1: %K Offene Punkte
2: %K Approximation nicht glatt
3: %K mehr Erlaeuterung des Algorithmus
4: %K Zitat aus Paper 1 in Text vor Thm. 2
5: %K Graphik alpha und alpha^*
6:
7:
8: \documentclass[12pt]{amsart}
9: \usepackage{verbatim}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.0cm}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{24.0cm}
14: \setlength{\hoffset}{-2.0cm}
15: \setlength{\voffset}{-1.1cm}
16: \addtolength{\headheight}{3.5pt}
17: \frenchspacing
18: \scrollmode
19:
20: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}
21: \input{journals.tex}
22:
23: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
24: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathbb N}}
25: \newcommand{\spann}{\operatorname{span}}
26: \newcommand{\scp}[2]{\langle #1 , #2 \rangle}
27: \newcommand{\lscp}[2]{\bigl\langle #1 , #2 \bigr\rangle}
28: \newcommand{\LL}{{\mathcal L}}
29: \newcommand{\J}{{\mathcal J}}
30: \newcommand{\I}{{\mathcal I}}
31: \newcommand{\K}{{\mathcal K}}
32: \newcommand{\bj}{{\boldsymbol{j}}}
33: \newcommand{\bi}{{\boldsymbol{i}}}
34: \newcommand{\Xh}{\widehat{X}}
35: \newcommand{\Yh}{\widehat{Y}}
36: \newcommand{\Xb}{\overline{X}}
37: \newcommand{\Yb}{\overline{Y}}
38: \newcommand{\Xt}{\widetilde{X}}
39: \newcommand{\Yt}{\widetilde{Y}}
40: \newcommand{\XX}{\mathfrak{X}}
41: \newcommand{\at}{a}
42: \newcommand{\ah}{a}
43: \newcommand{\Bb}{\overline{B}}
44: \newcommand{\pb}{\overline{\psi}}
45: \newcommand{\ph}{\widehat{\psi}}
46: \renewcommand{\epsilon}{\varepsilon}
47:
48: \theoremstyle{plain}
49: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
50: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
51: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
52: \newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
53:
54:
55: \theoremstyle{definition}
56: \newtheorem{rem}{Remark}
57: \newtheorem{exmp}{Example}
58:
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60:
61: \begin{document}
62:
63: \title[An Implicit Euler Scheme with Non-uniform Time Discretization]%
64: {An Implicit Euler Scheme with Non-uniform Time Discretization for
65: Heat Equations with \\ Multiplicative Noise}
66:
67: \author[]%[M\"uller-Gronbach]
68: {Thomas M\"uller-Gronbach}
69: \address{Institut f\"ur Mathematische Stochastik\\
70: Fakult\"at f\"ur Mathematik\\
71: Universit\"at Magdeburg\\
72: Postfach 4120\\
73: 39016 Magdeburg\\
74: Germany}
75: \email{gronbach@mail.math.uni-magdeburg.de}
76:
77: \author[]%[Ritter]
78: {Klaus Ritter}
79: \address{Fachbereich Mathematik\\
80: Technische Universit\"at Darmstadt\\
81: Schlo\ss gartenstra\ss e 7\\
82: 64289 Darmstadt\\
83: Germany}
84: \email{ritter@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de}
85:
86: %\keywords{}
87: \subjclass{60H15, 60H35, 65C30}
88: \date{April 2006}
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91: We present an algorithm for solving stochastic
92: heat equations, whose key ingredient is a non-uniform
93: time discretization of the driving Brownian motion $W$.
94: For this algorithm we derive an error bound
95: in terms of its number of evaluations of one-dimensional
96: components of $W$. The rate of convergence depends on
97: the spatial dimension of the heat equation and on the decay of the
98: eigenfunctions of the covariance of $W$.
99: According to known lower bounds, our algorithm
100: is optimal, up to a constant, and this optimality
101: cannot be achieved by uniform time discretizations.
102: \end{abstract}
103:
104: \maketitle
105:
106: \section{Introduction}
107:
108: A common technique for the numerical solution of stochastic evolution
109: equations is an It\^{o}-Galerkin approximation,
110: which turns the corresponding infinite-dimensional system of stochastic
111: differential equations (SDEs) into a finite-dimensional one. The
112: latter is then discretized in time and
113: approximately solved by, e.g., an Euler scheme.
114:
115: More generally, every numerical algorithm for an evolution equation
116: eventually has to discretize the driving stochastic process,
117: which frequently is assumed to be a Brownian motion on an
118: infinite-dimensional Hilbert space,
119: in space and time. The vast majority of algorithms
120: for stochastic evolution equations as well as for SDEs apply a uniform
121: time discretization. This means that a finite number of
122: one-dimensional components of the driving process are
123: evaluated (simulated) at time instances $\ell/n$ with a common
124: step-size $1/n$.
125:
126: In this paper we present and analyze a non-uniform time discretization
127: for a stochastic
128: heat equation
129: \begin{equation}\label{g1}
130: \begin{aligned}
131: dX(t) &= \Delta X(t) \, dt + B(X(t))\, dW(t),\\
132: X(0) &= \xi
133: \end{aligned}
134: \end{equation}
135: on the Hilbert space $H = L_2(\left]0,1\right[^d)$.
136: As a key assumption, the system $(h_\bi)_{\bi \in \N^d}$
137: of eigenfunctions of the trace class
138: covariance $Q$ of the Brownian motion $W$ coincides with the
139: system of eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator $\Delta$.
140: A finite number of scalar Brownian motions $\scp{W}{h_\bi}$ is selected,
141: and each of them is evaluated with step-size $1/n_\bi$ depending on
142: its variance. Based on these data, a properly defined implicit Euler scheme
143: is employed to compute an approximation $\Xh^*_N$
144: to a finite number of components
145: $\scp{X}{h_\bj}$ of the solution $X$.
146: Here $N$ denotes the total number of evaluations of scalar Brownian
147: motions $\scp{W}{h_\bi}$ used by $\Xh^*_N$, up to a constant.
148:
149: Our main result is an upper bound for the error
150: \[
151: e(\Xh^*_N) = \left(E \left(
152: \int_0^1 \| X(t) - \Xh^*_N(t) \|^2 \, dt \right) \right)^{1/2}
153: \]
154: of $\Xh^*_N$ in terms of $N$. The rate of convergence
155: depends on the spatial dimension $d$ and on the decay
156: of the eigenvalues of the covariance $Q$.
157: Assume, for simplicity, that
158: \[
159: Q h_\bi = |\bi|_2^{-\gamma} \cdot h_\bi
160: \]
161: for some
162: $\gamma \in \left] d, \infty \right[ \setminus \{ 2d\}$, and put
163: \[
164: \alpha^*(\gamma,d) =
165: \frac{1}{2}-\frac{(2d-\gamma)_+}{2(d+2)}.
166: \]
167: Then
168: \[
169: e(\Xh^*_N) \leq c_1 \cdot N^{-\alpha^*(\gamma,d)}
170: \]
171: with a constant
172: $c_1 > 0$ that only depends on $d$, $\gamma$, $B$, and $\xi$,
173: see Theorem \ref{t2}.
174:
175: Actually, this upper bound is best possible, not only for
176: the specific algorithm $\Xh_N^*$ but for any algorithm that
177: uses at most a total of $N$ evaluations of the scalar
178: Brownian motions $\scp{W}{h_\bi}$: there exists a constant
179: $c_2 > 0$ that only depends on $d$, $\gamma$, $B$, and $\xi$ such that
180: \[
181: e(\Xh_N) \geq c_2 \cdot N^{-\alpha^*(\gamma,d)}
182: \]
183: for any such algorithm. In general, one cannot
184: achieve the optimal rate $\alpha^*(\gamma,d)$ by
185: any sequence of algorithms that use a uniform discretization.
186: See M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006).
187:
188: In the context of stochastic partial differential
189: equations, implicit (Euler) schemes based on uniform
190: time discretizations are studied, e.g., by
191: Gy\"ongy (1999),
192: Kloeden, Shott (2001),
193: Hausenblas (2002, 2003),
194: Millet, Morien (2005),
195: Walsh (2005),
196: and
197: Yan (2005).
198: Non-uniform time discretizations are studied for the
199: first time by M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006).
200: In the latter paper, non-uniform time discretizations are used
201: for the numerical solution of heat equations with additive noise,
202: i.e.,
203: $B$ is a function of the time $t$ but not of the current value $X(t)$
204: of the evolution. In this case
205: the solution $X$ is a Gaussian process and conditional
206: expectations become feasible as a computational tool.
207: This is no longer true for equations with multiplicative noise,
208: as studied in the present paper. Instead, the algorithm introduced
209: in the present paper is a general-purpose algorithm.
210:
211: Optimality results, as stated here for the algorithm $\Xh_N^*$,
212: require lower bounds that are valid for all (or at least
213: a broad class) of algorithms. For stochastic evolution
214: equations the first such lower bound is due to
215: Davie, Gaines (2001), who consider a particular case
216: of \eqref{g1} in spatial dimension $d=1$
217: with a space-time white noise. See
218: M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006) for lower bounds for
219: equations \eqref{g1} in general, with space-time
220: white noise for $d = 1$ and trace class noise for $d \geq 1$.
221:
222: Our results show the principal significance of non-uniform time
223: discretizations for the numerical solution of stochastic
224: evolution equations.
225: Non-uniform and even sequentially computed time-discretizations
226: are studied, too, for finite-dimensional systems of
227: SDEs. Here, as a rule, those time-discretizations
228: do not improve the order of convergence, but only
229: the asymptotic constants. However, improvements
230: may be substantial on the level of constants, see Cambanis, Hu (1996),
231: Hofmann, M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2001), and
232: M\"uller-Gronbach (2002, 2004).
233:
234: We outline the content of the paper.
235: In Section \ref{s2} we formulate the assumptions on
236: the heat equation \eqref{g1} and briefly discuss
237: existence and uniqueness of a mild solution.
238: Our algorithm is defined in Section \ref{s3}. Error bounds
239: and optimality properties are stated in Sections \ref{s4} and
240: \ref{s5}, resp., and proofs are given in Section \ref{sp}.
241:
242:
243: \section{Assumptions}\label{s2}
244:
245: We study stochastic heat equations \eqref{g1}
246: on the Hilbert space $H = L_2(\left]0,1\right[^d)$.
247: Here $\xi \in H$ for the initial value,
248: and $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace
249: operator with Dirichlet boundary
250: conditions on $H$.
251: Hence $\Delta h_\bi = - \mu_\bi \cdot h_\bi$
252: with
253: \[
254: h_\bi (u) =
255: 2^{d/2} \cdot \prod_{\ell=1}^d \sin( i_\ell \pi u_\ell)
256: \]
257: and
258: \[
259: \mu_\bi = \pi^2 \cdot |\bi|_2^2,
260: \]
261: where $|\bi|_2$ is the Euclidean norm of $\bi \in \N^d$.
262:
263: Moreover, $W=(W(t))_{t\in [0,1]}$ denotes a Brownian motion on $H$,
264: whose covariance $Q : H \to H$ is a trace class operator.
265: Specifically, we assume that $Q h_\bi = \lambda_\bi \cdot h_\bi$ with
266: \[
267: \lambda_\bi = \lambda(|\bi|_2)
268: \]
269: for some non-increasing and regularly varying function
270: \[
271: \lambda : \left[1,\infty\right[ \to \left]0,\infty\right[
272: \]
273: of index $-\gamma$, where
274: \[
275: \gamma \in \left[ d, \infty\right[ \setminus \{ 2d\}
276: \]
277: and
278: \[
279: \int_1^\infty \lambda(r) \cdot r^{d-1} \, dr < \infty.
280: \]
281: Note that the latter property always holds if $\gamma > d$.
282:
283: Let $\scp{\cdot}{\cdot}$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denote the inner product
284: and the norm, respectively, in $H$,
285: and consider the Hilbert space $H_0=Q^{1/2} (H)$,
286: equipped with the inner product
287: $(Q^{1/2} h_1,Q^{1/2} h_2) = \scp{h_1}{h_2}$
288: for $h_1, h_2 \in H$.
289: Furthermore, let $\LL = \LL_2(H_0,H)$
290: denote the class of Hilbert-Schmidt operators from $H_0$ into $H$,
291: equipped with the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|\cdot \|_\LL$.
292: We assume that the mapping $B : H \to \LL$ is given by pointwise
293: multiplication and a Nemytskij operator, i.e.,
294: \[
295: B(x) h = T_g (x) \cdot h
296: \]
297: for $x \in H$ and $h \in H_0$, where
298: \[
299: T_g (x) = g \circ x
300: \]
301: with $g \in C^1(\R)$ such that
302: \[
303: \|g^\prime\|_\infty < \infty.
304: \]
305:
306: \begin{rem}\label{rem1}
307: We briefly comment on the existence of a mild solution of equation
308: \eqref{g1} under the above conditions on $B$.
309:
310: Note that
311: $T_g: H\to H$, see Appell, Zabrejko (1990, Thm.\ 3.1). Furthermore,
312: $H_0\subset L_\infty(\left]0,1\right[^d)$, since
313: $\sup_{\bi\in\N^d}\|h_\bi\|_\infty<\infty$, see Manthey, Zausinger
314: (1999, Lemma 2.2). Hence $B(x) h\in H$ for every $h\in H_0$. Moreover,
315: $(\lambda_\bi^{1/2}\cdot h_\bi)_{\bi\in\N^d}$ is a complete
316: orthonormal system in $H_0$ and
317: \[
318: \sum_{\bi\in\N^d} \|B(x)\lambda_\bi^{1/2}h_\bi\|^2 \le
319: \sup_{\bi\in\N^d}\|h_\bi\|^2_\infty\cdot \sum_{\bi\in\N^d}\lambda_\bi
320: \cdot \|T_g(x)\|^2.
321: \]
322: Consequently, $B(x)\in\LL$ for every $x\in H$. Clearly,
323: \begin{equation}\label{g13}
324: \|T_g (x) - T_g (y)\| \leq \|g^\prime\|_\infty \cdot \|x-y\|
325: \end{equation}
326: for $x,y \in H$, which yields
327: \begin{equation}\label{e1}
328: \|B(x)-B(y)\|_\LL \le K\cdot \|x-y\|
329: \end{equation}
330: with $K = \sup_{\bi\in\N^d}\|h_\bi\|_\infty\cdot
331: \sum_{\bi\in\N^d}\lambda_\bi \cdot \|g^\prime\|_\infty$.
332: Thus $B: H \to \LL$ is Lipschitz continuous.
333:
334: Consider the semigroup $(S(t))_{t \geq 0}$ on $H$ that is
335: generated by $\Delta$, i.e.,
336: \[
337: S(t) h_\bi = \exp(- \mu_\bi t) \cdot h_\bi.
338: \]
339: {}From \eqref{e1} it follows that there exists a continuous process
340: $(X(t))_{t \in [0,1]}$ with values
341: in $H$, which is
342: adapted to the underlying filtration,
343: such that, for every $t \in [0,1]$,
344: \[
345: X(t) = S(t) \xi
346: + \int_0^t S(t-s) B(X(s)) \, dW(s)
347: \]
348: holds a.s.
349: This process is uniquely determined a.s., and it
350: is called the mild solution of equation \eqref{g1}.
351: Furthermore,
352: \begin{equation}\label{g3}
353: \sup_{t \in [0,1]} E\| X(t)\|^2 \le c_1,
354: \end{equation}
355: where the constant $c_1>0$ only depends on $d, \xi, \lambda$ and $g$.
356: See Da Prato, Zabczyk (1992, Sec.\ 7.1).
357: \end{rem}
358:
359: \section{The Algorithm}\label{s3}
360:
361: We construct and analyze an algorithm
362: that is built from the following ingredients:
363: \begin{itemize}
364: \item[(i)] an It\^{o}-Galerkin approximation of the stochastic heat
365: equation,
366: \item[(ii)] a non-uniform time discretization of the corresponding
367: finite-dimensional Brownian motion,
368: \item[(iii)] a drift-implicit Euler scheme.
369: \end{itemize}
370: Put
371: \[
372: \beta_\bi(t) = \lambda_\bi^{1/2}\cdot \scp{W(t)}{h_\bi}
373: \]
374: for $\bi\in\N^d$ and $t\in [0,1]$. Then $(\beta_\bi)_{\bi\in\N^d}$ is
375: an independent family of standard one-dimensional Brownian motions.
376: Let
377: \[
378: Y_\bj(t) = \scp{X(t)}{h_\bj}
379: \]
380: for $t \in [0,1]$ and $\bj \in \N^d$.
381: The real-valued processes $Y_\bj = (Y_\bj(t))_{t \in [0,1]}$
382: satisfy the bi-infinite system
383: \begin{equation*}
384: \begin{aligned}
385: d Y_\bj (t) &= - \mu_\bj \, Y_\bj (t) \, dt +
386: \sum_{\bi \in \N^d} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
387: \lscp{B(X(t)) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \, d \beta_\bi(t)
388: \\
389: Y_\bj (0) &= \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}
390: \end{aligned}
391: \end{equation*}
392: of stochastic differential equations.
393: For any choice of finite sets $\I, \J \subseteq \N^d$
394: an It\^o-Galerkin approximation $\Xb = (\Xb(t))_{t \in [0,1]}$ to
395: $X$ is given by
396: \[
397: \Xb (t) = \sum_{\bj \in \J} \Yb_\bj (t) \cdot h_\bj
398: \]
399: with real-valued processes $\Yb_\bj = (\Yb_\bj(t))_{t \in [0,1]}$
400: that solve the finite-dimensional system
401: \begin{equation}\label{g16}
402: \begin{aligned}
403: d \Yb_\bj (t) &= - \mu_\bj \, \Yb_\bj (t) \, dt +
404: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
405: \lscp{B(\Xb(t)) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \, d \beta_\bi(t) \\
406: \Yb_\bj (0) &= \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}.
407: \end{aligned}
408: \end{equation}
409:
410: We apply a drift-implicit Euler scheme to the finite-dimensional
411: system \eqref{g16}. This scheme is based on a non-uniform
412: discretization of the corresponding finite-dimensional Brownian
413: motion, since $\beta_\bi$ will be evaluated with step-size
414: $1/n_\bi$ depending on $\bi \in \I$. Accordingly, put
415: \begin{equation}\label{disc}
416: \phantom{\qquad \quad \ell = 0,\dots,n_\bi.}
417: t_{\ell,\bi} = \ell/n_\bi,
418: \qquad \quad \ell = 0,\dots,n_\bi.
419: \end{equation}
420: A good choice of the integers $n_\bi \in \N$, together with sets
421: $\I$ and $\J$, will be presented in Section \ref{s4}.
422:
423: In order to understand the construction of this scheme better we
424: first consider
425: a uniform discretization, i.e., $t_\ell = t_{\ell,\bi} = \ell / n$
426: with a common step-size $1/n$ for all $\bi \in \I$. In this case
427: the drift-implicit Euler scheme is given by
428: \[
429: \Yh_\bj (t_\ell) = \Yh_\bj (t_{\ell-1}) - \mu_\bj\,
430: \Yh_\bj(t_\ell) \cdot 1/ n
431: +
432: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
433: \lscp{B(\Xh(t_{\ell-1})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
434: (\beta_\bi(t_\ell) - \beta_\bi (t_{\ell-1}))
435: \]
436: for $\bj \in \J$, where
437: \begin{equation}\label{g18}
438: \Xh (t) = \sum_{\bj \in \J} \Yh_\bj (t) \cdot h_\bj
439: \end{equation}
440: and
441: \begin{equation}\label{g19}
442: \Yh_\bj (0) = \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}.
443: \end{equation}
444: Equivalently,
445: \[
446: \Yh_\bj (t_\ell) = \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj / n }
447: \cdot \left( \Yh_\bj (t_{\ell-1})
448: +
449: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
450: \lscp{B(\Xh(t_{\ell-1})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
451: (\beta_\bi(t_\ell) - \beta_\bi (t_{\ell-1}))\right).
452: \]
453:
454: In general we define
455: \[
456: 0 = \tau_0 < \dots < \tau_M = 1
457: \]
458: by
459: \[
460: \{\tau_0, \dots, \tau_M\} =
461: \bigcup_{\bi \in \I} \{ t_{0,\bi}, \dots, t_{n_\bi,\bi} \}.
462: \]
463: Moreover, we put
464: \[
465: \K_m = \{ \bi \in \I : \tau_m \in
466: \{ t_{0,\bi}, \dots, t_{n_\bi,\bi} \} \}
467: \]
468: for $m=0,\dots,M$, and we define
469: $s_{m,\bi}$ for $\bi \in \I$ and $m=1,\dots,M$ by
470: \[
471: s_{m,\bi} = \max (
472: \{ t_{0,\bi}, \dots, t_{n_\bi,\bi} \} \cap \left[0,\tau_m\right[).
473: \]
474: Finally, we use
475: \begin{equation}\label{semi}
476: \Gamma_\bj (t) = \prod_{\nu=1}^M
477: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t \wedge \tau_\nu - t \wedge
478: \tau_{\nu-1})}
479: \end{equation}
480: for approximation of the semigroup generated by $\Delta$.
481: Then the drift-implicit Euler scheme is given by
482: \eqref{g18}, \eqref{g19}, and
483: \begin{multline}\label{f1}
484: \Yh_\bj (t) =
485: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(\tau_{m-1})}\\
486: \mbox{} \cdot \left( \Yh_\bj (\tau_{m-1})
487: +
488: \sum_{\bi \in \K_m} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
489: \lscp{B(\Xh(s_{m,\bi})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
490: \frac{\Gamma_\bj (\tau_{m-1})}{\Gamma_\bj(s_{m,\bi})} \cdot
491: (\beta_\bi(\tau_m) - \beta_\bi (s_{m,\bi}))\right)
492: \end{multline}
493: for $\bj \in \J$, if
494: \[
495: t \in \left] \tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right].
496: \]
497: Equivalently,
498: \begin{multline}\label{g20}
499: \Yh_\bj (t) = \Gamma_\bj (t) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj} \\
500: +
501: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2}
502: \cdot \left( \sum_{t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m}
503: \lscp{B(\Xh(t_{\ell-1,\bi})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
504: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell-1,\bi})}
505: \cdot (\beta_\bi (t_{\ell,\bi}) - \beta_\bi (t_{\ell-1,\bi}))
506: \right).
507: \end{multline}
508:
509: For illustration we consider an example with
510: $\I = \{1,2\}$, $n_1 = 6$, and $n_2 = 4$.
511: Then, for instance, $\K_2 = \{2\}$, $\K_3=\{1\}$,
512: and $\K_4 = \{1,2\}$. Moreover, for $t \in \left]\tau_2,\tau_3\right]
513: = \left]1/4,1/3\right]$ the approximation $\Xh(t)$ is
514: based on the increments $\beta_1(1/6)$, $\beta_1(1/3) - \beta_1(1/6)$,
515: and $\beta_2(1/4)$, while $\beta_2(1/2) - \beta_2(1/4)$
516: is not used at all.
517:
518: \section{Error Analysis}\label{s4}
519:
520: Henceforth constants
521: that are hidden in notations like%
522: \footnote{Suppose that $F$ and $G$ are functions on some set $A$
523: with values in $\left[0,\infty\right]$.
524: By definition, $F(a) \preceq G(a)$ means
525: $F(a) \leq c \cdot G(a)$ for all $a \in A$ with some constant
526: $c \in \left]0,\infty\right[$.
527: Furthermore, $F(a) \asymp G(a)$ means $F(a) \preceq G(a)$ and
528: $G(a) \preceq F(a)$.}
529: $\preceq$ and $\asymp$ may only depend on $d$, $\xi$, $\lambda$ and $g$.
530:
531: In the sequel we consider the particular choice
532: \begin{equation}\label{g15}
533: \begin{aligned}
534: \I &= \{ \bi \in \N^d : |\bi|_2 \leq I\},\\
535: \J &= \{ \bj \in \N^d : |\bj|_2 \leq J\}
536: \end{aligned}
537: \end{equation}
538: in the definition of the approximations $\Xb$ and $\Xh$.
539: Then the error of the It\^o-Galerkin approximation
540: $\Xb$ is bounded as follows; see Section~\ref{sp} for the proof.
541:
542: \begin{prop}\label{l4}
543: For $I, J > 0$
544: \[
545: E\left(\int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xb(t)\|^2 \, dt\right) \preceq
546: 1/J^2 + \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi / \mu_\bi.
547: \]
548: \end{prop}
549:
550: Moreover, we have the following error bound for the implicit Euler
551: scheme $\Xh$ with an arbitrary discretization \eqref{disc} specified by
552: $n \in \N^\I$; again we refer to Section \ref{sp} for the proof.
553:
554: \begin{theorem}\label{t1}
555: For $I, J > 0$ and $n \in \N^\I$
556: \[
557: E\left(\int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh(t)\|^2 \, dt \right)
558: \preceq 1/J^2 +
559: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi +
560: \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi / \mu_\bi.
561: \]
562: \end{theorem}
563:
564: Suppose that $\Xh$ may use a total of $N$ evaluations of
565: scalar Brownian motions $\beta_\bi$.
566: Then a proper choice of $I > 0$ and
567: $n \in \N^\I$ is obtained
568: by minimizing
569: \[
570: D(I,n) = \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi +
571: \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi / \mu_\bi
572: \]
573: under the constraint $\sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} n_\bi \leq N$.
574: Up to a constant, the corresponding optimization problem is solved
575: as follows.
576:
577: Recall that, by assumption,
578: \begin{equation}\label{g46}
579: \lambda (r) = r^{-\gamma} \cdot L (r)
580: \end{equation}
581: with a slowly varying function $L : \left[1,\infty\right[ \to
582: \left]0,\infty\right[$. Let $N \in \N$. We take
583: \[
584: I = I_N = N^{1/(d+2)}
585: \]
586: to specify the scalar Brownian motions that
587: are evaluated by the algorithm.
588: For $\bi \in \N^d$ with $|\bi|_2 \leq I$ the Brownian motion
589: $\beta_\bi$ is evaluated with step-size $1/n_\bi$ where
590: \[
591: n_\bi = n_{\bi,N} = \left\lceil \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
592: N^{ 1 - {\textstyle \frac{d-\gamma/2}{d+2}}}
593: \cdot \left( L (N^{1/(d+2)}) \right)^{-1/2}\right\rceil
594: \]
595: if $\gamma \in \left[d,2d\right[$ and
596: \[
597: n_\bi = n_{\bi,N} = \left\lceil \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot N \right\rceil
598: \]
599: if $\gamma \in \left]2d,\infty\right[$.
600: For the total number of evaluations we thus obtain
601: $\sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} n_\bi \asymp N$.
602: Moreover,
603: \[
604: \inf \{ D(I,n) : I > 0,\ n \in \N^\I
605: \ \text{with}\ \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} n_\bi \leq N \}
606: \asymp D(I_N,n_N) \asymp e^2_*(N)
607: \]
608: with
609: \[
610: e_*(N) = N^{ -1/2 + {\textstyle \frac{d-\gamma/2}{d+2}}}
611: \cdot \left( L (N^{1/(d+2)}) \right)^{1/2}
612: \]
613: if $\gamma \in \left[d,2d\right[$ and
614: \[
615: e_*(N) = N^{-1/2}
616: \]
617: if $\gamma \in \left]2d,\infty\right[$.
618: See M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006).
619: %K man koennte hier auf "Proof of Theorem 1" verweisen,
620: %T ja
621: %K findet sich auf den Seiten OF34,35 und OF18 des elektronischen
622: %K Vorabversion
623: %T Vielleicht haben wir die Seitenzahlen der gedr. Version bis in
624: %T zwei Wochen. Koennen wir vertagen.
625: %K ok
626:
627: Finally, we take
628: \[
629: J = J_N = e_*^{-1}(N).
630: \]
631: Hereby we have completely specified an algorithm
632: $\Xh = \Xh_N^*$.
633:
634: \begin{theorem}\label{t2}
635: The error of the algorithm $\Xh_N^*$ satisfies
636: \[
637: \left(E\left( \int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh^*_N(t)\|^2 \, dt \right)\right)^{1/2}
638: \preceq e_*(N).
639: \]
640: \end{theorem}
641:
642: \begin{rem}\label{2d}
643: The case of a regularly varying functions $\lambda$ of index
644: $-2d$ is not covered by Theorem \ref{t2}
645: but may be analyzed in a similar way.
646: Assume, for simplicity, that $\lambda(r) = r^{-2d}$.
647: Take $I_N$ as above, and define
648: \[
649: n_{\bi,N} = \lceil \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot N/\ln N \rceil
650: \]
651: for $\bi\in\N^d$ with $|\bi|_2\le I_N$. Note that
652: $\sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I_N} n_{\bi,N} \asymp N$. Then
653: \[
654: \inf \{ D(I,n) : I > 0,\ n \in \N^\I
655: \ \text{with}\ \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} n_\bi \leq N \}
656: \asymp D(I_N,n_N) \asymp N^{-1}\cdot (\ln N)^2.
657: \]
658: Furthermore, take
659: $J_N = N^{1/2} \cdot (\ln N)^{-1}$. Due to
660: Theorem \ref{t1} the resulting algorithm $\Xh^*_N$ satisfies
661: \[
662: \left(E\left( \int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh^*_N(t)\|^2 \, dt\right) \right)^{1/2}
663: \preceq N^{-1/2}\cdot \ln N.
664: \]
665: \end{rem}
666:
667: \begin{rem}\label{uni1}
668: Consider the implicit Euler scheme $\Xh$ with a
669: uniform time discretization
670: \eqref{disc}, i.e., $t_\ell = t_{\ell,\bi} = \ell/n$
671: for all $\bi\in \N^d$ with $|\bi|_2\le I$ and some constant $n\in\N$.
672: Assume, for simplicity, that
673: $\lambda(r) = r^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma\in \left]d,\infty\right[$.
674: By Theorem \ref{t1},
675: \[
676: E\left( \int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh(t)\|^2 \, dt \right)\le 1/J^2 + d(I,n)
677: \]
678: with
679: \[
680: d(I,n) = 1/n \cdot \sum_{|\bi|_2\le I} |\bi|_2^{-\gamma} +
681: \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} |\bi|_2^{-(\gamma + 2)}.
682: \]
683: Minimization of this quantity, up to a constant,
684: subject to the constraint $n\cdot \# \I \le N$ leads to
685: \[
686: \inf \{ d(I,n) : I > 0,\
687: n \in \N \ \text{with}\ n\cdot \# \I\leq N \}
688: \asymp d(I_N,n_N) \asymp N^{- 1 + {\textstyle \frac{d}{\gamma+2}}}
689: \]
690: with
691: \[
692: I = I_N = N^{1/(\gamma+2)}
693: \]
694: and
695: \[
696: n = n_N =
697: \left\lceil N^{(\gamma+2-d)/(\gamma+2)}\right\rceil.
698: \]
699: Take
700: \[
701: J = J_N = N^{1/2 - {\textstyle \frac{d}{2(\gamma+2)}}},
702: \]
703: and let $\Xh^{\text{uni}}_N$ denote the resulting algorithm.
704: By definition,
705: $n_N\cdot \# \I_N \asymp N$ for the total
706: number of evaluations of scalar Brownian motions $\beta_\bi$ used by
707: $\Xh^{\text{uni}}_N$, and Theorem \ref{t1} yields
708: \begin{equation}\label{n1}
709: \left( E \left(\int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh^{\text{uni}}_N(t)\|^2 \, dt
710: \right)\right)^{1/2}
711: \preceq N^{-1/2 + {\textstyle \frac{d}{2(\gamma+2)}}}.
712: \end{equation}
713: \end{rem}
714:
715: \begin{rem}\label{vgl}
716: We compare the implicit Euler schemes $\Xh^*_N$
717: and $\Xh^{\text{uni}}_N$, both of which
718: roughly use $N$ evaluations of scalar Brownian motions.
719: Assume that $\lambda(r) = r^{-\gamma}$ with
720: $\gamma\in \left]d,\infty\right[\setminus \{2d\}$, and put
721: \[
722: \alpha^*(\gamma,d) =
723: \frac{1}{2}-\frac{(2d-\gamma)_+}{2(d+2)},
724: \qquad \alpha(\gamma,d) = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{d}{2(\gamma+2)}.
725: \]
726: {}From Theorem \ref{t2} and Remark \ref{uni1} we get
727: \[
728: \left(E \left( \int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh^*_N(t)\|^2 \, dt \right)\right)^{1/2}
729: \preceq N^{-\alpha^*(\gamma,d)}
730: \]
731: for the non-uniform discretization, and
732: \[
733: \left( E \left(\int_0^1 \|X(t) - \Xh^{\text{uni}}_N(t)\|^2 \, dt
734: \right)\right)^{1/2}
735: \preceq N^{-\alpha(\gamma,d)}
736: \]
737: for the uniform discretization.
738:
739: We always have
740: \[
741: \alpha^*(\gamma,d) > \alpha(\gamma,d).
742: \]
743: In the limit for a low degree of smoothness
744: \[
745: \lim_{\gamma\to d+} \alpha^*(\gamma,d) =
746: \lim_{\gamma\to d+} \alpha(\gamma,d) = 1/(d+2).
747: \]
748: Conversely, for a high degree of smoothness
749: \[
750: \lim_{\gamma\to \infty} \alpha(\gamma,d) = 1/2,
751: \]
752: while $\alpha^*(\gamma,d) =1/2$ already holds if $\gamma > 2d$.
753: %We add that
754: %$\alpha(2d,d) \in \left[3/8,1/4 \right[$. See also Figure \ref{fi1}
755: %for comparison of the orders $\alpha^*(\gamma,d)$ and $\alpha(\gamma,d)$
756: %of convergence.
757:
758: %\begin{figure}\begin{center}
759: %\epsfig{file=vgl.eps,width=12cm}
760: %\caption{Orders of convergence for optimal and uniform time
761: %discretization}
762: %\label{fi1}
763: %\end{center}\end{figure}
764: \end{rem}
765:
766: \section{Optimality}\label{s5}
767:
768: The results from Section \ref{s4} provide upper bounds
769: for the error of specific algorithms.
770: In particular, the comparison of the implicit Euler schemes
771: based on uniform and non-uniform time discretizations
772: is in fact a comparison only of the corresponding upper bounds.
773: It is therefore important to know whether these
774: upper bounds are lower bounds for the error as well, and, even more,
775: to raise the following questions:
776: \begin{itemize}
777: \item[(i)]
778: Does there exist any algorithm $\Xh_N$ that
779: uses a total of $N$ evaluations of
780: scalar Brownian motions $\beta_\bi$ and achieves an error
781: significantly smaller than the upper bound $e_*(N)$ for the
782: algorithm $\Xh^*_N$?
783: \item[(ii)]
784: Are non-uniform time discretizations superior to uniform ones?
785: \end{itemize}
786:
787: To answer these questions we consider arbitrary methods that evaluate a
788: finite number of
789: Brownian motions $\beta_\bi$ at a finite number of points and then
790: produce a curve in $H$ that is close to the corresponding realization
791: of $X$.
792: In general, the selection and evaluation of the scalar Brownian motions
793: $\beta_\bi$, is specified by a finite set
794: \[
795: \I \subseteq \N^d
796: \]
797: and nodes
798: \[
799: 0 < t_{1,\bi} < \dots < t_{n_\bi,\bi} \leq 1
800: \]
801: for $\bi \in \I$ and $n_\bi \in \N$.
802: Every Brownian motion $\beta_\bi$ with $\bi \in \I$ is evaluated
803: at the corresponding nodes $t_{\ell,\bi}$.
804: The total number of evaluations is given by
805: \[
806: |n|_1 = \sum_{\bi\in\I} n_\bi.
807: \]
808: Formally, an approximation $\Xh$ to $X$ is given by
809: \begin{equation}\label{yu}
810: \Xh(t) = \phi \bigl(t,
811: \beta_{\bi_1}(t_{1,\bi_1}), \dots, \beta_{\bi_1}(t_{n_{\bi_1},\bi_1}),
812: \dots ,
813: \beta_{\bi_k}(t_{1,\bi_k}), \dots,
814: \beta_{\bi_k}(t_{n_{\bi_k},\bi_k})\bigr),
815: \end{equation}
816: where
817: \[
818: \phi : [0,1] \times \R^{|n|_1} \to H
819: \]
820: is any measurable mapping and $\I = \{\bi_1, \dots , \bi_k\}$.
821: Here $\phi$ may depend in any way on the initial value
822: $\xi$, the eigenvalues $\lambda_\bi$, and the function $g$,
823: which is used to define the mapping $B$ in the heat equation
824: \eqref{g1}. The error of $\Xh$ is defined by
825: \[
826: e(\Xh) = \left(E \left(
827: \int_0^1 \| X(t) - \Xh(t) \|^2 \, dt \right) \right)^{1/2},
828: \]
829: cf.\ Theorems \ref{t1} and \ref{t2} and the subsequent Remarks.
830:
831: Let $\XX_N$ denote the class of all algorithms \eqref{yu}
832: that use a total of $N$
833: evaluations of the
834: scalar Brownian motions $\beta_\bi$, i.e., $|n|_1 = N$.
835: We wish to minimize the error in this class,
836: and hence we study the $N$th minimal error
837: \[
838: e(N) = \inf_{\Xh \in \XX_N} e(\Xh).
839: \]
840:
841: In particular, our algorithm $\Xh^*_N$ is of the form \eqref{yu},
842: and its total number of evaluations of scalar Brownian motions
843: is roughly given by $N$.
844:
845: We obtain a negative answer to Question (i).
846:
847: \begin{theorem}\label{t3}
848: The sequence of algorithms $\Xh^*_N$
849: is asymptotically optimal, i.e.,
850: \[
851: e(\Xh_N^*) \asymp e(N),
852: \]
853: and
854: \[
855: e(N) \asymp e_*(N).
856: \]
857: \end{theorem}
858:
859: \begin{proof}
860: In view of Theorem \ref{t2} it remains to show that
861: $e(N) \succeq e_*(N)$, and this lower bound is
862: is a consequence of a more general result
863: established in M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006, Thm.\ 1).
864: \end{proof}
865:
866: With respect to Question (ii) one needs to study the subclass
867: $\XX_N^{\text{uni}}\subset \XX_N$ of algorithms that are based on
868: a uniform discretization, i.e.,
869: $t_{\ell,\bi} = \ell / n$ for all $\bi\in\I$ and
870: some constant $n\in\N$.
871: The corresponding $N$th minimal error in this class is given by
872: \[
873: e^{\text{uni}}(N) = \inf_{\Xh \in \XX_N^{\text{uni}}} e(\Xh).
874: \]
875:
876: \begin{rem}
877: Consider the specific equation
878: \begin{equation}\label{n2}
879: \begin{aligned}
880: dX(t) &= \Delta X(t) \, dt + dW(t),\\
881: X(0) &= 0,
882: \end{aligned}
883: \end{equation}
884: i.e., $g=1$ or, equivalently, $B(x)= \text{id}$, and assume that
885: $\lambda(r)=r^{-\gamma}$ with
886: $\gamma\in\left] d,\infty\right[\setminus \{2d\}$. Then
887: \begin{equation}\label{n3}
888: e^{\text{uni}}(N) \succeq N^{-1/2+{\textstyle \frac{d}{2(\gamma+2)}}}
889: \end{equation}
890: see M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006, Remark 6), so that
891: \[
892: e(\Xh^{\text{uni}}_N) \asymp
893: e^{\text{uni}}(N) \asymp N^{-1/2+{\textstyle \frac{d}{2(\gamma+2)}}}
894: \]
895: follows from Remark \ref{uni1}.
896:
897: We thus conclude that the upper bound \eqref{n1} for the error
898: of the implicit Euler scheme $\Xh^{\text{uni}}_N$ is sharp.
899: Moreover, these algorithms form an asymptotically optimal
900: sequence among all algorithms that use uniform time discretizations.
901: Our comparison of orders of convergence in Remark \ref{vgl}
902: is therefore a result on minimal errors and clearly shows
903: the superiority of non-uniform time discretizations.
904: \end{rem}
905:
906: Note that the conclusions from the previous remark only apply
907: to the specific equation \eqref{n2}. We conjecture, however,
908: that the lower bound \eqref{n3}
909: holds in general, in which case these conclusions hold in general
910: as well.
911:
912: \section{Proofs}\label{sp}
913:
914: We start with regularity properties of the solution $X$ of
915: equation \eqref{g1}.
916: For the mean-square smoothness of $X$ we have
917: \begin{equation}\label{g4}
918: E\| X(s) - X(t)\|^2 \preceq |t-s| \cdot ( 1 + \psi(\min(s,t)))
919: \end{equation}
920: for $s,t \in [0,1]$ with
921: \[
922: \psi(t) = \sum_{\bi \in \N^d} \mu_\bi \cdot E(\scp{X(t)}{h_\bi}^2)
923: \]
924: satisfying
925: \begin{equation}\label{g10}
926: \int_0^1 \psi(t)\, dt < \infty.
927: \end{equation}
928: See M\"uller-Gronbach, Ritter (2006, Lemma 1).
929:
930: Consider the Sobolev space $W^1_2 = W^1_2(\left]0,1\right[^d)$
931: and its subspace $W^{1,0}_2$.
932: Note that $h_\bi \in W^{1,0}_2$ and
933: \[
934: \scp{x}{h_\bi}_{W^1_2} = (1+\mu_\bi) \cdot \scp{x}{h_\bi}
935: \]
936: for every $x \in W^{1,0}_2$. Consequently, the functions
937: $(1+\mu_\bi)^{-1/2} \cdot h_\bi$ form a
938: complete orthonormal system in $W^{1,0}_2$, and
939: \begin{equation}\label{g9}
940: W^{1,0}_2 = \{ x \in H :
941: \sum_{\bi \in \N^d} \mu_\bi \cdot \scp{x}{h_\bi}^2 < \infty\}
942: \end{equation}
943: as well as
944: \begin{equation}\label{g8}
945: \|x\|^2_{W^1_2} \leq 2 \cdot
946: \sum_{\bi \in \N^d} \mu_\bi \cdot \scp{x}{h_\bi}^2
947: \end{equation}
948: for $x \in W^{1,0}_2$, which is the Poincar\'e inequality.
949:
950: \begin{lemma}\label{l3}
951: For Lebesgue-almost every $t\in[0,1]$ we have
952: \[
953: X(t) \in W^{1,0}_2
954: \]
955: with probability one and
956: \[
957: \sum_{\bj\in\N^d} 1/\mu_\bj \cdot
958: E\scp{T_g(X(t))\cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}^2
959: \preceq 1/\mu_\bi \cdot (1+E\|X(t)\|_{W^1_2}^2)
960: \]
961: for every $\bi\in\N^d$. Moreover,
962: \[
963: \int_0^1 E \| X(t)\|^2_{W^{1}_2} \, dt < \infty.
964: \]
965: \end{lemma}
966:
967: \begin{proof}
968: Combine \eqref{g10}, \eqref{g9}, and \eqref{g8} to obtain the
969: first and the last claim.
970:
971: For the proof of the second claim we
972: note that
973: \begin{equation}\label{g7}
974: \|T_g (x)\|_{W^1_2} \preceq 1 + \|x\|_{W^1_2}
975: \end{equation}
976: for $x \in W^1_2$, see Appell, Zabrejko (1990, Theorems 9.2 and 9.5).
977: Furthermore, we may assume $g(0)=0$ without loss of generality. Then
978: \begin{equation}\label{g6}
979: T_g(W^{1,0}_2) \subset W^{1,0}_2
980: \end{equation}
981: is easily verified.
982: In view of \eqref{g7}, \eqref{g6} and the first statement in the lemma
983: it suffices to show that
984:
985: \begin{equation}\label{h1}
986: \sum_{\bj \in \N^d} 1/\mu_\bj \cdot \scp{x\cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}^2
987: \preceq 1/\mu_\bi \cdot \|x\|_{W^1_2}^2
988: \end{equation}
989: for all $x \in W^{1,0}_2$ and $\bi \in \N^d$.
990:
991: To this end fix $\bi, \bj \in \N^d$ and $\ell \in \{1,\dots,d\}$,
992: and put
993: \[
994: f_\bi = 1/(i_\ell \pi) \cdot \tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell} h_\bi,
995: \qquad
996: f_\bj = 1/(j_\ell \pi) \cdot \tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell} h_\bj.
997: \]
998: Then
999: \begin{align*}
1000: i_\ell^2 \cdot \scp{x}{h_\bi \cdot h_\bj}^2
1001: & \asymp
1002: \scp{x}{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell} f_\bi \cdot h_\bj}^2\\
1003: &=
1004: \left(
1005: \scp{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell}x}{f_\bi \cdot h_\bj} -
1006: j_\ell \pi \cdot \scp{x}{f_\bi \cdot f_\bj} \right)^2 \\
1007: &\preceq
1008: \scp{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell}x}{f_\bi \cdot h_\bj}^2 +
1009: j_\ell^2 \cdot \scp{x}{f_\bi \cdot f_\bj}^2.
1010: \end{align*}
1011: Hereby
1012: \[
1013: i_\ell^2 \cdot \sum_{\bj \in \N^d} 1/\mu_\bj \cdot \scp{x}{h_\bi\cdot
1014: h_\bj}^2
1015: \preceq
1016: \left\|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial u_\ell}x \cdot f_\bi \right\|^2 +
1017: \left\|x \cdot f_\bi \right\|^2,
1018: \]
1019: and we conclude that
1020: \[
1021: \mu_\bi \cdot \sum_{\bj \in \N^d} 1/\mu_\bj \cdot
1022: \scp{x\cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}^2 \preceq \|x\|^2_{W^1_2},
1023: \]
1024: which yields \eqref{h1}.
1025: \end{proof}
1026:
1027: \subsection{Properties of the It\^{o}-Galerkin approximation}
1028:
1029: Let $P_\I$ and $P_\J$ denote the orthogonal projections
1030: onto the subspaces $\spann \{h_\bi: \bi \in \I\}$ and
1031: $\spann \{h_\bj: \bj \in \J\}$, respectively, and put
1032: \[
1033: \Bb (x) = P_\J \circ B(x) \circ P_\I.
1034: \]
1035: Then $\Bb: H\to \LL$ satisfies \eqref{e1} and
1036: $\Xb$ is the mild solution of \eqref{g1} with $B$ being
1037: replaced by $\Bb$. Hence
1038: \begin{equation}\label{g14}
1039: \sup_{t \in [0,1]} E\| \Xb(t)\|^2 \leq c_1,
1040: \end{equation}
1041: see \eqref{g3}.
1042:
1043: We establish an error bound for piecewise constant interpolation of
1044: $\Xb$.
1045:
1046: \begin{lemma}\label{l5}
1047: For $\I, \J \subset \N^d$ and $m \in \N$
1048: \[
1049: \sum_{\ell=0}^{m-1}
1050: \int_{\ell/m}^{(\ell+1)/m} E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2 \, dt
1051: \preceq 1/m.
1052: \]
1053: \end{lemma}
1054:
1055: \begin{proof}
1056: Note that \eqref{g4} and \eqref{g10} are valid, too, for
1057: $\Xb$ and
1058: \[
1059: \pb (t) = \sum_{\bj\in\J} \mu_\bj \cdot E(\Yb_\bj^2(t))
1060: \]
1061: instead of $X$ and $\psi$, respectively.
1062: For $\ell \in \{0,\dots,m-1\}$
1063: take $s_\ell \in [\ell/m,(\ell+1)/m]$ with
1064: \[
1065: \pb (s_\ell) / m \leq \int_{\ell/m}^{(\ell+1)/m} \pb(t)\, dt.
1066: \]
1067:
1068: On the first subinterval,
1069: \[
1070: \int_{0}^{1/m} E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(0)\|^2 \, dt \leq
1071: 2/m \cdot \sup_{t \in [0,1]} E\| \Xb(t)\|^2 \preceq 1/m,
1072: \]
1073: see \eqref{g14}.
1074: On the subintervals $[\ell/m,(\ell+1)/m]$ with $\ell \ge 1$ we
1075: proceed as follows.
1076: If $t \in [\ell/m,s_\ell]$, then
1077: \begin{align*}
1078: E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2
1079: & \preceq
1080: E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(s_{\ell-1})\|^2 +
1081: E \|\Xb(s_{\ell-1}) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2\\
1082: &\preceq 1/m \cdot (1 + \pb(s_{\ell-1}) )\\
1083: &\preceq 1/m + \int_{(\ell-1)/m}^{\ell/m} \pb (s) \, ds.
1084: \end{align*}
1085: If $t \in [s_\ell,(\ell+1)/m]$, then
1086: \begin{align*}
1087: & E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2 \\
1088: & \qquad \preceq
1089: E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(s_\ell)\|^2 +
1090: E \|\Xb(s_\ell) - \Xb(s_{\ell-1})\|^2 +
1091: E \|\Xb(s_{\ell-1}) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2\\
1092: &\qquad\preceq 1/m \cdot (1 + \pb (s_\ell) + \pb(s_{\ell-1}) )\\
1093: &\qquad\preceq 1/m + \int_{(\ell-1)/m}^{(\ell+1)/m} \pb (s) \, ds.
1094: \end{align*}
1095: We conclude that
1096: \[
1097: \int_{\ell/m}^{(\ell+1)/m} E \|\Xb(t) - \Xb(\ell/m)\|^2 \, dt
1098: \preceq 1/m^2 + 1/m \cdot
1099: \int_{(\ell-1)/m}^{(\ell+1)/m} \pb (s) \, ds,
1100: \]
1101: which completes the proof.
1102: \end{proof}
1103:
1104:
1105: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{l4}]
1106: Recall the particular choice \eqref{g15} of the sets $\I$ and $\J$
1107: and let $c$ denote the right-hand side in Proposition \ref{l4}.
1108: Moreover, let
1109: \[
1110: X^{(k)}(t) = \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J} Y^{(k)}_\bj(t) \cdot h_\bj
1111: \]
1112: for $k=1,2$ with
1113: \[
1114: Y^{(1)}_\bj(t) =
1115: \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
1116: \int_0^t \exp(-\mu_\bj (t-s)) \cdot \lscp{T_g (X(s)) \cdot h_\bi}
1117: {h_\bj} \, d\beta_\bi(s)
1118: \]
1119: and
1120: \[
1121: Y^{(2)}_\bj(t) = \exp(- \mu_\bj t) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj} +
1122: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
1123: \int_0^t \exp(-\mu_\bj (t-s)) \cdot \lscp{T_g (X(s)) \cdot h_\bi}
1124: {h_\bj} \, d\beta_\bi(s).
1125: \]
1126: Then
1127: \[
1128: X(t) = X^{(1)}(t) + X^{(2)}(t) + \sum_{|\bj|_2 > J} Y_\bj(t)\cdot h_\bj,
1129: \]
1130: and consequently
1131: \begin{multline*}
1132: \int_0^t E \|X(s) - \Xb(s)\|^2 \, ds \\
1133: \preceq
1134: \sum_{|\bj|_2 > J} \int_0^1 E(Y_\bj^2(t)) \, dt
1135: +
1136: \int_0^1 E \|X^{(1)} (t) \|^2 \, dt
1137: +
1138: \int_0^t E \|X^{(2)}(s) - \Xb(s)\|^2 \, ds.
1139: \end{multline*}
1140:
1141: We have
1142: \[
1143: \int_0^1 E\bigl(Y^{(1)}_\bj(t)\bigr)^2 \, dt
1144: \preceq \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi / \mu_\bj
1145: \cdot \int_0^1 E\lscp{T_g (X(t)) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}^2 \, dt,
1146: \]
1147: and therefore
1148: \[
1149: \int_0^1 E \|X^{(1)} (t) \|^2 \, dt \leq
1150: \sum_{\bj \in \N^d}
1151: \int_0^1 E(Y^{(1)}_\bj(t))^2 \, dt
1152: \preceq
1153: \sum_{|\bi|_2 > I} \lambda_\bi / \mu_\bi \leq c
1154: \]
1155: by Lemma \ref{l3}. Furthermore,
1156: \[
1157: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \geq J} \int_0^1 E(Y_\bj^2(t)) \, dt \preceq 1/J^2 \leq
1158: c
1159: \]
1160: follows from \eqref{g13}, \eqref{g3},
1161: and $\sup_{\bi \in \N^d} \| h_i\|_\infty < \infty$.
1162: Finally, if $|\bj|_2 \leq J$, then
1163: \[
1164: E \bigl(Y^{(2)}_\bj(t) - \Yb_\bj(t)\bigr)^2
1165: \leq
1166: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi \cdot
1167: \int_0^t
1168: E \lscp{T_g (X(s)) - T_g (\Xb(s))}{h_\bi\, h_\bj}^2 \, ds,
1169: \]
1170: and due to \eqref{g13}
1171: \begin{align*}
1172: E \|X^{(2)}(t) - \Xb(t)\|^2 &\preceq
1173: \int_0^t E \|T_g (X(s)) - T_g (\Xb(s))\|^2 \, ds
1174: \preceq
1175: \int_0^t E \|X(s) - \Xb(s)\|^2 \, ds\\
1176: &\preceq 2c +
1177: \int_0^t E \|X^{(2)}(s) - \Xb(s)\|^2\, ds.
1178: \end{align*}
1179: Since $E \lscp{X^{(1)}(t)}{X^{(2)}(t)} = 0$, we get
1180: $E\|X^{(2)}(t)\|^2 \leq E\|X(t)\|^2$. Use \eqref{g3} and \eqref{g14}
1181: to conclude that
1182: \[
1183: \sup_{t \in [0,1]}
1184: E \|X^{(2)}(t) - \Xb(t)\|^2 < \infty.
1185: \]
1186: It remains to apply Gronwall's Lemma to complete the proof.
1187: \end{proof}
1188:
1189: \subsection{Properties of the implicit Euler scheme}
1190:
1191: Recall the definition \eqref{semi} of $\Gamma_\bj$ used for
1192: approximation of the semigroup.
1193:
1194: \begin{lemma}\label{l7}
1195: Suppose that $\bi\in \I$ and $\bj\in \J$.
1196: Then, for $\ell = 0,\dots,n_\bi-1$,
1197: \[
1198: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1199: \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell,\bi})} \, dt
1200: \leq 2/\mu_\bj
1201: \]
1202: as well as
1203: \[
1204: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1205: \left( \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} -
1206: \exp(-\mu_\bi (t-t_{\ell,\bi})) \right)^2 \, dt
1207: \preceq 1/n^*,
1208: \]
1209: where
1210: \[
1211: n^* = \max \{ n_\bi: \bi\in\I\}.
1212: \]
1213: Furthermore, for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq 1$,
1214: \[
1215: \left|1- \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s)}
1216: \right| \leq \min(1, \mu_\bj \cdot (t-s)).
1217: \]
1218: \end{lemma}
1219:
1220: \begin{proof}
1221: For $t \in [t_{k,\bi},t_{k+1,\bi}]$ with $k \geq \ell$
1222: \[
1223: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})}
1224: \leq \frac{1}{(1+\mu_\bj/n_\bi)^{k-\ell}} \cdot
1225: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t - t_{k,\bi})},
1226: \]
1227: and therefore
1228: \[
1229: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1230: \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell,\bi})} \, dt
1231: \leq \frac{1}{\mu_\bj + n_\bi} \cdot
1232: \sum_{k=0}^{n_\bi-1}
1233: \frac{1}{(1+\mu_\bj/n_\bi)^{2k}}.
1234: \]
1235: Thus, if $\mu_\bj / n_\bi \geq 1$,
1236: \[
1237: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1238: \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell,\bi})} \, dt
1239: \leq 2/\mu_\bj,
1240: \]
1241: and otherwise
1242: \[
1243: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1244: \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell,\bi})} \, dt
1245: \leq \frac{1}{n_\bi} \cdot
1246: \frac{1}{1- 1/(1+ \mu_\bj / n_\bi)^2} \leq 2/\mu_\bj,
1247: \]
1248: too.
1249:
1250: For the proof of the second statement put
1251: $k^* = \lceil t_{\ell,\bi} \cdot n^* \rceil$ and
1252: \[
1253: f(t) = \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} -
1254: \exp(-\mu_\bj (t-t_{\ell,\bi})).
1255: \]
1256: Then $0 \leq f \leq 1$ and
1257: \[
1258: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1259: f^2(t) \, dt
1260: \preceq 1/n^* + \sum_{k=k^*}^{n^*-1}
1261: \int_{k/n^*}^{(k+1)/n^*} f^2(t) \, dt.
1262: \]
1263: It remains to show that
1264: \begin{equation}\label{g17}
1265: \sum_{k=k^*}^{n^*-1} \sup_{t \in [k/n^*,(k+1)/n^*]} f^2(t) \preceq 1.
1266: \end{equation}
1267:
1268: To this end
1269: assume that $t \in [k/n^*,(k+1)/n^*]$ for some $k \geq k^*$ in the
1270: sequel. Use
1271: \[
1272: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})}
1273: \leq
1274: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (k^*/n^* - t_{\ell,\bi})} \cdot
1275: \frac{1}{(1+\mu_\bj/n^*)^{k-k^*}} \cdot
1276: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t - k/n^*)}
1277: \]
1278: to obtain
1279: \[
1280: f(t)
1281: \leq
1282: \left(\frac{1}{(1+\mu_\bj/n^*)^{k-k^*}} - \exp(-\mu_\bj (k-k^*)/n^*)\right)
1283: +
1284: \exp(-\mu_\bj (k-k^*)/n^*) \cdot
1285: \left( f_0 + f_1(t)
1286: \right)
1287: \]
1288: with
1289: \[
1290: f_0 =
1291: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (k^*/n^* - t_{\ell,\bi})} -
1292: \exp(-\mu_\bj (k^*/n^* - t_{\ell,\bi}))
1293: \]
1294: and
1295: \[
1296: f_1(t) =
1297: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t-k/n^*)} -
1298: \exp(-\mu_\bj (t-k/n^*)).
1299: \]
1300: Note that $1/(1+u) - \exp(-u) \preceq \min(1/(1+u),u^2)$ for $u \geq 0$.
1301: Let $u = \mu_\bj / n^*$.
1302: Then
1303: \[
1304: \frac{1}{(1+\mu_\bj/n^*)^{k-k^*}} - \exp(-\mu_\bj (k-k^*)/n^*)
1305: \preceq
1306: \frac{1}{(1+u)^{k-k^*-1}} \cdot \min(1/(1+u),u^2)
1307: \]
1308: for $k > k^*$, and therefore
1309: \[
1310: \sum_{k=k^*}^{n^*-1}
1311: \left(\frac{1}{(1+u)^{k-k^*}} - \exp(- (k-k^*) \cdot u )\right)^2
1312: \preceq
1313: \frac{(1+u)^2}{(1+u)^2 - 1} \cdot \min(1/(1+u)^2,u^4)
1314: \preceq 1.
1315: \]
1316: Since $\max(f_0,f_1(t)) \preceq \min (1, u^2)$, we have
1317: \[
1318: \sum_{k=k^*}^{n^*-1}
1319: \exp(-2\mu_\bj (k-k^*)/n^*) \cdot (f_0 + f_1(t))
1320: \preceq
1321: \frac{1}{ 1 - \exp (-2u)} \cdot \min(1,u^2) \preceq 1,
1322: \]
1323: which completes the proof of \eqref{g17}.
1324:
1325: For the proof of the third statement let $s \leq t$,
1326: and assume that
1327: $s \in [\tau_{\kappa-1},\tau_\kappa]$ and
1328: $t \in [\tau_{\nu-1},\tau_\nu]$. By definition
1329: \[
1330: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s)}
1331: =
1332: \frac{1 + \mu_\bj \cdot (s-\tau_{\kappa-1})}
1333: {1 + \mu_\bj \cdot (\tau_\kappa-\tau_{\kappa-1})}
1334: \cdot
1335: \prod_{\iota = \kappa+1}^{\nu-1}
1336: \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (\tau_\iota - \tau_{\iota-1})}
1337: \cdot \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t - \tau_{\nu-1})},
1338: \]
1339: which implies
1340: \begin{align*}
1341: \left| 1 - \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s)} \right|
1342: & \leq
1343: \left| 1 -
1344: \frac{1 + \mu_\bj \cdot (s-\tau_{\kappa-1})}
1345: {1 + \mu_\bj \cdot (\tau_\kappa-\tau_{\kappa-1})} \right| \\
1346: &
1347: \phantom{=} \mbox{} +
1348: \sum_{\iota = \kappa+1}^{\nu-1}
1349: \left| 1 - \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (\tau_\iota - \tau_{\iota-1})}
1350: \right|
1351: +
1352: \left| 1 - \frac{1}{1+\mu_\bj \cdot (t - \tau_{\nu-1})}\right|\\
1353: &\leq
1354: \mu_\bj \cdot (t - s).
1355: \end{align*}
1356: Finally, $0 < \Gamma_\bj(t)/\Gamma_\bj(s) \leq 1$.
1357: \end{proof}
1358:
1359: Put
1360: \[
1361: \at_{\bi,\bj}(t) =
1362: E\left(\lscp{T_g(\Xh(t)) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}^2\right),
1363: \]
1364: and note that
1365: \begin{equation}\label{g26}
1366: \sum_{\bj \in \J} \at_{\bi,\bj}(t) \preceq 1 + E \|\Xh(t)\|^2
1367: \end{equation}
1368: due to \eqref{g13} and $\sup_{\bi \in \N^d} \|h_\bi\|_\infty \preceq 1$.
1369:
1370: \begin{lemma}\label{l6}
1371: For $\I, \J \subset \N^d$ and $n \in \N^{\I}$
1372: \[
1373: \sup_{t \in [0,1]} E\| \Xh(t)\|^2 \preceq 1.
1374: \]
1375: \end{lemma}
1376:
1377: \begin{proof}
1378: At first we slightly modify the process $\Xh$
1379: by replacing the Brownian increments
1380: $\beta_\bi(\tau_m) - \beta_\bi (s_{m,\bi})$
1381: in the definition \eqref{f1} of $\Yh_\bj$ by
1382: increments $\beta_\bi(t) - \beta_\bi (s_{m,\bi})$.
1383: More precisely, we consider
1384: $\Xt (t) = \sum_{\bj \in \J} \Yt_\bj (t) \cdot
1385: h_\bj$ with $\Yt_\bj (0) = \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}$ and
1386: \begin{multline*}
1387: \Yt_\bj (t) =
1388: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(\tau_{m-1})} \\
1389: \mbox{} \cdot \left( \Yt_\bj (\tau_{m-1})
1390: +
1391: \sum_{\bi \in \K_m} \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
1392: \lscp{B(\Xt(s_{m,\bi})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
1393: \frac{\Gamma_\bj (\tau_{m-1})}{\Gamma_\bj(s_{m,\bi})} \cdot
1394: (\beta_\bi(t) - \beta_\bi (s_{m,\bi}))\right)
1395: \end{multline*}
1396: for $t \in \left]\tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right]$.
1397: Note that $\Yh_\bj$ and $\Yt_\bj$ as well as
1398: $\Xh$ and $\Xt$ coincide at the points $\tau_m$.
1399: Moreover, by construction of these processes we have
1400: \begin{equation}\label{hilfe}
1401: \Yt_\bj(\tau_m) \text{ and } \Xt(\tau_m) \text{ are measurable w.r.t. }
1402: \sigma\left(\{\beta_\bi(t_{\ell,\bi}):\
1403: t_{\ell,\bi}\le \tau_m, \bi\in\I\}\right).
1404: \end{equation}
1405: We claim that
1406: \begin{equation}\label{g24}
1407: \sup_{t \in [0,1]} E\| \Xt(t)\|^2 \preceq 1.
1408: \end{equation}
1409:
1410: Assume that
1411: $t \in \left] \tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right]$ in the following.
1412: Observing \eqref{hilfe} we obtain
1413: \begin{align*}
1414: &E (\Yt_\bj(t) - \Yt_\bj(\tau_{m-1}))^2 \\
1415: & =
1416: \left( 1 - \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(\tau_{m-1})} \right)^2 \cdot
1417: E (\Yt_\bj^2(\tau_{m-1}))
1418: +
1419: \sum_{\bi \in \K_m} \lambda_\bi \cdot
1420: \at_{\bi,\bj} (s_{m,\bi}) \cdot
1421: \frac{\Gamma^2_\bj (\tau_{m-1})}{\Gamma^2_\bj(s_{m,\bi})} \cdot
1422: (t - s_{m,\bi})\\
1423: &\leq
1424: E (\Yt_\bj^2(\tau_{m-1})) +
1425: \sum_{\bi \in \K_m} \lambda_\bi/n_\bi \cdot
1426: \at_{\bi,\bj} (s_{m,\bi}).
1427: \end{align*}
1428: {}From \eqref{g26} we therefore get
1429: \[
1430: E\|\Xt(t) -\Xt(\tau_{m-1})\|^2
1431: \preceq
1432: 1 + \max_{k=0,\dots,m-1} E \|\Xt(\tau_k)\|^2,
1433: \]
1434: and we conclude that
1435: \[
1436: f(s) = \sup_{r \in [0,s]} E \|\Xt(r)\|^2
1437: \]
1438: is finite for $s \in [0,1]$, since $E\|\Xt(0)\|^2= \|\xi\|^2 <
1439: \infty$.
1440:
1441: Analogously to \eqref{g20} we have
1442: \begin{multline*}
1443: \Yt_\bj (t) = \Gamma_\bj (t) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj} \\
1444: +
1445: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2}
1446: \cdot \left( \sum_{t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m}
1447: \lscp{B(\Xt(t_{\ell-1,\bi})) h_\bi}{h_\bj} \cdot
1448: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell-1,\bi})}
1449: \cdot (\beta_\bi (t \wedge t_{\ell,\bi}) - \beta_\bi (t_{\ell-1,\bi}))
1450: \right),
1451: \end{multline*}
1452: which implies
1453: \[
1454: E(\Yt_\bj^2(t))
1455: =
1456: \Gamma_\bj^2(t) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}^2
1457: +
1458: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi \cdot
1459: \left( \sum_{t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m} \at_{\bi,\bj}( t_{\ell-1,\bi})
1460: \cdot \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell-1,\bi})} \cdot
1461: (t \wedge t_{\ell,\bi} - t_{\ell-1,\bi})
1462: \right)
1463: \]
1464: due to the measurability property \eqref{hilfe}.
1465: Use \eqref{g26} to derive
1466: \begin{align*}
1467: E\|\Xt (t)\|^2
1468: &\preceq
1469: \|\xi\|^2 +
1470: \sum_{\bi in \I} \lambda_\bi
1471: \cdot \left( \sum_{t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m} (1 + f(t_{\ell-1,\bi}))
1472: \cdot
1473: (t \wedge t_{\ell,\bi} - t_{\ell-1,\bi})
1474: \right) \\
1475: &\preceq
1476: 1 + \int_0^t f(s) \, ds,
1477: \end{align*}
1478: so that \eqref{g24} follows by means of Gronwall's Lemma.
1479:
1480: For the process $\Xh$ we apply
1481: \eqref{g20} and observe \eqref{hilfe} again to obtain
1482: \begin{equation}\label{g23}
1483: E(\Yh_\bj^2(t))
1484: =
1485: \Gamma_\bj^2(t) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}^2
1486: +
1487: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi/n_i \cdot
1488: \left( \sum_{t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m}
1489: \ah_{\bi,\bj}(t_{\ell-1,\bi})
1490: \cdot \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(t)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell-1,\bi})}
1491: \right).
1492: \end{equation}
1493: Using \eqref{g24} we conclude that
1494: \[
1495: E\|\Xh (t)\|^2
1496: \preceq
1497: \|\xi\|^2 +
1498: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi
1499: \cdot
1500: \left(
1501: 1 + \max_{\ell=0,\dots,n_\bi} E\|\Xt(t_{\ell,\bi})\|^2
1502: \right)
1503: \preceq
1504: 1.
1505: \]
1506: \end{proof}
1507:
1508: We turn to the mean-square regularity of the process $\Xh$.
1509:
1510: \begin{lemma}\label{l8}
1511: For $\I, \J \subset \N^d$, $n \in \N^{\I}$, and
1512: $0 \leq s \leq t \leq 1$
1513: \[
1514: E\| \Xh(s) - \Xh(t)\|^2
1515: \preceq
1516: (t-s) \cdot (1 + \ph (s)) + \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi,
1517: \]
1518: where
1519: \[
1520: \ph (s) = \sum_{\bj \in \J} \mu_\bj \cdot E(\Yh^2_\bj(s)).
1521: \]
1522: Moreover,
1523: \begin{equation}\label{g22}
1524: \int_0^1 \ph(s) \, ds \preceq 1.
1525: \end{equation}
1526: \end{lemma}
1527:
1528: \begin{proof}
1529: Since $s \in \left] \tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right]$ and
1530: $t_{\ell,\bi} \leq \tau_m$ implies $t_{\ell-1,\bi} \leq s$, we obtain
1531: \begin{align*}
1532: \int_0^1 E(\Yh_\bj^2(s)) \, ds
1533: &\leq \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}^2 \cdot \int_0^1 \Gamma_\bj^2(s) \, ds
1534: +
1535: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi/n_\bi \cdot
1536: \left( \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1} a_{\bi,\bj}(t_{\ell,\bi})
1537: \cdot \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1538: \frac{\Gamma_\bj^2(s)}{\Gamma_\bj^2(t_{\ell,\bi})} \, ds
1539: \right) \\
1540: & \preceq
1541: 1/\mu_\bj \cdot
1542: \left(\scp{\xi}{h_\bj}^2 +
1543: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi/n_\bi \cdot
1544: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1} a_{\bi,\bj}(t_{\ell,\bi})
1545: \right)
1546: \end{align*}
1547: from \eqref{g23} and Lemma \ref{l7}. It follows that
1548: \[
1549: \int_0^1 \ph(s) \, ds
1550: \preceq
1551: \|\xi\|^2 +
1552: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi/n_\bi \cdot
1553: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1} (1 + E(\|\Xh(t_{\ell,\bi}) \|^2) ),
1554: \]
1555: see \eqref{g26}.
1556: Use Lemma \ref{l6} to complete the proof of \eqref{g22}.
1557:
1558: Assume that $s < t$ with $s \in [\tau_{m-1},\tau_m]$ and
1559: $t \in \left]\tau_{\kappa-1},\tau_\kappa\right]$ for $m \leq \kappa$.
1560: Then
1561: \begin{multline*}
1562: E( \Yh_\bj (s) - \Yh_\bj(t))^2 \\
1563: =
1564: \left( 1 - \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s)} \right)^2 \cdot
1565: E(\Yh_\bj^2(s))
1566: +
1567: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi \cdot
1568: \left(
1569: \sum_{\ell \in \K_\bi(s,t)}
1570: \at_{\bi,\bj} (t_{\ell-1,\bi}) \cdot
1571: \frac{\Gamma^2_\bj (t)}{\Gamma^2_\bj(t_{\ell-1,\bi})}
1572: \right),
1573: \end{multline*}
1574: where
1575: \[
1576: \K_\bi (s,t) =
1577: \{ \ell \in \{1,\dots,n_\bi\} : t_{\ell,\bi} \in \left]\tau_m,\tau_\kappa
1578: \right] \}
1579: \]
1580: if $s > \tau_{m-1}$ and
1581: \[
1582: \K_\bi (s,t) =
1583: \{ \ell \in \{1,\dots,n_\bi\} : t_{\ell,\bi} \in \left[\tau_m,\tau_\kappa
1584: \right] \}
1585: \]
1586: if $s = \tau_{m-1}$.
1587: By Lemma \ref{l7}
1588: \[
1589: E( \Yh_\bj (s) - \Yh_\bj(t))^2
1590: \preceq
1591: \mu_\bj \cdot (t-s) \cdot E(\Yh_\bj^2(s))
1592: +
1593: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi \cdot
1594: \left(
1595: \sum_{\ell \in \K_\bi(s,t)}
1596: \at_{\bi,\bj} (t_{\ell-1,\bi})
1597: \right).
1598: \]
1599: Note that $\# \K_\bi(s,t) \leq 1 + n_\bi \cdot (t-s)$,
1600: and apply \eqref{g26}
1601: together with Lemma \ref{l6} to obtain
1602: \begin{align*}
1603: E\| \Xh(s) - \Xh(t)\|^2
1604: &\preceq
1605: (t-s) \cdot \ph (s) +
1606: \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi \cdot
1607: \# \K_\bi(s,t)\\
1608: &\preceq
1609: (t-s) \cdot (1 + \ph (s)) + \sum_{\bi \in \I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi,
1610: \end{align*}
1611: as claimed.
1612: \end{proof}
1613:
1614: In view of Lemma \ref{l6} and Lemma \ref{l8} we may
1615: proceed as in the proof of Lemma \ref{l4}
1616: to obtain the following error bound for piecewise constant
1617: interpolation of $\Xh$.
1618:
1619:
1620: \begin{lemma}\label{l9}
1621: For $\I, \J \subset \N^d$, $n \in \N^\I$, and $\bi \in \I$
1622: \[
1623: \sum_{\ell=1}^{n_\bi} \int_{t_{\ell-1,\bi}}^{t_{\ell,\bi}}
1624: E \|\Xh(t) - \Xh(t_{\ell-1,\bi})\|^2 \, dt
1625: \preceq 1/n_\bi + \sum_{\bi^\prime \in \I} \lambda_{\bi^\prime} /
1626: n_{\bi^\prime}.
1627: \]
1628: \end{lemma}
1629:
1630: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t1}]
1631: Recall the particular choice \eqref{g15} of the sets $\I$ and $\J$
1632: and consider the corresponding It\^o-Galerkin approximation $\Xb$.
1633: Because of Proposition \ref{l4} it suffices to show that
1634: \begin{equation}\label{g21}
1635: \int_0^1 E \|\Xb(t) - \Xh(t)\|^2 \, dt
1636: \preceq \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi.
1637: \end{equation}
1638:
1639: For $\nu=1,2,3$ we define
1640: \[
1641: U^{(\nu)}_\bj(t) = \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi^{1/2}
1642: \cdot \int_0^t
1643: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1} V^{(\nu)}_{\bi,\bj,\ell}(s,t)
1644: \cdot 1_{\left]t_{\ell,\bi},t_{\ell+1,\bi}\right]}(s) \, d\beta_\bi (s)
1645: \]
1646: with
1647: \begin{align*}
1648: V^{(1)}_{\bi,\bj,\ell} (s,t)
1649: &= \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-s)) \cdot
1650: \scp{T_g(\Xb(s)) - T_g(\Xb(t_{\ell,\bi})) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj},\\
1651: V^{(2)}_{\bi,\bj,\ell} (s,t)
1652: &= \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-s)) \cdot
1653: \scp{T_g(\Xb(t_{\ell,\bi})) - T_g(\Xh(t_{\ell,\bi})) \cdot
1654: h_\bi}{h_\bj},\\
1655: V^{(3)}_{\bi,\bj,\ell} (s,t)
1656: &= \left( \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-s)) -
1657: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} \right) \cdot
1658: \scp{T_g(\Xh(t_{\ell,\bi})) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}.
1659: \end{align*}
1660: Furthermore, we put
1661: \[
1662: U_\bj^{(4)}(t) =
1663: \sum_{\bi \in \I \setminus \K_m}
1664: \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
1665: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s_{m,\bi})} \cdot
1666: \scp{T_g(\Xh(s_{m,\bi})) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}
1667: \cdot (\beta_\bi(t) - \beta_\bi(s_{m,\bi}))
1668: \]
1669: and
1670: \[
1671: U_\bj^{(5)}(t) =
1672: \sum_{\bi \in \K_m}
1673: \lambda_\bi^{1/2} \cdot
1674: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(s_{m,\bi})} \cdot
1675: \scp{T_g(\Xh(s_{m,\bi})) \cdot h_\bi}{h_\bj}
1676: \cdot (\beta_\bi(\tau_m) - \beta_\bi(t))
1677: \]
1678: if $t \in \left]\tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right]$.
1679: Then, by definition,
1680: \begin{multline*}
1681: \Yb_\bj (t) - \Yh_\bj (t)\\
1682: =
1683: \left( \exp (-\mu_\bj t) - \Gamma_\bj(t) \right) \cdot \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}
1684: + U_\bj^{(1)}(t) + U_\bj^{(2)}(t) + U_\bj^{(3)}(t) +
1685: U_\bj^{(4)}(t) - U_\bj^{(5)}(t).
1686: \end{multline*}
1687: We separately estimate the terms from the right-hand side of
1688: this equation.
1689:
1690: Lemma \ref{l7} yields
1691: \begin{equation}\label{g25}
1692: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J} \left( \scp{\xi}{h_\bj}^2
1693: \cdot \int_0^1 ( \exp(-\mu_\bj t) - \Gamma_\bj(t))^2 \, dt \right)
1694: \preceq 1/n^* \preceq \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi/n_\bi.
1695: \end{equation}
1696:
1697: By \eqref{g13} and Lemma \ref{l5}
1698: \begin{equation}\label{g27}
1699: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J} E(U^{(1)}_\bj(t))^2
1700: \preceq
1701: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I}
1702: \lambda_\bi \cdot \left(
1703: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1}
1704: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^{t_{\ell+1,\bi}}
1705: E \| \Xb(s) -\Xb(t_{\ell,\bi})\|^2 \, ds \right)
1706: \preceq
1707: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I}
1708: \lambda_\bi / n_\bi.
1709: \end{equation}
1710:
1711: Put
1712: \[
1713: f(s) = E\| \Xb(s) -\Xh(s)\|^2,
1714: \]
1715: which is finite because of \eqref{g14} and Lemma \ref{l6}.
1716: By \eqref{g13}, Lemma \ref{l5}, and Lemma \ref{l9}
1717: \begin{align}\label{g28}
1718: &\sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J} E(U^{(2)}_\bj(t))^2 \\
1719: &\qquad \preceq
1720: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I}
1721: \lambda_\bi \cdot \left(
1722: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1}
1723: \int_{t \wedge t_{\ell,\bi}}^{t \wedge t_{\ell+1,\bi}}
1724: \left(
1725: E\| \Xb(s) -\Xb(t_{\ell,\bi})\|^2 + E\| \Xh(s) -\Xh(t_{\ell,\bi})\|^2 + f(s)
1726: \right)
1727: \, ds \right)
1728: \notag \\
1729: &\qquad \preceq
1730: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi + \int_0^t f(s)\, ds.
1731: \notag
1732: \end{align}
1733:
1734: Suppose that $s \in \left]t_{\ell,\bi},t_{\ell+1,\bi}\right]$.
1735: Then
1736: \[
1737: \left| \exp (-\mu_\bj(t-s)) - \exp(-\mu_\bj(t - t_{\ell,\bi})) \right|
1738: \leq \exp (-\mu_\bj(t-s))\cdot \mu_\bj/n_\bi
1739: \]
1740: and therefore
1741: \begin{align*}
1742: &\int_s^1
1743: \left( \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-s)) -
1744: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} \right)^2 \, dt\\
1745: &\qquad \preceq
1746: 1/n_\bi +
1747: \int_{t_{\ell,\bi}}^1
1748: \left( \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-t_{\ell,\bi})) -
1749: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} \right)^2 \, dt\\
1750: &\qquad \preceq 1/n_\bi
1751: \end{align*}
1752: follows from Lemma \ref{l7}.
1753: Hereby
1754: \begin{align*}
1755: & \int_0^1 E(U^{(3)}_\bj(t))^2 \, dt\\
1756: &\preceq
1757: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi \cdot
1758: \left(
1759: \int_0^1\!\int_0^t
1760: \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1}
1761: \left( \exp(-\mu_\bj \cdot(t-s)) -
1762: \frac{\Gamma_\bj(t)}{\Gamma_\bj(t_{\ell,\bi})} \right)^2
1763: \cdot a_{\bi,\bj}(t_{\ell,\bi}) \cdot
1764: 1_{\left]t_{\ell,\bi},t_{\ell+1,\bi} \right]} (s)\, ds \, dt
1765: \right)\\
1766: &\preceq
1767: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi \cdot
1768: \left(
1769: \int_0^1\ \sum_{\ell=0}^{n_\bi-1}
1770: a_{\bi,\bj}(t_{\ell,\bi}) \cdot
1771: 1_{\left]t_{\ell,\bi},t_{\ell+1,\bi} \right]} (s)\, ds
1772: \right),
1773: \end{align*}
1774: which implies
1775: \begin{equation}\label{g29}
1776: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J} \int_0^1 E(U^{(3)}_\bj(t))^2 \, dt
1777: \preceq
1778: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi,
1779: \end{equation}
1780: see \eqref{g26} and Lemma \ref{l6}.
1781:
1782: By the same facts,
1783: \begin{equation}\label{g30}
1784: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J}
1785: E(U^{(4)}_\bj(t))^2
1786: \preceq
1787: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi
1788: \end{equation}
1789: and
1790: \begin{equation}\label{g31}
1791: \sum_{|\bj|_2 \leq J}
1792: E(U^{(5)}_\bj(t))^2
1793: \preceq
1794: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi,
1795: \end{equation}
1796: if $t \in \left]\tau_{m-1},\tau_m\right]$.
1797:
1798: Combining \eqref{g25}--\eqref{g31}
1799: we obtain
1800: \[
1801: \int_0^r f(t) \, dt
1802: \preceq
1803: \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi
1804: +
1805: \int_0^r \! \int_0^t f(s)\, ds \, dt.
1806: \]
1807: Finally, apply Gronwall's Lemma to derive
1808: $\int_0^1 f(t)\, dt
1809: \preceq \sum_{|\bi|_2 \leq I} \lambda_\bi / n_\bi$,
1810: as claimed in \eqref{g21}.
1811: \end{proof}
1812:
1813: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1814: \noindent
1815: This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
1816:
1817: \section*{References}
1818:
1819: {\small
1820:
1821: \noindent
1822: Appell, J., and Zabrejko, P.P. (1990),
1823: Nonlinear Superposition Operators,
1824: Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
1825: \medskip
1826:
1827: \noindent
1828: Cambanis, S., and Hu, Y. (1996),
1829: Exact convergence rate of the Euler-Maruyama
1830: scheme, with application to sampling design,
1831: \SSR {\bf 59}, 211--240.
1832: \medskip
1833:
1834: \noindent
1835: Da Prato, G., and Zabczyk, J. (1992),
1836: Stochastic Equations in Infinite Dimensions,
1837: Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
1838: \medskip
1839:
1840: \noindent
1841: Davie, A. M., Gaines, J. (2001),
1842: Convergence of numerical schemes for the solution of parabolic
1843: partial differential equations,
1844: \MC {\bf 70}, 121--134.
1845: \medskip
1846:
1847: \noindent
1848: Gy\"ongy, I. (1999),
1849: Lattice approximations for stochastic quasi-linear parabolic partial
1850: differential equations driven by space-time white noise II,
1851: \PA {\bf 11}, 1--37.
1852: \medskip
1853:
1854: \noindent
1855: Hausenblas, E. (2002),
1856: Numerical analysis of semilinear stochastic evolution equations
1857: in Banach spaces,
1858: \JCAM {\bf 147}, 485--516.
1859: \medskip
1860:
1861: \noindent
1862: Hausenblas, E. (2003),
1863: Approximation for semilinear stochastic evolution equations,
1864: \PA {\bf 18}, 141--186.
1865: \medskip
1866:
1867: \noindent
1868: Hofmann, N., M\"uller-Gronbach, T., and Ritter, K. (2001),
1869: The optimal discretization of stochastic differential equations.
1870: \JC {\bf 17}, 117--153.
1871: \medskip
1872:
1873: \noindent
1874: Kloeden, P., and Shott, S. (2001),
1875: Linear-implicit strong schemes for It\^o-Galerkin approximations
1876: of stochastic PDEs,
1877: \JAMSA {\bf 14}, 47--53.
1878: \medskip
1879:
1880: \noindent
1881: Manthey, R., and Zausinger, T. (1999),
1882: Stochastic evolution equations in $L_\rho^{2\nu}$,
1883: \SSR {\bf 66}, 37--85.
1884: \medskip
1885:
1886: \noindent
1887: M\"uller-Gronbach, T. (2002),
1888: Optimal uniform approximation of systems of stochastic differential
1889: equations, \AAP {\bf 12}, 664--690.
1890: \medskip
1891:
1892: \noindent
1893: M\"uller-Gronbach, T. (2004),
1894: Optimal pointwise approximation of SDEs
1895: based on Brownian motion at discrete points,
1896: \AAP {\bf 14}, 1605--1642.
1897: \medskip
1898:
1899: \noindent
1900: M\"uller-Gronbach, T., and Ritter, K. (2006),
1901: Lower bounds and nonuniform time discretization
1902: for approximation of stochastic heat equations.
1903: To appear in \FOCM
1904: \medskip
1905:
1906: \noindent
1907: Millet, A., and Morien, P.-L. (2005),
1908: On implicit and explicit discretization schemes for
1909: parabolic SPDEs in any dimension,
1910: \SPA {\bf 115}, 1073--1106.
1911: \medskip
1912:
1913: \noindent
1914: Walsh, J. B. (2005),
1915: Finite element methods for parabolic stochastic PDE's,
1916: \PA {\bf 23}, 1--43.
1917: \medskip
1918:
1919: \noindent
1920: Yan, Y. (2005),
1921: Galerkin finite element methods for stochastic parabolic
1922: partial differential equations,
1923: \SJNA {\bf 43}, 1363--1384.
1924: \medskip
1925:
1926: }
1927:
1928: \end{document}
1929: