \theo{theo:largeH} below) of the invariant measure on the

135: random attractor seems to be much harder, unless one can show that the system possesses a unique

136: stochastic fixed point. The latter situation was studied in

137: \cite{SchmalMasl} for infinite-dimensional evolution equations driven by fractional Brownian motion. 

138: 

139: The reasons for choosing fBm as driving process for \eref{e:mainequ} below are twofold. First, in particular

140: when $H > {1\over 2}$, fractional Brownian motion presents genuine long-time correlations that

141: persist even under rescaling. The second reason is that there exist simple, explicit formulae that relate

142: fractional Brownian motion to ``standard'' Brownian motion, which simplifies our analysis.

143: We will limit ourselves to the case where the memory of the system

144: comes entirely from the driving noise process, so we do not consider stochastic delay equations.

145: 

146: We will only consider equations driven by non-degenerate additive noise, \ie\ we consider equations of the form

147: \begin{equ}[e:mainequ]\tag{SDE}

148: dx_t = f(x_t)\,dt + \sigma\,dB_H(t)\;,\qquad x_0 \in \R^n\;,

149: \end{equ}

150: where $x_t \in \R^n$, $f\from \R^n \to \R^n$, $B_H$ is an $n$-dimensional fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter $H$,

151: and $\sigma$ is a constant and invertible $n\times n$ matrix. Of course, \eref{e:mainequ} should be interpreted as an integral

152: equation.

153: 

154: In order to ensure the existence of globally  bounded solutions and in order to have some control on the speed at which

155: trajectories separate, we make throughout the paper the following assumptions on the components of \eref{e:mainequ}:

156: \begin{claim}[A2']

157: \item[\textbf{A1}] \textit{Stability.} There exist constants $\C{i} > 0$ such that

158: \begin{equ}

159: \scal{f(x)-f(y),x-y} \le \min\{\C1 - \C2\|x-y\|^2, \C3\|x-y\|^2\}\;,

160: \end{equ}

161: for every $x,y \in \R^n$.

162: \item[\textbf{A2}] \textit{Growth and regularity.} There exist constants $C,N>0$ such that $f$ and its derivative satisfy

163: \begin{equ}

164: \|f(x)\| \le C\sml(1+\|x\|\smr)^N\;, \qquad \|Df(x)\| \le C\sml(1+\|x\|\smr)^N\;,

165: \end{equ}

166: for every $x \in \R^n$.

167: \item[\textbf{A3}] \textit{Non-degeneracy.} The $n\times n$ matrix $\sigma$ is invertible. 

168: \end{claim}

169: 

170: \begin{remark}\label{rem:sigma}

171: We can assume that $\|\sigma\| \le 1$ without any loss of generality. This assumption 

172: will be made throughout the paper in order to simplify some expressions.

173: \end{remark}

174: 

175: One typical example that we have in mind is given by

176: \begin{equ}

177: f(x) = x - x^3\:,\qquad x\in \R\;,

178: \end{equ}

179: or any polynomial of odd degree with negative leading coefficient.

180: Notice that $f$ satisfies \textbf{A1}--\textbf{A2}, but that it is not globally Lipschitz continuous.

181: 

182: When the Hurst parameter $H$ of the fBm driving \eref{e:mainequ} is bigger than $1/2$, 

183: more regularity for $f$ is required, and we will then sometimes assume that the following 

184: stronger condition holds instead of \textbf{A2}:

185: 

186: \begin{claim}[A2']

187: \item[\textbf{A2'}] \textit{Strong regularity.} The derivative of $f$ is globally bounded.

188: \end{claim}

189: 

190: Our main result is that \eref{e:mainequ} possesses a \textit{unique} stationary solution.

191: Furthermore, we obtain an explicit bound showing that every (adapted) solution to 

192: \eref{e:mainequ} converges towards this stationary solution, and that this convergence

193: is at least algebraic. We make no claim concerning the optimality of this bound for the class

194: of systems under consideration.

195: Our results are slightly different for small and for large values of $H$, so we state them separately.

196: 

197: \begin{theorem}[Small Hurst parameter]\label{theo:smallH}

198: Let $H\in \sml(0,{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr)$ and let $f$ and $\sigma$ satisfy \textbf{A1}--\textbf{A3}.

199: Then, for every initial condition, the solution to \eref{e:mainequ} converges towards a unique stationary solution

200: in the total variation norm. Furthermore, for every $\gamma < \max_{\alpha < H} \alpha(1-2\alpha)$, the difference between the solution and the stationary solution

201: is bounded by $C_\gamma t^{-\gamma}$ for large $t$.

202: \end{theorem}

203: 

204: \begin{theorem}[Large Hurst parameter]\label{theo:largeH}

205: Let $H\in \sml({\textstyle{1\over 2}},1\smr)$ and let $f$ and $\sigma$ satisfy \textbf{A1}--\textbf{A3} and \textbf{A2'}.

206: Then, for every initial condition, the solution to \eref{e:mainequ} converges towards a unique stationary solution

207: in the total variation norm. Furthermore, for every $\gamma < {1\over 8}$, the difference between the solution and the stationary solution

208: is bounded by $C_\gamma t^{-\gamma}$ for large $t$.

209: \end{theorem}

210: 

211: \begin{remark}

212: The ``uniqueness'' part of these statements should be understood as uni\-que\-ness in law in 

213: the class of stationary solutions

214: adapted to the natural filtration induced by the two-sided fBm that drives the equation. There could in theory be other stationary solutions,

215: but they would require knowledge of the future to determine the present, so they are usually discarded as unphysical.

216: 

217: Even in the context of Markov processes, similar situations do occur. One can well have uniqueness of the invariant measure,

218: but non-uniqueness of the stationary state, although other stationary states would have to foresee the future. In this sense,

219: the notion of uniqueness appearing in the above statements is similar to the notion of uniqueness of the invariant measure for Markov processes. (See 

220: \eg \cite{RDS}, \cite{MR93c:60096} and \cite{MR1888416}

221: for discussions on invariant measures that are not necessarily measurable with respect to the past.)

222: \end{remark}

223: 

224: \begin{remark}

225: The case $H={\textstyle{1\over 2}}$ is not covered by these two theorems, but it is well-known that the convergence 

226: toward the stationary state is exponential in this case (see for example \cite{MT}).

227: In both cases, the word  ``total variation'' refers to the total variation distance between measures on the space

228: of paths, see also \theo{theo:mainTheoFormal} below for a rigorous formulation of the results above.

229: \end{remark}

230: 

231: \subsection{Idea of proof and structure of the paper}

232: 

233: Our first task is to make precise the notions of ``initial condition'', ``invariant measure'', ``uniqueness'', and ``convergence''

234: appearing in the formulation of Theorems~\ref{theo:smallH} and \ref{theo:largeH}. This will be

235: achieved in Section~\ref{sec:general} below, where we construct a general framework for the study

236: of systems driven by non-Markovian noise. Section~\ref{sec:setting} shows how \eref{e:mainequ}

237: fits into that framework.

238: 

239: The main tool used in the proof of Theorems~\ref{theo:smallH} and \ref{theo:largeH} is a coupling

240: construction similar in spirit to the ones presented in \cite{MatNS,HExp02}. More precisely, we first

241: show by some compactness argument that there exists at least one invariant measure $\mu_*$ for

242: \eref{e:mainequ}. Then, given an initial condition distributed according to some arbitrary measure $\mu$, 

243: we construct a ``coupling process''

244: $(x_t,y_t)$ on $\R^n\times \R^n$ with the following properties:

245: \begin{claim}[3.]

246: \item[1.] The process $x_t$ is a solution to \eref{e:mainequ} with initial condition $\mu_*$.

247: \item[2.] The process $y_t$ is a solution to \eref{e:mainequ} with initial condition $\mu$.

248: \item[3.] The random time $\tau_\infty = \min\{t\,|\, x_s = y_s\quad \forall s \ge t\}$ is almost surely finite.

249: \end{claim}

250: The challenge is to introduce correlations between $x_s$ and $y_s$ in precisely such a way that

251: $\tau_\infty$ is finite. If this is possible, the uniqueness of the invariant measure follows immediately.

252: Bounds on the moments of $\tau_\infty$ furthermore translate into bounds on the rate of convergence towards this

253: invariant measure.

254: In Section~\ref{sec:coupl}, we expose the general mechanism by which

255: we construct this coupling. Section~\ref{sec:defCoupl} is then devoted to the precise formulation of the

256: coupling process and to the study of its properties, which will be used in Section~\ref{sec:mainproof}

257: to prove Theorems~\ref{theo:smallH} and \ref{theo:largeH}. We conclude this paper with a few

258: remarks on possible extensions of our results to situations that are not covered here.

259: 

260: \begin{acknowledge}

261: The author wishes to thank Dirk Bl\"omker, David Elworthy, Xue-Mei Li, Neil O'Connell, and 

262: Roger Tribe for their interest in this work and for many helpful suggestions, stimulating questions, and 

263: pertinent remarks. He would also like to thank the referee for his careful reading of the manuscript.

264: 

265: The author also wishes to thank the Mathematics Research Centre of the University of Warwick 

266: for its warm hospitality. This work was supported by the Fonds National Suisse.

267: \end{acknowledge}

268: 

269: \section{General theory of stochastic dynamical systems}

270: \label{sec:general}

271: 

272: In this section, we first construct an abstract framework that can be used to model a large

273: class of physically relevant models where the driving noise is stationary. Our framework

274: is very closely related to the framework of random dynamical systems with however one 

275: fundamental difference. In the theory of random dynamical systems (RDS), the abstract space

276: $\Omega$ used to model the noise part typically encodes the {\em future}

277: of the noise process. In our framework of ``stochastic dynamical systems'' (SDS)

278: the noise space $\Noise$ typically encodes the {\em past} of the noise process. As a consequence,

279: the evolution on $\Noise$ will be stochastic, as opposed to the deterministic evolution on $\Omega$

280: one encounters in the theory of RDS. This distinction may seem futile at first sight, and one could

281: argue that the difference between RDS and SDS is non-existent by adding the past of the noise process to

282: $\Omega$ and its future to $\CW$.

283: 

284: The additional structure we require is that the evolution on $\Noise$

285: possesses a \textit{unique} invariant measure. Although this requirement may sound very strong, it is actually

286: not, and most natural examples satisfy it, as long as $\Noise$ is chosen in such a way that it

287: does not contain information about the future of the noise. 

288: In very loose terms, this requirement of having a unique invariant 

289: measure states that the noise process driving our system is stationary and that the Markov process

290: modelling its evolution captures all its essential features in such a way that it could not be

291: used to describe a noise process different from the one at hand. In particular, this means that

292: there is a continuous inflow of ``new randomness'' into the system, which is a crucial feature

293: when trying to apply probabilistic methods to the study of ergodic properties of the system. 

294: This is in opposition to the RDS formalism, where the noise is ``frozen'', as soon as an 

295: element of $\Omega$ is chosen. 

296: 

297: From the mathematical point of view, we will consider that the physical process we are interested in

298: lives on a ``state space'' $\State$ and that its driving noise belongs to a 

299: ``noise space'' $\Noise$. In both cases, we only consider Polish (\ie complete, separable, and

300: metrisable) spaces. One should think of the state space as a relatively small space which contains

301: all the information accessible to a physical observer of the process. The noise space should be 

302: thought of as a much bigger abstract space containing all the information needed to construct

303: a mathematical model of the driving noise up to a certain time. The information contained in the 

304: noise space is not accessible to the physical observer. 

305: 

306: Before we state our definition of a SDS, we will recall several notations and definitions, mainly

307: for the sake of mathematical rigour. The reader can safely skip the next subsection and come back

308: to it for reference concerning the notations and the mathematically precise definitions of the concepts

309: that are used.

310: 

311: \subsection{Preliminary definitions and notations}

312: 

313: First of all, recall he definition of a transition semigroup:

314: \begin{definition}\label{def:kernel}

315: Let $(\CE,{\cscr E})$ be a Polish space endowed with its

316: Borel $\sigma$-field. A {\em transition semigroup} $\CP_t$ on $\CE$ is a family of maps

317:  $\CP_t \from \CE \times {\cscr E} \to [0,1]$ indexed by $t \in [0,\infty)$ such that

318: \begin{claim}[iii)]

319: \item[i)] for every $x\in\CE$, the map $A \mapsto \CP_t(x,A)$ is a probability measure on $\CE$

320: and, for every $A \in {\cscr E}$, the map $x \mapsto \CP_t(x,A)$ is ${\cscr E}$-measurable,

321: \item[ii)] one has the identity

322: \begin{equ}

323: \CP_{s+t}(x,A) = \int_{\CE} \CP_s(y,A)\,\CP_t(x,dy)\;,

324: \end{equ}

325: for every $s,t > 0$, every $x\in\CE$, and every $A\in {\cscr E}$.

326: \item[iii)] $\CP_0(x,\cdot) = \delta_x$ for every $x\in\CE$. 

327: \end{claim}

328: \end{definition}

329: We will freely use the notations 

330: \begin{equ}

331: \sml(\CP_t \psi\smr)(x) = \int_\CE \psi(y)\,\CP_t(x,dy)\;,\qquad \sml(\CP_t \mu\smr)(A) = \int_\CE \CP_t(x,A)\,\mu(dx)\;,

332: \end{equ}

333: where $\psi$ is a measurable function on $\CE$ and $\mu$ is a measure on $\CE$.

334: 

335: Since we will always work with topological spaces, we will require our transition semigroups

336: to have good topological properties. Recall that a sequence $\{\mu_n\}$ of measures on a topological

337: space $\CE$ is said to converge toward a limiting measure $\mu$ in the weak topology if

338: \begin{equ}

339: \int_\CE \psi(x)\,\mu_n(dx) \to \int_\CE \psi(x)\,\mu(dx)\;,\qquad \forall \psi \in \CC_b(\CE)\;,

340: \end{equ}

341: where $\CC_b(\CE)$ denotes the space of bounded continuous functions from $\CE$ into $\R$.

342: In the sequel, we will use the notation $\pMeas(\CE)$ to denote the space of probability

343: measures on a Polish space $\CE$, endowed with the topology of weak convergence.

344: 

345: \begin{definition}\label{def:Feller}

346: A {\em transition semigroup} $\CP_t$ on a Polish space $\CE$ is {\em Feller} if it maps  $\CC_b(\CE)$

347: into  $\CC_b(\CE)$.

348: \end{definition}

349: 

350: \begin{remark}\label{rem:cont}

351: This definition is equivalent to the requirement that $x \mapsto \CP_t(x,\cdot\,)$ is continuous from

352: $\CE$ to $\pMeas(\CE)$. As a consequence, Feller semigroups preserve the weak topology in the

353: sense that if $\mu_n \to \mu$ in $\pMeas(\CE)$, then $\CP_t \mu_n \to \CP_t \mu$ in $\pMeas(\CE)$ 

354: for every given $t$.

355: \end{remark}

356: 

357: Now that we have defined the ``good'' objects for the ``noisy'' part of our construction, we turn

358: to the trajectories on the state space. We are looking for a space which has good topological

359: properties but which is large enough to contain most interesting examples. One such space

360: is the space of {\em \cadlag} paths (continu \`a droite, limite \`a gauche --- continuous on the right,

361: limits on the left), which can be turned into a Polish space when equipped with a suitable topology.

362: 

363: \begin{definition}\label{def:cadlag}

364: Given a Polish space $\CE$ and a positive number $T$, the space $\CD([0,T],\CE)$ is the

365: set of functions $f\from[0,T]\to \CE$ that are right-continuous and whose left-limits exist at every point.

366: A sequence $\{f_n\}_{n\in\N}$ converges to a limit $f$ if and only if there exists a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$

367: of continuous and increasing functions $\lambda_n\from[0,T] \to [0,T]$ satisfying $\lambda_n(0) = 0$,

368: $\lambda_n(T)=T$, and such that

369: \begin{equ}[e:cond1]

370: \lim_{n\to \infty}\sup_{0\le s < t \le T} \Bigl|{\log{\lambda_n(t) - \lambda_n(s) \over t-s}}\Bigr| = 0\;,

371: \end{equ}

372: and

373: \begin{equ}[e:cond2]

374: \lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{0\le t\le T} d\sml(f_n(t), f(\lambda_n(t))\smr) = 0\;,

375: \end{equ}

376: where $d$ is any totally bounded metric on $\CE$ which generates its topology.

377: 

378: The space $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$ is the space of all functions from $\R_+$ to $\CE$ such that their restrictions to $[0,T]$

379: are in $\CD([0,T],\CE)$ for all $T>0$. A sequence converges in  $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$ if there exists a sequence

380: $\{\lambda_n\}$ of continuous and increasing functions $\lambda_n\from\R_+\to \R_+$ satisfying $\lambda_n(0) = 0$

381: and such that \eref{e:cond1} and \eref{e:cond2} hold.

382: \end{definition}

383: 

384: It can be shown (see \eg \cite{MR88a:60130} for a proof) that the spaces $\CD([0,T],\CE)$ and $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$ 

385: are Polish when equipped with the above topology (usually called the Skorohod topology). Notice that the 

386: space $\CD([0,T],\CE)$ has a natural embedding into $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$ by setting $f(t) = f(T)$ for $t>T$ and

387: that this embedding is continuous. However, the restriction operator from $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$ to $\CD([0,T],\CE)$

388: is not continuous, since the topology on $\CD([0,T],\CE)$ imposes that $f_n(T) \to f(T)$, which is not imposed

389: by the topology on $\CD(\R_+, \CE)$.

390: 

391: In many interesting situations, it is enough to work with continuous sample paths, which live in much simpler spaces:

392: 

393: \begin{definition}\label{def:continuous}

394: Given a Polish space $\CE$ and a positive number $T$, the space $\CC([0,T],\CE)$ is the

395: set of continuous functions $f\from[0,T]\to \CE$ equipped with the supremum norm.

396: 

397: The space $\CC(\R_+, \CE)$ is the space of all functions from $\R_+$ to $\CE$ such that their restrictions to $[0,T]$

398: are in $\CC([0,T],\CE)$ for all $T>0$. A sequence converges in  $\CC(\R_+, \CE)$ if all its restrictions converge.

399: \end{definition}

400: 

401: It is a standard result that the spaces $\CC([0,T],\CE)$ and $\CC(\R_+, \CE)$ are Polish if $\CE$ is Polish. We 

402: can now turn to the definition of the systems we are interested in.

403: 

404: \subsection{Definition of a SDS}

405: 

406: Let us recall the following standard notations.

407: Given a product space $\State \times \Noise$, we denote by $\Pi_\State$ and $\Pi_\Noise$ the maps that select the

408: first (resp.\ second) component of an element. Also, given two measurable spaces $\CE$ and $\CF$, a measurable

409: map $f\from\CE\to\CF$, and a measure $\mu$ on $\CE$, we define the measure $f^*\mu$ on $\CF$ in the natural 

410: way by $f^*\mu = \mu \circ f^{-1}$.

411: 

412: We first define the class of noise processes we will be interested in:

413: \begin{definition}\label{def:noise}

414: A quadruple $\sml(\Noise, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge0}, \pNoise, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$ is called a 

415: {\em stationary noise process} if it satisfies the following:

416: \begin{claim}[iii)]

417: \item[i)] $\Noise$ is a Polish space,

418: \item[ii)] $\CP_t$ is a Feller transition semigroup on $\Noise$, which accepts $\pNoise$ as its unique

419: invariant measure,

420: \item[iii)] The family $\{\theta_t\}_{t>0}$ is a semiflow of measurable maps on $\Noise$ satisfying the property

421: $\theta_t^*\CP_t^{}(x,\cdot) = \delta_x$ for every $x\in\Noise$.

422: \end{claim}

423: \end{definition}

424: 

425: This leads to the following definition of SDS, which is intentionally kept as close as possible to 

426: the definition of RDS in \cite[Def.~1.1.1]{RDS}:

427: \begin{definition}\label{def:SDS}

428: A {\em stochastic dynamical system} on the Polish space $\State$ over the stationary noise

429: process $\sml(\Noise, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge0}, \pNoise, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$ is a mapping

430: \begin{equ}

431: \phi\from \R_+ \times \State \times \Noise \to \State \;,\qquad (t,x,w)\mapsto \phi_t(x,w)\;,

432: \end{equ}

433: with the following properties:

434: \begin{claim}[(SDS2)]

435: \item[\maketag{SDS1}{tag:SDS1}] {\em Regularity of paths:} For every $T>0$, $x\in\State$, and $w\in\Noise$, the map $\Phi_T(x,w)\from[0,T]\to \State$ defined by

436: \begin{equ}{}

437: \Phi_T(x,w)(t) = \phi_t(x,\theta_{T-t}w)\;,

438: \end{equ}

439: belongs to $\CD([0,T],\State)$.

440: \item[\maketag{SDS2}{tag:SDS2}] {\em Continuous dependence:} The maps $(x,w)\mapsto \Phi_T(x,w)$ are continuous from

441: $\State\times\Noise$ to $\CD([0,T],\State)$ for every $T>0$.

442: \item[\maketag{SDS3}{tag:SDS3}] {\em Cocycle property:} The family of mappings $\phi_t$ satisfies

443: \begin{equs}

444: \phi_0(x,w) &= x\;,\\

445: \phi_{s+t}(x,w) &= \phi_s\sml(\phi_t(x,\theta_s w),w\smr)\;, \label{e:cocycle}

446: \end{equs}

447: for all $s,t > 0$, all $x\in\State$, and all $w\in\Noise$.

448: \end{claim}

449: \end{definition}

450: 

451: \begin{remark}\label{rem:Hans}

452: The above definition is very close to the definition of {\em Markovian random dynamical system}

453: introduced in \cite{MR93c:60096}. Beyond the technical differences, the main difference is a shift in

454: the viewpoint: a Markovian RDS is built on top of a RDS, so one can analyse it from both a semigroup

455: point of view and a RDS point of view. In the case of a SDS as defined above, there is no underlying RDS

456: (although one can always construct one), so the semigroup point of view is the only one we consider.

457: \end{remark}

458: 

459: \begin{remark}

460: The cocycle property \eref{e:cocycle} looks different from the cocycle property for random dynamical systems.

461: Actually, in our case $\phi$ is a {\em backward cocycle} for $\theta_t$, which is reasonable since,

462: as a ``left inverse'' for $\CP_t$, $\theta_t$ actually pushes time backward.

463: Notice also that, unlike in the definition of RDS, we require some continuity property with respect to 

464: the noise to hold. This continuity property sounds quite restrictive, but it is actually mainly a matter of

465: choosing a topology on $\Noise$, which is in a sense ``compatible'' with the topology on $\State$.

466: \end{remark}

467: 

468: 

469: Similarly, we define a continuous (where ``continuous'' should be thought of as continuous with respect

470: to time) SDS by

471: 

472: \begin{definition}\label{def:contSDS}

473: A SDS is said to be {\em continuous} if $\CD([0,T],\State)$ can be replaced by $\CC([0,T],\State)$ in

474: the above definition.

475: \end{definition}

476: 

477: \begin{remark}\label{rem:compat}

478: One can check that the embeddings $\CC([0,T],\State) \hookrightarrow \CD([0,T],\State)$

479: and $\CC(\R_+,\State) \hookrightarrow \CD(\R_+,\State)$ are continuous, so a continuous SDS also satisfies 

480: Definition~\ref{def:SDS} of a SDS.

481: \end{remark}

482: 

483: 

484: Given a SDS as in Definition~\ref{def:SDS} and an initial condition $x_0 \in \State$, we now turn to the

485: construction of a stochastic process with initial condition $x_0$ constructed in a natural way from $\phi$. 

486: First, given $t\ge 0$ and $(x,w) \in \State\times\Noise$,

487: we construct a probability measure $\CQ_t(x,w;\cdot\,)$ on $\State\times\Noise$ by

488: \begin{equ}[e:defQt]

489: \CQ_t(x,w; A\times B) = \int_B \delta_{\phi_t(x,w')}(A)\, \CP_t(w, dw')\;,

490: \end{equ}

491: where $\delta_x$ denotes the delta measure located at $x$. The following result is elementary:

492: %

493: %

494: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:semigroup}

495: Let $\phi$ be a SDS on $\State$ over $\sml(\Noise, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge0}, \pNoise, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$ and define the family

496: of measures $\CQ_t(x,w;\cdot\,)$ by \eref{e:defQt}. Then $\CQ_t$ is a Feller transition semigroup on $\State \times \Noise$.

497: Furthermore, it has the property that if $\Pi_\Noise^* \mu = \pNoise$

498: for a measure $\mu$ on $\State \times\Noise$, then $\Pi_\Noise^* \CQ_t \mu = \pNoise$.

499: \end{lemma}

500: %

501: %

502: \begin{proof}

503: The fact that  $\Pi_\Noise^* \CQ_t \mu = \pNoise$

504: follows from the invariance of $\pNoise $ under $\CP_t$.

505: We now check that $\CQ_t$ is a Feller transition semigroup. Conditions {\it i)} and {\it iii)} follow immediately from 

506: the properties of $\phi$. The continuity of $\CQ_t(x,w;\cdot\,)$ with respect to $(x,w)$ is a straightforward consequence

507: of the facts that $\CP_t$ is Feller and that $(x,w) \mapsto \phi_t(x,w)$ is continuous (the latter statement follows from

508: \eref{tag:SDS2} and the definition of the topology on $\CD([0,t],\State)$).

509: 

510: It thus remains only to check that the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation holds. We have from the cocycle property:

511: \begin{equs}

512: \CQ_{s+t}(x,w;&A\times B) =  \int_B \delta_{\phi_{s+t}(x,w')}(A)\, \CP_{s+t}(w, dw') \\

513: &=  \int_B \int_\State \delta_{\phi_{s}(y,w')}(A) \delta_{\phi_{t}(x,\theta_s w')}(dy)\, \CP_{s+t}(w, dw')\\

514: &=  \int_\Noise \int_B \int_\State \delta_{\phi_{s}(y,w')}(A) \delta_{\phi_{t}(x,\theta_s w')}(dy)\, \CP_{s}(w'', dw')\, \CP_{t}(w, dw'')\;.

515: \end{equs}

516: The claim then follows from the property $\theta_s^*\CP_s(w'',dw') = \delta_{w''}(dw')$ by exchanging the order of integration.

517: \end{proof}

518: 

519: \begin{remark}\label{rem:manypoint}

520: Actually, \eref{e:defQt} defines the evolution of the one-point process generated by $\phi$. The $n$-points process

521: would evolve according to

522: \begin{equ}

523: \CQ_t^{(n)}(x_1,\ldots,x_n,w; A_1\times\ldots\times A_n \times B) = \int_B \prod_{i=1}^n \delta_{\phi_t(x_i,w')}(A_i )\, \CP_t(w, dw')\;.

524: \end{equ}

525: One can check as above that this defines a Feller transition semigroup on $\State^n \times \Noise$.

526: \end{remark}

527: 

528: 

529: This lemma suggests the following definition:

530: \begin{definition}\label{def:IC}

531: Let $\phi$ be a SDS as above. Then a probability measure $\mu$ on $\State\times\Noise$ is called a {\em generalised 

532: initial condition} for $\phi$ if $\Pi_\Noise^* \mu = \pNoise$. We denote by $\Meas$ the space of generalised initial conditions

533: endowed with the topology of weak convergence. Elements of $\Meas$ that are of the form

534: $\mu = \delta_x\times \pNoise$ for some $x\in\State$ will be called {\em initial conditions}.

535: \end{definition}

536: 

537: Given a generalised initial condition $\mu$, it is natural construct a stochastic process $(x_t,w_t)$ on $\State\times\Noise$ by

538: drawing its initial condition according to $\mu$ and then evolving it according to the transition semigroup $\CQ_t$. 

539: The marginal $x_t$ of this process on $\State$ will be called the {\em process generated by $\phi$ for $\mu$}. We will denote

540: by $\Evol \mu$ the law of this process (\ie $\Evol\mu$ is a measure on $\CD(\R_+,\State)$ in the general case and

541: a measure on $\CC(\R_+,\State)$ in the continuous case). More rigorously, we define for every $T>0$ the measure

542: $\Evol_T\mu$ on $\CD([0,T],\State)$ by

543: \begin{equ}

544: \Evol_T\mu = \Phi_T^*\CP_t \mu\;,

545: \end{equ}

546: where $\Phi_T$ is defined as in \eref{tag:SDS1}. By the embedding  $\CD([0,T],\State)\hookrightarrow\CD(\R_+,\State)$,

547: this actually gives a family of measures on $\CD(\R_+,\State)$.

548: It follows from the cocycle property that the restriction to $\CD([0,T],\State)$

549: of $\Evol_{T'}\mu$ with $T'>T$ is equal to $\Evol_T\mu$. The definition of the topology on $\CD(\R_+,\State)$ 

550: does therefore imply that the sequence $\Evol_T\mu$ converges weakly to a unique measure on $\CD(\R_+,\State)$

551: that we denote by $\Evol\mu$. A similar argument, combined with \eref{tag:SDS2} yields

552: %

553: %

554: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:cont}

555: Let $\phi$ be a SDS. Then, the operator $\Evol$ as defined above is continuous from $\Meas$ to 

556: $\pMeas(\CD(\R_+,\State))$. \qed

557: \end{lemma}

558:  

559: 

560: This in turn motivates the following equivalence relation:

561: \begin{definition}\label{def:equiv}

562: Two generalised initial conditions $\mu$ and $\nu$ of a SDS $\phi$ are {\em equivalent} if the processes generated

563: by $\mu$ and $\nu$ are equal in law. In short, $\mu \sim \nu \Leftrightarrow \Evol \mu = \Evol \nu$.

564: \end{definition}

565: The physical interpretation of this notion of equivalence is that the noise space contains some redundant information

566: that is not required to construct the future of the system. Note that 

567: this does not necessarily mean that the noise space could be reduced in order to have a more ``optimal'' description

568: of the system. For example, if the process $x_t$ generated by any generalised initial condition is Markov, then all the information

569: contained in $\Noise$ is redundant in the above sense (\ie $\mu$ and $\nu$ are equivalent if $\Pi_\State^*\mu = \Pi_\State^*\nu$).

570: This does of course not mean that $\Noise$ can be entirely thrown away in the above description (otherwise, 

571: since the map $\phi$ is deterministic, the evolution

572: would become deterministic).

573: 

574: The main reason for introducing the notion of SDS is to have a framework in which one can study 

575: ergodic properties of physical systems with memory. It should be noted that it is designed to describe 

576: systems where the memory is \textit{extrinsic}, as opposed to systems with \textit{intrinsic} memory like

577: stochastic delay equations.

578: We present in the next subsection a few elementary ergodic results in

579: the framework of SDS.

580: 

581: \subsection{Ergodic properties}

582: 

583: In the theory of Markov processes, the main tool for investigating ergodic properties is the {\em invariant measure}.

584: In the setup of SDS, we say that a measure $\mu$ on $\State\times\Noise$ is invariant for the SDS $\phi$ if it

585: is invariant for the Markov transition semigroup $\CQ_t$ generated by $\phi$. We say that a 

586: measure $\mu$ on $\State\times\Noise$ is {\em stationary} for $\phi$ if one has

587: \begin{equ}

588:  \CQ_t \mu \sim  \mu\;,\quad \forall t>0\;,

589: \end{equ}

590: \ie if the process on $\State$ generated by $\mu$ is stationary. Following our philosophy of considering only what happens

591: on the state space $\State$, we should be interested in stationary measures, disregarding completely whether they

592: are actually invariant or not. In doing so, we could be afraid of loosing many convenient results from the

593: well-developed

594: theory of Markov processes. Fortunately, the following lemma shows that the set of invariant 

595: measures and the set of stationary measures are actually the same, when quotiented 

596: by the equivalence relation of Definition~\ref{def:equiv}.

597: %

598: %

599: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:invariant}

600: Let $\phi$ be a SDS and let $\mu$ be a stationary measure for $\phi$. Then, there exists

601: a measure $\mu_\star \sim \mu$ which is invariant for $\phi$.

602: \end{proposition}

603: 

604: %

605: %

606: \begin{proof}

607: Define the ergodic averages

608: \begin{equ}[e:ergodic]

609: \CR_T \mu = {1 \over T}\int_0^T \CQ_t \mu\, dt\;.

610: \end{equ}

611: Since $\mu$ is stationary, we have $\Pi_\State^*\CR_T \mu = \Pi_\State^* \mu$ for every $T$.

612: Furthermore, $\Pi_\Noise^*\CR_T \mu = \pNoise$ for every $T$, therefore the sequence of measures

613: $\CR_T \mu$ is tight on $\State \times \Noise$. Let $\mu_\star$ be any of its accumulation points

614: in $\pMeas(\State \times \Noise)$. Since  $ \CQ_t $ is Feller, $\mu_\star$ is invariant for $ \CQ_t $

615: and,  by \lem{lem:cont}, one has $\mu_\star \sim \mu$.

616: \end{proof}

617: 

618: From a mathematical point of view, it may in some cases be interesting  to know whether the invariant

619: measure $\mu_\star$ constructed in \prop{prop:invariant} is uniquely determined by $\mu$. From

620: an intuitive point of view, this uniqueness property should hold

621: if the information contained in the trajectories on the state space $\State $ is sufficient to 

622: reconstruct the evolution of the noise. This intuition is made rigorous by the following proposition.

623: 

624: %

625: %

626: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:faithful}

627: Let $\phi$ be a SDS, define ${\cscr W}_T^x$ as the $\sigma$-field on $\Noise$ generated

628: by the map $\Phi_T(x,\cdot\,)\from\Noise\to\CD([0,T],\State)$, and set ${\cscr W}_T = \bigwedge_{x\in\State} {\cscr W}_T^x$. 

629: Assume that ${\cscr W}_T \subset {\cscr W}_{T'}$ for $T < T'$ and that

630: ${\cscr W} = \bigvee_{T\ge 0} {\cscr W}_T$ is equal to the Borel 

631: $\sigma$-field on $\Noise$. Then, for $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ two invariant measures, one has

632: the implication $\mu_1 \sim \mu_2 \Rightarrow \mu_1 = \mu_2$.

633: \end{proposition}

634: %

635: %

636: 

637: \begin{proof}

638: Assume $\mu_1 \sim \mu_2$ are two invariant measures for $\phi$. 

639: Since ${\cscr W}_T \subset {\cscr W}_{T'}$ if $T < T'$, their equality follows if one can show that, for every $T > 0$,

640: \begin{equ}[e:equal]

641: \expect \bigl(\mu_1\,|\, {\cscr X} \otimes {\cscr W}_T \bigr) = \expect \bigl(\mu_2\,|\, {\cscr X} \otimes {\cscr W}_T\bigr)\;,

642: \end{equ}

643: where ${\cscr X}$ denotes the Borel $\sigma$-field on $\State$. 

644: 

645: Since $\mu_1 \sim \mu_2$, one has in particular $\Pi_\State^*\mu_1 = \Pi_\State^*\mu_2$, so let us call 

646: this measure $\nu$. Since $\Noise$ is Polish, we then have the disintegration $x \mapsto \mu_i^x$, yielding formally

647: $\mu_i(dx,dw) = \mu_i^x(dw)\,\nu(dx)$, where $\mu_i^x$ are probability measures on $\Noise$. 

648: (See \cite[p.~196]{MR58:18632} for a proof.) Fix $T>0$ and define the family $\mu_i^{x,T}$ of probability measures

649: on $\Noise$ by

650: \begin{equ}

651: \mu_i^{x,T} = \int_\Noise \CP_t(w,\cdot\,)\,\mu_i^x(dw)\;.

652: \end{equ}

653: With this definition, one has

654: \begin{equ}

655: \Evol_T\mu_i = \int_\State \bigl(\Phi_T(x,\cdot\,)^*\mu_i^{x,T}\bigr)\,\nu(dx)\;.

656: \end{equ}

657: Let $e_0\from \CD([0,T],\State)\to\State$ be the evaluation map at $0$, then

658: \begin{equ}

659: \expect \bigl(\Evol_T\mu_i\,|\, e_0 = x\bigr) =  \bigl(\Phi_T(x,\cdot\,)^*\mu_i^{x,T}\bigr)\;,

660: \end{equ}

661: for $\nu$-almost every $x\in\State$.

662: Since $\Evol_T\mu_1 = \Evol_T\mu_2$, one therefore has

663: \begin{equ}[e:equal_2]

664: \expect \bigl(\mu_1^{x,T} \,|\, {\cscr W}_T^x \bigr) 

665: = \expect \bigl(\mu_2^{x,T} \,|\, {\cscr W}_T^x \bigr)\;,

666: \end{equ}

667: for  $\nu$-almost every $x\in\State$. On the other hand, the invariance of $\mu_i$ implies that,

668:  for every $A\in {\cscr X}$ and every $B \in {\cscr W}_T$, one has the equality

669: \begin{equ}

670: \mu_i(A \times B) = \int_\State \int_B  \chi_A \bigl(\phi_T(x,w)\bigr)\, \mu_i^{x,T}(dw)\,\nu(dx)\;.

671: \end{equ}

672: Since $\phi_T(x,\cdot\,)$ is ${\cscr W}_T^x$-measurable and $B \in {\cscr W}_T^x$, this is equal to

673: \begin{equ}

674: \int_\State \int_B  \chi_A \bigl(\phi_T(x,w)\bigr)\, \expect \bigl(\mu_i^{x,T}\,|\, {\cscr W}_T^x\bigr)(dw)\,\nu(dx)\;.

675: \end{equ}

676: Thus \eref{e:equal_2} implies \eref{e:equal} and the proof of \prop{prop:faithful} is complete.

677: \end{proof}

678: 

679: The existence of an invariant measure is usually established by finding a Lyapunov function.

680: In this setting, Lyapunov functions are given by the following definition.

681: 

682: \begin{definition}\label{def:Lyap}

683: Let $\phi$ be a SDS and let $F\from\State \to [0,\infty)$ be a continuous function. Then $F$

684: is a {\em Lyapunov function for $\phi$} if it satisfies the following conditions:

685: \begin{claim}[(L2)]

686: \item[(L1)] The set $F^{-1}([0,C])$ is compact for every $C \in [0,\infty)$.

687: \item[(L2)] There exist constants $C$ and $\gamma > 0$ such that

688: \begin{equ}[e:condLyap]

689: \int_{\State\times\Noise} F(x)\,\sml(\CQ_t \mu\smr)(dx,dw)  \le C + e^{-\gamma t} \int_{\State} F(x)\,\sml(\Pi_\State^*\mu\smr)(dx)\;,

690: \end{equ}

691: for every $t>0$ and every generalised initial condition $\mu$ such that the right-hand side is finite.

692: \end{claim}

693: \end{definition}

694: 

695: It is important to notice that one does {\em not} require $F$ to be a Lyapunov function for the

696: transition semigroup $\CQ_t$, since \eref{e:condLyap} is only required to hold for measures

697: $\mu$ satisfying $\Pi_\Noise^*\mu = \pNoise$. One nevertheless has the following result:

698: 

699: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:Lyap}

700: Let $\phi$ be a SDS. If there exists a Lyapunov function $F$ for $\phi$, then there exists also

701: an invariant measure $\mu_\star$ for $\phi$, which satisfies

702: \begin{equ}[e:estInv]

703: \int_{\State\times\Noise} F(x)\,\mu_\star(dx,dw) \le C\;.

704: \end{equ} 

705: \end{lemma}

706: 

707: \begin{proof}

708: Let $x\in\State$ be an arbitrary initial condition, set $\mu = \delta_x \times \pNoise$, and

709: define the ergodic averages $\CR_T \mu$ as in \eref{e:ergodic}. Combining (L1) and (L2) with the fact that

710: $\Pi_\Noise^*\CR_T \mu = \pNoise$, one immediately gets the tightness of the sequence $\{\CR_T \mu\}$. By the 

711: standard Krylov-Bogoloubov argument, any limiting point of $\{\CR_T \mu\}$ is an invariant measure for $\phi$.

712: The estimate \eref{e:estInv} follows from \eref{e:condLyap}, combined with the fact that $F$ is continuous.

713: \end{proof}

714: 

715: 

716: 

717: This concludes our presentation of the abstract framework in which we analyse the

718: ergodic properties of \eref{e:mainequ}.

719: 

720: %

721: %

722: %

723: \section{Construction of the SDS}

724: \label{sec:setting}

725: %

726: %

727: %

728: 

729: In this section, we construct a continuous stochastic dynamical system which

730: yields the solutions to \eref{e:mainequ} in an appropriate sense.

731: 

732: First of all, let us discuss what we mean by ``solution'' to \eref{e:mainequ}. 

733: \begin{definition}\label{def:solution}

734: Let $\{x_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ be a stochastic process with continuous sample paths. We say

735: that $x_t$ is a {\em solution} to \eref{e:mainequ} if the stochastic process $N(t)$ defined by

736: \begin{equ}[e:fBmsol]

737: N(t) = x_t - x_0 - \int_0^t f(x_s)\,ds\;,

738: \end{equ}

739: is equal in law to $\sigma B_H(t)$, where $\sigma$ is as in \eref{e:mainequ} and $B_H(t)$ is

740: a $n$-dimensional fBm with Hurst parameter $H$.

741: \end{definition}

742: 

743: We will set up our SDS in such a way that, for every generalised initial condition $\mu$, the canonical

744: process associated to the measure $\Evol\mu$ is a solution to \eref{e:mainequ}. This will be the content

745: of \prop{prop:defSDS} below. In order to achieve this,

746: our main task is to set up a noise process in a way which complies to Definition~\ref{def:noise}.

747: 

748: \subsection{Representation of the fBm}

749: 

750: In this section, we give a representation of the fBm $B_H(t)$ with 

751: Hurst parameter $H \in (0,1)$ which is suitable for our analysis. 

752: Recall that, by definition, $B_H(t)$ is a centred Gaussian process satisfying $B_H(0) = 0$ and

753: \begin{equ}[e:propfBm]

754:  \expect|B_H(t) - B_H(s)|^2 = |t-s|^{2H}\;.

755: \end{equ}

756: %The usual representation for the fractional Brownian 

757: %motion with Hurst parameter $H>{1\over 2}$ is given by

758: %\begin{equ}[e:usual]

759: % B_H(t) = c_H \int_0^t K_H(t,s)\,dw(s)\;,

760: %\end{equ}

761: %for some positive constant $c_H$ and

762: %\begin{equ}

763: % K_H(t,s) = s^{{1\over2}-H} \int_s^t (y-s)^{H-{3\over 2}}y^{H-{1\over 2}}\,dy\;.

764: %\end{equ}

765: %In the case $H <{1\over 2}$, a similar expression exists, but the corresponding kernel $K$ is

766: %slightly more complicated.

767: %This representation is not very natural for our purpose which is to construct and study stationary solutions

768: %to \eref{e:mainequ}, 

769: %since it is precisely not stationary (it is only defined for $t>0$). 

770: Naturally, a {\it two-sided fractional 

771: Brownian motion} by requiring that \eref{e:propfBm} holds for all $s,t\in\R$. 

772: Notice that, unlike for the normal Brownian motion, the two-sided fBm is \textit{not} obtained by gluing 

773: two independent

774: copies of the one-sided fBm together at $t=0$.

775: We have the following useful representation of the two-sided fBm, which is also (up to the normalisation constant)

776: the representation used in the original paper \cite{MR39:3572}.

777: 

778: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:fbm}

779: Let $w(t)$, $t\in\R$ be a two-sided Wiener process and let $H \in (0,1)$. Define for some constant $\alpha_H$ the process

780: \begin{equ}[e:repres]

781: B_H(t) =  \alpha_H\int_{-\infty}^0 \Kern(-r)\,\sml(dw(r+t) - dw(r)\smr)\;.

782: \end{equ}

783: Then there exists a choice of $\alpha_H$ such that $B_H(t)$ is a two-sided fractional Brownian motion with 

784: Hurst parameter $H$. \qed

785: \end{lemma}

786: 

787: \begin{notation}

788: Given the representation \eref{e:repres} of the fBm with Hurst parameter $H$, we call $w$ the ``Wiener process associated to $B_H$''. We

789: also refer to $\{w(t)\,:\, t\le 0\}$ as the ``past'' of $w$ and to $\{w(t)\,:\, t > 0\}$ as the ``future'' of $w$. We similarly refer to the ``past'' and the ``future'' of $B_H$. Notice the notion of future for $B_H$ is different from the notion of future for $w$ in terms of $\sigma$-algebras, since the future of $B_H$

790: depends on the past of $w$.

791: \end{notation}

792: 

793: \begin{remark}

794: The expression \eref{e:repres} looks strange at first sight, but one should actually think of $B_H(t)$ as being given by 

795: $B_H(t) = \tilde B_H(t) - \tilde B_H(0)$, where

796: \begin{equ}[e:Btilde]

797: \raise0.4em\hbox{``}\tilde B_H(t) = \alpha_H \int_{-\infty}^t \Kern(t-s)\,dw(s)\;.\;\raise0.4em\hbox{''}

798: \end{equ}

799: This expression is strongly reminiscent of the usual representation of the stationary Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, but with an algebraic kernel instead of an exponential one.

800: Of course, \eref{e:Btilde} does not make any sense since $(t-s)^{H-{1\over 2}}$ is not square integrable. Nevertheless, \eref{e:Btilde} 

801: has the advantage of explicitly showing the stationarity of the increments for the two-sided fBm. 

802: %In can also be 

803: %interpreted as the large-time limit of the usual 

804: %representation \eref{e:usual}, using the fact that

805: %\begin{equ}

806: %  K_H(t,s) \approx (t-s)^{H-{1\over 2}}

807: %\end{equ}

808: %for $t\gg s$.

809: \end{remark}

810: 

811: %\begin{proof}[of \lem{lem:fbm}]

812: %It follows from the definition that $B_H(t)$ is a centred Gaussian process. It thus suffices to check that

813: %\begin{equ}

814: % \expect |B_H(t)-B_H(s)|^2 \propto |t-s|^{2H}\;.

815: %\end{equ}

816: %Assume $t>s$. We then have

817: %\begin{equ}

818: % \expect |B_H(t)-B_H(s)|^2 = \int_{-\infty}^s \bigl(\Kern(t-r)-\Kern(s-r)\bigr)^2\,dr + \int_s^t (t-r)^{2H-1}\,dr\;.

819: %\end{equ}

820: %The contribution of the second term is obviously proportional to $|t-s|^{2H}$. After a change of variable, the first term can be written as

821: %\begin{equ}

822: % \int_{0}^\infty \bigl(\Kern(r+t-s)-\Kern r\bigr)^2\,dr = (t-s)^{2H}\int_0^\infty \bigl(\Kern(r+1)-\Kern r\bigr)^2\,dr\;,

823: %\end{equ}

824: %thus also producing a contribution proportional to $|t-s|^{2H}$. It turns out that the constant $\alpha_H$ appearing in the statement is actually given by

825: %\begin{equ}

826: % \alpha_H = \sqrt{(2-2H)\Gamma\sml({\textstyle{3\over 2}}-H\smr) \over \Gamma(2-2H)\Gamma\sml(H+{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr)}\;.

827: %\end{equ}

828: %This concludes the proof of \lem{lem:fbm}.

829: %\end{proof}

830: 

831: \subsection{Noise spaces}

832: 

833: In this section, we introduce the family of spaces that will be used to model our noise.

834: Denote by $\CC_0^\infty(\R_-)$ the set 

835: of $\CC^\infty$ function $w\from(-\infty,0] \to \R$ satisfying $w(0) = 0$ and having compact support. 

836: Given a parameter $H\in(0,1)$, 

837: we define for every $w\in\CC_0^\infty(\R_-)$ the norm

838: \begin{equ}[e:defN]

839: \|w\|_H = \sup_{t,s\in\R_-} {|w(t)-w(s)| \over |t-s|^{1-H\over 2} \sml(1+|t| + |s|\smr)^{1\over2}}\;.

840: \end{equ}

841: We then define the Banach space $\CH_H$ to be the closure of $\CC_0^\infty(\R_-)$ under the norm

842: $\|\nb\cdot\nb\|_H$. The following lemma is important in view of the framework exposed in Section~\ref{sec:general}:

843: 

844: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:separ}

845: The spaces $\CH_H$ are separable.

846: \end{lemma}

847: 

848: \begin{proof}

849: It suffices to find a norm $\|\cdot\|_\star$ which is stronger than $\|\cdot\|_H$ and such that

850: the closure of $\CC_0^\infty(\R_-)$ under $\|\cdot\|_\star$ is separable. One example of such a norm

851: is given by $\|w\|_\star= \sup_{t < 0} |t \dot w(t)|$.

852: \end{proof}

853: 

854: Notice that it is crucial to define $\CH_H$ as the closure of $\CC_0^\infty$ under $\|\cdot\|_H$. If we defined

855: it simply as the space of all functions with finite $\|\cdot\|_H$-norm, it would not be separable. (Think of the 

856: space of bounded continuous functions, versus the space of continuous functions vanishing at infinity.)

857: 

858: In view of the representation \eref{e:repres}, we define the linear operator $\CD_H$ on functions $w\in\CC_0^\infty$ by

859: \begin{equ}[e:defD]

860: \sml(\CD_H w\smr)(t) =  \alpha_H\int_{-\infty}^0 (-s)^{H-{1\over 2}}\sml(\dot w(s+t)- \dot w(s)\smr)\,ds\;,

861: \end{equ}

862: where $\alpha_H$ is as in \lem{lem:fbm}.

863: We have the following result:

864: 

865: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:spaces}

866: Let $H \in (0,1)$ and let $\CH_H$ be as above. Then the operator $\CD_H$, formally defined by \eref{e:defD},

867:  is continuous from

868: $\CH_H$ into $\CH_{1-H}$. Furthermore, the operator $\CD_H$ has a bounded inverse, given by the formula

869: \begin{equ}

870: \CD_H^{-1} = \gamma_H \CD_{1-H}\;,

871: \end{equ}

872: for some constant $\gamma_H$ satisfying $\gamma_H = \gamma_{1-H}$.

873: \end{lemma}

874: 

875: \begin{remark}

876: The operator $\CD_H$ is actually (up to a multiplicative constant) a fractional integral of order $H-{1\over 2}$ which

877:  is renormalised in such a way that one gets rid of the divergence at $-\infty$. It is therefore not surprising that 

878: the inverse of $\CD_H$ is $\CD_{1-H}$. 

879: \end{remark}

880: 

881: \begin{proof}

882: For $H = {1\over 2}$, $\CD_H$ is the identity and there is nothing to prove. We therefore assume in the sequel that

883: $H \neq {1\over 2}$. 

884: 

885: We first show that $\CD_H$ is continuous from $\CH_H$ into $\CH_{1-H}$.

886: One can easily check that $\CD_H$ maps $\CC_0^\infty$ into the set of $\CC^\infty$ functions which

887: converge to a constant at $-\infty$. This set can be seen to belong to $\CH_{1-H}$ by a 

888: simple cutoff argument, so it suffices

889: to show that $\|\CD_H w\|_{1-H} \le C\|w\|_H$ for $w\in\CC_0^\infty$.

890: Assume without loss of generality that $t>s$ and define $h = t-s$. We then have

891: \begin{equs}

892: \sml(\CD_H w\smr)(t)- \sml(\CD_H w\smr)(s) &= \alpha_H \int_{-\infty}^{s} \bigl(\Kern(t-r) - \Kern(s-r)\bigr)\,dw(r) \\

893: 	&\quad + \alpha_H\int_s^t\Kern(t-r)\,dw(r) \;.

894: \end{equs}

895: Splitting the integral and integrating by parts yields

896: \begin{equs}

897: \sml(\CD_H w\smr)(t) &- \sml(\CD_H w\smr)(s) = -\alpha_H\sml(H-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr) \int_{s-h}^s (s-r)^{H-{3\over 2}}\sml(w(r)-w(s)\smr)\,dr \\

898: & +\alpha_H\sml(H-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr) \int_{t-2h}^t (t-r)^{H-{3\over 2}}\sml(w(r)-w(t)\smr)\,dr \\

899: & +\alpha_H\sml(H-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr)\int_{-\infty}^{s-h} \bigl((t-r)^{H-{3\over 2}} - (s-r)^{H-{3\over 2}}\bigr)\sml(w(r)-w(s)\smr)\,dr \\

900: & +\alpha_H (2h)^{H-{1\over 2}}\sml(w(t) - w(s)\smr)\\[0.5em]

901: & \equiv T_1 + T_2 + T_3 + T_4\;.

902: \end{equs}

903: We estimate each of these terms separately. For $T_1$, we have

904: \begin{equ}

905: |T_1| \le C \sml(1 + |s| + |t|\smr)^{1/2} \int_0^h r^{H-{3\over 2}+ {1-H\over 2}}\,dr \le C h^{H\over2} \sml(1 + |s| + |t|\smr)^{1/2}\;.

906: \end{equ}

907: The term $T_2$ is bounded by $C h^{H\over2} \sml(1 + |s| + |t|\smr)^{1/2}$ in a similar way. Concerning $T_3$, we bound it by

908: \begin{equs}

909: |T_3| &\le C \int_h^\infty \bigl(r^{H-{3\over 2}} - (h+r)^{H-{3\over 2}}\bigr)\sml(w(s-r) - w(s)\smr)\,dr \\

910:  &\le C h \int_h^\infty r^{H-{5\over 2}}r^{1-H\over 2} \sml(1 + |s| + |r|\smr)^{1/2}\,dr \\

911: & \le C h^{H \over 2} \sml(1 + |s|\smr)^{1/2} + C h \int_h^\infty r^{{H\over 2}-2} \sml(h+r\smr)^{1/2}\,dr\\

912: & \le C h^{H \over 2} \sml(1 + |s| + h \smr)^{1/2}  \le C h^{H \over 2} \sml(1 + |s| + |t|\smr)^{1/2}\;.

913: \end{equs}

914: The term $T_4$ is easily bounded by $C h^{H \over 2} \sml(1 + |s| + |t|\smr)^{1/2}$, using the fact that  $w \in \CH_H$. 

915: This shows that $\CD_H$ is bounded from $\CH_H$ to $\CH_{1-H}$. 

916: 

917: It remains to show that $\CD_H \circ \CD_{1-H}$

918: is a multiple of the identity. For this, notice that if $w \in \CC_0^\infty$, then one has in the

919: notations of \cite[pp.~94--95]{Frac} the following identities

920: \begin{equs}[2]

921: \bigl(\CD_H w\bigr)(t) &= -\alpha_H \Gamma(H + {\textstyle{1\over 2}}) \bigl(\bigl(I_+^{H-{1\over 2}} w\bigr)(t) - \bigl(I_+^{H-{1\over 2}} w\bigr)(0)\bigr)\;,&\quad H &> {\textstyle{1\over 2}}\;,\\

922: \bigl(\CD_H w\bigr)(t) &= -\alpha_H \Gamma(H + {\textstyle{1\over 2}}) \bigl(\bigl(D_+^{{1\over 2}-H} w\bigr)(t) - \bigl(D_+^{{1\over 2}-H} w\bigr)(0)\bigr)\;,&\quad H &< {\textstyle{1\over 2}}\;.

923: \end{equs}

924: Furthermore, \eref{e:defD} shows that $\CD_H w = 0$ if $w$ is a constant. The claim then follows immediately

925: from the fact that if $w \in \CC_0^\infty$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$, one has $D_+^\alpha I_+^\alpha w  = w$ and $I_+^\alpha  D_+^\alpha w= w$ (see \cite[Thm.~2.4]{Frac}).

926: \end{proof}

927: 

928: 

929: Since we want to use the operators $\CD_H$ and $\CD_{1-H}$ to switch between Wiener processes and fractional

930: Brownian motions, it is crucial to show that the sample paths of the two-sided Wiener process belong to every 

931: $\CH_H$ with probability $1$. Actually, what we show is that the Wiener measure can be constructed as

932: a Borel measure on $\CH_H$.

933: 

934: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:wienerspace}

935: There exists a unique Gaussian measure $\Wien$ on $\CH_H$ which is such that the canonical process associated

936: to it is a time-reversed Brownian motion.

937: \end{lemma}

938: 

939: \begin{proof}

940: We start by showing that the $\CH_H$-norm of the Wiener paths has bounded moments of all orders.

941: It follows from a generalisation of the Kolmogorov criterion \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Yor} that

942: \begin{equ}[e:locW]

943: \expect \biggl(\sup_{s,t \in [0,2]} {|w(s) - w(t)| \over |s-t|^{{1-H}\over 2}}\biggr)^p < \infty

944: \end{equ}

945: for all $p>0$.

946: Since the increments of $w$ are independent, this implies that, for every $\eps > 0$, there exists

947: a random variable $C_1$ such that

948: \begin{equ}[e:proplocw]

949: \sup_{|s-t| \le 1} {|w(s) - w(t)| \over |s-t|^{{1-H}\over 2} \sml(1 + |t| + |s|\smr)^{\eps}} < C_1\;,

950: \end{equ}

951: with probability $1$, and that all the moments of $C_1$ are bounded. We can therefore 

952: safely assume in the sequel that $|t-s| > 1$. It follows 

953: immediately from \eref{e:proplocw} and the triangle inequality that there exists a constant $C$ such that

954: \begin{equ}[e:proplocw2]

955: |w(s) - w(t)| \le C C_1 |t-s| \sml(1 + |t| + |s|\smr)^{\eps}\;,

956: \end{equ}

957: whenever $|t-s| > 1$. Furthermore, it follows from the time-inversion property of the Brownian motion, 

958: combined with \eref{e:locW},

959: that $|w|$ does not grow much faster than $|t|^{1/2}$

960: for large values of $t$. In particular, for every $\eps' >0$, there exists a random variable $C_2$ such that

961: \begin{equ}[e:propglobw]

962: |w(t)| \le C_2\sml(1+|t|\smr)^{{1 \over 2} + \eps'}\;,\qquad \forall t\in\R\;,

963: \end{equ}

964: and that all the moments of $C_2$ are bounded.

965: Combining \eref{e:proplocw2} and \eref{e:propglobw}, we get (for some other constant $C$)

966: \begin{equ}

967: |w(s) - w(t)| \le C C_1^{1-H\over 2} C_2^{1+H \over 2} |t-s|^{1-H\over 2} \sml(1+|s| + |t|\smr)^{{H+1 \over 4} + \eps{1-H\over 2} + \eps'{1+H\over 2}}\;.

968: \end{equ}

969: The claim follows by choosing for example $\eps = \eps' = (1-H)/4$.

970: 

971: This is not quite enough, since we want the sample paths to belong to the closure of $\CC_0^\infty$ 

972: under the norm

973: $\|\cdot\|_H$. Define the function

974: \begin{equ}

975: (s,t) \mapsto \Gamma(s,t) = {\sml(1+|t| + |s| \smr)^{2} \over |t-s|} \;.

976: \end{equ}

977: By looking at the above proof, we see that we actually proved the stronger statement that 

978: for every $H\in(0,1)$, one can find a $\gamma > 0$ such that

979: \begin{equ}

980: \|w\|_{H,\gamma} = \sup_{s,t}  {\Gamma(s,t)^\gamma |w(s) - w(t)| \over |s-t|^{{1-H}\over 2} \sml(1 + |t| + |s|\smr)^{1\over 2}} < \infty

981: \end{equ}

982: with probability $1$. 

983: Let us call $\CH_{H,\gamma}$ the 

984: Banach space of functions with finite $\|\cdot\|_{H,\gamma}$-norm. We will show that one has the continuous inclusions:

985: \begin{equ}[e:inclSpaces]

986: \CH_{H,\gamma} \hookrightarrow \CH_H \hookrightarrow \CC(\R_-,\R)\;.

987: \end{equ}

988: Let us call $\tilde\Wien$ the usual time-reversed Wiener measure on $\CC(\R_-,\R)$ equipped

989: with the $\sigma$-field ${\cscr R}$ generated by the evaluation functions.

990: Since $\CH_{H,\gamma}$ is a measurable subset of $\CC(\R_-,\R)$ and $\tilde\Wien(\CH_{H,\gamma})=1$, 

991: we can restrict $\tilde\Wien$ to a measure on $\CH_H$, equipped with the restriction $\tilde {\cscr R}$

992: of ${\cscr R}$. It remains to show that $\tilde {\cscr R}$ is equal to the Borel $\sigma$-field ${\cscr B}$ on $\CH_H$.

993: This follows from the fact that the evaluation functions are ${\cscr B}$-measurable (since they are actually continuous)

994: and that a countable number of function evaluations suffices to determine the $\|\cdot\|_{H}$-norm of a function.

995: The proof of \lem{lem:wienerspace} is thus complete if we show \eref{e:inclSpaces}.

996: 

997: Notice first that the function $\Gamma(s,t)$ becomes large

998: when $|t-s|$ is small or when either $|t|$ or $|s|$ are large, more precisely

999: we have

1000: \begin{equ}[e:boundGamma]

1001: \Gamma(s,t) > \max\{|s|,\,|t|,\,|t-s|^{-1}\}\;.

1002: \end{equ}

1003: Therefore, functions $w \in \CH_{H,\gamma}$ 

1004: are actually more regular and have better growth properties than what is needed to

1005: have finite $\|\cdot\|_H$-norm. Given $w$ with $\|w\|_{H,\gamma} < \infty$ and 

1006: any $\eps > 0$, we will construct a function

1007: $\tilde w \in \CC_0^\infty$ such that $\|w - \tilde w\|_H < \eps$. Take two $\CC^\infty$ functions

1008: $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ with the following shape:

1009: \begin{equ}

1010: \mhpastefig[3/4]{Cutoff}

1011: \end{equ}

1012: Furthermore, we choose them such that:

1013: \begin{equ}

1014: \int_{\R_-} \phi_1(s)\,ds = 1\;,\qquad \Bigl|{d\phi_2(t) \over dt}\Bigr| \le 2\;.

1015: \end{equ}

1016: For two positive constants

1017: $r<1$ and $R>1$ to be chosen later, we define

1018: \begin{equ}

1019: \tilde w(t) = \phi_2(t/R)\int_{\R_-} w(t+s){\phi_1(s/r)\over r}\,ds\;.

1020: \end{equ}

1021: \ie we smoothen out $w$ at length scales smaller than $r$ and we cut it off at 

1022: distances bigger than $R$. A straightforward estimate shows that there exists a constant $C$ such

1023: that

1024: \begin{equ}

1025: \|\tilde w\|_{H,\gamma} \le C\|w\|_{H,\gamma}\;,

1026: \end{equ}

1027: independently of $r<1/4$ and $R>1$.

1028: For $\delta > 0$ to be chosen later, we then divide the

1029: quadrant $K = \{(t,s)\,|\,t,s < 0\}$ into three regions:

1030: 

1031: \noindent\hspace{1.5cm}

1032: \mhpastefig[4/5]{Regions}

1033: \begin{minipage}[b]{8cm}

1034: \begin{equs}

1035: K_1 &= \{(t,s)\,|\, |t| + |s| \ge R\} \cap K\;,\\

1036: K_2 &= \{(t,s)\,|\, |t-s| \le \delta\} \cap K \setminus K_1\;,\\

1037: K_3 &= K \setminus (K_1 \cup K_2)\;.

1038: \end{equs}

1039: \end{minipage}

1040: We then bound $\|w-\tilde w\|_H$ by

1041: \begin{equs}

1042: \|w - \tilde w\|_H &\le \sup_{(s,t) \in K_1\cup K_2}{C\|w\|_{H,\gamma} \over \Gamma(t,s)^\gamma} 

1043: + \sup_{(s,t)\in K_3} {|w(s)-\tilde w(s)| + |w(t)-\tilde w(t)| \over |t-s|^{1-H\over 2}(1+|t|+|s|)^{1\over 2}}\\

1044: &\le C\sml(\delta^\gamma + R^{-\gamma}\smr) \|w\|_{H,\gamma} + 2\delta^{H-1\over 2} \sup_{0<t<R} |w(t)-\tilde w(t)|\;.

1045: \end{equs}

1046: By choosing $\delta$ small enough and $R$ large enough, the first term can be made arbitrarily small. One can then

1047: choose $r$ small enough to make the second term arbitrarily small as well. 

1048: This shows that \eref{e:inclSpaces} holds and therefore the proof of \lem{lem:wienerspace} is complete.

1049: \end{proof}

1050: 

1051: \subsection{Definition of the SDS}

1052: 

1053: The results shown so far in this section are sufficient to construct the required SDS. We start by considering the pathwise

1054: solutions to \eref{e:mainequ}. Given a time $T>0$, an initial condition $x\in \R^n$, and a noise $b\in \CC_0([0,T],\R^n)$, we

1055: look for a function $\Phi_T(x,b) \in \CC([0,T],\R^n)$ satisfying

1056: \begin{equ}[e:defSol]

1057: \Phi_T(x,b)(t) = \sigma b(t) + x + \int_0^t f \sml(\Phi_T(x,b)(s)\smr)\,ds\;.

1058: \end{equ}

1059: We have the following standard result:

1060: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:existSol}

1061: Let $f\from\R^n\to\R^n$ satisfy assumptions \textbf{A1} and \textbf{A2}. Then, there exists a unique map

1062: $\Phi_T\from \R^n\times \CC([0,T],\R^n) \to \CC([0,T],\R^n)$ satisfying \eref{e:defSol}. Furthermore, $\Phi_T$

1063: is locally Lipschitz continuous.

1064: \end{lemma}

1065: \begin{proof}

1066: The local (\ie small $T$) existence and uniqueness of continuous solutions to \eref{e:defSol} follows from a standard contraction

1067: argument. In order to show the global existence and the local Lipschitz property, fix $x$, $b$, an $T$, and define

1068: $y(t) = x + \sigma b(t)$. Define $z(t)$ as the solution to the differential equation 

1069: \begin{equ}[e:defz]

1070: \dot z(t) = f(z(t) + y(t))\;,\quad z(0) = 0\;.

1071: \end{equ}

1072: Writing down

1073: the differential equation satisfied by $\|z(t)\|^2$ and using  \textbf{A1} and \textbf{A2}, one sees that \eref{e:defz} possesses

1074: a (unique) solution up to time $T$. One can then set $\Phi_T(x,b)(t) = z(t) + y(t)$ and check that it satisfies \eref{e:defSol}.

1075: The local Lipschitz property of $\Phi_T$ then immediately follows from the local Lipschitz property of $f$.

1076: \end{proof}

1077: 

1078: 

1079: We now define the stationary

1080: noise process. For this, we define

1081: $\theta_t\from\CH_H\to\CH_H$ by

1082: \begin{equ}

1083: \sml(\theta_t w\smr)(s) = w(s-t)-w(-t)\;.

1084: \end{equ}

1085: In order to construct the transition semigroup $\CP_t$, we define first $\tilde \CH_H$ like $\CH_H$, but with 

1086: arguments in $\R_+$ instead of $\R_-$, and we write $\tilde \Wien$ for the Wiener measure on $\tilde \CH_H$,

1087: as constructed in \lem{lem:wienerspace} above. Define the function $P_t\from \CH_H \times \tilde \CH_H \to \CH_H$

1088: by

1089: \begin{equ}[e:defTrans]

1090: \sml(P_t(w,\tilde w)\smr)(s) = \cases{\tilde w(t+s) - \tilde w(t) & for $s > -t$,\cr 

1091: 	w(t+s) - \tilde w(t) & for $s \le -t$,}

1092: \end{equ}

1093: and set $\CP_t(w,\cdot\,) = P_t(w,\cdot\,)^*\tilde \Wien$. This construction can be visualised by the following picture:

1094: \begin{equ}

1095: \mhpastefig[2/3]{Evol}

1096: \end{equ}

1097: One then has the following.

1098: 

1099: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:Noise}

1100: The quadruple $\sml(\CH_H, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge 0}, \Wien, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$ is a stationary noise process.

1101: \end{lemma}

1102: \begin{proof}

1103: We already know from \lem{lem:separ} that $\CH_H$ is Polish. Furthermore, one has $\theta_t \circ P_t(w,\cdot\,) = w$, so

1104: it remains to show that $\CP_t$ is a Feller transition semigroup with $\Wien$ as its unique invariant measure.

1105: It is straightforward to check that it is a transition semigroup and the Feller property follows from the continuity of $P_t(w,\tilde w)$

1106: with respect to $w$. By the definition \eref{e:defTrans} and the time-reversal invariance of the Wiener process, every

1107: invariant measure for $\{\CP_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ must have its finite-dimensional distributions coincide with those of $\Wien$. Since the Borel

1108: $\sigma$-field on $\CH_H$ is generated by the evaluation functions, this shows that $\Wien$ is the only invariant

1109: measure.

1110: \end{proof}

1111: 

1112: We now construct a SDS over $n$ copies of the above noise process. With a slight abuse of notation, we denote 

1113: that noise process by $\sml(\Noise, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge 0}, \Wien, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$. We define the (continuous)

1114: shift operator $R_T\from\CC \sml((-\infty,0],\R^n\smr)\to \CC_0\sml([0,T],\R^n\smr)$ by 

1115: $\sml(R_T b\smr)(t) = b(t-T)-b(-T)$ and set

1116: \begin{equa}[e:defPhi]

1117: \phi \from \R_+\times \R^n \times \Noise &\to \R^n\\

1118: 	(t,x,w) &\mapsto \Phi_t\bigl(x,  R_t \CD_H w\bigr)(t)\;.

1119: \end{equa}

1120: From the above results, the following is straightforward:

1121: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:defSDS}

1122: The function $\phi$ of \eref{e:defPhi} defines a continuous SDS over the noise process 

1123: $\sml(\Noise, \{\CP_t\}_{t\ge 0}, \Wien, \{\theta_t\}_{t\ge 0}\smr)$. Furthermore, for every generalised

1124: initial condition $\mu$, the process generated by $\phi$ from $\mu$ is a solution to \eref{e:mainequ}

1125: in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:solution}.

1126: \end{proposition}

1127: \begin{proof}

1128: The regularity properties of $\phi$ have already been shown in \lem{lem:existSol}. The cocycle property

1129: is an immediate consequence of the composition property for solutions of ODEs. The fact that the

1130: processes generated by $\phi$ are solutions to \eref{e:mainequ} is a direct consequence of \eref{e:defSol}, combined

1131: with \lem{lem:fbm}, the definition of $\CD_H$, and the fact that $\Wien$ is the Wiener measure.

1132: \end{proof}

1133: 

1134: To conclude this section, we show that, thanks to the dissipativity condition imposed on the drift term $f$,

1135: the SDS defined above admits any power of the Euclidean norm on $\R^n$ as a Lyapunov function:

1136: %

1137: %

1138: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:Lyap}

1139: Let $\phi$ be the continuous SDS defined above and assume that \textbf{A1} and \textbf{A2} hold. Then,

1140: for every $p \ge 2$, the map $x \mapsto \|x\|^p$ is a Lyapunov function for $\phi$.

1141: \end{proposition}

1142: %

1143: %

1144: \begin{proof}

1145: Fix $p\ge 2$ and let $\mu$ be an arbitrary generalised initial condition satisfying 

1146: \begin{equ}

1147: \int_{\R^n} \|x\|^p\,\sml(\Pi_{\R^n}^*\mu\smr)(dx) < \infty\;.

1148: \end{equ}

1149: Let $\tilde \phi$ be the continuous SDS 

1150: associated by \prop{prop:defSDS} to the equation 

1151: \begin{equ}[e:defy]

1152: dy(t) = - y\,dt + \sigma\,dB_H(t)\;.

1153: \end{equ}

1154: Notice that both $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ are defined over the same stationary noise process.

1155: 

1156: We define $x_t$ as the process generated by $\phi$ from $\mu$ and $y_t$ as the process generated by $\tilde\phi$

1157: from $\delta_0 \times \Wien$ (in other words $y_0 = 0$). Since both SDS are defined over the same 

1158: stationary noise process, $x_t$ and $y_t$ are defined

1159: over the same probability space.

1160: The process $y_t$ is obviously Gaussian, and a direct

1161: (but lengthy) calculation shows that its variance is given by:

1162: \begin{equ}

1163: \expect \|y_t\|^2 = 2H \tr \sml(\sigma \sigma^*\sml)\, e^{- t} \int_0^t s^{2H-1}\cosh(t-s)\,ds\;,

1164: \end{equ}

1165: In particular, one has for all $t$:

1166: \begin{equ}[e:boundy]

1167: \expect \|y_t\|^2 \le 2H \tr \sml(\sigma \sigma^*\sml)\, \int_0^\infty s^{2H-1}e^{-s}\,ds = \Gamma(2H+1)\tr \sml(\sigma \sigma^*\sml) \equiv C_\infty\;.

1168: \end{equ}

1169: Now define $z_t = x_t - y_t$. The process $z_t$ is seen to satisfy the random differential equation given by

1170: \begin{equ}

1171: {dz_t \over dt} = f\sml(z_t + y_t\smr) + y_t\;,\qquad z_0 = x_0\;.

1172: \end{equ}

1173: Furthermore, one has the following equation for $\|z_t\|^2$:

1174: \begin{equ}

1175: {d\|z_t\|^2 \over dt} = 2\scal{z_t, f\sml(z_t + y_t\smr)} + 2\scal{z_t,y_t}\;.

1176: \end{equ}

1177: Using \textbf{A2--A3} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we can estimate the right-hand side of this expression by:

1178: \begin{equ}[e:estz]

1179: {d\|z_t\|^2 \over dt} \le 2\C1 - 2\C2\|z_t\|^2 + 2 \scal{z_t,y_t + f(y_t)} \le -2\C2\|z_t\|^2 + \tilde C\sml(1+\|y_t\|^2\smr)^N\;,

1180: \end{equ}

1181: for some constant $\tilde C$. Therefore

1182: \begin{equ}

1183:  \|z_t\|^2 \le e^{-2\C2 t}\|x_0\|^2 + \tilde C\int_0^t e^{-2\C2(t-s)}  \sml(1+\|y_s\|^2\smr)^N\, ds\;.

1184: \end{equ}

1185: It follows immediately from \eref{e:boundy} and the fact that $y_s$ is Gaussian with bounded covariance \eref{e:boundy} 

1186: that there exists a constant $C_p$ such that 

1187: \begin{equ}

1188: \expect \|z_t\|^p \le C_p e^{-p\C2 t} \expect \|x_0\|^p + C_p\;,

1189: \end{equ}

1190: for all times $t>0$. Therefore \eref{e:condLyap} holds and the proof of \prop{prop:Lyap} is complete.

1191: \end{proof}

1192: 

1193: \section{Coupling construction}

1194: \label{sec:coupl}

1195: 

1196: We do now have the necessary formalism to study the long-time behaviour of the SDS $\phi$ we constructed 

1197: from \eref{e:mainequ}. The main tool that will allow us to do that is the notion of self-coupling for stochastic dynamical

1198: systems.

1199: 

1200: \subsection{Self-coupling of SDS}

1201: \label{sec:selfcoupl}

1202: 

1203: The main goal of this paper is to show that the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions of \eref{e:mainequ} does not

1204: depend on its initial condition. This will then imply that the dynamics converges to a stationary state (in a suitable sense).

1205: We therefore look for a suitable way of comparing solutions to \eref{e:mainequ}. In general, two solutions starting from

1206: different initial points in $\R^n$ and driven with the same realisation of the noise $B_H$ have no reason of getting close

1207: to each other as time goes by. Condition \textbf{A1} indeed only ensures that they will tend to approach each other

1208: as long as they are sufficiently far apart. This is reasonable, since by comparing only solutions driven by the same 

1209: realisation of the noise process, one completely forgets about the randomness of the system and the ``blurring'' this

1210: randomness induces.

1211: 

1212: It is therefore important to compare probability measures (for example on path\-space) induced by the solutions rather

1213: than the solution themselves. More precisely, given a SDS $\phi$ and two generalised initial conditions $\mu$ and $\nu$,

1214: we want to compare the measures $\Evol \CQ_t\mu$ and $\Evol \CQ_t\nu$ as $t$ goes to infinity. The distance we will

1215: work with is the total variation distance, henceforth denoted by $\|\cdot\|_\TV$. We will actually use the following useful

1216: representation of the total variation distance. Let $\Omega$ be a measurable space and let $\prob_1$ and $\prob_2$ be two

1217: probability measures on $\Omega$. We denote by $C(\prob_1,\prob_2)$ the set of all probability measures on $\Omega\times\Omega$

1218: which are such that their marginals on the two components are equal to $\prob_1$ and $\prob_2$ respectively. Let furthermore

1219: $\Delta\subset \Omega\times\Omega$ denote the diagonal, \ie the set of elements of the form $(\omega,\omega)$. We then

1220: have

1221: \begin{equ}[e:charTV]

1222: \|\prob_1-\prob_2\|_\TV = 2 - \sup_{\prob \in C(\prob_1,\prob_2)} 2\prob(\Delta)\;.

1223: \end{equ}

1224: Elements of $C(\prob_1,\prob_2)$ will be referred to as {\em couplings} between $\prob_1$ and $\prob_2$. This leads naturally

1225: to the following definition:

1226: 

1227: \begin{definition}\label{def:selfcoupl}

1228: Let $\phi$ be a SDS with state space $\State$ and let $\Meas$ be the associated space of generalised initial conditions. A {\em self-coupling} 

1229: for $\phi$ is a

1230: measurable map $(\mu,\nu) \mapsto \Evol(\mu,\nu)$ from $\Meas\times\Meas$ into $\CD(\R_+,\State) \times \CD(\R_+,\State)$,

1231: with the property that for every pair $(\mu,\nu)$, $\Evol(\mu,\nu)$ is a coupling for $\Evol\mu$ and $\Evol\nu$.

1232: \end{definition}

1233: 

1234: Define the shift map $\Sigma_t \from \CD(\R_+,\State)\to\CD(\R_+,\State)$ by

1235: \begin{equ}

1236: \sml(\Sigma_t x\smr)(s) = x(t+s)\;.

1237: \end{equ}

1238: It follows immediately from the cocycle property and the stationarity of the noise process 

1239: that $\Evol \CQ_t\mu = \Sigma_t^*\Evol\mu$. Therefore, the 

1240: measure $\Sigma_t^*\Evol(\mu,\nu)$ is a coupling for $\Evol \CQ_t\mu$ and $\Evol \CQ_t\nu$ (which is in general

1241: different from the coupling $\Evol(\CQ_t\mu,\CQ_t\nu)$). Our aim in the remainder of this paper is to construct a self-coupling

1242: $\Evol(\mu,\nu)$ for the SDS associated to \eref{e:mainequ} which has the property that

1243: \begin{equ}

1244: \lim_{t\to\infty}\sml(\Sigma_t^*\Evol(\mu,\nu)\smr)(\Delta) = 1\;,

1245: \end{equ}

1246: where $\Delta$ denotes as before the diagonal of the space $\CD(\R_+,\State) \times \CD(\R_+,\State)$. 

1247: We will then use the inequality

1248: \begin{equ}[e:TVprop]

1249: \|\Evol \CQ_t \mu-\Evol\CQ_t  \nu \|_\TV \le 2 - 2\sml(\Sigma_t^*\Evol(\mu,\nu)\smr)(\Delta)\;,

1250: \end{equ}

1251: to deduce the uniqueness of the stationary state for \eref{e:mainequ}.

1252: 

1253: In the remainder of the paper, the general way of constructing such a self-coupling will be the following. First, we fix a Polish space 

1254: $\CA$ that contains some auxiliary information on the dynamics of the coupled process we want to keep track of. We also define a

1255: ``future'' noise space $\Noise_+$ to be equal to $\tilde \CH_H^n$, where $\tilde \CH_H$ is as in \eref{e:defTrans}. There is a natural

1256: continuous time-shift operator on $\R \times \Noise \times \Noise_+$ defined for $t>0$ by

1257: \begin{equ}[e:timeShift]

1258: (s,w,\tilde w) \mapsto (s-t,P_t(w,\tilde w), S_t \tilde w)\;,\qquad \sml(S_t \tilde w\smr)(r) = \tilde w(r+t) - \tilde w(t)\;,

1259: \end{equ}

1260: where $P_t$ was defined in  \eref{e:defTrans}. We then construct a (measurable) map 

1261: \begin{equa}[e:notCoupl]

1262: \Coupl \from\State^2\times\Noise^2\times\CA &\to \R \times \pMeas(\CA \times \Noise_+^2)\;, \\

1263: (x,y,w_x,w_y,a) &\mapsto \sml(T(x,y,w_x,w_y,a), \Wien_2(x,y,w_x,w_y,a)\smr)\;,

1264: \end{equa}

1265: with the properties that, for all $(x,y,w_x,w_y,a)$,

1266: \begin{claim}

1267: \item[\maketag{C1}{e:C1}] The time $T(x,y,w_x,w_y,a)$ is positive and greater than $1$.

1268: \item[\maketag{C2}{e:C2}] The marginals of $\Wien_2(x,y,w_x,w_y,a)$ onto the two copies of $\Noise_+$ 

1269: 	are both equal to the Wiener measure $\Wien$.

1270: \end{claim}

1271: We call the map $\Coupl$ the ``coupling map'', since it yields a natural way of constructing a self-coupling for the SDS $\phi$.

1272: The remainder of this subsection explains how to achieve this.

1273: 

1274: Given the map $\Coupl$, we can construct a Markov process on the augmented space $\BigSpace = \State^2\times \Noise^2 \times \R_+ 

1275: \times \CA\times  \Noise_+^2 $ in the following way. As long as the component $\tau\in\R_+$ is positive, we just time-shift the

1276: elements in $\Noise^2 \times \Noise_+^2 \times \R_+$ according to \eref{e:timeShift} and we evolve in $\CX^2$ by solving

1277: \eref{e:mainequ}. As soon as $\tau$ becomes $0$, we redraw the future of the noise up to time $T(x,y,a)$ according to the

1278: distribution $\Wien_2$, which may at the same time modify the information stored in $\CA$.

1279: 

1280: To shorten notations, we denote elements of $\BigSpace$ by 

1281: \begin{equ}

1282: X = (x,y,w_x,w_y,\tau,a,\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)\;.

1283: \end{equ}

1284: With this notation, the transition function $\tilde \CQ_t$ for the process we just described is defined by:

1285: \begin{claim}

1286: \item[$\bullet$] For $t < \tau$, we define $\tilde \CQ_t(X;\cdot\,)$ by

1287: \begin{equa}

1288: \tilde \CQ_t(X;\cdot\,) = &\delta_{\phi_t(x,P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x))} \times \delta_{\phi_t(y,P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y))} \times \delta_{P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x)} \\

1289:  &\quad   \times \delta_{P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y)} \times \delta_{\tau-t} \times \delta_{a} \times \delta_{S_t \tilde w_x}\times \delta_{S_t \tilde w_y}\;.

1290: \end{equa}

1291: \item[$\bullet$] For $t = \tau$, we define $\tilde \CQ_t(X;\cdot\,)$ by

1292: \begin{equa}[e:defQtjump]

1293: \tilde \CQ_t(X;\cdot\,) = &\delta_{\phi_t(x,P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x))} \times \delta_{\phi_t(y,P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y))} \times \delta_{P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x)}  \\

1294:  &\quad\times \delta_{P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y)} \times \delta_{T(x,y,P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x),P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y),a)} \\

1295:  &\quad\times \Wien_2(x,y,P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x),P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y),a) \;.

1296: \end{equa}

1297: \item[$\bullet$] For $t > \tau$, we define $\tilde Q_t$ by imposing that the Chapman-Kolmogorov equations hold. 

1298: Since we assumed that $T(x,y,w_x,w_y,a)$ is always greater than $1$, this procedure is well-defined.

1299: \end{claim}

1300: We now construct an initial condition for this process, given two generalised initial conditions $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ for $\phi$.

1301: We do this in such a way that, in the beginning, the noise component of our process lives on the diagonal of the space $\Noise^2$. In other

1302: words, the two copies of the two-sided fBm driving our coupled system have the same past. This

1303: is possible since the marginals of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ on $\Noise$ coincide. Concerning the components of the initial condition in

1304: $\R_+\times\CA\times\Noise_+^2$, we just draw them according to the map $\Coupl$, with some distinguished element $a_0\in\CA$.

1305: 

1306: We call $\Evol_0(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ the measure on $\BigSpace$ constructed by this procedure. Consider a cylindrical subset of $\BigSpace$

1307: of the form

1308: \begin{equ}

1309: X = X_1\times X_2 \times W_1 \times W_2 \times F\;,

1310: \end{equ}

1311: where $F$ is a measurable subset of $\R_+ \times \CA \times \Noise_+^2$.

1312: We make use of the disintegration $w \mapsto \mu_i^w$, yielding formally $\mu_i(dx,dw) = \mu_i^w(dx)\,\Wien(dw)$, and we

1313: define $\Evol_0(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ by

1314: \begin{equs}

1315: \Evol_0(\mu_1,\mu_2)(X) = \int_{W_1\cap W_2} \int_{X_1}\int_{X_2} 

1316: 	& \sml(\delta_{T(x_1,x_2,w,w,a_0)} \times \Wien_2(x_1,x_2,w,w,a_0)\smr)(F) \\

1317: 	&\qquad \mu_2^w(dx_2)\, \mu_1^w(dx_1)\,\Wien(dw)\;.\label{e:definit}

1318: \end{equs}

1319: With this definition, we finally construct the self-coupling $\Evol(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ of $\phi$ corresponding to the function $\Coupl$ 

1320: as the marginal on $\CC(\R_+,\State) \times \CC(\R_+,\State)$ of the process generated by the initial condition $\Evol_0(\mu_1,\mu_2)$

1321: evolving under the semigroup given by $\tilde \CQ_t$. Condition \eref{e:C2} ensures that this is indeed a coupling for $\Evol\mu_1$ and 

1322: $\Evol\mu_2$.

1323: 

1324: The following subsection gives an overview of the way the coupling function $\Coupl$ is constructed.

1325: 

1326: \subsection{Construction of the coupling function}

1327: \label{sec:constrcoupl}

1328: 

1329: Let us consider that the initial conditions $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are fixed once and for all and denote by $x_t$ and $y_t$

1330: the two $\State$-valued processes obtained by considering the marginals of $\Evol(\mu_1,\mu_2)$

1331: on its two $\State$ components. Define the random (but not stopping) time $\tau_\infty$ by

1332: \begin{equ}

1333: \tau_\infty = \inf \bigl\{t>0\,|\, \text{$x_s = y_s$ for all $s>t$}\bigr\}\;.

1334: \end{equ}

1335: Our aim is to find a space $\CA$ and a function $\Coupl$ satisfying \eref{e:C1} and \eref{e:C2} such that

1336: the processes $x_t$ and $y_t$ eventually meet and stay together for all times, \ie such that

1337: $\lim_{T\to \infty} \prob(\tau_\infty < T) = 1$. If the noise process driving the system

1338: was Markov, the ``stay together'' part of this statement would not be a problem, since it would suffice to start driving $x_t$

1339: and $y_t$

1340: with identical realisations of the noise as soon as they meet. Since the fBm is not Markov, it is possible to make the future

1341: realisations of two copies coincide with probability $1$ only if the past realisations also coincide. 

1342: If the past realisations do not coincide for

1343: some time, we interpret this as introducing a ``cost'' into the system, which we need to master

1344: (this notion of cost will be made precise in Definition~\ref{def:cost} below). Fortunately, the memory

1345: of past events becomes smaller and smaller as time goes by, which can be interpreted as a natural tendency of the

1346: cost to decrease. This way of interpreting our system leads to the following algorithm that should be implemented by the

1347: coupling function $\Coupl$.

1348: \begin{equ}[e:algo]

1349: \mhpastefig[7/8]{Diagram}

1350: \end{equ}

1351: The precise meaning of the statements appearing in this diagram will be made clear in the sequel, but the general

1352: idea of the construction should be clear by now. One step in \eref{e:algo} corresponds to the time between two

1353: jumps of the $\tau$-component of the coupled process. Our aim is to construct the coupling function $\Coupl$ in such

1354: a way that, with probability $1$, there is a time after which step \step{2} always succeeds. This time is then precisely the

1355: random time $\tau_\infty$ we want to estimate.

1356: 

1357: It is clear from what has just been exposed that 

1358: we will actually never need to consider the continuous-time process on the space $\BigSpace$ given by the

1359: self-coupling described in the previous section, but it is sufficient to describe what happens at the beginning

1360: of each step in \eref{e:algo}. We will therefore only consider the discrete-time dynamic obtained by sampling

1361: the continuous-time system just before each step.

1362: The discrete-time dynamic will

1363: take place on the space $\CZ = \bigl(\State^2 \times \Noise^2 \times \CA\bigr) \times \R_+$ and we will

1364: denote its elements by

1365: \begin{equ}

1366: (Z,\tau)\;,\quad Z = (x,y,w_x,w_y,a)\;,\quad \tau \in \R_+\;.

1367: \end{equ}

1368: Since the time steps of the discrete dynamic are not equally spaced, the time $\tau$ is required to keep 

1369: track of how much time really elapsed.

1370: The dynamic of the discrete process $(Z_n,\tau_n)$ on $\CZ$ is determined by the 

1371: function $\Phi\from \R_+\times \CZ \times (\CA\times\Noise_+^2) \to \CZ$ given by

1372: \begin{equs}

1373: \Phi\bigl(t,(Z,\tau), (\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y, \tilde a)\bigr) &= \bigl( \phi_t(x,P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x)), \phi_t(y,P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y)), \\

1374: &\quad P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x),P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y), \tilde a, \tau + t\bigr)\;.

1375: \end{equs}

1376: (The notations are the same as in the definition of $\tilde \CQ_t$ above.)

1377: With this definition at hand, the transition function for the process $(Z_n,\tau_n)$ is given

1378: by

1379: \begin{equ}[e:transZn]

1380: {\cscr P} (Z,\tau) = \Phi\sml(T(Z),(Z,\tau), \cdot \smr)^*\Wien_2(Z)\;,

1381: \end{equ}

1382: where $T$ and $\Wien_2$ are defined in \eref{e:notCoupl}. Given two generalised

1383: initial conditions $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ for the original SDS, the initial condition $(Z_0,\tau_0)$ is

1384: constructed by choosing $\tau_0 = 0$ and by drawing $Z_0$ according to the measure

1385: \begin{equ}

1386: \mu_0(X) = \delta_{a_0}(A)\int_{W_1\cap W_2} \int_{X_1}\int_{X_2} \mu_2^w(dx_2)\, \mu_1^w(dx_1)\,\Wien(dw)\;,

1387: \end{equ}

1388: where $X$ is a cylindrical set of the form $X = X_1\times X_2 \times W_1\times W_2\times A$.

1389: It follows from the definitions \eref{e:defQtjump} and \eref{e:definit} that if we define $\tau_n$ as the $n$th jump of the process

1390: on $\BigSpace$ constructed above and $Z_n$ as (the component in $\State^2 \times \Noise^2 \times \CA$ of) its left-hand limit at $\tau_n$, the process we obtain

1391: is equal in law to the Markov chain that we just constructed.

1392: 

1393: Before carrying further on with the construction of $\Coupl$, we make a few preliminary computations to see how

1394: changes in the past of the fBm affect its future. The formulae and estimates obtained in the next subsection are

1395: crucial for the construction of $\Coupl$ and for the obtention of the bounds that lead to Theorems~\ref{theo:smallH} and \ref{theo:largeH}. In particular, \prop{prop:pastfuture} is the main estimate that leads to the coherence of the

1396: coupling construction and to the bounds on the convergence rate towards the stationary state.

1397: 

1398: \subsection{Influence of the past on the future}

1399: 

1400: Let $w_x \in \CH_H$ and set $B_x = \CD_H w_x$. Consider furthermore two functions $g_w$ and 

1401: $g_B$ satisfying

1402: \begin{equ}[e:condg]

1403: t \mapsto \int_0^t g_w(s)\,ds \in \CH_H\;,\qquad

1404: t  \mapsto \int_0^t g_B(s)\,ds \in \CH_{1-H}\;,

1405: \end{equ}

1406: and define $B_y$ and $w_y$ by $B_y(0) = w_y(0) = 0$ and

1407: \begin{equ}[e:relBw]

1408: dB_y = dB_x + g_B\,dt\;,\qquad dw_y = dw_x + g_w\,dt\;.

1409: \end{equ}

1410: As an immediate consequence of the definition of $\CD_H$,

1411: the following relations between $g_w$ and $g_B$ will ensure that $B_y = \CD_H w_y$.

1412: 

1413: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:formulas}

1414: Let $B_x$, $B_y$, $w_x$, $w_y$, $g_B$, and $g_w$ be as in \eref{e:condg}, \eref{e:relBw} and assume that

1415: $B_x = \CD_H w_x$ and $B_y = \CD_H w_y$. Then, $g_w$ and $g_B$ satisfy the following relation:

1416: \minilab{e:relG}

1417: \begin{equs}

1418: g_w(t) &= \alpha_H {{d \over dt} \int_{-\infty}^t  (t-s)^{{1\over 2}-H}} g_B(s)\,ds\;, \label{e:relG1}\\

1419: g_B(t) &= \gamma_H \alpha_{1-H} {{d \over dt} \int_{-\infty}^t  \Kern(t-s) g_w(s) \,ds} \;.\label{e:relG2}

1420: \end{equs}

1421: If $g_w(t) = 0$ for $t > t_0$, one has

1422: \minilab{e:relG}

1423: \begin{equ}[e:relG3]

1424: g_B(t) = \sml(H-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr)\gamma_H \alpha_{1-H}\int_{-\infty}^{t_0} (t-s)^{H - {3\over 2}} g_w(s)\,ds \;,

1425: \end{equ}

1426: for $t \ge t_0$. Similarly, if $g_B(t) = 0$ for $t > t_0$, one has

1427: \minilab{e:relG}

1428: \begin{equ}[e:relG4]

1429: g_w(t) =\sml({\textstyle{1\over 2}}-H\smr)\alpha_{H} \int_{-\infty}^{t_0} (t-s)^{-H - {1\over 2}} g_B(s) \,ds \;,

1430: \end{equ}

1431: for $t \ge t_0$. If $g_w$ is differentiable for $t>t_0$ and $g_w(t) = 0$ for $t < t_0$, one has

1432: \minilab{e:relG}

1433: \begin{equ}[e:relG5]

1434: g_B(t) = {\gamma_H \alpha_{1-H} g_w(t_0) \over (t-t_0)^{{1\over 2}-H}} + \gamma_H \alpha_{1-H} \int_{t_0}^t {g_w'(s) \over (t-s)^{{1\over 2}-H}}\,ds \;,

1435: \end{equ}

1436: for $t \ge t_0$. Similarly, if $g_B$ is differentiable for $t>t_0$ and $g_B(t) = 0$ for $t < t_0$, one has

1437: \minilab{e:relG}

1438: \begin{equ}[e:relG6]

1439: g_w(t) = {\alpha_{H} g_B(t_0) \over (t-t_0)^{H-{1\over 2}}} + \alpha_{H} \int_{t_0}^t {g_B'(s) \over (t-s)^{H-{1\over 2}}}\,ds \;,

1440: \end{equ}

1441: for $t \ge t_0$.

1442: \end{lemma}

1443: 

1444: \begin{proof}

1445: The claims \eref{e:relG1} and \eref{e:relG2} follow immediately from \eref{e:relBw}, using the linearity of $\CD_H$ and the inversion formula.

1446: The other claims are simply obtained by differentiating under the integral, see \cite{Frac} for a justification.

1447: \end{proof}

1448: 

1449: We will be led in the sequel to consider the following situation, where $t_1$, $t_2$ and $g_1$ are assumed to be given:

1450: \begin{equ}[e:defg]

1451: \mhpastefig[6/7]{Timeline}

1452: \end{equ}

1453: In this picture, $g_w$ and $g_B$ are related by (\ref{e:relG1}--\ref{e:relG2}) as before. The boldfaced regions indicate

1454: that we consider the corresponding parts of $g_w$ or $g_B$ to be given. The dashed regions indicate that those

1455: parts of $g_w$ and $g_B$ are computed from the boldfaced regions by using the relations (\ref{e:relG1}--\ref{e:relG2}).

1456: The picture is coherent since the formulae (\ref{e:relG1}--\ref{e:relG2}) in both cases only use information about the past to compute the present.

1457: One should think of the interval $[0,t_1]$ as representing the time spent on steps \step{1} and \step{2} of the algorithm

1458: \eref{e:algo}. The interval $[t_1, t_2]$ corresponds to the waiting time, \ie step \step{3}. 

1459: Let us first give an explicit formula for $g_2$ in terms of $g_1$:

1460: 

1461: \begin{lemma}

1462: Consider the situation of \prop{prop:pastfuture}. Then, $g_2$ is given by

1463: \begin{equ}[e:formg2]

1464: g_2(t) = C\int_0^{t_1} { t^{{1\over 2}-H}(t_2-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t + t_2 -s} g_1(s)\,ds\;,

1465: \end{equ}

1466: with a constant $C$ depending only on $H$.

1467: \end{lemma}

1468: 

1469: \begin{proof}

1470: We extend $g_1(t)$ to the whole real line by setting it equal to $0$ outside of $[0,t_1]$.

1471: Using \lem{lem:formulas}, we see that, for some constant $C$ and for $t > t_2$,

1472: \begin{equs}

1473: g_2(t - t_2) &= C\int_0^{t_2} (t-s)^{-H-{1\over 2}}\,g_B(s)\,ds \\

1474: &= C\int_0^{t_2} (t-s)^{-H-{1\over 2}}{d \over ds} \int_0^{s}(s-r)^{H-{1\over 2}}g_1(r)\,dr\, ds \\

1475: &= C(t-t_2)^{-H-{1\over 2}} \int_0^{t_2} (t_2-r)^{H-{1\over 2}}g_1(r)\,dr \\

1476: &\quad- C\sml(H+{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr) \int_0^{t_2} (t-s)^{-H-{3\over 2}}\int_0^{s}(s-r)^{H-{1\over 2}} g_1(r)\,dr\, ds\\

1477: &\equiv C\int_0^{t_1} K(t,r) \, g_1(r)\,dr\;,

1478: \end{equs}

1479: where the integration stops at $t_1$ because $g_1$ is equal to $0$ for larger values of $t$.

1480: The kernel $K$ is given by

1481: \begin{equs}

1482: K(t,r) &= (t-t_2)^{-H-{1\over 2}}  (t_2-r)^{H-{1\over 2}} - \sml(H+{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\smr) \int_r^{t_2} 

1483: 		(t-s)^{-H-{3\over 2}}(s-r)^{H-{1\over 2}}\, ds \\

1484: 	&= {(t-t_2)^{-H-{1\over 2}}(t_2-r)^{H+{1\over 2}} \over t-r}\Bigl({t-r \over t_2 -r} -1\Bigr) \\

1485: 	&= {(t-t_2)^{{1\over 2}-H}(t_2-r)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t-r}\;,

1486: \end{equs}

1487: and the claim follows. 

1488: \end{proof}

1489: 

1490: We give now estimates on $g_2$ in terms of $g_1$. To this end, given $\alpha > 0$,

1491: we introduce the following norm on functions $g\from\R_+\to \R^n$:

1492: \begin{equ}

1493: \|g\|_\alpha^2 = \int_0^\infty (1+ t)^{2\alpha} \|g(t)\|^2\,dt\;.

1494: \end{equ}

1495: The following proposition is essential to the coherence of our coupling construction:

1496: 

1497: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:pastfuture}

1498: Let $t_2 > 2 t_1 > 0$, let $g_1\from[0,t_1] \to \R^n$ be a square integrable function, and define $g_2\from\R_+\to\R_+$ by

1499: \begin{equ}

1500: g_2(t) = \int_0^{t_1} { t^{{1\over 2}-H}(t_2-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t + t_2 -s} \|g_1(s)\|\,ds\;.

1501: \end{equ}

1502: Then, for every $\alpha$ satisfying

1503: \begin{equ}

1504: 0 < \alpha < \min\{{\textstyle {1\over 2}}\,;\, H\}\;,

1505: \end{equ}

1506: there exists a constant $\kappa>0$ depending only on $\alpha$ and $H$ such that the estimate

1507: \begin{equ}[e:boundfuture]

1508: \|g_2\|_\alpha \le \kappa \Bigl|{t_2 \over t_1}\Bigr|^{\alpha -{1\over 2}} \|g_1\|_\alpha

1509: \end{equ}

1510: holds.

1511: \end{proposition}

1512: 

1513: \begin{remark}

1514: The important features of this proposition are that the constant $\kappa$ \textit{does not} depend on $t_1$ or $t_2$ and

1515: that the exponent in \eref{e:boundfuture} is negative.

1516: \end{remark}

1517: 

1518: \begin{proof}

1519: We define $r = t_2/t_1$ to shorten notations.

1520: Using \eref{e:formg2} and Cauchy-Schwarz, we then have

1521: \begin{equs}

1522: \|g_2(t)\| &\le C\|g_1\|_\alpha \sqrt{\int_0^{t_1} (1+ s)^{-2\alpha}  {(rt_1-s)^{2H-1} t^{1-2H} \over \sml(t + rt_1 -s\smr)^2}\,ds } \\ 

1523: &= C\|g_1\|_\alpha {t_1}^{H-\alpha} t^{1-H-{1\over 2}} \sqrt{\int_0^{1} s^{-2\alpha}  {(r-s)^{2H-1}\over \sml(t + rt_1 - t_1s\smr)^2}\,ds }\\

1524: &\le C \|g_1\|_\alpha {{t_1}^{H-\alpha} t^{{1\over 2}-H} r^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t + (r-1) t_1 }\;,

1525: \end{equs}

1526: where we made use of the assumptions that $2\alpha < 1$ and $r \ge 2$. Therefore, $\|g_2\|_\alpha$ is bounded by

1527: \begin{equs}

1528: \|g_2\|_\alpha &\le \kappa \|g_1\|_\alpha{t_1}^{H-\alpha} r^{H-{1\over 2}} \sqrt{\int_0^\infty {(1+ t)^{2\alpha} t^{1-2H} \over \sml(t + (r-1) t_1 \smr)^2}\,dt} \\

1529: &\le \kappa \|g_1\|_\alpha  r^{\alpha - {1\over 2}} \sqrt{\int_0^\infty { t^{2\alpha} t^{1-2H} \over (t + 1)^2}\,dt} \;,

1530: \end{equs}

1531: for some constant $\kappa$, where the last inequality was obtained through the change of variables

1532: $t \mapsto (r-1)t_1 t$ and used the fact that $r \ge 2$. The convergence of the integral is obtained under the condition $\alpha < H$ which

1533: is verified by assumption,

1534: so the proof of \prop{prop:pastfuture} is complete.

1535: \end{proof}

1536: 

1537: We will construct our coupling function $\Coupl$ in such a way that there always exist functions $g_w$ and $g_B$ satisfying 

1538: \eref{e:condg} and \eref{e:relBw}, where $w_x$ and $w_y$ denote the noise components of our coupling process, and $B_x$ and $B_y$

1539: are obtained by applying the operator $\CD_H$ to them. 

1540: We have now all the necessary ingredients for the construction of $\Coupl$.

1541: 

1542: \section{Definition of the coupling function}

1543: \label{sec:defCoupl}

1544: 

1545: Our coupling construction depends on a parameter $\alpha < \min\{{1\over 2},H\}$ which we fix once and

1546: for all. This parameter will then be tuned in Section~\ref{sec:mainproof}.

1547: 

1548: First of all, we define the auxiliary space $\CA$:

1549: \begin{equ}[e:defA]

1550: \CA = \{0,1,2,3\} \times \N \times \N \times \R_+\;.

1551: \end{equ}

1552: Elements of $\CA$ will be denoted by

1553: \begin{equ}[e:notA]

1554: a = (S ,N, \tilde N, T_3)\;.

1555: \end{equ}

1556: The component $S$ denotes which step of \eref{e:algo} is going to be performed next (the value $0$ will be used only for the initial

1557: value $a_0$). The counter $N$ is incremented every time step \step{2} is performed and is reset to $0$

1558: every time another step is performed. The counter $\tilde N$ is incremented every time step \step{1} or step 

1559: \step{2} fails. If steps \step{1} or \step{2} fail, the time $T_3$ contains the duration of the upcoming 

1560: step \step{3}. We take

1561: \begin{equ}

1562: a_0 = (0,1,1,0)

1563: \end{equ}

1564: as initial condition for our coupling construction.

1565: 

1566: Remember that the coupling function $\Coupl$ is a function from $\State^2\times \Noise^2 \times \CA$, representing the state of the system

1567: at the end of a step, into $\R\times \pMeas(\CA\times\Noise_+^2)$, representing the duration and the realisation of the noise

1568: for the next step. We now define $\Coupl$ for the four possible values of $S$.

1569: 

1570: \subsection{Initial stage ({\bfseries\itshape S = 0})}

1571: 

1572: Notice first that \textbf{A1} implies that

1573: \begin{equ}[e:consA1]

1574: {\scal{f(y)-f(x), y-x} \over \|y-x\|} \le \C4 - \C2 \|y-x\|\;,

1575: \end{equ}

1576: where we set $\C4 = \sqrt{\C1(\C2+\C3)}$.

1577: 

1578: In the beginning, we just wait until the two copies of our process are within distance $1 + \sml({\C4 / \C2}\smr)$ of each other.

1579: If $x_t$ and $y_t$ satisfy \eref{e:mainequ} with the same realisation of the noise

1580: process $B_H$, and $\rho_t = y_t - x_t$, we have by for $\|\rho_t\|$ the differential inequality

1581: \begin{equ}

1582: {d \|\rho_t\| \over dt} = {\scal{f(y_t)-f(x_t), \rho_t}\over \|\rho_t\|} \le \C4 - \C2\|\rho_t\|\;,

1583: \end{equ}

1584: and therefore by Gronwall's lemma

1585: \begin{equ}

1586: \|\rho_t\| \le \|y_0 - x_0\| e^{-\C2 t} + {\C4\over\C2}\bigl(1-e^{-\C2 t}\bigr)\;.

1587: \end{equ}

1588: It is enough to wait for a time $t = \sml(\log \|y_0 - x_0\| \smr)/ \C2$ to ensure that

1589: $\|\rho_t\| \le 1 + \sml({\C4 / \C2}\smr)$, so we define the coupling function 

1590: $\Coupl$ in this case by

1591: \begin{equ}[e:defCoupl0]

1592: T(Z,a_0) = \max\Bigl\{{\log \|y_0 - x_0\| \over \C2}\,,\, 1\Bigr\}\;,\qquad \Wien_2(Z,a_0) = \Delta^*\Wien\times \delta_{a'}\;,

1593: \end{equ}

1594: where the map $\Delta\from\Noise_+\to \Noise_+^2$ is defined by $\Delta(w) = (w,w)$

1595: and the element $a'$ is given by

1596: \begin{equ}

1597: a' = (1,0,0,0)\;.

1598: \end{equ}

1599: In other terms, we wait until the two copies of the process are close to each other, and then we

1600: proceed to step \step{1}.

1601: 

1602: \subsection{Waiting stage ({\bfseries\itshape S = 3})}

1603: 

1604: In this stage, both copies evolve with the same realisation of the underlying Wiener process.

1605: Using notations \eref{e:notA} and \eref{e:notCoupl}, we therefore define the coupling function 

1606: $\Coupl$ in this case by

1607: \begin{equ}[e:defCoupl1]

1608: T(Z,a) = T_3\;,\qquad \Wien_2(Z,a) = \Delta^*\Wien\times \delta_{a'}\;,

1609: \end{equ}

1610: where the map $\Delta$ is defined as above

1611: and the element $a'$ is given by

1612: \begin{equ}

1613: a' = (1,N,\tilde N,0)\;.

1614: \end{equ}

1615: Notice that this definition is in accordance with \eref{e:algo}, \ie the counters $N$ and $\tilde N$

1616: remain unchanged, the dynamic evolves for a time $T_3$ with two identical realisations of the

1617: Wiener process (note that the realisations of the fBm driving the two copies of the system

1618: are in general different, since the {\em pasts} of the Wiener processes may differ), and then

1619: proceeds to step \step{1}.

1620: 

1621: \subsection{Hitting stage ({\bfseries\itshape S = 1})}

1622: 

1623: In this section, we construct and then analyse the map $\Coupl$ corresponding to the step \step{1}, 

1624: which is the most important

1625: step for our construction. We start with a few preliminary computations. Define $W_{1,1}$ as the space of

1626: almost everywhere differentiable functions $g$, such that the quantity

1627: \begin{equ}

1628:  \|g\|_{1,1} = \int_0^1 \Bigl\|{dg_B(t) \over dt}\Bigr\|\,dt + \|g(0)\|\;,

1629: \end{equ}

1630: is finite.

1631: 

1632: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:bigH}

1633: Let $g_B\from [0,1] \to \R^n$ be in $W_{1,1}$ and define $g_w$ by \eref{e:relG1} with 

1634: $H\in \sml({\textstyle{1\over2}},1\smr)$. (The function $g_B$ is extended to $\R$ by setting 

1635: it equal to $0$ outside of $[0,1]$ and $g_w$ is considered as a function

1636: from $\R_+$ to $\R^n$.) Then, for every $\alpha \in (0,H)$, there exists a constant $C$ such that

1637: \begin{equ}

1638: \|g_w\|_\alpha \le C\|g_B\|_{1,1}\;.

1639: \end{equ}

1640: \end{lemma}

1641: 

1642: \begin{proof}

1643: We first bound the $\L^2$ norm of $g_w$ on the interval $[0,2]$.

1644: Using \eref{e:relG6}, we can bound $\|g_w(t)\|$ by

1645: \begin{equ}

1646: \|g_w(t)\| \le C \|g_B(0)\| t^{{1\over 2}-H} + C \int_0^t \|\dot g_B(s)\| (t-s)^{{1\over 2}-H}\,ds\;.

1647: \end{equ}

1648: Since $t^{{1\over 2}-H}$ is square integrable at the origin, it remains to bound the terms $I_1$ and $I_2$ given by

1649: \begin{equs}

1650: I_1 &= \int_0^2 \Bigl(\int_0^t (t-s)^{{1\over 2} -H} \|\dot g_B(s)\|\,ds \int_0^t (t-r)^{{1\over 2} -H} \|\dot g_B(r)\|\,dr \Bigr)\, dt\;,\\

1651: I_2 &= \|g_B(0)\| \int_0^2 t^{{1\over 2} -H} \int_0^t (t-s)^{{1\over 2} -H} \|\dot g_B(s)\|\,ds\, dt\;,

1652: \end{equs}

1653: We only show how to bound $I_1$, as $I_2$ can be bounded in a similar fashion. Writing $r\vee s = \max\{r,s\}$ one has

1654: \begin{equ}

1655: I_1 = \int_0^1  \int_0^1 \int_{r \vee s}^2 (t-s)^{{1\over 2} -H} (t-r)^{{1\over 2} -H}\, dt  \|\dot g_B(s)\| \|\dot g_B(r)\|\,dr\,ds\;.

1656: \end{equ}

1657: Since 

1658: \begin{equ}

1659: \int_{r \vee s}^2 (t-s)^{{1\over 2} -H} (t-r)^{{1\over 2} -H}\,dt  \le \int_{r \vee s}^2 \sml(t-(r \vee s)\smr)^{1 - 2H}\,dt \le {2^{2-2H} \over 2-2H}\;,

1660: \end{equ}

1661: $I_1$ is bounded by  $C \|g_B\|_{1,1}^2$. 

1662: 

1663: It remains to bound the large-time tail of $g_w$. For $t \ge 2$, one has, again by \lem{lem:formulas},

1664: \begin{equ}[e:largeT]

1665: \|g_w(t)\| \le (t-1)^{-H-{1\over 2}} \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \|g_B(s)\| \le C (t-1)^{-H-{1\over 2}} \|g_B\|_{1,1}\;.

1666: \end{equ}

1667: It follows from the definition that the $\|\cdot\|_\alpha$-norm of this function is bounded if $\alpha < H$.

1668: The proof of \lem{lem:bigH} is complete.

1669: \end{proof}

1670: 

1671: In the case $H < {1\over 2}$, one has a similar result, but the regularity of $g_B$ can be weakened.

1672: 

1673: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:smallH}

1674: Let $g_B\from [0,1] \to \R^n$ be a continuous function and define $g_w$ as in \lem{lem:bigH}, but with $H\in \sml(0,{\textstyle{1\over2}}\smr)$. Then, for every $\alpha \in (0,H)$, there exists a constant $C$ such that

1675: \begin{equ}

1676: \|g_w\|_\alpha \le C\sup_{t \in [0,1]} \|g_B(t)\|\;.

1677: \end{equ}

1678: \end{lemma}

1679: 

1680: \begin{proof}

1681: Since $H < {1\over 2}$, one can move the derivative under the integral of the first equation in \lem{lem:formulas} to get 

1682: \begin{equ}

1683: \|g_w(t)\| \le C \int_0^t (t-s)^{-H -{1\over 2}}\|g_B(s)\|\,ds \le C\sup_{t \in [0,1]} \|g_B(t)\|\;.

1684: \end{equ}

1685: This shows that the restriction of $g_w$ to $[0,2]$ is square integrable. The large-time tail can be bounded by \eref{e:largeT}

1686: as before.

1687: \end{proof}

1688: 

1689: We already hinted several times towards the notion of a ``cost function'' that measures the difficulty of coupling

1690: the two copies of the process. This notion is now made precise. Denote by $Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$

1691: an element of $\State^2\times\Noise^2$ and assume that there exists a square integrable function 

1692: $g_w\from\R_-\to\R^n$ such that

1693: \begin{equ}[e:defg_w]

1694: w_y(t) = w_x(t) + \int_t^0 g_w(s)\,ds\;,\qquad \forall\,t<0\;.

1695: \end{equ}

1696: In regard of \eref{e:formg2}, we introduce for $T>0$ the operator $\CR_T$ given by

1697: \begin{equ}

1698: \sml(\CR_T g\smr)(t) = C\int_{-\infty}^0 {t^{{1\over 2}-H} (T-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t+T-s} \|g(s)\|\,ds\;,

1699: \end{equ}

1700: where $C$ is the constant appearing in \eref{e:formg2}.

1701: The cost is then defined as follows.

1702: \begin{definition}\label{def:cost}

1703: The cost function $\CK_\alpha \from \L^2(\R_-) \to [0,\infty]$ is defined by

1704: \begin{equ}[e:defcost]

1705: \CK_\alpha (g) = \sup_{T > 0} \|\CR_T g\|_\alpha + C_K\int_{-\infty}^0 (-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} \|g(s)\|\,ds\;,

1706: \end{equ}

1707: where, for convenience, we define $C_K =  \sml| (2H-1)\gamma_H\alpha_{1-H}\smr|$.

1708: Given $Z$ as above, $\CK_\alpha(Z)$ is defined as $\CK_\alpha(g_w)$ if there

1709: exists a square integrable function $g_w$ satisfying \eref{e:defg_w} and as $\infty$ otherwise.

1710: \end{definition}

1711: 

1712: \begin{remark}\label{rem:cost}

1713: The cost function $\CK_\alpha$ defined above has the important property that

1714: \begin{equ}[e:shiftcost]

1715: \CK_\alpha(\theta_t g) \le \CK_\alpha(g)\;,\quad \text{for all $t\ge 0$,}

1716: \end{equ}

1717: where the shifted function $\theta_t g$ is given by

1718: \begin{equ}

1719: \sml(\theta_t g\smr)(s) = \cases{g(s+t) & if $s < -t$,\cr 0&otherwise. }

1720: \end{equ}

1721: Furthermore, it is a norm, and thus satisfies the triangle inequality.

1722: \end{remark}

1723: 

1724: \begin{remark}\label{rem:meancost}

1725: By \eref{e:formg2}, the first term in \eref{e:defcost} measures by how much the

1726: two realisations of the Wiener process have to differ in order to obtain identical increments

1727: for the associated fractional Brownian motions. By \eref{e:relG3},

1728: the second term in \eref{e:defcost} measures by how much the two realisations

1729: of the fBm differ if one lets the system evolve with two identical realisations of the Wiener process.

1730: \end{remark}

1731: 

1732: We now turn to the construction of the process $(x_t,y_t)$ during step \step{1}. We will set up our coupling construction in such a way that, whenever step

1733: \step{1} is to be performed, the initial condition $Z$ is admissible in the following sense:

1734: 

1735: \begin{definition}\label{def:defAdm}

1736: Let $\alpha$ satisfy $0<\alpha<\min\{{1\over 2};H\}$. We say that $Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$ is {\em admissible} if one has

1737: \begin{equ}[e:defAdm]

1738: \|x_0 - y_0\| \le 1+{1 + \C4 \over \C2}\;,

1739: \end{equ}

1740: (the constants $\C{i}$ are as in \textbf{A1} and in \eref{e:consA1}), and its cost satisfies $\CK_\alpha(Z) \le 1$.

1741: \end{definition}

1742: 

1743: 

1744: Denote now by $\Omega$ the space

1745: of continuous functions $\omega\from [0,1] \to \R^n$ which are the restriction to $[0,1]$ of an element of $\tilde \CH_H$. 

1746: Our aim is construct two measures $\prob_Z^1$ and $\prob_Z^2$  on $\Omega \times \Omega$

1747: satisfying the following conditions:

1748: \begin{claim}

1749: \item[\textbf{B1}] The marginals of $\prob_Z^1+\prob_Z^2$ onto the two components $\Omega$ of the product space are both equal to the Wiener

1750: measure $\Wien$.

1751: \item[\textbf{B2}] Let ${\cscr B}_\kappa \subset \Omega\times\Omega$ denote the set of pairs $(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y)$ such that there exists

1752: a function $g_w\from [0,1]\to\R^n$ satisfying

1753: \begin{equ}

1754: \tilde w_y(t) = \tilde w_x(t) + \int_0^t g_w(s)\,ds\;,\qquad \int_0^1 \|g_w(s)\|^2\,ds \le \kappa\;.

1755: \end{equ}

1756: Then, there exists a value of $\kappa$ such that, for every admissible initial condition $Z_0$, we have $\prob_Z^1({\cscr B}_\kappa) + \prob_Z^2({\cscr B}_\kappa) = 1$.

1757: \item[\textbf{B3}] Let $(x_t,y_t)$ be the process constructed by solving \eref{e:mainequ} with respective initial conditions $x_{0}$ and

1758: $y_{0}$, and with respective noise processes $P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x)$ and $P_t(w_y,\tilde w_y)$. Then, one has $x_1 = y_1$ for $\prob_Z^1$-almost every noise $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)$. Furthermore, there exists a constant $\delta>0$ such that

1759: $\prob_Z^1(\Omega\times\Omega) \ge \delta$ for every admissible initial condition $Z$.

1760: \end{claim}

1761: 

1762: \begin{remark}\label{rem:}

1763: Both measures $\prob_Z^1$ and $\prob_Z^2$ can easily be extended to measures on $\Noise_+^2$ in such a way

1764: that \textbf{B1} holds. Since the dynamic constructed from the coupling function $\Coupl$ will not depend on this

1765: extension, we just choose one arbitrarily and denote again by  $\prob_Z^1$ and $\prob_Z^2$ the

1766: corresponding measures on $\Noise_+^2$.

1767: \end{remark}

1768: 

1769: Given $\prob_Z^1$ and $\prob_Z^2$, we construct the coupling function $\Coupl$ in the following way, using notations

1770: \eref{e:notA} and \eref{e:notCoupl}:

1771: \begin{equ}[e:defCoupl3]

1772: T(Z,a) = 1\;,\qquad \Wien_2(Z,a) = \prob_Z^1 \times \delta_{a_1} + \prob_Z^2 \times \delta_{a_2}\;,

1773: \end{equ}

1774: where the two elements $a_1$ and $a_2$ are defined as

1775: \minilab{e:defa}

1776: \begin{equs}

1777: a_1 &= (2,0,\tilde N,0)\;,\label{e:defa1}\\

1778: a_2 &= (3,0,\tilde N+1,t_* \tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)})\;,\label{e:defa2}

1779: \end{equs}

1780: for some constant $t_*$ to be determined later in this section.

1781: Notice that this definition reflects the algorithm \eref{e:algo} and the explanation following \eref{e:notA}.

1782: The reason behind the particular choice of the waiting time in \eref{e:defa2} will become clear in \rem{rem:step1}.

1783: 

1784: The way the construction of $ \prob_Z^1$ and $ \prob_Z^2$ works is very close to the binding construction in \cite{HExp02}. The main difference is

1785: that the construction presented in \cite{HExp02} doesn't allow to satisfy \textbf{B2} above. We will therefore introduce

1786: a symmetrised version of the binding construction that allows to gain a better control over $g_w$. 

1787: If $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are two positive measures with densities $D_1$ and $D_2$ with respect to

1788: some common measure $\mu$, we define the measure $\mu_1\wedge \mu_2$ by

1789: \begin{equ}

1790: \sml(\mu_1\wedge \mu_2\smr)(dw) = \min\{D_1(w), D_2(w)\}\,\mu(dw)\;.

1791: \end{equ}

1792: The key ingredient for the construction of $ \prob_Z^1$ and $ \prob_Z^2$ is the following lemma, the proof of which will be given later in this section.

1793: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:Psi}

1794: Let $Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$ be an admissible initial condition 

1795: and let $H$, $\sigma$, and $f$ satisfy the hypotheses of either

1796: \theo{theo:smallH} or \theo{theo:largeH}. Then, there exists a measurable map $\Psi_Z\from\Omega\to\Omega$ with

1797: measurable inverse,

1798: having the following properties.

1799: \begin{claim}

1800: \item[\textbf{B1'}] There exists a constant $\delta > 0$ such that $\Wien \wedge \Psi_Z^*\Wien$ has mass bigger than $2\delta$

1801: for every admissible initial condition $Z$.

1802: \item[\textbf{B2'}] There exists a constant $\kappa$ such that $\{(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y)\,|\, \tilde w_y = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)\} \subset {\cscr B}_\kappa$

1803: for every admissible initial condition $Z$.

1804: \item[\textbf{B3'}] Let $(x_t,y_t)$ be the process constructed by solving \eref{e:mainequ} with respective initial conditions $x_{0}$ and $y_{0}$, and with noise processes $P_t(w_x,\tilde w_x)$ and $P_t(w_y,\Psi_Z(\tilde w_x))$. Then, one

1805: has $x_1 = y_1$ for every $\tilde w_x \in \Omega$ and every admissible initial condition $Z$.

1806: \end{claim}

1807: Furthermore, the maps $\Psi_Z$ and $\Psi_Z^{-1}$ are measurable with respect to $Z$.

1808: \end{lemma}

1809: 

1810: Given such a $\Psi_Z$, we first define the maps $\Psi_\uparrow$ and $\Psi_\rightarrow$

1811: from $\Omega$ to $\Omega\times\Omega$ by

1812: \begin{equ}

1813: \Psi_\uparrow(\tilde w_x) = \sml(\tilde w_x,\Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)\smr)\;,\qquad\Psi_\rightarrow(\tilde w_y) = \sml(\Psi_Z^{-1}(\tilde w_y),\tilde w_y\smr)\;.

1814: \end{equ}

1815: (See also Figure~\ref{fig:constr} below.)

1816: We also define the ``switch map'' $S\from\Omega\times\Omega \to \Omega\times\Omega$ by $S(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y) = (\tilde w_y,\tilde w_x)$.

1817: \begin{figure}[h]

1818: \begin{center}

1819: \mhpastefig{Coupling}

1820: \end{center}

1821: \caption{Construction of $\prob_Z$.}\label{fig:constr}

1822: \end{figure}

1823: 

1824: With these definitions at hand, we construct two measures $\prob_Z^1$ and  $\tilde \prob_Z^1$ on $\Omega\times\Omega$ by

1825: \begin{equ}[e:constP]

1826: \prob_Z^1 = {1\over 2} \bigl(\Psi_\uparrow^*\Wien \wedge \Psi_\rightarrow^*\Wien\bigr)\;,\qquad \tilde\prob_Z^1 = \prob_Z^1 + S^*\prob_Z^1 \;.

1827: \end{equ}

1828: On Figure~\ref{fig:constr}, $\prob_Z^1$ lives on the boldfaced curve and $\tilde \prob_Z^1$ is its symmetrised version

1829: which lives on both the boldfaced and the dashed curve.

1830: Denote by $\Pi_{i}\from\Omega\times\Omega \to \Omega$ the projectors onto the $i$th component and by

1831: $\Delta\from\Omega\to\Omega \times \Omega$ the lift onto the diagonal $\Delta(w) = (w,w)$. Then, we define

1832: the measure $\prob_Z^2$ by

1833: \begin{equ}[e:defP]

1834: \prob_Z^2 = S^*\prob_Z^1 + \Delta^*\sml(\Wien - \Pi_1^* \tilde \prob_Z^1\smr)\;.

1835: \end{equ}

1836: By \eref{e:constP}, $\Wien > \Pi_1  \tilde \prob_Z^1$, so $\prob_Z^1$ and $\prob_Z^2$ are both positive

1837: and their sum is a probability measure. 

1838: Furthermore, one has by definition

1839: \begin{equ}

1840: \prob_Z^1 + \prob_Z^2 = \tilde \prob_Z^1+ \Delta^*\sml(\Wien - \Pi_1^* \tilde \prob_Z^1\smr)\;.

1841: \end{equ}

1842: Since $\Pi_1^*\Delta^*$ is the identity, this immediately implies

1843: \begin{equ}

1844: \Pi_1^*\prob_Z^1 + \Pi_1^*\prob_Z^2= \Wien\;.

1845: \end{equ}

1846: The symmetry $S^*\tilde \prob_Z^1 = \tilde \prob_Z^1$ then implies that the second marginal is also equal

1847: to $\Wien$,

1848: \ie \textbf{B1} is satisfied. Furthermore, the set $\{(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y)\,|\, \tilde w_y = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)\}$ has $\prob_Z$-measure

1849: bigger than $\delta$ by \textbf{B1'}, so \textbf{B3} is satisfied as well. Finally, \textbf{B2} is an immediate consequence of

1850: \textbf{B2'}. It remains to construct the function $\Psi_Z$.

1851: 

1852: \begin{proof}[of \lem{lem:Psi}]

1853: As previously, we write $Z$ as

1854: \begin{equ}[e:notZ0]

1855: Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)\;.

1856: \end{equ}

1857: In order to construct $\Psi_Z$, we proceed as in \cite[Sect.\ 5]{HExp02}, except that we want the solutions $x_t$ and $y_t$

1858: to become equal after time $1$. Let $\tilde w_x\in\Omega$ be given and define

1859: \begin{equ}[e:defBH]

1860: B_H(t) = \sml(\CD_H P_1(w_x,\tilde w_x)\smr)(t-1)\;,

1861: \end{equ}

1862: where $W$ denotes the corresponding part of the initial condition $Z_0$ in \eref{e:notZ0}. We write the solutions

1863: to \eref{e:mainequ} as

1864: \minilab{e:defxy}

1865: \begin{equs}

1866: dx_t &= f(x_t)\,dt + \sigma dB_H(t) \label{e:defxt}\;,\\

1867: dy_t &= f(y_t)\,dt + \sigma dB_H(t) + \sigma \tilde g_B(t)\,dt\;, \label{e:defyt}

1868: \end{equs}

1869: where $\tilde g_B(t)$ is a function to be determined. Notice that $x_t$ is completely determined by $\tilde w_x$ and by the

1870: initial condition $Z$. We introduce the process $\rho_t = y_t - x_t$, so we get

1871: \begin{equ}[e:equrho]

1872: {d \rho_t \over dt} = f(x_t+ \rho_t) - f(x_t) + \sigma \tilde g_B(t)\;.

1873: \end{equ}

1874: We now define $\tilde g_B(t)$ by

1875: \begin{equ}[e:defgb]

1876: \tilde g_B(t) = -\sigma^{-1}\Bigl(\kappa_1\rho_t + \kappa_2 {\rho_t \over \sqrt{\|\rho_t\|}}\Bigr)\;,

1877: \end{equ}

1878: for two constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ to be specified. This yields for the

1879: norm of $\rho_t$ the estimate

1880: \begin{equ}

1881: {d \|\rho_t\|^2 \over dt} \le 2(\C3 - \kappa_1)\|\rho_t\|^2 - 2\kappa_2 \|\rho_t\|^{3/2}\;.

1882: \end{equ}

1883: We choose $\kappa_1 = \C3$ and so

1884: \begin{equ}[e:estrho]

1885: \|\rho_t\| \le \cases{\bigl(6\kappa_2 t - \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|}\bigr)^2 & for 

1886: 	$t < \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|} / (6\kappa_2)$,\cr 0& for $t \ge \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|} / (6\kappa_2)$.}

1887: \end{equ}

1888: We can then choose

1889: $\kappa_2$ sufficiently large, so that $\|\rho_t\| = 0$ for $t > 1/2$. Since the initial condition

1890: was admissible by assumption, the constant $\kappa_2$ can be chosen as a function of the constants $\C{i}$ only.

1891: Notice also that the preceding construction yields $\tilde g_B$ as a function of

1892: $Z$ and $\tilde w_x$ only.

1893: 

1894: We then construct $\tilde w_y = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)$ in such a way that \eref{e:defxy} is satisfied with the function

1895: $\tilde g_B$ we just constructed. Define $g_w$ by \eref{e:defg_w} and construct $g_B$ by applying \eref{e:relG2}. Then,

1896: we extend $\tilde g_B$ to $(-\infty,1]$ by simply putting it equal to $g_B$ on $(-\infty,0]$. Applying the inverse formula

1897: \eref{e:relG1}, we obtain a function $\tilde g_w$ on  $(-\infty,1]$, which is equal to $g_w$ on $(-\infty,0]$ and which is

1898: such that 

1899: \begin{equ}

1900: \sml(\Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)\smr)(t) \equiv \tilde w_x(t) + \int_0^t \tilde g_w(s)\,ds \;,

1901: \end{equ}

1902: has precisely the required property.

1903: 

1904: It remains to check that the family of maps $\Psi_Z$ constructed this way has the properties stated in \lem{lem:Psi}.

1905: The inverse of $\Psi_Z$ is constructed in the following way. Choose $\tilde w_y \in \Omega$ and consider the solution

1906: to the equation

1907: \begin{equ}

1908: dy_t = f(y_t)\,dt + \sigma dB_H'(t)\;,

1909: \end{equ}

1910: where $B_H$ is defined as in \eref{e:defBH} with $x$ replaced by $y$. Once $y_t$ is obtained, one can construct the

1911: process $\rho_t$ as before, but this time by solving

1912: \begin{equ}

1913: {d \rho_t \over dt} = f(y_t) - f(y_t - \rho_t)  - \Bigl(\kappa_1\rho_t + \kappa_2 {\rho_t \over \sqrt{\|\rho_t\|}}\Bigr)\;.

1914: \end{equ}

1915: This allows to define $\tilde g_B$ as in \eref{e:defgb}. The element $\tilde w_x \equiv \Psi_Z^{-1}(\tilde w_y)$ is then obtained by the same

1916: procedure as before.

1917: 

1918: Before turning to the proof of properties \textbf{B1'}--\textbf{B3'}, we give some estimate on the function $\tilde g_w$ that we just constructed.

1919: 

1920: 

1921: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:estg_w}

1922: Assume that the conditions of \lem{lem:Psi} hold. Then, there exists a constant $K$ such that the function $\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)$ 

1923: constructed above satisfies

1924: \begin{equ}

1925: \int_0^1 \sml\|\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)(s)\smr\|^2\,ds < K\;,

1926: \end{equ}

1927: for every admissible initial condition $Z$ and for every $\tilde w_x \in \Noise_+$.

1928: \end{lemma}

1929: 

1930: 

1931: \begin{proof}

1932: We write $\tilde g_w(t)$ for $t>0$ as

1933: \begin{equs}

1934: \tilde g_w(t) &= C\int_{-\infty}^0 {t^{{1\over 2}-H}(-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t-s} g_w(s)\,ds + \alpha_H {d\over dt}\int_0^t

1935: (t-s)^{{1\over 2}-H} \tilde g_B(s)\,ds\;, \\

1936: &\equiv \tilde g_w^{(1)}(t) + \tilde g_w^{(2)}(t)\;.

1937: \end{equs}

1938: where $g_w$ is defined by \eref{e:defg_w}, $g_B$ is given by \eref{e:defgb}, and the constant $C$ is the constant appearing

1939: in \eref{e:formg2}. 

1940: The $\L^2$-norm of $\tilde g_w^{(1)}$ is bounded by $1$ by 

1941: the assumption that $Z$ is admissible.

1942: To bound the norm of $\tilde g_w^{(2)}$, we treat the cases $H<{1\over 2}$ and $H>{1\over 2}$ separately.

1943: 

1944: \noindent \textbf{The case $\mathbf{H < {1\over 2}}$.} For this case, we simply combine \lem{lem:smallH} with the definition

1945: \eref{e:defgb} and the estimate \eref{e:estrho}. 

1946: 

1947: \noindent \textbf{The case $\mathbf{H>{1\over 2}}$.} For this case, we apply \lem{lem:bigH}, so we bound the $\|\cdot\|_{1,1}$-norm of $\tilde g_B$. By \eref{e:defgb}, one has

1948: \begin{equ}[e:estdgb]

1949: \Bigl\|{d \over dt} \tilde g_B(t)\Bigr\| \le C\Bigl\|{d\rho_t \over dt}\Bigr\| \bigl(1 + \|\rho_t\|^{-{1\over 2}}\bigr)\;,

1950: \end{equ}

1951: for some positive constant $C$. Using \eref{e:equrho}, the assumption about the boundedness

1952: of the derivative of $f$, and the definition \eref{e:defgb} we get

1953: \begin{equ}

1954:  \Bigl\|{d\rho_t \over dt}\Bigr\| \le C \bigl(\|\rho_t\| + \sqrt{\|\rho_t\|}\bigr) \;.

1955: \end{equ}

1956: Combining this with \eref{e:estdgb} and \eref{e:estrho}, the required bound on $\|\tilde g_B\|_{1,1}$ follows.

1957: \end{proof}

1958: 

1959: 

1960: Property \textbf{B1'} now follows from \lem{lem:estg_w} and Girsanov's theorem in the following way. Denote by $\Dens_Z$ the density of $\Psi_Z^*\Wien$ with

1961: respect to $\Wien$, \ie $\sml(\Psi_Z^*\Wien\smr)(d\tilde w_x) = \Dens_Z(\tilde w_x)\,\Wien(d\tilde w_x)$. It is given by Girsanov's formula

1962: \begin{equ}

1963: \Dens_Z(\tilde w_x) = \exp \Bigl(\int_0^1 \bigl\langle\sml(\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr)(t)\,,\,d\tilde w_x(t)\bigr\rangle -{1\over 2}\int_0^1 \sml\|\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr\|^2(t)\,dt\Bigr)\;.

1964: \end{equ}

1965: One can check (see \eg \cite{MatNS}) that $\|\Wien \wedge \Psi_Z^*\Wien\|_\TV$ is bounded from below by

1966: \begin{equ}

1967: \|\Wien \wedge \Psi_Z^*\Wien\|_\TV \ge \Bigl(4\int_\Omega \Dens_Z(w)^{-2}\,\Wien(dw) \Bigr)\;.

1968: \end{equ}

1969: Property \textbf{B1'} thus follows immediately from \lem{lem:estg_w}, using the fact that

1970: \begin{equ}

1971: \int_\Omega \exp \Bigl(-2\int_0^1 \bigl\langle\sml(\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr)(t)\,,\,d\tilde w_x(t)\bigr\rangle - 2\int_0^1 \sml\|\tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr\|^2(t)\,dt\Bigr)\,\Wien(dw) = 1\;.

1972: \end{equ}

1973:  Property \textbf{B2'} is also an immediate consequence of \lem{lem:estg_w}, and property \textbf{B3'} follows by construction from \eref{e:estrho}. The proof of \lem{lem:Psi} is complete.

1974: \end{proof}

1975: 

1976: Before concluding this subsection we show that, if step \step{1} fails, $t_*$ can be chosen in such a way that

1977: the waiting time $t_*\tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$ in

1978: \eref{e:defa2} is long enough so that \eref{e:defAdm} holds again after step \step{3} and so that the cost

1979:  function does not  increase by more than $1/(2\tilde N^2)$. By the triangle inequality, the second claim follows

1980:  if we show that

1981: \begin{equ}[e:boundCost]

1982: \CK_\alpha\sml(\theta_t \tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr) \le {1 \over 2 \tilde N^2}\;,

1983: \end{equ}

1984: whenever $t$ is large enough (the shift $\theta_t$ is as in \eref{e:shiftcost}). Combining \eref{e:boundfuture}, \lem{lem:estg_w}, and the

1985: definition of $\CK_\alpha$, we get, for some constant $C$,

1986: \begin{equ}

1987: \CK_\alpha\sml(\theta_t \tilde g_w(Z,\tilde w_x)\smr) \le C t^{\alpha - {1\over 2}} + C t^{H-{3\over 2}}\;,\quad\text{for $t\ge 2$.}

1988: \end{equ}

1989: There thus exists a constant $t_*$ such that the bound \eref{e:boundCost} is satisfied if the waiting time 

1990: is longer than $t_* \tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$. It remains to show that \eref{e:defAdm} holds after the waiting

1991: time is over. If step \step{1} failed, the realisations $\tilde w_x$ and $\tilde w_y$ are drawn either in the set

1992: \begin{equ}

1993: \tilde \Delta_1 = \{ (\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Omega^2 \,|\, \tilde w_x = \tilde w_y \}\;,

1994: \end{equ}

1995: or in the set

1996: \begin{equ}

1997: \tilde \Delta_2 = \{(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Omega^2 \,|\, \tilde w_x = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_y) \}

1998: \end{equ}

1999: (see Figure~\ref{fig:constr}). In order to describe the dynamics also during the waiting time

2000: (\ie step \step{3}), we extend those sets to $\Noise_+^2$ by

2001: \begin{equs}

2002: \Delta_i &= \big\{(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Noise_+^2\,|\, (\tilde w_x |_{[0,1]}, \tilde w_y |_{[0,1]}) \in \tilde \Delta_i\;,

2003: \\

2004: &\qquad \text{and}

2005: \quad \tilde w_x (t) - \tilde w_y (t) = \text{const}\quad \text{for $t>1$}\big\}\;.

2006: \end{equs}

2007: Given an admissible initial condition $Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$ and a pair $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Noise_+^2$, we consider

2008: the solutions $x_t$ and $y_t$ to \eref{e:mainequ} given by

2009: \begin{equa}[e:evolCoupl]

2010: dx_t &= f(x_t)\,dt + \sigma dB_H^x(t) \;,\\

2011: dy_t &= f(y_t)\,dt + \sigma dB_H^y(t) \;,

2012: \end{equa}

2013: where $B_H^x$ (and similarly for $B_H^y$) is constructed as usual by concatenating $w_x$ and $\tilde w_x$ and applying the operator

2014: $\CD_H$. 

2015: The key observation is the following lemma.

2016: 

2017: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:controldist}

2018: Let $Z$ be an admissible initial condition as above, let $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Delta_1 \cup \Delta_2$, and 

2019: let $x_t$ and $y_t$ be given by \eref{e:evolCoupl} for $t>0$. Then, there exists a constant $t_* > 0$ such that

2020: \begin{equ}

2021: \|x_t - y_t\| \le 1+ {1 + \C4 \over \C2}

2022: \end{equ}

2023: holds again for $t > t_*$.

2024: \end{lemma}

2025: 

2026: \begin{proof}

2027: Fix an admissible initial condition $Z$ and consider the case when $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y) \in \Delta_2$ first. 

2028: Let $g_w \from \R_- \to \R^n$ be as in \eref{e:defg_w} and define $\tilde g_w \from \R_+ \to \R^n$

2029: by

2030: \begin{equ}

2031: \tilde w_y(t) = \tilde w_x(t) + \int_0^t \tilde g_w(s)\,ds\;.

2032: \end{equ}

2033: Introducing $\rho_t = y_t - x_t$, we see that it

2034: satisfies the equation

2035: \begin{equ}[e:equrho2]

2036: {d \rho_t \over dt} = f(y_t) - f(x_t) + \sigma \CG_t\;,

2037: \end{equ}

2038: where the function $\CG_t$ is given by

2039: \begin{equ}[e:defG]

2040: \CG_t = c_1 \int_{-\infty}^0 (t-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} g_w(s)\,ds + 

2041: c_2 {d \over dt} \int_{0}^t (t-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \tilde g_w(s)\,ds\;,

2042: \end{equ}

2043: with some constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depending only on $H$.

2044: It follows from \eref{e:equrho2}, \eref{e:consA1}, and Gronwall's lemma, that the Euclidean norm $\|\rho_t\|$ satisfies the inequality

2045: \begin{equ}[e:estrhoGron]

2046: \|\rho_t\| \le e^{-\C2 t}\|\rho_0\| + \int_0^t e^{-\C2 (t-s)}\sml(\C4 + \|\CG_s\|\smr)\,ds\;.

2047: \end{equ}

2048: Consider first the time interval $[0,1]$ and define

2049: \begin{equ}

2050: \tilde \CG_t = c_1\int_{-\infty}^0 (t-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} g_w(s)\,ds -

2051: c_2 {d \over dt} \int_{0}^t (t-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \tilde g_w(s)\,ds\;,

2052: \end{equ}

2053: \ie, we simply reversed the sign of $\tilde g_w$.

2054: This corresponds to the case where $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)$ are interchanged, and thus satisfy

2055: $\tilde w_y = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_x)$ instead of $\tilde w_x = \Psi_Z(\tilde w_y)$.

2056: We thus deduce from \eref{e:defgb} and \eref{e:estrho} that 

2057: \begin{equ}[e:wantboundG]

2058: \|\tilde \CG_s\| \le \|\sigma^{-1}\|\bigl(\kappa_1 \|\rho_0\|Ê+ \kappa_2 \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|}\bigr)\;,

2059: \end{equ}

2060: for $s \in [0,1]$. This yields for $\|\CG_s\|$ the estimate

2061: \begin{equs}

2062: \|\CG_s\| &\le \|\sigma^{-1}\|\bigl(\kappa_1 \|\rho_0\|Ê+ \kappa_2 \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|}\bigr) + 2 c_1 \int_{-\infty}^0 (t-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} \|g_w(s)\|\,ds \\

2063: &\le  \|\sigma^{-1}\|\bigl(\kappa_1 \|\rho_0\|Ê+ \kappa_2 \sqrt{\|\rho_0\|}\bigr) + 1 \;, \label{e:estG1}

2064: \end{equs}  

2065: where we used the fact that $Z$ is admissible for the second step. Notice that \eref{e:estG1} only holds for

2066: $s \in [0,1]$, so we consider now the case $s > 1$. In this case, we can write $\CG_t$ as

2067: \begin{equ}

2068: \CG_t = c_1 \int_{-\infty}^0 (t-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} g_w(s)\,ds + 

2069: c_1 \int_{0}^1 (t-s)^{H-{3\over 2}} \tilde g_w(s)\,ds\;.

2070: \end{equ}

2071: The first term is bounded by $1$ as before.

2072: In order to bound the second term, we use \lem{lem:estg_w}, so we get

2073: \begin{equ}[e:boundGt]

2074: \|\CG_t\| \le  1 + \sqrt{{K\over 2H-2} \bigl((t-1)^{2H-2} - t^{2H-2}\bigr)}\;.

2075: \end{equ}

2076: This function has a singularity at $t=1$, but this singularity is always integrable. For $t>2$ say, it behaves like

2077: $t^{H-{3\over 2}}$. Putting the estimates \eref{e:estG1} and \eref{e:boundGt} into \eref{e:estrhoGron}, we

2078: see that there exists a constant $C$ depending only on $H$ and on the parameters in assumption

2079: \textbf{A1} such that, for $t>2$, one has the estimate

2080: \begin{equ}

2081: \|\rho_t\| \le e^{-\C2 t}\|\rho_0\| + {1+\C4 \over \C2} + C t^{H-{3\over 2}}\;.

2082: \end{equ}

2083: The claim follows at once.

2084: \end{proof}

2085: 

2086: \begin{remark}\label{rem:step1}

2087: To summarise, we have shown the following in this section:

2088: \begin{claim}[AA]

2089: \item[1.] There exists a positive constant $\delta$ such that if the state $Z$ of the coupled system is admissible, 

2090: step \step{1} has a probability larger than $\delta$ to succeed. 

2091: \item[2.] If step \step{1} fails and the waiting time for step \step{3} is chosen larger than 

2092: $t_*\tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$, then the state of the coupled 

2093: system is again admissible after the end of step \step{3}, provided the cost $\CK_\alpha(Z)$ at the beginning of step \step{1}

2094: was smaller than $1-{1 \over 2\tilde N^2}$.

2095: \item[3.] The increase in the cost given between the beginning of step \step{1} and the end

2096: of step \step{3} is smaller than ${1 \over 2\tilde N^2}$.

2097: \end{claim}

2098: \end{remark}

2099: 

2100: In the following subsection, we will define step \step{2} and so conclude the construction and the analysis of the

2101: coupling function $\Coupl$.

2102: 

2103: \subsection{Coupling stage ({\bfseries\itshape S = 2})}

2104: 

2105: In this subsection, we construct and analyse the coupling map $\Coupl$ corresponding to step \step{2}. 

2106: Following \eref{e:algo}, we construct it in such a way that, with positive probability, the two copies of the process

2107: \eref{e:mainequ} are driven with the same noise. In other terms, if $Z=(x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$ denotes the

2108: state of our coupled system at the beginning of step \step{2}, we construct a measure $\prob_Z$

2109: on $\Noise_+^2$ such that if $(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)$ is drawn according to $\prob_Z$, then one has

2110: \begin{equ}[e:defcoupl]

2111: \sml(\CD_H(w_x \sqcup \tilde w_x)\smr)(t) = \sml(\CD_H(w_y \sqcup \tilde w_y)\smr)(t)\;,\quad t>0\;,

2112: \end{equ}

2113: with positive probability. Here, $\sqcup$ denotes the concatenation operator given by

2114: \begin{equ}

2115: \sml(w \sqcup \tilde w\smr)(t) = \cases{w(t) & for $t < 0$,\cr\tilde w(t) & for $t \ge 0$.}

2116: \end{equ}

2117: In the notation \eref{e:notA}, step \step{2} will have a duration $2^N$ and $N$ will be incremented

2118: by $1$ every time step \step{2} succeeds.

2119: 

2120: The construction of $\prob_Z$ will be similar in spirit to the construction of the previous section.

2121: We therefore introduce as before the function $\tilde g_w$ given by

2122: \begin{equ}[e:defgwtilde]

2123: \tilde w_y(t) = \tilde w_x(t) + \int_0^t \tilde g_w(s)\,ds\;.

2124: \end{equ}

2125: Our main concern is of course to get good bounds on this function $\tilde g_w$. This is

2126: achieved by the following lemma, which is crucial in the process of showing that step \step{2} will

2127: eventually succeed infinitely often.

2128: 

2129: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:step1}

2130: Let $Z_0$ be an admissible initial condition and denote by $\CT$ the measure on $\State^2\times\Noise^2$

2131: obtained by evolving $Z_0$ according to the successful realisation of step \step{1}. Then, there exists a constant

2132: $\tilde K > 0$ depending only on $H$, $\alpha$, and the parameters appearing in \textbf{A1}, such that for $\CT$-almost

2133: every $Z = (x,y,w_x,w_y)$, and for every pair $(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y)$ satisfying \eref{e:defcoupl}, we have the

2134: bounds

2135: \begin{equ}[e:boundstep2]

2136: \|\tilde g_w\|_\alpha \le \tilde K \;,\qquad \Bigl\|{d \tilde g_w \over dt}\Bigr\|_{\alpha+1} \le \tilde K \;.

2137: \end{equ}

2138: Furthermore, one has $x=y$, $\CT$-almost surely.

2139: \end{lemma}

2140: 

2141: \begin{proof}

2142: It is clear from \lem{lem:Psi} that $x=y$.

2143: Let now $Z$ be an element drawn according to $\CT$ 

2144: and denote by $g_w\from\R_-\to \R^n$ the function formally defined by

2145: \begin{equ}[e:defgw2]

2146: dw_y(t)  = dw_x(t) + g_w(t)\,dt\;.

2147: \end{equ}

2148: We also denote by $g_b\from \R_- \to \R^n$ the function such that

2149: \begin{equ}[e:defgb2]

2150: dB_y(t)  = dB_x(t) + g_b(t)\,dt\;,

2151: \end{equ} 

2152: where $B_x = \CD_H w_x$ and $B_y = \CD_H w_y$. 

2153: (Note that $g_w$ and $g_b$ are almost surely well-defined, so we discard elements $Z$

2154: for which they can not be defined.)

2155: Since $Z$ corresponds almost surely to a successful realization of step \textbf{1}, $g_b$ is equal

2156: on the interval $[-1,0]$ (up to translation in time) to the function $\tilde g_B$ constructed in \eref{e:defgb}. By \eref{e:estrho}, there exists therefore a constant $C_g$ such that

2157: \begin{equ}[e:boundgb]

2158: \|g_b(s)\| \le \cases{C_g & for $s\in [-1,-{\textstyle{1\over 2}})$,\cr 0& for $s\in[-{\textstyle{1\over 2}},0]$.}

2159: \end{equ}

2160: Combining the linearity of $\CD_H$ with

2161: \eref{e:formg2}, one can see that if $(\tilde w_x,\tilde w_y)$ satisfy \eref{e:defcoupl}, then the

2162: function $\tilde g_w$ is given by the formula

2163: \begin{equ}[e:exprgwtilde1]

2164: \tilde g_w(t) =  C_1\int_{-\infty}^{-1} {|t+1|^{{1\over 2}-H}|s + 1|^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t-s}g_w(s)\,ds

2165: + C_2\int_{-1}^{-1/2} (t-s)^{-H-{1\over 2}} g_b(s)\,ds\;,

2166: \end{equ}

2167: for some constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ depending only on $H$. Notice that the second integral 

2168: only goes up to $1/2$ because of \eref{e:boundgb}.

2169: 

2170: Since the initial condition $Z_0$  is admissible by assumption, the $\|\cdot\|_\alpha$-norm of the first

2171: term is bounded by $1$. The $\|\cdot\|_\alpha$-norm of the second term is also bounded by a constant, 

2172: using \eref{e:boundgb} and the assumption

2173: $\alpha < H$.

2174: 

2175: Deriving \eref{e:exprgwtilde1} with respect to $t$, we see that there exists a constant $K$ such that

2176: \begin{equa}[e:boundderg]

2177: \Bigl\|{d\tilde g_w(t) \over dt}\Bigr\| &\le {K \over t+1} \Big(\int_{-\infty}^{-1} {|t+1|^{{1\over 2}-H}|s + 1|^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t-s} \|g_w(s)\|\,ds

2178: \\

2179: &\qquad\qquad+ \int_{-1}^{-1/2} (t-s)^{-H-{1\over 2}} \|g_b(s)\|\,ds\Big)\;,

2180: \end{equa}

2181: and the bound on the derivative follows as previously.

2182: \end{proof}

2183: 

2184: The definition of our coupling function will be based on the following lemma:

2185: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:gauss}

2186: Let $\CN$ be the normal distribution on $\R$, choose $a \in \R$, $b\ge |a|$, and define 

2187: $M = \max\{4b,2\log(8/b)\}$. Then, there exists a measure

2188: $\CN_{a,b}^2$ on $\R^2$ satisfying the following properties:

2189: \begin{claim}[33]

2190: \item[1.] Both marginals of $\CN_{a,b}^2$ are equal to $\CN$.

2191: \item[2.] If $|b|\le 1$, one has

2192: \begin{equ}

2193: \CN_{a,b}^2 \bigl(\bigl\{(x,y)\,|\, y = x+a\bigr\}\bigr) > 1 - b\;.

2194: \end{equ}

2195: Furthermore, the above quantity is always positive.

2196: \item[3.] One has

2197: \begin{equ}

2198: \CN_{a,b}^2 \bigl(\bigl\{(x,y)\,|\, |y - x| \le M\bigr\}\bigr) = 1\;.

2199: \end{equ}

2200: \end{claim}

2201: \end{lemma}

2202: 

2203: \begin{proof}

2204: Consider the following picture:

2205: \begin{center}

2206: \begin{minipage}{5cm}

2207: \mhpastefig{Gaussian}

2208: \end{minipage}

2209: \begin{minipage}{4cm}

2210: \begin{equs}

2211: L_1\,:\quad y &= x \;,\\

2212: L_2\,:\quad y &= -x \;,\\

2213: L_3\,:\quad y &= x+a \;.\\

2214: \quad&\quad

2215: \end{equs}

2216: \end{minipage}

2217: \end{center}

2218: Denote by $\CN_x$ the normal distribution on the set $L_x = \{(x,y)\,|\, y = 0\}$ and by $\CN_y$ the normal

2219: distribution on the set  $L_y = \{(x,y)\,|\, x = 0\}$. We also define the maps $\pi_{i,x}$ (respect. $\pi_{i,y}$) from

2220: $L_x$ (respect. $L_y$) to $L_i$, obtained by only modifying the $y$ (respect. $x$) coordinate. Notice that 

2221: these maps are invertible and denote their inverses by $\tilde \pi_{i,x}$ (respect. $\tilde \pi_{i,y}$).

2222: We also denote by $\CN_x|_M$ (respect. $\CN_y|_M$) the restriction of $\CN_x$ (respect. $\CN_y$)

2223: to the square $[-{M\over 2},{M\over 2}]^2$.

2224: 

2225: With these notations, we define the measure $\CN_3$ on $L_3$ as

2226: \begin{equ}

2227: \CN_3 = \pi_{3,x}^* \sml(\CN_x |_M\smr)\wedge \pi_{3,y}^* \sml(\CN_y |_M\smr)\;.

2228: \end{equ}

2229: The measure $\CN_{a,b}^2$ is then defined as

2230: \begin{equ}

2231: \CN_{a,b}^2 = \CN_3 +  \pi_{2,x}^*\bigl(\sml(\CN_x |_M\smr) - \tilde \pi_{3,x}^*\CN_3\bigr)

2232: + \pi_{1,x}^*\bigl(\CN_x -\sml(\CN_x |_M\smr) \bigr)\;.

2233: \end{equ}

2234: A straightforward calculation, using the symmetries of the problem, shows that property 1 is indeed satisfied.

2235: Property 3 follows immediately from the construction, so it remains to check that property 2 holds, \ie that

2236: \begin{equ}

2237: \CN_3(L_3) \ge 1- b\;,

2238: \end{equ}

2239: for $|b| < 1$, and $\CN_3(L_3)>0$ otherwise. It follows from the definition of the total variation distance $\|\cdot\|_\TV$ that 

2240: \begin{equ}

2241: \CN_3(L_3) = 1-{1 \over 2}\|\sml(\CN_x |_M\smr) - \tau_a^* \sml(\CN_x |_M\smr) \|_\TV\;,

2242: \end{equ}

2243: where $\tau_a(x) = x-a$. 

2244: Since $M\ge 4b \ge 4a$, is clear from the picture and from the fact that the density of the normal distribution is

2245: everywhere positive, that $\CN_3(L_3)>0$ for every $a\in\R$. It therefore suffices to consider the case

2246: $|b| \le 1$. Since

2247: $\int_M^\infty e^{-x^2/2}\,dx < b/8$, one 

2248: has $\|\CN_x|_M -\CN_x \|_\TV \le b/4$, which implies

2249: \begin{equ}

2250: \CN_3(L_3) \ge 1- {b\over 4} - {1 \over 2}\|\CN_x - \tau_a^* \CN_x\|_\TV\;.

2251: \end{equ}

2252: A straightforward computation shows that, for $|a|\le 1$,

2253: \begin{equ}

2254: \|\CN_x - \tau_a^* \CN_x\|_\TV \le \sqrt{e^{a^2}-1} \le \sqrt{2} a \;,

2255: \end{equ}

2256: and the claim follows.

2257: \end{proof}

2258: 

2259: We will use the following corollary:

2260: 

2261: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:Girs}

2262: Let $\Wien$ be the Wiener measure on $\Noise_+$, let $g\in \L^2(\R_+)$ with $\|g\| \le b$, let

2263: $M = \max\{4b,2\log(8/b)\}$, and define

2264: the map $\Psi_g\from\Noise_+\to\Noise_+$ by

2265: \begin{equ}

2266: \sml(\Psi_g w\smr)(t) = w(t) + \int_0^t g(s)\,ds\;.

2267: \end{equ}

2268: Then, there exists a measure $\Wien_{g,b}^2$ on $\Noise_+^2$ such that 

2269: the following properties hold:

2270: \begin{claim}[33]

2271: \item[1.] Both marginals of $\Wien_{g,b}^2$ are equal to the Wiener measure $\Wien$.

2272: \item[2.] If $b \le 1$, one has the bound

2273: \begin{equ}[e:goodset]

2274: \Wien_{g,b}^2 \bigl(\bigl\{(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)\,|\, \tilde w_y = \Psi_g(\tilde w_x)\bigr\}\bigr) \ge 1-b\;.

2275: \end{equ}

2276: Furthermore, at fixed $b >0$, the above quantity is always positive and a decreasing function of $\|g\|$.

2277: \item[3.] The set

2278: \begin{equ}

2279: \Bigl\{(\tilde w_x, \tilde w_y)\,\Big|\, \exists \kappa \,:\, \tilde w_y(t) = \tilde w_x(t) + \kappa \int_0^t g(s)\,ds\,,\,

2280: |\kappa| \| g\| \le M\Bigr\}

2281: \end{equ}

2282: has full $\Wien_{g,b}^2$-measure.

2283: \end{claim}

2284: \end{corollary}

2285: 

2286: \begin{proof}

2287: This is an immediate consequence of the $\L^2$ expansion of white noise, using $g$ as one of the

2288: basis functions and applying \lem{lem:gauss} on that component.

2289: \end{proof}

2290: 

2291: Given this result (and using the same notations as above), we turn to the construction of the coupling function $\Coupl$ 

2292: for step \step{2}. Given an initial condition $Z = (x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y)$, remember that $g_w$ is defined by

2293: \eref{e:defg_w}. We furthermore define the function $\tilde g_w\from \R_+ \to \R^n$ by

2294: \begin{equ}[e:exprgwtilde2]

2295: \tilde g_w(t) = C \int_{-\infty}^0 {t^{{1\over 2}-H}(-s)^{H-{1\over 2}} \over t-s} g_w(s)\,ds\;,

2296: \end{equ}

2297: with $C$ the constant appearing in \eref{e:formg2}. By \eref{e:formg2}, $\tilde g_w$ is the only

2298: function that ensures that \eref{e:defcoupl} holds  if $\tilde w_x$ and $\tilde w_y$ are related

2299: by \eref{e:defgwtilde}. (Notice that, although \eref{e:exprgwtilde1} seems to differ substantially

2300: from \eref{e:exprgwtilde2}, they do actually define the same function.) Given $Z$ as above and 

2301: $a\in\CA$, denote by $g_{a,Z}$ the restriction of $\tilde g_w$ to the interval $[0,2^N]$ (prolonged

2302: by $0$ outside). It follows from \lem{lem:step1} that there exists a constant $K$ such that if

2303: the coupled process was in an admissible state at the beginning of step \step{1}, then

2304: the a-priori estimate

2305: \begin{equ}[e:aprioristep2]

2306: \|g_{a,Z}\|^2 \equiv \int_0^{2^N}\|g_{a,Z}(s)\|^2\,ds \le C 2^{-2\alpha N} \equiv b_N^2

2307: \end{equ}

2308: holds for some constant $C$.

2309: We thus define $b = \max\{b_N,\|g_{a,Z}\|\}$ and denote by $\Wien_{Z,a}^2$ the restriction of

2310: $\Wien_{g_{a,Z},b}^2$ to the ``good'' set \eref{e:goodset} and by $\tilde\Wien_{Z,a}^2$ its restriction

2311: to the complementary set.

2312: 

2313: We choose furthermore an arbitrary exponent $\beta$ satisfying the condition

2314: \begin{equ}[e:condbeta]

2315: \beta >  {1\over 1-2\alpha}\;.

2316: \end{equ}

2317: With these notations at hand, we define the coupling function for step \step{2}:

2318: \begin{equ}

2319: T(Z,a) = 2^N\;, \quad \Wien_2(Z,a) = \Wien_{Z,a}^2 \times \delta_{a'} + \tilde \Wien_{Z,a}^2 \times \delta_{a''}\;,

2320: \end{equ}

2321: where

2322: \begin{equ}[e:defstep2]

2323: a' = (2,N+1,\tilde N, 0)\;,\quad a'' = (3,0,\tilde N+1, \tilde t_* 2^{\beta N}\tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)})\;,

2324: \end{equ}

2325: for some constant $\tilde t_*$ to be determined in the remainder of this section.

2326: The waiting time in \eref{e:defstep2} has been chosen in such a way that the following holds.

2327: 

2328: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:step2}

2329: Let $(Z_0,a_0) \in \State^2\times\Noise^2\times\CA$ with $Z_0$ admissible and 

2330: denote by $\CT$ the measure on $\State^2\times\Noise^2$

2331: obtained by evolving it according to the successful realisation of step \step{1}, followed by

2332: $N$ successful realisations of step \step{2}, one failed realisation of step \step{2}, and one waiting

2333: period \step{3}. There exists a constant $\tilde t_*$

2334: such that $\CT$-almost every $Z = (x,y,w_x,w_y)$ satisfies

2335: \begin{equ}

2336: \|x - y\| \le 1+ {1+\C4\over \C2}\;,\quad \CK_\alpha(Z) \le \CK_\alpha(Z_0) + {1 \over 2\tilde N^2}\;,

2337: \end{equ}

2338: where $\tilde N$ denotes the value of the corresponding component of $a_0$.

2339: \end{lemma}

2340: 

2341: \begin{proof}

2342: We first show the bound on the cost function. Given $Z$ distributed according to $\CT$ as in

2343: the statement, we define $g_w$ by \eref{e:defgw2} as usual. The bounds we get on the function

2344: $g_w$ are schematically depicted in the following figure, where the time interval $[\tilde t_2,t_3]$ 

2345: corresponds to the failed realisation of step \step{2}.

2346: \begin{equ}[e:figBounds]

2347: \mhpastefig{Bounds}

2348: \end{equ}

2349: Notice that, except for the contribution coming from times smaller than $t_1$, we are exactly in the 

2350: situation of \eref{e:defg}.

2351: Since the cost of a function is decreasing under time shifts, the contribution to $\CK_\alpha(Z)$

2352: coming from $(-\infty,t_1]$ is bounded by $\CK_\alpha(Z_0)$. Denote by $g$ the function defined

2353: by

2354: \begin{equ}

2355: g(t) = \cases{g_w(t+t_1) & for $t\in [0, t_3-t_1]$,\cr 0& otherwise.}

2356: \end{equ}

2357: %We also denote by $\tilde g$ the function defined by

2358: %\begin{equ}

2359: %\tilde g(t) = \cases{g_w(t+\tilde t_2) & for $t\in [0, t_3-\tilde t_2]$,\cr 0& otherwise.}

2360: %\end{equ}

2361: Using the definition of the cost function together with \prop{prop:pastfuture} and the Cauchy-Schwarz 

2362: inequality, we obtain for some

2363: constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ the bound

2364: \begin{equ}

2365: \CK_\alpha(Z) \le \CK_\alpha(Z_0) + C_1 \sqrt{|t_3|^{2H-2}-|t_1|^{2H-2}}\|g\| + C_2 \Bigl|{t_1 \over t_3 - t_1}\Bigr|^{\alpha-{1\over 2}}\|g\|_\alpha\;,

2366: \end{equ}

2367: where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the $\L^2$-norm. 

2368: Since step \step{1} has length $1$ and the $N$th occurrence of step \step{2} has length $2^{N-1}$,

2369: we have

2370: \begin{equ}

2371: |t_3 - t_1| = 2^{N+1}\;,\quad |t_3| = \tilde t_* 2^{\beta N}\tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)}\;.

2372: \end{equ}

2373: In particular, one has $|t_3| > |t_3-t_1|$ if $\tilde t_*$ is larger than $1$.

2374: Since 

2375: \begin{equ}

2376: \sqrt{|t_3|^{2H-2}-|t_1|^{2H-2}} \le |t_3|^{H-{3\over 2}} |t_3 - t_1|^{1\over 2} \le  \Bigl|{t_3 \over t_3 - t_1}\Bigr|^{-{1\over 2}}\;,

2377: \end{equ}

2378: this yields (for a different constant $C_1$) the bound

2379: \begin{equ}

2380: \CK_\alpha(Z) \le \CK_\alpha(Z_0) + C_1  \Bigl|{t_3 \over t_3 - t_1}\Bigr|^{\alpha-{1\over 2}} \|g\|_\alpha

2381: \le\CK_\alpha(Z_0) + C_1 {\tilde t_*^{\alpha -{1\over 2}}2^{-\gamma N}\over \tilde N^2}  \|g\|_\alpha\;,

2382: \end{equ}

2383: where we defined $\gamma = (\beta-1)({1\over 2}-\alpha)$. Notice that \eref{e:condbeta} guarantees that

2384: $\gamma > \alpha$. 

2385: 

2386: We now bound the $\|\cdot\|_\alpha$-norm of $g$. We know from \lem{lem:step1} that

2387: the contribution coming from the time interval $[t_1,\tilde t_2]$ is bounded by some constant $K$.

2388: Furthermore, by \eref{e:aprioristep2}, we have  for the contribution coming from the interval

2389: $[\tilde t_2, t_3]$ a bound of the type 

2390: \begin{equ}

2391: \int_{\tilde t_2}^{t_3}\|\tilde g(s)\|^2\,ds \le C (N+1)^2\;,

2392: \end{equ}

2393: for some positive constant $C$. This yields for $g$ the bound

2394: \begin{equ}

2395: \|g\|_\alpha \le C (N+1)2^{\alpha N}\;,

2396: \end{equ}

2397: for some other constant $C$. Since $\gamma > \alpha$, there exists a constant $C$ such that

2398: \begin{equ}

2399: \CK_\alpha(Z) \le \CK_\alpha(Z_0) + C {\tilde t_*^{\alpha -{1\over 2}}\over \tilde N^2}\;.

2400: \end{equ}

2401: By choosing $\tilde t_*$ sufficiently large, this proves the claim concerning the increase of the total cost. 

2402: 

2403: It remains to show that, at the end of step \step{3}, the two realisations of \eref{e:mainequ} 

2404: didn't drift to far apart. 

2405: Define $g_b$ by \eref{e:defgb2} as usual and notice that, by construction, $x_t = y_t$ for $t = \tilde t_2$. 

2406: Writing as before $\rho_t = y_t - x_t$, one has for $t > \tilde t_2$ the estimate

2407: \begin{equ}[e:defrhostep2]

2408: \|\rho_t\| \le {\C4 \over \C2} + \int_{\tilde t_2}^t e^{-\C2(t-s)} \|g_b(s)\|\,ds\;.

2409: \end{equ}

2410: We first estimate the contribution coming from the time interval $[\tilde t_2, t_3]$. Denote by

2411: $\tilde g\from [\tilde t_2, t_3] \to \R^n$ the value $g_w$ would have taken, had the last occurence of step

2412: \step{2} succeeded and not failed

2413: (this corresponds to the dashed curve in \eref{e:figBounds}). 

2414: Defining $\hat g = g_w - \tilde g$,  we have by \eref{e:relG5} that, on the interval $t\in [\tilde t_2,t_3]$,

2415: \begin{equ}[e:defgbstep2]

2416: g_b(t) = C_1 {\hat g(\tilde t_2) \over (t-\tilde t_2)^{{1\over 2}-H}} + C_2 \int_{\tilde t_2}^t {{d\hat g\over ds}(s) \over (t-s)^{{1\over 2}-H}}\,ds\;.

2417: \end{equ}

2418: By Corollary~\ref{cor:Girs} and the construction of the coupling function, 

2419: $\hat g$ is proportional to $g_w$ and, by \eref{e:aprioristep2}, 

2420: we also have for $\hat g$ a bound of the type $\|\hat g\| \le C (N+1)$ (the norm is the $\L^2$-norm over the

2421: time interval $[\tilde t_2, t_3]$). Furthermore, \eref{e:boundderg} yields  $\|{d\hat g\over ds}\| \le C (N+1) 2^{-N}$.

2422: Recall that every differentiable function defined on an interval of length $L$ satisfies

2423: \begin{equ}

2424: |f(t)| \le {\|f\| \over \sqrt L} + \Bigl\|{df \over dt}\Bigr\|\sqrt L \;.

2425: \end{equ}

2426: (The norms are $\L^2$-norms.) Using this to bound

2427: the first term in \eref{e:defgbstep2} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the second term,

2428:  we get a constant $C$ such that $g_b$ is bounded by

2429: \begin{equ}

2430: \|g_b(t)\| \le C (N+1) \bigl(1 + 2^{-{N\over 2}} (t-\tilde t_2)^{H-{1\over 2}}\bigr)\;.

2431: \end{equ}

2432: From this and \eref{e:defrhostep2}, we get an other constant $C$ such that $\|\rho_t\| \le C (N+1)$ at the

2433: time $t = t_3$. We finally turn to the interval $[t_3,0]$. It follows from \eref{e:relG3} that, for some constant

2434: $C$, we have

2435: \begin{equ}

2436: \|g_b(t)\| \le {1\over 2} + C |t-t_3|^{H-1} \|g\|\;,

2437: \end{equ}

2438: where the term ${1\over 2}$ is the contribution from the times smaller than $t_1$. Since we know by

2439: \eref{e:aprioristep2} and Corollary~\ref{cor:Girs} that the $\L^2$-norm of $g$ is bounded by $C(N+1)$ for some constant

2440: $C$,  we obtain the required estimate by choosing $\tilde t_*$ sufficiently large.

2441: \end{proof}

2442: 

2443: \begin{remark}\label{rem:step2}

2444: To summarise this subsection, we have shown the following, assuming that the coupled system

2445: was in an admissible state before performing step \step{1} and that step \step{1} succeeded:

2446: \begin{claim}[AA]

2447: \item[1.]  There exists constants $\delta' \in (0,1)$ and $K > 0$ such that the $N$th consecutive

2448: occurrence of step \step{2} succeeds with probability larger than $\max\{\delta', 1-K2^{-\alpha N}\}$.

2449: This occurrence has length $2^{N-1}$.

2450: \item[2.] If the $N$th occurrence of step \step{2} fails and the waiting time for step \step{3} is chosen longer

2451: than $\tilde t_* 2^{\beta N}\tilde N^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$, then the state of the coupled system is again admissible after the end of step \step{3}, provided that 

2452: the  cost $\CK_\alpha(Z)$ at the beginning of step \step{1} was smaller than $1 - {1\over 2 \tilde N^2}$.

2453: \item[3.] The increase in the cost given between the beginning of step \step{1} and the end

2454: of step \step{3} is smaller than ${1 \over 2\tilde N^2}$.

2455: \end{claim}

2456: \end{remark}

2457: 

2458: Now that the construction of the coupling function $\Coupl$ is completed,

2459: we can finally turn to the proof of the results announced in the introduction.

2460: 

2461: \section{Proof of the main result}

2462: \label{sec:mainproof}

2463: 

2464: Let us first reformulate Theorems~\ref{theo:smallH} and \ref{theo:largeH} in a more precise way, 

2465: using the notations developed in this paper.

2466: 

2467: \begin{theorem}\label{theo:mainTheoFormal}

2468: Let $H \in (0,1) \setminus \{{1\over 2}\}$, let $f$ and $\sigma$ satisfy \textbf{A1}--\textbf{A3} if $H<{1\over 2}$ and

2469: \textbf{A1}, \textbf{A2'}, \textbf{A3} if $H>{1\over 2}$, and let $\gamma < \max_{\alpha < H} \alpha(1-2\alpha)$.

2470: Then, the SDS defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:defSDS} has a unique invariant measure $\mu_*$.

2471: Furthermore, there exist positive constants $C$ and $\delta$ such that, for every generalised initial 

2472: condition $\mu$, one has

2473: \begin{equ}[e:convergence]

2474: \|\Evol \CQ_t \mu - \Evol \mu_*\|_\TV \le 2\mu\bigl(\{\|x_0\| > e^{\delta t}\}\bigr) + C t^{-\gamma}\;.

2475: \end{equ}

2476: \end{theorem}

2477: 

2478: \begin{proof}

2479: The existence of $\mu_*$ follows from \prop{prop:Lyap} and \lem{lem:Lyap}. Furthermore, the assumptions

2480: of \prop{prop:faithful} hold by the invertibility of $\sigma$, so the uniqueness of $\mu_*$ will follow

2481: from \eref{e:convergence}.

2482: 

2483: Denote by $\phi$ the SDS constructed in Proposition~\ref{prop:defSDS}, and consider the self-coup\-ling 

2484: $\Evol(\mu,\mu_*)$ for $\phi$ constructed in Section~\ref{sec:defCoupl}. We denote by $(x_t,y_t)$

2485: the canonical process associated to $\Evol(\mu,\mu_*)$ and we define a random time $\tilde \tau_\infty$ by

2486: \begin{equ}

2487: \tilde \tau_\infty = \inf \bigl\{t > 0 \,|\, x_s = y_s\, \forall \, s \ge t\bigr\}\;.

2488: \end{equ}

2489: It then follows immediately from \eref{e:TVprop} that

2490: \begin{equ}

2491: \|\Evol \CQ_t \mu - \Evol \mu_*\|_\TV \le 2\prob \sml(\tilde \tau_\infty > t\smr)\;.

2492: \end{equ}

2493: Remember that $\Evol(\mu,\mu_*)$ was constructed as the marginal of the law of a Markov

2494: process with continuous time, living on an augmented phase space $\BigSpace$.

2495: Since we are only interested

2496: in bounds on the random time $\tilde \tau_\infty$ and since we know that $x_s = y_s$ as long

2497: as the coupled system is  in the state \step{2}, it suffices to consider the Markov chain $(Z_n,\tau_n)$

2498: constructed in \eref{e:transZn}. It is clear that $\tilde \tau_\infty$ is then dominated by the random time

2499: $\tau_\infty$ defined as

2500: \begin{equ}

2501: \tau_\infty = \inf \bigl\{\tau_n\,|\, S_m = 2\,\forall\, m\ge n\}\;,

2502: \end{equ}

2503: where $S_n$ is the component of $Z_n$ indicating the type of the corresponding step.

2504: Our interest therefore only goes to the dynamic of $\tau_n$ and $S_n$. We define the

2505: sequence of times $t(n)$ by

2506: \begin{equ}[e:deftn]

2507: t(0) = 1\;,\quad t(n+1) = \inf\{m > t(n)\,|\, S_m = 1\}\;,

2508: \end{equ}

2509: and the sequence of durations $\Delta\tau_n$ by

2510: \begin{equ}

2511: \Delta\tau_n = \tau_{t(n+1)} - \tau_{t(n)}\;,

2512: \end{equ}

2513: with the convention $\Delta\tau_n = +\infty$ if $t(n)$ is infinite (\ie if the set in \eref{e:deftn} is empty).

2514: Notice that we set $t(0) = 1$ and not $0$ because we will treat step \step{0} of the coupled process

2515: separately.

2516: The duration $\Delta\tau_n$ therefore measures the time needed by the coupled system starting

2517: in step \step{1} to come back again to step \step{1}. We define the sequence $\xi_n$ by

2518: \begin{equ}

2519: \xi_0 = 0\;,\quad \xi_{n+1} = \cases{-\infty & if $\Delta\tau_n = +\infty$,\cr \xi_n + \Delta\tau_n& otherwise.}

2520: \end{equ}

2521: By construction, one has

2522: \begin{equ}[e:proptauC]

2523: \tau_\infty = \tau_1 + \sup_{n\ge 0}\xi_n\;,

2524: \end{equ}

2525: so we study the tail distribution of the $\Delta\tau_n$.

2526: 

2527: For the moment, we leave the value $\alpha$ appearing throughout the paper free, we will tune it at the

2528: end of the proof. Notice also that, by Remarks~\ref{rem:step1} and \ref{rem:step2}, the cost increases by

2529: less than ${1 \over 2\tilde N^2}$ every time the counter $\tilde N$ is increased by $1$. Since the initial

2530: condition has no cost (by the choice \eref{e:definit} of its distribution), this implies that, with probability

2531: $1$, the system is in an admissible state every time step \step{1} is performed.

2532: 

2533: Let us first consider the probability of $\Delta\tau_n$ being infinite. By \rem{rem:step1}, the probability for

2534: step \step{1} to succeed is always greater than $\delta$. After step \step{1}, the $N$th occurrence of step \step{2}

2535: has length $2^{N-1}$, and a probability greater than $\max\{\delta', 1-K2^{-\alpha N}\}$ of succeeding.

2536: Therefore, one has

2537: \begin{equ}

2538: \prob\sml(\Delta\tau_n \ge 2^N\smr) \ge \delta \prod_{k=0}^N \max\{\delta', 1-K2^{-\alpha k}\}\;.

2539: \end{equ}

2540: This product always converges, so there exists a constant $p_* > 0$ such that

2541: \begin{equ}

2542: \prob\sml(\Delta\tau_n = \infty\smr) \ge p_*\;,

2543: \end{equ}

2544: for every $n > 0$. Since our estimates are uniform over all admissible initial conditions and

2545: the coupling is chosen in such a way that the system is always in an admissible state at the beginning

2546: of step \step{1}, we actually just proved that the conditional probability of $\prob\sml(\Delta\tau_n = \infty\smr)$

2547: on any event involving $S_m$ and $\Delta\tau_m$ for $m < n$ is bounded from below by $p_*$.

2548: 

2549: For $\Delta\tau_n$ to be finite, there has to be a failure of step \step{2} at some point (see \eref{e:algo}).

2550: Recall that if step \step{2} succeeds exactly $N$ times, the corresponding value for $\Delta\tau_n$ will

2551: be equal to $2^N + \tilde t_* 2^{\beta N} (1+n)^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$ for $N>0$ and to $t_* (1+n)^{4/(1-2\alpha)}$ for

2552: $N=0$. This follows from \eref{e:defa2} and \eref{e:defstep2}, noticing that $\tilde N$ in those formulae

2553: counts the number of times step \step{1} occurred and is therefore equal to $n$. We also know that

2554: the probability of the $N$th occurrence of step \step{2} to fail is bounded from above by $K2^{-\alpha N}$.

2555: Therefore, a very crude estimate yields a constant $C$ such that

2556: \begin{equ}

2557: \prob\bigl((1+n)^{-4/(1-2\alpha)} \Delta\tau_n \ge C2^{\beta N} \,\,\text{and}\,\,\Delta\tau_n \neq \infty\bigr) \le K\sum_{k>N}2^{-\alpha k}\;.

2558: \end{equ}

2559: This immediately yields for some other constant $C$

2560: \begin{equ}[e:boundDeltaT]

2561: \prob\bigl((1+n)^{-4/(1-2\alpha)} \Delta\tau_n \ge T \,\,\text{and}\,\,\Delta\tau_n \neq \infty\bigr) \le C T^{-\alpha/\beta}\;.

2562: \end{equ}

2563: As a consequence, the process $\xi_n$ is stochastically dominated by the Markov chain

2564: $\zeta_n$ defined by

2565: \begin{equ}

2566: \zeta_0 = 0\;,\quad \zeta_{n+1} = \cases{-\infty & with probability $p_*$,\cr\zeta_n +  (n+1)^{4/(1-2\alpha)}p_n & 

2567: with probability $1-p_*$,}

2568: \end{equ}

2569: where the $p_n$ are positive i.i.d.\ random variables with tail distribution $C T^{-\alpha/\beta}$, \ie

2570: \begin{equ}

2571: \prob(p_n \ge T) = \cases{C T^{-\alpha/\beta} & if $C T^{-\alpha/\beta} < 1$, \cr 1 & otherwise.}

2572: \end{equ}

2573: With these notations and using the representation \eref{e:proptauC}, $\tau_\infty$ is bounded by

2574: \begin{equ}[e:boundtauC]

2575: \prob \sml(\tau_\infty > t\smr) \le \prob(\tau_1 > t/2) + \prob \Bigl(\sum_{n=0}^{n_*} (n+1)^{4/(1-2\alpha)} p_n > t/2\Bigr)\;,

2576: \end{equ}

2577: where $n_*$ is a random variable independent of the $p_n$ and such that

2578: \begin{equ}[e:boundnstar]

2579: \prob(n_* = k) = p_*(1-p_*)^k\;.

2580: \end{equ}

2581: In order to bound the second term in \eref{e:boundtauC}, it thus suffices to estimate terms of the form

2582: $\sum_{n=0}^{k} (n+1)^{4/(1-2\alpha)} p_n$ for fixed values of $k$.

2583: Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, one obtains the existence of positive constants $C$ 

2584: and $N$ such that

2585: \begin{equ}

2586:  \prob \Bigl(\sum_{n=0}^{k} (n+1)^{4/(1-2\alpha)} p_n > t/2\Bigr) \le C (k+1)^{N} t^{-\alpha/\beta}\;.

2587: \end{equ}

2588: Combining this with \eref{e:boundnstar} and \eref{e:boundtauC} yields, for some other constant $C$,

2589: \begin{equ}

2590: \prob \sml(\tau_\infty > t\smr) \le \prob(\tau_1 > t/2) + C t^{-\alpha/\beta}\;.

2591: \end{equ}

2592: By the definition of step \step{0} \eref{e:defCoupl0}, we get for $\tau_1$:

2593: \begin{equ}

2594: \prob(\tau_1 > t/2) \le \mu\bigl(\{\|x_0\| > e^{\C2 t/2}/2\}\bigr) + \mu_*\bigl(\{\|y_0\| > e^{\C2 t/2}/2\}\bigr)\;.

2595: \end{equ}

2596: Since, by \prop{prop:Lyap}, the invariant measure $\mu_*$ has bounded moments, the second

2597: term decays exponentially fast. Since $\alpha < \min\{{1\over 2}, H\}$ and $\beta > (1-2\alpha)^{-1}$

2598: are arbitrary, one can realise $\gamma = \alpha/\beta$ for $\gamma$ as in the statement.

2599: 

2600: This concludes the proof of \theo{theo:mainTheoFormal}.

2601: \end{proof}

2602: 

2603: %As a consequence, we get

2604: 

2605: %\begin{proof}[of \theo{theo:existunique}]

2606: %We first show that, even if assumption \textbf{A2'} is dropped, \eref{e:mainequ} possesses a unique

2607: %invariant measure $\mu_*$. The existence of an invariant measure $\mu_*$ follows as above

2608: %from \prop{prop:Lyap} and \lem{lem:Lyap}.

2609: %Given $N>0$, define a cutoff function $\chi_N\from \R^n \to \R$ by

2610: %\begin{equ}

2611: %\chi_N(x) = \chi(\|x\|^2/N^2)\;,

2612: %\end{equ}

2613: %where $\chi\from \R_+ \to \R$ is a smooth, positive, and decreasing function satisfying $\chi(x) = 1$ for $x \le 1$

2614: %and $\chi(x) = 0$ for $x \ge 2$. We define then $f_N\from\R^n\to\R^n$ by

2615: %\begin{equ}

2616: %f_N(x) = \chi_N(x) f(x) - \C2 \sml(1-\chi_N(x)\smr)x\;.

2617: %\end{equ}

2618: %Since $f_N$ satisfies the conditions of \theo{theo:mainTheoFormal}, there exists a unique invariant

2619: %measure $\mu_*^N$ for the SDS associated to the equation

2620: %\begin{equ}[e:mainequN]

2621: %dx = f_N(x)\,dt + \sigma\,dB_H(t)\;.

2622: %\end{equ}

2623: 

2624: %\end{proof}

2625: 

2626: 

2627: We conclude this paper by discussing several possible extensions of our result. The first two extensions

2628: are straightforward and can be obtained by simply rereading the paper carefully and (in the

2629: second case) combining its results with the ones obtained in the references. 

2630: The two other extensions are less obvious and merit further investigation.

2631: 

2632: \subsection{Noise with multiple scalings} 

2633: 

2634: One can consider the case where the equation is driven by several independent fBm's with different values of

2635: the Hurst parameter:

2636: \begin{equ}

2637: dx_t = f(x_t)\,dt + \sum_{i=1}^m \sigma_i \, dB^i_{H_i}(t)\;.

2638: \end{equ}

2639: It can be seen that in this case, the invertibility of $\sigma$ should be replaced by the condition that

2640: the linear operator

2641: \begin{equ}

2642: \sigma = \sigma_1 \oplus \sigma_2 \oplus \ldots \oplus \sigma_m \from \R^{mn}\to \R^n\;,

2643: \end{equ}

2644: has rank $n$. The condition on the convergence exponent $\gamma$ then becomes

2645: \begin{equ}

2646: \gamma < \min\sml\{{\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_m}\smr\}\;,

2647: \end{equ}

2648: where $\gamma_i = \max_{\alpha < H_i} \alpha(1-2\alpha)$.

2649: 

2650: \subsection{Infinite-dimensional case}

2651: 

2652: In the case where the phase space for \eref{e:mainequ} is infinite-dimensional, the question of 

2653: global existence of solutions is technically more involved and was tackled in \cite{MaslFBM}. 

2654: Another technical difficulty arises from the fact that one might want to take for $\sigma$ an

2655: operator which is not boundedly invertible, so \textbf{A3} would fail on a formal level.

2656: One expects to be able to overcome this difficulty at least in the case where the equation is semilinear

2657: and parabolic, \ie of the type

2658: \begin{equ}

2659: dx = Ax\,dt + F(x)\,dt + Q\,dB_H(t)\;,

2660: \end{equ}

2661: with the domain of $F$ ``larger'' (in a sense to be quantified) than the domain of $A$

2662: and $B_H$ a cylindrical fBm on some Hilbert space $\CH$ on which the solution

2663: is defined, provided the eigenvalues of $A$ and of $Q$ satisfy some compatibility

2664: condition as in \cite{ZDP1,Cerr,EH3}.

2665: 

2666: On the other hand, it is possible in many cases to split the phase space into

2667: a finite number of ``unstable modes'' and an infinite number of ``stable modes'' that

2668: are slaved to the unstable ones. In this situation, it is sufficient to construct step \step{1}

2669: in such a way that the unstable modes meet, since the stable ones will then automatically

2670: converge towards each other. A slight drawback of this method is that the convergence

2671: towards the stationary state no longer takes place in the total variation distance.

2672: We refer to \cite{MatNS,ArmenKuk,HExp02} for implementations

2673: of this idea in the Markovian case.

2674: 

2675: \subsection{Multiplicative noise}

2676: 

2677: In this case, the problem of existence of global solutions can already be hard. In the case $H>1/2$, the

2678: fBm is sufficiently regular, so one obtains pathwise existence of solutions by rewriting \eref{e:mainequ} in

2679: integral form and interpreting the stochastic integral pathwise as a Riemann-Stieltjes integral.

2680: In the case $H\in ({1\over 4}, {1\over 2})$,

2681: it has been shown recently \cite{MR96b:60150,MR2000c:60089,MR2003c:60066} that pathwise 

2682: solutions can also be obtained by realising the fBm as

2683: a geometric rough path. More refined probabilistic estimates are required in the analysis

2684: of step \step{1} of our coupling construction. The equivalent of equation \eref{e:equrho} 

2685: then indeed contains a multiplicative noise term, so the deterministic estimate \eref{e:estrho} fails.

2686: 

2687: \subsection{Arbitrary Gaussian noise}

2688: 

2689: Formally, white noise is a centred Gaussian process $\xi$ with correlation function

2690: \begin{equ}

2691: \expect \xi(s)\xi(t) = C_w(t-s) = \delta(t-s)\;.

2692: \end{equ}

2693: The derivative of the fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter $H$ is formally also a centred Gaussian

2694: process, but its correlation function is proportional to

2695: \begin{equ}

2696: C_H(t-s) = |t-s|^{2H-2}\;,

2697: \end{equ}

2698: which should actually be interpreted as the second derivative of $|t-s|^{2H}$ in the sense of distributions.

2699: 

2700: A natural question is whether the results of the present paper also apply to differential equations driven by

2701: Gaussian noise with an arbitrary correlation function $C(t-s)$. There is no conceptual obstruction to

2702: the use of the method of proof presented in this paper in that situation, but new estimates are required.

2703: It relies on the fact that the driving process is a fractional Brownian motion only to be able to explicitly

2704: perform the computations of Section~\ref{sec:defCoupl}. 

2705: 

2706: \bibliographystyle{Martin}

2707: \markboth{\sc \refname}{\sc \refname}

2708: \bibliography{refs}

2709: \end{document}