1: \documentclass{m2an}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

4: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

5: %\usepackage[french]{babel}

6: \usepackage{epsfig,float,psfrag}

7: \usepackage{color}

8: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

9: \textwidth=16.0cm

10: \textheight=24.0cm

11: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1cm}

12: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.04cm}

13: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.04cm}

14: \parindent=0cm

15: \parskip 0.3cm

16: %\numberwithin{equation}{section}

17: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}

18: \newtheorem{aadef}[thm]{Definition}

19: \newtheorem{alem}[thm]{Lemma}

20: \newtheorem{aprop}[thm]{Proposition}

21: \newtheorem{acor}[thm]{Corollary}

22: \newtheorem{arem}[thm]{Remark}

23: \newenvironment{adem}[1][]%

24:    {\ \\ {\bf Proof #1~: }}%

25:    {\hfill\mbox{\rule{2 true mm}{3 true mm}}\vskip 2 ex\noindent}

26: \newcommand{\E}{{\mathbb E}}

27: \renewcommand{\P}{{\mathbb P}}

28: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}

29: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathbb N}}

30: \renewcommand{\t}{{\theta}}

31: \newcommand{\dt}{{\delta t}}

32: \newcommand{\Dt}{{\Delta t}}

33: \newcommand{\uu}[1]  {{\boldsymbol{#1}} }

34: \newcommand{\ds}[1]{\displaystyle{#1}}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: \begin{document}

39: 

40: \title{Diffusion Monte Carlo method : Numerical Analysis in a Simple

41:   Case}

42: 

43: \thanks{We thank Eric Cancès (CERMICS) and Mathias Rousset (Université

44:   Paul Sabatier, Toulouse) for many fruitful discussions and

45:   Michel Caffarel (IRSAMC, Toulouse) for introducing us to the DMC

46:   method and suggesting the toy model studied in this paper. We also

47:   thank the referees for useful suggestions which helped us to improve the first draft

48:   of this paper.}

49: \author{M.~El Makrini}\author{B.~Jourdain}\author{T.~Leli\`evre}\address{ENPC-CERMICS, 6-8 av Blaise Pascal, Cit\'e

50:     Descartes, Champs sur Marne, 77455 Marne-la-Vall\'ee Cedex 2, France

51:     -

52:     e-mail: \{makrimo,jourdain,lelievre\}@cermics.enpc.fr}

53: 

54: %\date{}

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}

57: The Diffusion Monte Carlo method is devoted to the computation of

58: electronic ground-state energies of molecules. In this paper, we focus on

59: implementations of this method which consist in exploring the

60: configuration space with a {\bf fixed} number of random walkers evolving

61: according to a Stochastic Differential Equation discretized in time. We

62: allow stochastic reconfigurations of the walkers to reduce the

63: discrepancy between the weights that they carry.  On a simple

64: one-dimensional example, we prove the convergence of the method for a

65: fixed number of reconfigurations when the number of walkers tends to

66: $+\infty$ while the timestep tends to $0$. We confirm our theoretical

67: rates of convergence by numerical experiments. Various resampling

68: algorithms are investigated, both theoretically and numerically.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: % \begin{resume} ... 

72: % \end{resume}

73: 

74: \subjclass{81Q05, 65C35, 60K35, 35P15}

75: \keywords{Diffusion Monte Carlo method, interacting particle systems,

76:   ground state, Schr\"odinger operator, Feynman-Kac formula}

77: 

78: \maketitle

79: 

80: \section*{Introduction}

81: 

82: %\subsection*{Electronic structures computations}

83: 

84: 

85: The computation of electronic structures of atoms, molecules and solids is a

86: central problem in chemistry and physics. We focus here on electronic

87: ground state calculations where the objective is the computation of

88:  the lowest eigenvalue (the so-called ground-state

89: energy) $E_0$ of a self-adjoint Hamiltonian $H=-\frac{1}{2}\Delta +V$ with domain $D_\mathcal{H}(H)$ on a

90: Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} \subset L^2(\R^{3N})$ where $N$ is the number

91: of electrons (see~\cite{handbook} for a general introduction):

92: \begin{equation}\label{eq:E0}

93: E_0=\inf \{  \langle \psi,H\psi \rangle,\, \psi \in D_\mathcal{H}(H), \|\psi\|=1

94: \},

95: \end{equation}

96: where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the duality bracket on $L^2(\R^{3N})$

97: and $\|\cdot\|$ the $L^2(\R^{3N})$-norm. For simplicity, we omit the spin variables. The function $V$ describes the interaction between the electrons, and between the

98: electrons and the nuclei, which are supposed to be fixed point-like particles. The functions $\psi$ are square

99: integrable, their normalized square modulus $|\psi|^2$ being interpreted as the

100: probability density of the particles positions in space, and they satisfy an antisymmetry condition with respect to the

101: numbering of the electrons, due to the fermionic nature of the

102: electrons (Pauli principle): $\mathcal{H}=\bigwedge_{i=1}^N L^2(\R^3)$. We suppose that the potential $V$ is such that $E_0$ is an isolated

103: eigenvalue of $H$ (see~\cite{CJL} for sufficient conditions), and we

104: denote by $\psi_0$ a normalized eigenfunction

105: associated with $E_0$. 

106: 

107: %\subsection*{The Diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) method}

108: 

109: Due to the

110: high dimensionality of the problem, stochastic methods are particularly

111: well suited to compute~$E_0$. The first particle approximation

112: scheme of such spectral quantities was introduced in~\cite{H84} for

113: finite state space models. Convergence analysis for such

114: interacting particle systems (both continuous

115: or discrete in time) first appeared in~\cite{DM03,Delmoral,Delmoralmiclo,DD04}. The Diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) method is

116: widely used in chemistry (see~\cite{Caffarel,Umrigar}), but has been  only

117: recently considered from a mathematical viewpoint

118: (see~\cite{CJL,Rousset}). This method gives an estimate of~$E_0$ in

119: terms of the long-time limit of the expectation of a functional of

120: a drift-diffusion process with a source term. It requires an importance

121: sampling function~$\psi_I$ which approximates the ground-state $\psi_0$

122: of~$H$. Let us define the drift function $\uu{b}=\nabla \ln |\psi_I|$, the

123: so-called local energy $\ds{E_L=\frac{H \psi_I}{\psi_I}}$ and the DMC energy:

124: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDMC}

125: E_{\rm DMC}(t)= \frac{\E\left(E_L(\uu{X}_t)\exp\left(-\int_0^t

126:       E_L(\uu{X}_s)ds\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\int_0^t

127:       E_L(\uu{X}_s)ds\right)\right)},

128: \end{equation}

129: where the $3N$-dimensional process $\uu{X}_t$ satisfies the stochastic

130: differential equation:

131: \begin{equation}\label{eq:SDE}

132: \left\lbrace

133: \begin{array}{l}

134: \ds{\uu{X}_t=\uu{X}_0 + \int_0^t \uu{b}(\uu{X}_s) \, ds + d \uu{W}_t,}\\

135: \uu{X}_0 \sim |\psi_I|^2(\uu{x}) \, d \uu{x}.

136: \end{array}

137: \right.

138: \end{equation}

139: The stochastic process $(\uu{W}_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a standard $3N$-dimensional Brownian

140: motion. One can then show that (see~\cite{CJL})

141: \begin{equation}\label{eq:CV_E_DMC}

142: \lim_{t \to \infty} E_{\rm DMC}(t)=E_{{\rm DMC},0},

143: \end{equation}

144: where 

145: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDMC0}

146: E_{{\rm DMC},0}=\inf \{  \langle

147: \psi,H\psi \rangle,\, \psi \in D_\mathcal{H}(H), \|\psi\|=1, \, \psi=0\mbox{ on }\psi_I^{-1}(0)

148: \}.

149: \end{equation}

150: We have proved in~\cite{CJL} that $E_{{\rm DMC},0} \geq E_0$, with equality if and

151: only if the nodal surfaces of $\psi_I$ coincide with those of a ground

152: state $\psi_0$ of $H$. In other words, if there exists a ground state

153: $\psi_0$ such that $\psi_I^{-1}(0)=\psi_0^{-1}(0)$, then $\lim_{t \to

154:   \infty} E_{\rm DMC}(t)=E_0$. The error $|E_0-E_{{\rm DMC},0}|$ is

155: related to the so-called fixed-node approximation, which is

156: well known by practitioners of the field (see~\cite{handbook}).

157: 

158: In this paper, we complement the theoretical results obtained in~\cite{CJL} with a numerical analysis in a simple case.

159: In practice, the longtime limit $E_{{\rm DMC},0}$ in (\ref{eq:CV_E_DMC}) is approximated by taking the

160: value of $E_{\rm DMC}$ at a (large) time $T>0$. Then $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ is

161: approximated by using a

162: discretization in time of the stochastic differential

163: equation~(\ref{eq:SDE}) and of the integral in the exponential factor in

164: (\ref{eq:EDMC}), and an approximation of the expectation

165: values in~(\ref{eq:EDMC}) by an empirical mean over a large number $N$

166: of 

167: trajectories. These trajectories $(\uu{X}^i)_{1 \leq i \leq N}$, also called walkers in the

168:    physical literature or particles in the mathematical literature, satisfy a discretized version of~(\ref{eq:SDE}), and

169:    interact at times $n\Delta t$ for $n\in\{1,\hdots,\nu-1\}$ where

170:    $\Dt=T/\nu$ for $\nu\in{\mathbb N}^*$ through a stochastic

171:    reconfiguration step aimed at

172:    reducing the discrepancy between their exponential weights. We thus obtain an interacting

173:    particle system. The number of

174:    reconfiguration steps is $\nu-1$. The

175: stochastic differential equation \eqref{eq:SDE} is discretized

176: with a possibly smaller timestep $\dt=\Dt/\kappa=T/(\nu\kappa)$ with $\kappa\in\N^*$. The total

177: number of steps for the discretization of \eqref{eq:SDE} is then $K=\nu\kappa$.

178: 

179: In the following, we consider the following adapted version of the DMC

180: scheme with a fixed number of walkers (see~\cite{Caffarel}):

181: \begin{itemize}

182: \item[{$ \quad \bullet \;$}] {\bf Initialization} of an ensemble of $N$

183:   walkers $\left(\uu{X}^j_{0 \Dt} \right)_{1 \le j \le N}$ i.i.d. according to

184:   $|\psi_I|^2(\uu{x}) \, d\uu{x}$. 

185: \item[{$ \quad \bullet \;$}] {\bf Iterations in time:} let us be given

186:   the particle positions $\left( \uu{X}^j_{n \Dt} \right)_{1 \le j \le N}$

187:   at time $n \Delta t$, for $n \in \{0,\hdots,\nu-1\}$. The new particle positions at time $(n+1) \Delta t$ are obtained in two steps:

188: \begin{enumerate}

189: \item {\bf Walkers displacement:} for all $1 \le j \le N$, the

190:   successive positions $\left( \uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + \dt}, \, \hdots ,\,

191:     \uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + \kappa \dt}\right)$ over the time interval $(n \Delta t,(n+1) \Delta t)$ are obtained by an

192: appropriate discretization of~(\ref{eq:SDE}). In the field of

193: interacting particles system for Feynman-Kac formulae (see~\cite{Delmoral,Delmoralmiclo}), this step is called {\bf the mutation step}.

194: \item {\bf Stochastic reconfiguration:} The new positions\footnote{With a slight

195:   abuse of notation and though $n

196:     \Dt + \kappa \dt=(n+1)\Dt$, we distinguish between the particle positions $\uu{X}^j_{n

197:     \Dt + \kappa \dt}$ at the end of the walkers displacement on time interval

198:   $(n \Dt,(n+1) \Dt)$, and the new

199:   particle positions $\uu{X}^j_{(n+1)

200:     \Dt}$ obtained after the reconfiguration step, and

201:   which are used as the initial position for the next walkers displacement on time interval

202:   $((n+1) \Dt,(n+2) \Dt)$. We will use a more precise notation for the

203:   analysis of the numerical scheme in Section~\ref{sec:num_anal}, but this is not required

204: at this stage.} $\left(

205:     \uu{X}^j_{(n+1) \Dt} \right)_{1 \le j \le N}$ which will be used as

206:   the initial particle positions on the time interval $((n+1) \Dt,(n+2)

207:   \Dt)$ are obtained from independent sampling of the measure

208: \begin{equation}

209: \frac{\sum_{j=1}^N \exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^\kappa E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n

210:     \Dt + k \dt}) \right) \delta_{\uu{X}^j_{n

211:     \Dt + \kappa \dt}}}{ \sum_{j=1}^N \exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^\kappa E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n

212:     \Dt + k \dt}) \right)}.

213: \end{equation}

214: In words, the new particle positions $\left(

215:     \uu{X}^j_{(n+1) \Dt} \right)_{1 \le j \le N}$ are randomly chosen among the

216:   final particle positions $\left(

217:     \uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + \kappa \dt} \right)_{1 \le j \le N}$, each of them

218:   being weighted with the coefficient $\exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^\kappa E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n

219:     \Dt + k \dt}) \right)$ (accordingly to the exponential factor in~(\ref{eq:EDMC})).

220:  In the field of

221: interacting particles system for Feynman-Kac formulae, this step is called {\bf the

222:  selection step}.

223: \end{enumerate}

224: \end{itemize}

225: An estimate of $E_{\rm DMC}(t_{n+1})$ is then given by:

226: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDMCapprox}

227: E_{\rm DMC}(t_{n+1}) \simeq \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \,

228:   E_L \left(\uu{X}^j_{(n+1) \Dt}\right).

229: \end{equation}

230: There are other possible estimations of $E_{\rm

231:   DMC}(t_{n+1})$. In~\cite{Caffarel}, the authors propose to use Cesaro

232: or weighted Cesaro means of the expression~(\ref{eq:EDMCapprox}). In Section~\ref{sec:num_anal}, we will use the

233: following expression: 

234: \begin{equation} \label{eq:EDMCapprox_prime}

235: E_{\rm DMC}(t_{n+1}) \simeq \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{N} \,

236:   E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + \kappa \dt}) \exp\left( - \dt

237:     \sum_{k=1}^{\kappa} E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + k \dt}) \right)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}

238:   \exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^{\kappa} E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + k \dt}) \right)},

239: \end{equation}

240: in an intermediate step to prove the convergence result. 

241: 

242: We would like to mention that a continuous in time version of the DMC scheme with stochastic

243: reconfiguration has been proposed in~\cite{Rousset}. The author

244: analyzes the longtime behavior of the interacting particle system and

245: proves in particular a uniform in time control of the variance of the

246: estimated energy.

247: 

248: The DMC algorithm presented above is prototypical. Many refinements

249: are used in practice. For example, an acception-rejection step is generally used in the

250: walkers displacement step (see~\cite{RCAL82}). This will not be

251: discussed here. Likewise, the selection

252: step can be done in many ways (see~\cite{CDM05,C04} for general

253: algorithms, and~\cite{Caffarel,Umrigar,Sorella} for algorithms used in

254: the context of DMC computations). In this paper, we restrict ourselves

255: to resampling methods with a fixed number of particles, and such that

256: the weights of the particles after resampling are equal to $1$. Then, the basic

257: consistency requirement of the selection step is that, conditionally on

258: the former positions $\left( \uu{X}^j_{n \Dt + k \dt} \right)_{1 \le

259:   j \le N, 1 \leq k \leq \kappa}$, the $i$-th particle~$\uu{X}^i_{n

260:     \Dt + \kappa \dt}$ is replicated $N \rho^i_n$ times in mean, where $\rho^i_n=\exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^\kappa E_L(\uu{X}^i_{n

261:     \Dt + k \dt}) \right) \Big/ \sum_{j=1}^N \exp\left( - \dt \sum_{k=1}^\kappa E_L(\uu{X}^j_{n

262:     \Dt + k \dt}) \right)$ denotes the (normalized) weight of the $i$-th particle. There are of course many ways to satisfy this requirement.

263: We presented above the so-called

264: {\it multinomial resampling} method. We will also discuss below {\it residual

265: resampling} (also called stochastic remainder resampling), {\it

266: stratified resampling} and {\it

267: systematic resampling}, which may also be used for DMC computations. Let us briefly describe these three resampling

268: methods. Residual resampling consists in reproducing

269: $\lfloor N \rho^i_n  \rfloor$ times the $i$-th particle, and then completing

270: the set of particles by using multinomial resampling to draw the

271: $N^R=N-\sum_{l=1}^N \lfloor N \rho^l_n  \rfloor$ remaining particles, the

272: $i$-th particle being assigned the weight $\rho^{R,i}_n=\{ N \rho^i_n \} /

273: N^R$. Here and in the following,

274: $\lfloor x\rfloor$ and $\{x\}$ respectively denote the

275:   integer and the fractional part of $x\in\R$. In the stratified

276:   resampling method, the interval $(0,1)$ is divided into $N$ intervals $((i-1)/N,i/N)$

277:   ($1 \leq i \leq N$), $N$ random variables are then drawn independently and

278:   uniformly in each interval, and the new particle positions are then

279:   obtained by the inversion method: $\uu{X}^i_{(n+1)\Dt} = \sum_{j=1}^N

280:   1_{\{\sum_{l=1}^{j-1} \rho^l_n < (i-U^i_n)/N \leq \sum_{l=1}^{j}

281:     \rho^l_n \}} \uu{X}^j_{n\dt + \kappa \dt} $, where $U^i_n$ are

282:   i.i.d. random variables uniformly distributed over $[0,1]$. Here and

283:   in the following, we use the convention $\sum_{l=1}^0 \cdot =0$.

284: Systematic resampling

285:   consists in replicating the $i$-th particle $\Big\lfloor N \sum_{l=1}^i

286:   \rho^l_n + U_n \Big\rfloor - \Big\lfloor N \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} \rho^l_n + U_n \Big\rfloor$

287:   times\footnote{The consistency of this resampling method follows

288:     from the following easy computation $$\E\left(\lfloor

289:       x+U\rfloor\right)=\lfloor x\rfloor\P(U<1-\{x\})+(\lfloor

290:   x\rfloor+1)\P(U\geq 1-\{x\})=\lfloor x\rfloor(1-\{x\})+(\lfloor

291:   x\rfloor+1)\{x\}=x.$$},  where $(U_n)_{n \geq 1}$ are independent random variables uniformly distributed in

292:   $[0,1]$. Notice that systematic resampling can be seen as the

293:   stratified resampling method, with $U^1_n= \ldots=U^N_n=U_n$.

294: Contrary to the three other resampling methods, after a systematic

295: resampling step,

296:  the new particle positions are not independent,

297:   conditionally on the former positions. This makes

298:   systematic resampling much

299:   more difficult to study mathematically. To our knowledge, its

300:   convergence even in a discrete time setting is still an open question. We will therefore restrict

301:   ourselves to a numerical study of its performance.

302: 

303: Notice that practitioners often use branching algorithms with an evolving number

304: of walkers during the computation (see~\cite{RCAL82,Umrigar}): the particles with low local

305: energy are replicated and the particles with high local energy are

306: killed, without keeping the total number of particles constant. This may

307: lead to a smaller Monte Carlo error (fourth contribution to the

308: error in the classification just below).

309: 

310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

311: % Autre ecriture de systematic resampling

312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

313: % Systematic resampling

314: %  consists in replicating the $i$-th particle

315: % $F^{-1}[ ((i-1)+U)/N ]$ times,

316: %   where $U$ denotes a random variable uniformly distributed in $(0,1)$,

317: %   and $F^{-1}$ is the inverse of the cumulative distribution function associated with

318: %   the normalized weights $\rho^i_n$: $\forall i \in \{1,\ldots,N\}$,

319: %   $F^{-1}(u)=i$ if and only if $u \in \left(\sum_{l=1}^{i-1}

320: %   \rho^l_n,\sum_{l=1}^{i} \rho^l_n \right]$.

321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

322: 

323: 

324: %\subsection*{Presentation of our result}

325: 

326: We can distinguish between four sources of errors in the approximation

327: of $E_0$ by $\ds{ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \,

328:   E_L \left(\uu{X}^j_{\nu \Dt}\right)}$:

329: \begin{enumerate}

330: \item the error due to the fixed node approximation $|E_0-E_{{\rm

331:     DMC},0}|$,

332: \item the error due to finite time approximation of the limit: $\lim_{t

333:     \to \infty} E_{\rm DMC}(t) \simeq E_{\rm DMC}(T)$,

334: \item the error due to the time discretization of the stochastic differential

335: equation~(\ref{eq:SDE}) and of the integral in the exponential factor in

336: $E_{\rm DMC}(t)$ (see~(\ref{eq:EDMC})),

337: \item the error introduced by the interacting particle system, due to

338:   the approximation of the expectation value in~(\ref{eq:EDMC}) by an empirical mean.

339: \end{enumerate}

340: 

341: The error (1) due to the fixed node approximation has been analyzed

342: theoretically in~\cite{CJL}. 

343: 

344: Concerning the error (2) due to finite time approximation of the limit, the rate of convergence in time is

345: typically exponential. Indeed if $H$ admits a spectral gap (namely if the

346: distance between $E_0$ and the remaining of the spectrum of $H$ is strictly

347: positive), and if $\psi_I$ is such that $\langle \psi_I, H \psi_I \rangle <

348: \inf \sigma_{\rm ess}(H)$, then one can show that the operator $H$ with

349: domain $D_\mathcal{H}(H) \cap \{\psi, \, \psi=0\mbox{ on }\psi_I^{-1}(0) \}$ (whose

350: lowest eigenvalue is $E_{{\rm DMC},0}$, see~(\ref{eq:EDMC0})) also admits a

351: spectral gap $\gamma>0$. Then, by standard spectral decomposition methods,

352: we have:

353: $$0 \leq \left| E_{\rm DMC}(t) - E_{{\rm DMC},0} \right| \leq C \exp(-\gamma t).$$

354: 

355: Our aim in this paper is to provide some theoretical and numerical

356: results related to the errors~(3) and~(4), in the framework

357: of a simple one-dimensional case. We therefore consider in the

358: following that the final time of simulation $T$ is fixed and we analyze the error introduced by the

359: numerical scheme on the estimate of $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$. Our convergence

360: result is of the form:

361: \begin{equation}\label{eq:est_err_general}

362: \E \left|E_{\rm DMC}(T)- \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \,

363:   E_L \left(\uu{X}^j_{\nu \kappa \dt}\right)\right| \leq C(T) \, \dt +

364: \frac{C(T,\nu)}{\sqrt{N}},

365: \end{equation}

366: where $C(T)$ (resp. $C(T,\nu)$) denotes a constant which only depends on

367: $T$ (resp. on $T$ and $\nu$) (see Theorem~\ref{th:est_err} and

368: Corollary~\ref{cor:est_err} below).

369: 

370: %\subsection*{Presentation of our toy model}

371: 

372: Let us now present the toy model we consider in the following. We consider the Hamiltonian 

373: \begin{equation}\label{eq:H}

374: H=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V, \mbox{ with }

375: V=\frac{\omega^2}{2}x^2+\theta x^4,

376: \end{equation}

377: where $\omega,\theta>0$ are two constants. The ground

378: state energy $E_0$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:E0}), with

379: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cal_H}

380: \mathcal{H}=\left\{ \psi \in L^2(\R), \, \psi(x)=-\psi(-x)

381: \right\}.

382: \end{equation}

383: We restrict the functional spaces to odd functions in order to mimic the antisymmetry

384: constraint on $\psi$ for fermionic systems. The importance sampling

385: $\psi_I$ is chosen to be the ground state of

386: $H_0=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \frac{\omega^2}{2}x^2$ on

387: $\mathcal{H}$:

388: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psi_I}

389: \psi_I(x)=\sqrt{2\omega}\left(\frac{\omega}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}xe^{-\frac{\omega

390:     }{2}x^2}.

391: \end{equation}

392: It is associated with the energy $\frac{3}{2}\omega$: $H_0 \psi_I=

393: \frac{3}{2}\omega \psi_I$.

394: The drift function $b$ and the local energy $E_L$ are then defined by:

395: \begin{equation}

396: b(x)=\frac{\psi_I'}{\psi_I}(x)=\frac{1}{x}-\omega x, \mbox{ and } E_L(x)=V(x)-\frac{1}{2}\;\frac{\psi_I''}{\psi_I}(x)=\frac{3}{2}\omega+\theta x^4.

397: \end{equation}

398: Thus, using equation~(\ref{eq:EDMC}), the DMC energy is:

399: \begin{equation}E_{\rm DMC}(t)=\frac{3}{2}\omega+\theta\frac{\E\left(X^4_t\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^t

400:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^t

401:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)},

402: \label{defedmc}\end{equation}

403: where

404: \begin{equation}

405: X_t=X_0 + \int_0^t \left(\frac{1}{X_s}-\omega X_s\right)ds+ W_t,\label{eds}

406: \end{equation}

407: with $(W_t)_{t \geq 0}$ a Brownian motion independent from the initial variable $X_0$

408: which is distributed according to the invariant measure $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$.

409: We recall that due to the explosive part in the drift function~$b$, the stochastic

410: process cannot cross $0$, which is the zero point of $\psi_I$

411: (see~\cite{CJL}): $\P(\exists t>0,\, X_t=0)=0$. This explains why the restriction of $\psi_I^2$ to

412: $\R_+^*$ is indeed an invariant measure for~(\ref{eds}). For $\theta>0$,

413: the longtime

414: limit $E_{{\rm DMC},0}$ of $E_{\rm DMC}(t)$ is not analytically known,

415: but can be very accurately computed by a spectral method (see

416: Section~\ref{sec:num_res_spec}). Let us finally make precise that for the

417: numerical analysis, we use a special feature of our simple model, namely

418: the fact that for $s \leq t$, it is possible to simulate the conditional

419: law of $X_t$ given $X_s$ (see Appendix). The time discretization error is thus only related to

420: the discretization of the integral in the exponential factor in the DMC

421: energy~(\ref{eq:EDMC}). We however indicate some possible ways to

422: prove~(\ref{eq:E0}) with a convenient time discretization of the SDE (see Equation~(\ref{schemaurel}),

423: Remark~\ref{rem:weak} and Proposition~\ref{prop:Markov}).

424: 

425:  Though our model

426: is one-dimensional (and therefore still far from the real problem~(\ref{eq:E0})), it contains one of the main difficulties related to the

427: approximation of the ground state energy for fermionic systems, namely

428: the explosive behavior of the drift in the stochastic differential

429: equation. However, two characteristics of practical problems are missing

430: in the toy model considered here. First, since we consider a

431: one-particle model, we do not treat difficulties related to

432: singularities of the drift and of the local energy at points where two

433: particles (either two electrons or one electron and one nucleus) coincide. Second, the local energy $E_L$ generally explodes at the nodes

434: of the trial wave function, and this is not the case on the simple example

435: we study

436: since the trial wave function is closely related to the exact ground

437: state. For an adaptation of the DMC algorithm to take care of these

438: singularities, we refer to~\cite{Umrigar}.

439: Despite the simplicity of the model studied in this paper, we think that the

440: convergence results we obtain and the mathematical tools we use

441: are prototypical for generalization to more complicated systems.

442: 

443: Compared to previous mathematical analysis of convergence for

444: interacting particle systems with stochastic

445: reconfiguration~\cite{DM03,Delmoral,Delmoralmiclo,DD04,Rousset}, our

446: study concentrates on the limit $\dt \to 0$ and $N \to \infty$ for a

447: fixed time~$T$, and on

448: the {\em influence of the time discretization error} in the

449: estimate~(\ref{eq:est_err_general}), where the test function~$E_L$ is

450: {\em unbounded}. It is actually important in our analysis that this

451: unbounded function $E_L$ also appears in the weights of the particles,

452: since it allows for specific estimates (see Lemmas~\ref{majomom} and~\ref{decroiss} below).

453: 

454: %\subsection*{Outline}

455: 

456: The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:num_anal}, we

457: prove the convergence result, by adapting

458: the methods of~\cite{Delmoral,Delmoralmiclo} to analyze the dependence

459: of the error on $\dt$. We then check the optimality of this theoretical result

460: by numerical experiments in Section~\ref{sec:num_res}, where we also

461: analyze numerically the dependence of the results on

462: various numerical parameters, including the number $(\nu-1)$ of

463: reconfiguration steps. From these numerical experiments, we propose a

464: simple heuristic method to choose the optimal number of reconfiguration steps.

465: 

466: {\bf Notation:} For any set of

467: random variables $(Y_i)_{i \in I}$, we denote by $\sigma((Y_i)_{i \in

468:   I})$ the sigma-field generated by these random variables. The parameters $\omega$ and $\theta$ are fixed positive constants.

469: By convention, any sum from one to zero is equal to zero: $\sum_{k=1}^0

470: \cdot =0$. Likewise, the subset $\{1,2, \ldots ,0\}$ of $\N$ is by convention the

471: empty set. For any real $x$, $\lfloor x\rfloor$ and $\{x\}$ respectively denote the

472:   integer and the fractional part of $x$.

473: \section{Numerical Analysis in a Simple Case}\label{sec:num_anal}

474: 

475: We perform the numerical analysis in two steps: time discretization and

476: then particle approximation.

477: 

478: \subsection{Time discretization}\label{sec:time_disc}

479: 

480: We recall that $T>0$ denotes the final simulation time, and that

481: $\dt=\frac{T}{K}$ is the smallest time-step. Since $Y_t=X_t^2$ is a

482: square root process solving $dY_t=(3-2\omega Y_t)dt+2\sqrt{Y_t}dW_t$,

483: it is possible to simulate the increments $Y_{(k+1)\dt}-Y_{k\dt}$ and

484: therefore 

485: $X_{(k+1)\dt}-X_{k\dt}$ (see Appendix or \cite{Glasserman} p.120). We

486: can thus simulate exactly in law the vector

487: $(X_0,X_{\dt},\hdots,X_{K \dt})$. That is why we are first going to study the

488: error related to the time discretization of the integral which appears

489: in the exponential factors in \eqref{defedmc}.\par

490: Let us define the corresponding approximation of $E_{\rm

491:    DMC}(T)$:

492: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDMCdt}

493: E_{\rm

494:    DMC}^{\dt}(T)=\frac{\E\left(E_L(X_{T})\exp\left(-\dt\sum_{k=1}^KE_L(X_{k\dt})\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\dt\sum_{k=1}^KE_L(X_{k\dt})\right)\right)}=\frac{3}{2}\omega+\theta\frac{\E\left(X^4_T\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt})\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}\right)\right)}.

495: \end{equation}

496: \begin{aprop}

497: $$

498:   \forall K\in\N^*,\left|E_{\rm

499:    DMC}(T)-E_{\rm

500:    DMC}^{\dt}(T)\right|\leq C_T\dt.

501: $$

502: \label{erreurdt}\end{aprop}

503: \begin{adem}

504: Using H\"older inequality, we have:

505: \begin{align*}

506:    \left|E_{\rm DMC}(T)-E_{\rm DMC}^{\dt}(T)\right|\leq&\frac{\t}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}\right)\right)}\left(\sqrt{\E(X_T^8)}+\frac{\E\left(X^4_{T}\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^T

507:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^T

508:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)}\right)\\

509: &\left(\E\left(\left(\exp\left(-\t\int_0^T

510:       X_s^4ds\right)-\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}\right)\right)^2\right)\right)^{1/2}.

511: \end{align*}

512: The conclusion is now a consequence of Lemma~\ref{vitfort} and the fact that the function $x\in\R_+\rightarrow e^{-\t x}$ is Lipschitz

513: continuous with constant $\t$.

514: \end{adem}

515:       

516: \begin{alem}

517: For any $K\in\N^*$,

518: $$\E\left(\left(\int_0^T

519:       X_s^4ds-\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}\right)^2\right)\leq

520:   C\dt^2(T^2+T),$$

521: where $\dt=\frac{T}{K}$.

522: \label{vitfort}\end{alem}

523: 

524: \begin{adem}[of Lemma \ref{vitfort}]

525:    By Itô's formula, $dX^4_t=(10X^2_t-4\omega X^4_t)dt+4X_t^3dW_t$. With

526:    the integration by parts formula, one deduces that for any $k\in\{1,\hdots,K\}$,

527: $$\int_{(k-1)\dt}^{k\dt}(X^4_{k\dt}-X^4_s)ds=\int_{(k-1)\dt}^{k\dt}(s-(k-1)\dt)\left((10X^2_s-4\omega

528:   X^4_s)ds+4X_s^3dW_s\right).$$

529: Therefore denoting $\tau_s=\lfloor\frac{s}{\dt}\rfloor\dt$ the

530:   discretization time just before $s$, one obtains

531: $$\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}-\int_0^T

532:       X_s^4ds=\int_0^T(s-\tau_s)(10X^2_s-4\omega

533:   X^4_s)ds+\int_0^T(s-\tau_s)4X_s^3dW_s.$$

534: Hence 

535: \begin{align*}

536:    \E\left(\left(\dt\sum_{k=1}^KX^4_{k\dt}-\int_0^T

537:       X_s^4ds\right)^2\right)\leq 2\int_0^T(s-\tau_s)^2\E\left(T(10X^2_s-4\omega

538:   X^4_s)^2+16X_s^6)\right)ds.

539: \end{align*}

540: Since $X_0$ is distributed according to the invariant measure

541: $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$, so is $X_s$. As a consequence, for any $p\in\N$, $\E(X_s^p)$ does not

542: depend on $s$ and is finite and the conclusion follows readily.

543: \end{adem} 

544: 

545: In realistic situations, exact simulation of the increments

546: $X_{(k+1)\dt}-X_{k\dt}$ is not possible and one has to resort to

547: discretization schemes. The singularity of the drift coefficient

548: prevents the process $X_t$ from crossing the nodal surfaces of the

549: importance sampling function $\psi_I$. The standard explicit Euler

550: scheme does not preserve this property at the discretized level. For

551: that purpose, we suggest to use the following explicit scheme proposed by

552: \cite{Alfonsi}

553: \begin{equation}

554:    \begin{cases}

555:       \bar{X}_0=X_0,\\

556: \ds{\forall k\in\N,\;\bar{X}_{(k+1)\delta t}=\left(\left({\bar{X}_{k\delta t}}(1-\omega

557:     \delta t)+\frac{\Delta W_{k+1}}{1-\omega

558:     \delta t}\right)^2+2\delta t\right)^{1/2}}\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;\Delta

559:     W_{k+1}=W_{(k+1)\delta t}-W_{k\delta t}.

560:    \end{cases}\label{schemaurel}

561: \end{equation}

562: Because of the singularity at the origin of the drift coefficient in

563: \eqref{eds}, we have not been able so far to prove the following weak error

564: bound (see Remark~\ref{rem:weak} below):

565: \begin{equation}

566:    \left|E\left(f(X^4_{T})\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^{T}

567:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)-\E\left(f(\bar{X}^4_{T})\exp\left(-\theta \delta t\sum_{k=1}^{K}

568:       \bar{X}_{k\delta t}^4\right)\right)\right|\leq C_T\dt\mbox{ for

569:       }f(x)\equiv 1\mbox{ and }x^4.\label{weakaurel}

570: \end{equation}

571: Such a bound is expected according to~\cite{Talay-Tubaro} and would imply that

572: \begin{equation}

573:    \left|E_{\rm DMC}(T)-\frac{\E\left(E_L(\bar{X}_{T})\exp\left(-\dt\sum_{k=1}^KE_L(\bar{X}_{k\dt})\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\dt\sum_{k=1}^KE_L(\bar{X}_{k\dt})\right)\right)}\right|\leq C_T\dt.\label{discretaurel}

574: \end{equation}

575: \begin{arem}\label{rem:weak}

576: We would like to sketch a possible way to

577: prove~\eqref{weakaurel}. Because the square root in \eqref{schemaurel}

578: makes expansions with respect to $\delta t$ and $\Delta W_{k+1}$

579: complicated, it is easier to work with $Y_t=X_t^2$ and $\bar{Y}_{k\delta t}=\bar{X}^2_{k\delta

580:     t}$ which satisfy

581: $$dY_t=(3-2\omega Y_t)dt+2\sqrt{Y_t}\;dW_t\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta t}=\left(\sqrt{\bar{Y}_{k\delta t}}(1-\omega

582:     \delta t)+\frac{\Delta W_{k+1}}{1-\omega

583:     \delta t}\right)^2+2\delta t.$$

584: The standard approach to analyze the time discretization error of the

585: numerator and denominator of the left hand side of~\eqref{discretaurel} is then to introduce some

586: functions $v$ and $w$ solutions to the partial differential equation:

587: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDP}

588: \partial_t v=(3-2y)\partial_y

589: v+2y\partial_{yy}v-\t y^2v,\;(t,y)\in\R_+\times (0,+\infty)

590: \end{equation}

591: with initial conditions $v(0,y)=y^2$ and $w(0,y)=1$. Now, we write (for

592: the numerator, for example):

593: \begin{align*}

594: &\E\left(X^4_{T}\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^{T}

595:       X_s^4ds\right)\right)-\E\left(\bar{X}^4_{T}\exp\left(-\theta \delta t\sum_{k=1}^{K}

596:       \bar{X}_{k\delta t}^4\right)\right)\\

597: &=\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\E\left(\left(v(T-k\delta t,\bar{Y}_{k\delta

598:       t})-e^{-\theta\delta t\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta t}^2}v(T-(k+1)\delta t,\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta

599:       t})\right)\exp\left(-\theta \delta t\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}

600:       \bar{Y}_{j\delta t}^2\right)\right).

601: \end{align*}

602: An error bound of the form $C_T \dt$ can now be proved by some Taylor

603: expansions as in \cite{Talay-Tubaro,Alfonsi}, provided

604: the existence of a sufficiently smooth solution $v$

605: to~(\ref{eq:EDP}). We have not been able to prove existence of such a

606: solution so far.

607: \end{arem}

608: 

609: % {\small A cause de la racine carrée, il semble difficile d'analyser directement l'erreur de

610: %     ce schéma et il est sans doute préférable de passer par les

611: %     processus $Y_t=X_t^2$ et $\bar{Y}_{k\delta t}=\bar{X}^2_{k\delta

612: %     t}$ qui vérifient

613: % $$dY_t=(3-2\omega Y_t)dt+2\sqrt{Y_t}\;dW_t\;\;\mbox{et}\;\;\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta t}=\left((1-\omega

614: %     \delta t)\sqrt{\bar{Y}_{k\delta t}}+\frac{\Delta W_{k+1}}{1-\omega

615: %     \delta t}\right)^2+2\delta t.$$

616: % L'approche standard pour analyser l'erreur de discrétisation du

617: %     numérateur et du dénominateur de \eqref{defedmc} consiste à

618: %     introduire les solutions $v$ et $w$ de l'EDP 

619: % $$\partial_t v=(3-2y)\partial_y

620: % v+2y\partial_{yy}v-\t y^2v,\;(t,y)\in\R_+\times (0,+\infty)$$

621: % pour les conditions initiales $v(0,y)=y^2$ et $w(0,y)=1$. Notons que

622: % $\partial_t w=-\t v$. On écrit par exemple

623: % \begin{align*}&\E\left(X^4_{T}\exp\left(-\theta\int_0^{T}

624: %       X_s^4ds\right)\right)-\E\left(\bar{X}^4_{T}\exp\left(-\theta \delta t\sum_{k=1}^{K}

625: %       \bar{X}_{k\delta t}^4\right)\right)\\

626: % &=\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\E\left[\left(v(T-k\delta t,\bar{Y}_{k\delta

627: %       t})-e^{-\theta\delta t\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta t}^2}v(T-(k+1)\delta t,\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta

628: %       t})\right)\exp\left(-\theta \delta t\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}

629: %       \bar{Y}_{j\delta t}^2\right)\right].\end{align*}

630: % Et on analyse les termes de la forme $v(T-k\delta t,\bar{Y}_{k\delta

631: %       t})-e^{-\theta\delta t\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta t}^2}v(T-(k+1)\delta t,\bar{Y}_{(k+1)\delta

632: %       t})$ en effectuant des développements de Taylor. Pour cela, il

633: %       faut des contrôles sur les dérivées de $v$ que l'on peut essayer

634: %       d'obtenir sur l'interprétation probabiliste

635: % $$v(t,y)=\E\left((Y^y_t)^2\exp\left(-\t\int_0^t(Y^y_s)^2ds\right)\right)$$

636: % où $Y^y_t$ désigne la solution de l'EDS issue de $Y^y_0=y$. Les dérivées

637: % temporelles ne posent aucun problème. Par exemple, 

638: % $$\partial_t v(t,y)=\E\left((10Y^y_t-4\omega

639: %   (Y^y_t)^2-\t(Y^y_t)^4)\exp\left(-\t\int_0^t(Y^y_s)^2ds\right)\right)$$

640: % et les dérivées successives font apparaître l'espérance de polynômes en

641: %   $Y^y_t$ multipliés par le facteur exponentiel. Pour étudier les

642: %   dérivées en $y$, on introduit le flot de l'EDS en posant

643: %   $Y^{(k),y}_t=\partial^k_y Y^y_t$. Formellement,

644: % $$\partial_y

645: % v(t,y)=\E\left[\left((2Y^y_tY^{(1),y}_t-2\t Y^y_t\int_0^tY^y_sY^{(1),y}_sds\right)\exp\left(-\t\int_0^t(Y^y_s)^2ds\right)\right]$$

646: % où

647: % $$dY^{(1),y}_t=-3Y^{(1),y}_tdt+\frac{Y^{(1),y}_t}{\sqrt{Y^y_t}}\;dW_t\mbox{

648: %   i.e.

649: %   }Y^{(1),y}_t=\exp\left(\int_0^t\frac{1}{\sqrt{Y^y_s}}\;dW_s-3t-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\frac{1}{Y^y_s}ds\right).$$

650: % Malheureusement les moments de cette exponentielle ne sont pas

651: %   agréables... Pour l'EDS de départ, on a

652: % $$X^{(1),x}_t=\exp\left(-\int_0^t\frac{1}{(X^x_s)^2}+\omega

653: %   ds\right)\leq 1$$

654: % ce qui permet de contrôler $\partial_x u(t,x)$ où $u(t,x)=v(t,x^2)$ mais

655: %   $\partial_yv(t,y)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{y}}\partial_xu(t,\sqrt{y})$ et on

656: %   retrouve des problèmes liés à la singularité à l'origine.}

657: 

658: % \begin{arem}

659: % We would like to mention that, in practice, some people use a

660: % Metropolis step after each integration in time on a timestep $\dt$, to

661: % ensure both that the process do not cross the nodal surface of $\psi_I$ and that

662: % the law of $\uu{X}^j_{n\Dt + k \dt}$ is the stationary law associated

663: % with~(\ref{eq:SDE}).

664: % \end{arem}

665: 

666: \subsection{Particle approximation}

667: % We consider a discrete time system with $N$-particles (also called walkers in the

668: %    physical literature) $(\xi_n=(\xi^1_n,\hdots,\xi^N_n))_{1\leq n\leq \nu}$ with $\nu\in\N^*$ and set $\Dt=T/\nu$. The

669: % stochastic differential equation \eqref{eds} is possibly discretized

670: % with a smaller step $\dt=\Dt/\kappa=T/(\nu\kappa)$ with $\kappa\in\N^*$. The total

671: % number of steps for the discretization of \eqref{eds} is then

672: % $K=\nu\kappa$.\\

673: 

674: % Let $(W^1,\hdots,W^N)$ be a $N$-dimensional Brownian motion independent

675: % from initial random variables $(\xi^{i,1}_0)_{1\leq i\leq N}$ i.i.d. according

676: % to $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$. We initialize the particles positions $\left(\xi_1^i=(\xi_{1,1}^i,\hdots,\xi_{1,\kappa}^i)\right)_{1\leq

677: %   i\leq N}$ by setting $\xi^i_{1}=(X^{i,1}_{\dt},\hdots, X^{i,1}_{\kappa\dt})$ where

678: %     $(X^{i,1}_t)_{0\leq t\leq \kappa\dt}$ solves

679: % $$X^{i,1}_t=\xi^{i,1}_0+\int_0^tb(X^{i,1}_s)ds+W^i_{t}.$$ And the particles positions at

680: %   discrete time $n\geq 2$

681: %   are obtained inductively by alternation of a selection/reconfiguration

682: %   step and a

683: %   mutation step. Given $\xi_n=(\xi_n^1,\hdots,\xi_n^N)$ with

684: %   $\xi^i_n=(\xi_{n,1}^i,\hdots,\xi_{n,\kappa}^i)$ for $1\leq

685: % i\leq N$, the selection step consists in choosing

686: % $\xi^{1,n+1}_0,\hdots,\xi^{N,n+1}_0$ conditionally independent with $\xi^{i,n+1}_0$

687: % distributed according to the measure

688: % \begin{equation}

689: %    \epsilon_n g(\xi_n^i)\delta_{\xi_{n,\kappa}^i}+(1-\epsilon_ng(\xi_n^i))\frac{\sum_{j=1}^Ng(\xi_n^j)\delta_{\xi_{n,\kappa}^j}}{\sum_{j=1}^Ng(\xi_n^j)},\label{messel}

690: % \end{equation}

691: % where $g(y_1,\hdots,y_\kappa)=\exp(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^\kappa y_k^4)$. We consider the following possible choices for $\epsilon_n$ :

692: % \begin{equation}

693: %    \epsilon_n=0,\;\epsilon_n=1\;\mbox{and}\;\epsilon_n=\frac{1}{\max_{1\leq

694: %     i\leq N}g(\xi_n^i)}.\label{choix_eps}

695: % \end{equation}

696: % The mutation step then consists in setting

697: %     $\xi^i_{n+1}=(X^{i,n+1}_{\dt},\hdots, X^{i,n+1}_{\kappa\dt})$ where

698: %     $(X^{i,n+1}_t)_{0\leq t\leq \kappa\dt}$ solves

699: % \begin{equation}

700: %    X^{i,n+1}_t=\xi^{i,n+1}_0+\int_0^tb(X^{i,n+1}_s)ds+W^i_{t+n\Dt}-W^i_{n\Dt}.\label{sden+1}

701: % \end{equation}

702: 

703: We now introduce some notation to study the particle approximation. We

704: recall that $\nu$ denotes the number of large timesteps (the

705: number of reconfiguration steps is $\nu-1$), and

706: $\Dt=\kappa \dt$ the time period between two reconfiguration steps. Let

707: us suppose that we know the initial positions $(X^i_{n,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ of

708: the $N$ walkers at time $(n-1)\Dt$, for a time index $n \in \{1,\hdots,\nu\}$. The successive positions of the walkers

709: over the time interval $((n-1) \Dt,n\Dt)$ are then given by

710: $(X^i_{n,\dt},\hdots,X^i_{n,\kappa\dt})$, where $(X^i_{n,t})_{0 \leq t \leq

711: \Dt}$ satisfies:

712: \begin{equation}

713: X^i_{n,t}=X^i_{n,0}+\int_0^t b(X^i_{n,s}) \, ds+ \left(W^i_{t+(n-1) \Dt} -

714:   W^i_{(n-1) \Dt}\right).\label{sden+1}

715: \end{equation}

716: Here $(W^1,\hdots,W^N)$ denotes a $N$-dimensional Brownian motion independent

717: from the initial positions of the walkers $(X^i_{1,0})_{1\leq i\leq N}$

718: which are i.i.d. according

719: to $2 \psi_I^2(x) 1_{\{x>0\}} dx$. We recall that in our framework, it

720: is possible to simulate exactly in law all these random variables (see

721: Appendix). We store the successive positions

722: $(X^i_{n,\dt},\hdots,X^i_{n,\kappa\dt})$ of the $i$-th walker over the

723: time interval $((n-1) \Dt,n \Dt)$ in a so-called particle $\xi^i_{n}

724: \in (\R_+^*)^\kappa$

725: (see Figure~\ref{fig:particle}): $\forall i \in \{1,\hdots,N\}, \forall  n

726: \in \{1,\hdots, \nu\}$, 

727: \begin{equation}

728: \xi^i_{n}=(X^i_{n,\dt},\hdots,X^i_{n,\kappa\dt}).

729: \end{equation}

730: In the following, we will denote by $\xi_{n}=(\xi^1_{n},\hdots,\xi^N_{n})$ the configuration of the

731: ensemble of particles at time index $n$. We have here described {\bf the mutation step}.

732: 

733: \begin{figure}[htbp]

734: \input{particle.pstex_t}

735: \caption{The $i$-th particle $\xi^i_n$ at time index $n$ is composed of the

736:   successive positions $(X^i_{n,\dt},\hdots,X^i_{n,\kappa \dt})$ of the

737:   $i$-th walker on time interval $((n-1) \Dt,n \Dt)$.}\label{fig:particle}

738: \end{figure}

739: 

740: 

741: For a given configuration of the particles $\xi_{n}$ at a time index $n \in \{1,\hdots, \nu\}$, {\bf the selection step}

742: now consists in choosing the initial positions

743: $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ of the $N$ walkers at time $n \Dt$

744: using one of the following resampling algorithm:

745: \begin{itemize}

746:    \item[{\bf(S1)}]

747: The $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are conditionally

748: independent w.r.t.~$\xi_{n}$ and for $1 \leq i \leq N$, $X^i_{n+1,0}$ is distributed according to the measure

749:  \begin{equation}

750:    \epsilon_n

751:    g(\xi_n^i)\delta_{\xi_{n,\kappa}^i}+(1-\epsilon_n

752:    g(\xi_n^i)) \sum_{j=1}^N \rho_n^j \delta_{\xi_{n,\kappa}^j},\label{messel}

753: \end{equation}

754: where $g$ is defined by, for $y=(y_1,\hdots,y_\kappa)\in(\R_+^*)^\kappa$,

755: \begin{equation}\label{eq:g}

756: g(y)=\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^\kappa y_k^4\right),

757: \end{equation}

758: $\rho_n^j$ denotes the weight of the $j$-th particle

759: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}

760: \rho_n^j=\frac{g(\xi_n^j)}{\sum_{j=1}^Ng(\xi_n^j)}

761: \end{equation}

762: and $\epsilon_n$ is a non negative function of $\xi_{n}$ such that

763: $\epsilon_n \leq 1 \big/ \max_{1\leq

764:     i\leq N}g(\xi_n^i)$. In particular the following choices are possible for $\epsilon_n$:

765: \begin{equation}

766:    \epsilon_n=0,\;\epsilon_n=1\;\mbox{ or }\;\epsilon_n=\frac{1}{\max_{1\leq

767:     i\leq N}g(\xi_n^i)}.\label{choix_eps}

768: \end{equation}

769: The so-called {\bf multinomial resampling} method which corresponds to the

770: choice $\epsilon_n=0$ gives rise to a maximum decorrelation with the former

771: position of the particles, while with growing

772: $\epsilon_n$, more and more correlation is introduced.

773: \item[{\bf (S2)}] The $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are such that

774: \begin{equation}

775:    \begin{cases}

776:       \forall j\in\{1,\hdots,N\},\;\forall

777: i\in\left\{ \left(1+ \sum_{l=1}^{j-1} a^l_n\right),\hdots,\left(\sum_{l=1}^{j} a^l_n\right)\right\}, \\

778: \qquad X^i_{n+1,0}=\xi^j_{n,\kappa},\\

779: \mbox{and the variables $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1+ \sum_{l=1}^{N} a^l_n \leq i

780:     \leq N}$ are conditionally

781: independent w.r.t.~$\xi_{n}$,}\\

782: \qquad \mbox{with } X^i_{n+1,0}\mbox{ distributed according to

783: }\sum_{j=1}^N\left\{ N \rho^j_n\right\}\delta_{\xi_{n,\kappa}^j}

784: \Big/ \left(N- \sum_{l=1}^{N} a^l_n\right),

785:    \end{cases}

786: \label{messel2}\end{equation}

787: where

788:   \begin{equation}

789:    a^j_n=\big\lfloor N \rho_n^j \big\rfloor,\;j\in\{1,\hdots,N\}.\label{defpoidsa}

790:   \end{equation} 

791: Notice that the $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are conditionally

792: independent w.r.t.~$\xi_{n}$.

793: This is the so-called {\bf residual resampling} method.

794: \item[{\bf (S3)}] The $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are such that, for $1 \leq i \leq N$,

795: \begin{equation}\label{eq:strat}

796: X^i_{(n+1),0} = \sum_{j=1}^N

797:   1_{\{\sum_{l=1}^{j-1} \rho^l_n < (i-U^i_n)/N \leq \sum_{l=1}^{j}

798:     \rho^l_n \}} \xi^j_{n,\kappa},

799: \end{equation}

800: where $(U^i_n)_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are random variables

801: i.i.d. according to the uniform law on $[0,1]$, independently of $\xi_{n}$. 

802: Notice that the $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ are conditionally

803: independent w.r.t.~$\xi_{n}$. This is the so-called {\bf stratified resampling} method.

804: \end{itemize}

805: 

806: For $n\in \{1,\hdots,\nu\}$, let us denote by 

807: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eta_n_}

808: \eta_n^N=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\delta_{\xi^i_n}

809: \end{equation} 

810: the particle approximation of the measure $\eta_n$ defined by: $\forall

811: f:(\R_+^*)^\kappa\rightarrow \R\mbox{ bounded }$,

812: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eta_n}

813: \eta_n(f)=\frac{\E\left(f\left(X_{(n-1)\Dt+\dt},\hdots,X_{(n-1)\Dt+\kappa\dt}\right)\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\right)},

814: \end{equation}

815: where the process $(X_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ is defined by~\eqref{eds}.

816: 

817: For $y=(y_1,\hdots,y_\kappa)\in(\R_+^*)^\kappa$ and

818: $f:(\R_+^*)^\kappa \rightarrow \R$, we set 

819: \begin{equation}\label{eq:P}

820: Pf(y)=\E\left(f(X^{y_\kappa}_\dt,\hdots,X^{y_\kappa}_{\kappa \dt})\right)

821: \end{equation} 

822: where for $x\in\R^*_+$, 

823: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sdex}

824: X^x_t=x+\int_0^tb(X^x_s)ds+W_t

825: \end{equation}

826:  denotes the solution of

827: the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{eds} starting from~$x$.

828: By the Markov property, the measures $(\eta_n)_{1 \leq n \leq \nu}$

829: satisfy the inductive relations, for any function $f:(\R_+^*)^\kappa

830: \rightarrow \R$ bounded, $\forall n\in \{1,\hdots,\nu-1\}$,

831: \begin{align}

832:  \eta_{n+1}(f)&=\frac{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{n\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\E\left(f\left(X_{n\Dt+\dt},\hdots,X_{n\Dt+\kappa\dt}\right)\bigg|(X_{j\dt})_{0\leq

833:  j\leq

834:  n\kappa}\right)\right)}{\eta_n(g)\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\right)}\\

835: &=\frac{1}{\eta_n(g)}\times\frac{\E\left(gPf\left(X_{(n-1)\Dt+\dt},\hdots,X_{(n-1)\Dt+\kappa\dt}\right)\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}(X_{k\dt})^4\right)\right)}=\frac{\eta_n(gPf)}{\eta_n(g)},

836:    \label{inducetan}

837: \end{align}

838: where $g$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:g}). Moreover, we can express $E_{\rm

839:   DMC}^{\dt}(T)$ defined by~(\ref{eq:EDMCdt}) as:

840: \begin{equation}

841:    E_{\rm DMC}^{\dt}(T)=\frac{3}{2}\omega

842: +\theta\frac{\eta_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu(g)}.\label{expr1}

843: \end{equation}

844: Therefore the particle approximation of $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ is given by

845: \begin{equation}

846:    E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)=\frac{3}{2}\omega

847: +\theta\frac{\eta^N_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta^N_\nu(g)}.\label{expr2}

848: \end{equation}

849: This approximation of $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ corresponds to the expression~(\ref{eq:EDMCapprox_prime})

850: given in the introduction. We will also prove in Corollary~\ref{cor:est_err} below the convergence of the

851: approximation which corresponds to the expression~(\ref{eq:EDMCapprox})

852: given in the introduction (see Equation~(\ref{expr3}) below).

853: 

854: The convergence of the approximation $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)$ is ensured by our main result :

855: \begin{thm}\label{th:est_err}

856: \begin{equation}\label{eq:est_err}

857:    \E\left|E_{\rm DMC}(T)-E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)\right|\leq

858:    \frac{C}{\nu\kappa}+\frac{C_\nu}{\sqrt{N}},

859: \end{equation}

860: where the constant $C$ only depends on $T$ and the constant $C_\nu$ on $T$ and $\nu$.

861: \end{thm}

862: \begin{arem}\label{choinu}

863: The number of selection steps is $\nu-1$. For instance, when $\nu=1$,

864:    there is no selection involved in the expression of $E_{\rm

865:      DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)$ and the particles remain independent. In

866:    this case, the first term in the right hand side

867:    of~(\ref{eq:est_err}) corresponds to the time discretization error

868:    proved in Proposition~\ref{erreurdt}, while the second term is

869:    the classical error estimate related to the law of large numbers. For a fixed number of

870:    selection steps, the theorem ensures the convergence of the particle

871:    approximation $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)$ as the time-step

872:    $\dt=T/(\nu \kappa)$ used for the discretization of the stochastic

873:    differential equation \eqref{eds} tends to~$0$ while the number $N$ of

874:    particles tends to $+\infty$. But this result does not specify the dependence of $C_\nu$ on $\nu$ and

875:    gives no hint on the optimal choice of the number of selection steps

876:    in terms of error minimization. We are going to deal with this

877:    important issue

878:    in the numerical study (see Section~\ref{sec:num_res}).

879: \end{arem}

880: According to the above expressions

881:    \eqref{expr1} and \eqref{expr2} of $E_{\rm DMC}^{\dt}(T)$ and $E_{\rm

882:    DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)$, this theorem is easily proved by combining

883:    Proposition \ref{erreurdt} and the following result :

884: \begin{aprop}\label{propvitpart}

885:    \begin{equation}

886:    \E\left|\frac{\eta^N_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta^N_\nu(g)}-\frac{\eta_\nu(gy_{\kappa}^4)}{\eta_\nu(g)}\right|\leq \frac{C_\nu}{\sqrt{N}}.\label{vitpart}

887: \end{equation}\end{aprop}

888: 

889: \begin{adem}[ of Proposition \ref{propvitpart}]

890: One has

891: \begin{align*}

892:    \E\left|\frac{\eta^N_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta^N_\nu(g)}-\frac{\eta_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu(g)}\right|\leq &\frac{\E|\eta_\nu^N(gy_\kappa^4)-\eta_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)|}{\eta_\nu(g)}\\&+\left(\E\left(\frac{\eta_\nu^N(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu^N(g)}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{\left(\E\left(\eta_\nu^N(g)-\eta_\nu(g)\right)^2\right)^{1/2}}{\eta_\nu(g)}.

893: \end{align*}

894: According to Proposition \ref{vitmc} and Lemma \ref{contetag} below, the

895: first term of the right-hand-side and the quotient in the second term

896: are smaller than $C_\nu/\sqrt{N}$. Since by Jensen's inequality,

897: $\left(\frac{\eta_\nu^N(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu^N(g)}\right)^2\leq

898: \frac{\eta_\nu^N(gy_\kappa^8)}{\eta_\nu^N(g)}$, the boundedness of 

899: $\E\left(\frac{\eta_\nu^N(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu^N(g)}\right)^2$

900: follows from Lemma \ref{majomom} below. 

901: \end{adem}

902: \begin{aprop}\label{vitmc}

903:    For any bounded function $f:(\R_+^*)^\kappa\rightarrow \R$, 

904: \begin{equation}\label{eq:f_bounded}

905: \forall

906: n\in\{1,\hdots,\nu\},\;\E((\eta_n^N(f)-\eta_n(f))^2)\leq\frac{C_n}{N}\|f\|^2_\infty,

907: \end{equation}

908: where the constant $C_n$ does not depend on $\kappa$.

909: 

910: For any function $f:(\R_+^*)^\kappa\rightarrow \R$ such that for some $p\geq 2$,

911: $\ds{\|f\|_{\kappa,p}=\sup_{y\in\R_+^\kappa}\frac{|f(y)|}{1+y_\kappa^p}}$ is

912: finite,

913: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fkp_bounded}

914:  \forall

915: n\in\{1,\hdots,\nu\},\;\E|\eta_n^N(f)-\eta_n(f)|\leq\frac{C_n}{\sqrt{N}}\|f\|_{\kappa,p},

916: \end{equation}

917: where the constant $C_n$ does not depend on $\kappa$.

918: \end{aprop}

919: For $f$ bounded, the first estimate~(\ref{eq:f_bounded}) is proved in

920: \cite{Delmoralmiclo}. In order to prove Proposition~\ref{propvitpart}, we need to

921: apply Proposition~\ref{vitmc} with $f(y)=g(y)$ and $f(y)=g(y) y_\kappa^4$, which are

922: bounded functions with $L^\infty$ norm respectively equal to $1$ and

923: $\frac{C}{\dt}$ where $C$ is a constant not depending on $\dt$. But we

924: want to obtain the convergence when $\dt$ tends to $0$. This is why we need the

925: second estimate~(\ref{eq:fkp_bounded}), that we use with $f(y)=g(y)

926: y_\kappa^4$ for which $\|f\|_{\kappa,p}$ is bounded and does not depend on $\dt$.

927: 

928: Notice that for $f$ bounded, Corollary 2.20 in~\cite{Delmoralmiclo} states the convergence in law of

929: $\sqrt{N}(\eta^N_n(f)-\eta_n(f))$ to a centered Gaussian variable and

930: gives an expression of the variance of this limit variable. Because of

931: the complexity of this expression, using this result with $f(y)=g(y)y_\kappa^4$ did not really help us to

932: understand the dependence of $C_\nu$ on $\nu$ (see Remark \ref{choinu}

933: above).

934: \begin{adem}

935: For $f$ bounded, the first estimate~(\ref{eq:f_bounded}) is proved by

936: induction on $n$ in

937: \cite{Delmoralmiclo} (see Proposition 2.9). Since we follow the same

938: inductive reasoning to deal with $f$ such that

939: $\|f\|_{\kappa,p}<+\infty$, we give at the same time the proof for $f$ bounded.  

940: 

941: Since the initial positions $(\xi^i_1)_{1\leq i\leq N}$ are independent and identically

942: distributed with $\xi^i_{1,\kappa}$ distributed according to

943: $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$, the

944: statement holds for $n=1$.\\

945: To deduce the statement at rank $n+1$ from the statement at rank $n$,

946: we remark that according to \eqref{inducetan}, 

947: \begin{equation}

948:    \eta_{n+1}^N(f)-\eta_{n+1}(f)=T_{n+1}+\frac{1}{\eta_n(g)}\left((\eta_n^N(gPf)-\eta_n(gPf))+\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}(\eta_n(g)-\eta_n^N(g))\right)\label{decomperr}

949: \end{equation}

950: where we recall that $P$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:P}), and 

951: $$T_{n+1}=\eta_{n+1}^N(f)-\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}.$$

952: To deal with this term $T_{n+1}$, one remarks that for the first type of

953: selection step (S1), all the possible choices

954: of $\epsilon_n$ given in \eqref{choix_eps} are $\sigma(\xi_n)$-measurable. As a consequence, for $i\in\{1,\hdots,N\}$,

955: $$\E(f(\xi^i_{n+1})|\xi_n)=\epsilon_n

956: g(\xi^i_n)Pf(\xi^i_n)+(1-\epsilon_n

957: g(\xi^i_n))\sum_{j=1}^N \rho^j_n Pf(\xi_{n}^j),$$

958: where $\rho^j_n$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:rho}). Multiplying

959: this equality by $\frac{1}{N}$ and summing over $i$, one deduces

960: \begin{equation}

961:    \E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f)|\xi_n)=\sum_{j=1}^N \rho_n^j  Pf (\xi^j_n)=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^Ng(\xi^j_n)Pf(\xi_n^j)}{\sum_{j=1}^N

962:    g(\xi^j_n)}=\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}.\label{condit}

963: \end{equation}

964: Now, for the stochastic remainder resampling algorithm (S2), by~\eqref{messel2},

965: $\E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f)|\xi_n)$ is equal to

966: $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\Bigg\lfloor\frac{Ng(\xi^j_n)}{\sum_{l=1}^N

967:   g(\xi^l_n)}\Bigg\rfloor

968:   Pf(\xi^j_n)+\sum_{i=1+\sum_{l=1}^N a_n^l}^N\frac{1}{N- \sum_{l=1}^N

969:     a_n^l} \, \sum_{j=1}^N\left\{\frac{Ng(\xi^j_n)}{\sum_{l=1}^N

970:   g(\xi^l_n)}\right\}Pf(\xi^j_n)$$

971: and \eqref{condit} still holds.  Finally, for the stratified resampling

972: method (S3), by~\eqref{eq:strat}, we have (using the footnote\footnotemark[2])

973: \begin{align*}

974: \E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f)|\xi_n)

975: &=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N \E \left( 1_{\{\sum_{l=1}^{j-1} \rho^l_n < (i-U^i_n)/N \leq \sum_{l=1}^{j}

976:     \rho^l_n \}} \Big|\xi_n \right) Pf (\xi^j_n),\\

977: &=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \E \left( \sum_{i=1}^N 1_{\{\sum_{l=1}^{j-1} \rho^l_n < (i-U^1_n)/N \leq \sum_{l=1}^{j}

978:     \rho^l_n \}} \Big|\xi_n \right) Pf (\xi^j_n),\\

979: &=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \E \left( \left\lfloor   N \sum_{l=1}^{j}

980:     \rho^l_n  + U^1_n  \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor   N \sum_{l=1}^{j-1}

981:     \rho^l_n  + U^1_n  \right\rfloor \Big|\xi_n \right) Pf (\xi^j_n),\\

982: &=\sum_{j=1}^N \rho_n^j  Pf (\xi^j_n),

983: \end{align*}

984: which yields again~\eqref{condit}.

985: Since for all three possible selection steps, the variables $(\xi^i_{n+1})_{1\leq i\leq N}$ are independent

986: conditionally on $\xi_n$, one deduces that

987: \begin{align*}

988:    \E((T_{n+1})^2|\xi_n)=\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N\E\left(\left(f(\xi_{n+1}^i)-\E(f(\xi^i_{n+1})|\xi_n)\right)^2|\xi_n\right)\leq \frac{1}{N}\E\left(\eta_{n+1}^N(f^2)|\xi_n\right).

989: \end{align*}

990: Therefore 

991: \begin{equation}

992:    \E((T_{n+1})^2)\leq \frac{1}{N}\E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f^2)).\label{majot}

993: \end{equation}

994: When $f$ is bounded, $\eta_{n+1}^N(f^2)\leq \|f\|_\infty^2$, $\left|\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right|\leq

995: \|Pf\|_\infty$, and $\|Pf\|_\infty\leq \|f\|_\infty$. Hence by \eqref{decomperr},

996: \begin{align*}

997:    \E((\eta_{n+1}^N(f)-\eta_{n+1}(f))^2)\leq 3\left(\frac{\|f\|_\infty^2}{N}+\frac{\E((\eta_n^N(gPf)-\eta_n(gPf))^2)+\|f\|_\infty^2\E((\eta_n^N(g)-\eta_n(g))^2)}{(\eta_n(g))^2}\right)

998: \end{align*}

999: with the second term of the right-hand-side smaller than $C\|f\|_\infty^2/N$ by the

1000: induction hypothesis and Lemma \ref{contetag} below.\par

1001: When $\|f\|_{\kappa,p}<+\infty$, combining \eqref{decomperr} and

1002: \eqref{majot}, one obtains

1003: \begin{align*}

1004:    \E\left|\eta_{n+1}^N(f)-\eta_{n+1}(f)\right|\leq

1005:    &\frac{\left(\E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f^2))\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{N}}+\frac{\E\left|\eta_n^N(gPf)-\eta_n(gPf)\right|}{\eta_n(g)}\\&+\left(\E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{ \left( \E(\eta_n^N(g)-\eta_n(g))^2 \right)^{1/2}}{\eta_n(g)}.

1006: \end{align*}

1007: Since $\|f^2\|_{k,2p} \leq 2 \|f\|_{k,p}^2$ (by using the inequality $f^2(y)\leq 2\|f\|_{\kappa,p}^2(1+y_\kappa^{2p})$), the first term of the right-hand-side is smaller than

1008: $C_n\|f\|_{\kappa,p}/\sqrt{N}$ by Lemma \ref{majomom} below. Since, according to

1009: Lemma \ref{contmom} below, $\|Pf\|_{\kappa,p}\leq e^{C_p\Delta t}\|f\|_{\kappa,p}$, the second term is smaller than

1010: $C_n\|f\|_{\kappa,p}/\sqrt{N}$ by the induction hypothesis and Lemma

1011: \ref{contetag}. Last, by using successively Cauchy Schwartz

1012: inequalities, \eqref{condit} for $f^2$ and Lemma \ref{majomom}, one obtains that 

1013: $\E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(gPf)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right)^2 \leq

1014: \E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(g (Pf)^2)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right) \leq

1015: \E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(g P f^2)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right) =

1016: \E(\eta_{n+1}^N(f^2)) \leq C_n\|f\|^2_{\kappa,p}$. And it follows

1017: from the Proposition statement for $f$ bounded and Lemma

1018: \ref{contetag} that $\frac{\left(\E(\eta_n^N(g)-\eta_n(g))^2\right)^{1/2}}{\eta_n(g)}$ is smaller than

1019: $C_n/\sqrt{N}$.

1020: \end{adem}

1021: 

1022: \begin{arem}\label{rem:SRR}

1023: Proposition~\ref{vitmc} (and therefore Theorem~\ref{th:est_err}) also

1024: hold for the stratified remainder resampling algorithm, which consists

1025: in combining the stochastic remainder resampling and the stratified

1026: resampling. More precisely, it consists in replicating

1027: $\lfloor N \rho^i_n  \rfloor$ times the $i$-th particle, and then completing

1028: the set of particles by using stratified resampling to draw the

1029: $N^R=N-\sum_{l=1}^N \lfloor N \rho^l_n  \rfloor$ remaining particles, the

1030: $i$-th particle being assigned the weight $\rho^{R,i}_n=\{ N \rho^i_n \} /

1031: N^R$.

1032: \end{arem}

1033: 

1034: \begin{alem}\label{majomom} Let $h:(\R_+^*)^\kappa\rightarrow \R_+$ be such that for some

1035:   $p\geq 2$, $\|h\|_{\kappa,p}<+\infty$. Then,

1036: $$\forall n \in \{1,\hdots,\nu\},\; \max\left( \E(\eta_n^N(h)) ,

1037:   \E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(gh)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right) \right)\leq

1038: e^{C_pn\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}(1+\E(X_0)^p),$$

1039: where $X_0$ is distributed according to the measure

1040: $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$ (see~(\ref{eds})).

1041: \end{alem}

1042: \begin{adem}

1043: As the variables $\xi^i_{1,\kappa}, 1\leq i\leq N$ are distributed

1044: according to the invariant measure $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$, one has

1045: $\E(\eta^N_1(h))\leq \|h\|_{\kappa,p}(1+\E(X_0)^p)$. In addition for $n\geq

1046: 1$, according to \eqref{condit},

1047: $\E(\eta^N_{n+1}(h))=\E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(gPh)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right)$

1048: where $\|Ph\|_{\kappa,p}\leq e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{k,p}$  by Lemma \ref{contmom}. Therefore it is enough to

1049: check the bound for $\E\left(\frac{\eta_n^N(gh)}{\eta_n^N(g)}\right)$.\par

1050: For $n\geq 0$, one has

1051: \begin{align}

1052:  \E\left(\frac{\eta_{n+1}^N(gh)}{\eta_{n+1}^N(g)}\right) \leq

1053:   \|h\|_{\kappa,p}\left(1+\E\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa }(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)(\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa})^p}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa}(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)}\right)\right).\label{decompmom}

1054: \end{align}

1055: Let us denote in this proof $\xi^i_{n+1,0}=X^i_{n+1,0}$, where $0\leq n

1056: \leq \nu-1$ and $1\leq i \leq N$. Let us set ${\mathcal

1057:   F}=\sigma(\xi^i_{n+1,k},\;1\leq i\leq N,\;0\leq k\leq

1058:   \kappa-1)$. By Lemma \ref{decroiss} below,

1059: \begin{align*}

1060:    \E\Bigg(&\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa}(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)(\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa})^p}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa}(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)}\bigg| {\mathcal

1061:   F}\Bigg)\leq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1062:    -1}(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)\E((\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa})^p|{\mathcal

1063:   F})}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1064:    -1}(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)},\\

1065: &\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1066:    -1}(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)\E((X^x_\dt)^p)|_{x=\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa-1}}}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1067:    -1}(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)},\\

1068: &\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\leq e^{C_p\dt}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1069:    -1}(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)(\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa-1})^p}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1070:    -1}(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)}+e^{C_p\dt}-1,

1071: \end{align*}

1072: where we have used the definition of the mutation step (see~\eqref{sden+1}) and the Markov

1073:    property for the stochastic differential equation \eqref{eq:sdex} to

1074:    obtain the equality, and then Lemma \ref{contmom} for the last

1075:    inequality. Notice that this estimate also holds for $\kappa=1$, in

1076:    which case the right hand side reduces to $ \ds{\frac{e^{C_p\dt}}{N}

1077:    (\xi^i_{n+1,0})^p +e^{C_p\dt}-1}$.

1078: 

1079: Taking expectations and iterating the reasoning, one deduces that

1080: $$\E\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa

1081:         }(\xi^i_{n+1,k})^4\right)(\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa})^p}{\sum_{j=1}^N\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\kappa }(\xi^j_{n+1,k})^4\right)}\right)\leq \frac{e^{C_p\Dt}}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\E((\xi^i_{n+1,0})^p)+(e^{C_p\dt}-1)\sum_{k=0}^{\kappa-1}e^{C_pk\dt}.$$

1082: Inserting this bound in \eqref{decompmom}, one concludes that

1083: \begin{align*}

1084:  \E\left(\frac{\eta_{n+1}^N(gh)}{\eta_{n+1}^N(g)}\right) &\leq

1085:  e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}\left(1+\E\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(\xi^{i}_{n+1,0})^p\right)\right).

1086: \end{align*}

1087: For $n=0$, one deduces that $\E\left(\frac{\eta_{1}^N(gh)}{\eta_{1}^N(g)}\right)\leq

1088:  e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}(1+\E(X_0^p))$, where $X_0$ is distributed according to the measure

1089: $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$.

1090: 

1091: For $n\geq 1$, since by a reasoning similar to the one made to obtain \eqref{condit},

1092: $\ds{\E\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(\xi^{i}_{n+1,0})^p\right)=\E\left(\frac{\eta_{n}^N(g(y)

1093:       y_\kappa^p)}{\eta_n^N(g(y))}\right)}$,

1094:  one also deduces that

1095: $$\E\left(\frac{\eta_{n+1}^N(gh)}{\eta_{n+1}^N(g)}\right)\leq

1096: e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}\E\left(\frac{\eta_{n}^N(g(1+y_\kappa^p))}{\eta^N_n(g)}\right).$$

1097: The proof is completed by an obvious inductive reasoning.

1098: \end{adem}

1099: 

1100: \begin{alem}\label{contmom}

1101: For any $p\geq 2$, there is a constant $C_p$ such that 

1102: $$\forall x\in\R_+^*,\;\forall t\geq 0,\;\E((X^x_t)^p)\leq

1103: (1+x^p)e^{C_pt}-1,$$ 

1104: where $X_t^x$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:sdex}). Therefore, if

1105: $h:(\R_+^*)^\kappa\rightarrow \R$ is such that

1106: $\|h\|_{\kappa,p}<+\infty$ then $\|Ph\|_{\kappa,p}\leq

1107: e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}$, where the operator $P$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:P}).

1108: \end{alem}

1109: \begin{adem}

1110: By Itô's formula, $d(X^x_t)^p=\left(\frac{p(p+1)}{2}(X^x_t)^{p-2}-\omega

1111:   p(X^x_t)^{p}\right)dt+p(X^x_t)^{p-1}dW_t$. Hence

1112: $$(X^x_t)^p\leq

1113: x^p+\int_0^t\left(\frac{p(p+1)}{2}+\frac{p(p+1-2\omega)}{2}(X^x_s)^{p}\right)ds+p\int_0^t(X^x_s)^{p-1}dW_s.$$

1114: Formally, taking expectations in this inequality, one obtains

1115: \begin{align*}

1116:    \E((X^x_t)^p)\leq x^p+\int_0^t\frac{p(p+1)}{2}+\frac{p(p+1-2\omega)}{2}\E((X^x_s)^{p})ds,

1117: \end{align*}

1118: and check by Gronwall's lemma that the conclusion holds with

1119: $C_p=\frac{p(p+1)}{2}$. This formal argument can be made rigorous by a

1120: standard localization procedure.\\

1121: For $h:\R_+^\kappa\rightarrow \R$ such that $\|h\|_{\kappa,p}<+\infty$

1122: one deduces that

1123: $$\forall y\in\R_+^\kappa,\;|Ph(y)|\leq

1124: \E|h(X^{y_\kappa}_\dt,\hdots,X^{y_\kappa}_{\kappa\dt})|\leq

1125: C\|h\|_{\kappa,p}(1+\E((X^{y_\kappa}_{\kappa\dt})^p))\leq e^{C_p\Dt}\|h\|_{\kappa,p}(1+y_\kappa^p).$$\end{adem}

1126: \begin{alem}\label{decroiss}

1127: $$\forall(z_1,\hdots,z_N),(a_1,\hdots,a_N)\in\R_+^N\mbox{ with }\sum_{i=1}^Na_i>0,\;\forall p\geq 0,\;\forall c\geq

1128: 0,\;\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p}e^{-cz_i^4}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_ie^{-cz_i^4}}\leq

1129: \frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_i}.$$

1130: \end{alem}

1131: \begin{adem}Let us set

1132:    $f(c)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p}e^{-cz_i^4}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_ie^{-cz_i^4}}$. 

1133: By Hölder's inequality, the derivative

1134: $$f'(c)=\left(

1135:   \frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p}e^{-cz_i^4}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_ie^{-cz_i^4}}

1136:   \frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{4}e^{-cz_i^4}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_ie^{-cz_i^4}} \right)-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p+4}e^{-cz_i^4}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_ie^{-cz_i^4}}$$ 

1137: is non positive. Hence for any 

1138: $c\geq 0$, $f(c)\leq f(0)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Na_iz_i^{p}}{\sum_{i=1}^Na_i}$.

1139: \end{adem}

1140: \begin{alem}\label{contetag}

1141: The sequence $(\eta_n(g))_{1\leq n\leq\nu}$ is bounded from below by a

1142: positive constant non depending on~$\kappa$.\end{alem}

1143: \begin{adem}

1144: Since

1145: $$\eta_n(g)=\frac{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{n\kappa}X_{k\dt}^4\right)\right)}{\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{(n-1)\kappa}X_{k\dt}^4\right)\right)}\leq

1146: 1$$

1147: the sequence $(\eta_n(g))_{1\leq n\leq\nu}$ is bounded from below by 

1148: $$\prod_{n=1}^\nu

1149: \eta_n(g)=\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\nu\kappa}X_{k\dt}^4\right)\right).$$

1150: According to Lemma \ref{vitfort}, this expectation converges to

1151: $\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\int_0^TX_{s}^4ds\right)\right)>0$ when $\kappa$

1152: tends to $+\infty$, which concludes the proof.\end{adem}

1153: 

1154: We can now prove, as a corollary of Theorem~\ref{th:est_err}, the convergence of the

1155: approximation $\overline{E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T)$ of $E_{\rm

1156:   DMC}(T)$, defined by:

1157: \begin{equation}

1158: \overline{E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T)=\frac{3}{2}\omega

1159: +\frac{\theta}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N (X^i_{\nu+1,0})^4.\label{expr3}

1160: \end{equation}

1161: \begin{acor}\label{cor:est_err}

1162: $$

1163:    \E\left|E_{\rm DMC}(T)-\overline{E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T)\right|\leq

1164:    \frac{C}{\nu\kappa}+\frac{C_\nu}{\sqrt{N}},

1165: $$

1166: where the constant $C$ only depends on $T$ and the constant $C_\nu$ on $T$ and $\nu$.

1167: \end{acor}

1168: \begin{adem}

1169: By using the result of Theorem~\ref{th:est_err} and Cauchy Schwartz inequality, it is sufficient to prove

1170: the estimate $\ds{\E\left(E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)-\overline{E_{\rm

1171:       DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T)\right)^2\leq \frac{C_\nu}{N}}$. Let us

1172: denote in this proof $\xi^i_{\nu+1,0}=X^i_{\nu+1,0}$ for $1\leq i \leq N$. We have:

1173: \begin{equation*}

1174: E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)-\overline{E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T)

1175: = \theta\left(\frac{\eta_\nu^N(g \, y_\kappa^4)}{\eta_\nu^N(g)} -

1176:   \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N (\xi^i_{\nu+1,0})^4\right)

1177: = \theta\left( \E\left( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N (\xi^i_{\nu+1,0})^4 \bigg|

1178:     \xi_\nu \right) -

1179:   \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N (\xi^i_{\nu+1,0})^4\right)

1180: \end{equation*}

1181: by using the fact that, for any function $f:\R_+^* \to \R_+$, 

1182: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rec}

1183: \E\left( \frac{1}{N}

1184:   \sum_{i=1}^N f(\xi^i_{\nu+1,0}) \bigg| \xi_\nu \right)=\frac{\eta_\nu^N(g(y)

1185:   \,f(y_\kappa))}{\eta_\nu^N(g(y))},

1186: \end{equation} which is obtained by a reasoning similar to the

1187: one made to prove~\eqref{condit}. Now, using the same method as to

1188: obtain~\eqref{majot}, one easily gets the estimate:

1189: $$\E\left( E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}(T)-\overline{E_{\rm

1190:       DMC}^{N,\nu,\kappa}}(T) \right)^2 \leq \frac{\theta^2}{N}

1191: \E\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N (\xi^i_{\nu+1,0})^8\right)= \frac{\theta^2}{N} \E\left(

1192: \frac{\eta_\nu^N(g(y)

1193:   \,(y_\kappa)^8)}{\eta_\nu^N(g(y))}\right),

1194: $$

1195: by using again~(\ref{eq:rec}). Lemma~\ref{majomom} completes the proof.

1196: \end{adem}

1197: 

1198: We end this Section by proving that Proposition~\ref{propvitpart} also

1199: holds for the numerical scheme~\eqref{schemaurel}.

1200: \begin{aprop}\label{prop:Markov}

1201: Let us consider the Markov chain $(\bar{X}_{j\delta t})_{0\leq j\leq K}$

1202: generated by the explicit scheme \eqref{schemaurel} and denote by $Q$ its

1203: transition kernel. We now define the measure

1204: $\eta_n$ by replacing $(X_{j\delta t})_{0\leq j\leq

1205:   K}$ with $(\bar{X}_{j\delta t})_{0\leq j\leq K}$ in~(\ref{eq:eta_n}), and we define accordingly the

1206:    evolution of the particle system: conditionally on $\xi_n$,

1207:  the vectors $(X^i_{n+1,0},X^i_{n+1,\dt},\hdots,X^i_{n+1,\kappa\dt})_{1\leq i\leq N}$

1208:    are independent, with $(X^i_{n+1,0})_{1 \le i \le N}$ distributed according to

1209:  the selection algorithm (S1) (see~\eqref{messel}), (S2)

1210:  (see~\eqref{messel2}) or (S3) (see~\eqref{eq:strat}), and $(X^i_{n+1,j\dt})_{0\leq j\leq \kappa}$ a Markov

1211:    chain with transition kernel $Q$. Then, we have:

1212: $$

1213:    \E\left|\frac{\eta^N_\nu(gy_\kappa^4)}{\eta^N_\nu(g)}-\frac{\eta_\nu(gy_{\kappa}^4)}{\eta_\nu(g)}\right|\leq \frac{C_\nu}{\sqrt{N}}.

1214: $$

1215: \end{aprop} 

1216: \begin{adem}

1217: %    In the definition~(\ref{eq:eta_n}) of $\eta_n$, one may suppose more generally that

1218: %    $(X_{j\delta t})_{0\leq j\leq K}$ is an homogeneous Markov chain on

1219: %    $\R_+$ with trandition kernel $Q$. We think here for example of a

1220: %    Markov chain defined by a numerical scheme such as~\eqref{schemaurel}. Then, accordingly, in the

1221: %    evolution of the particle system, one assumes that conditionally on $\xi_n$,

1222: %  the vectors $(\xi^i_{n+1,0},\hdots,\xi^i_{n+1,\kappa})_{1\leq i\leq N}$

1223: %    are independent with $\xi^i_{n+1,0}$ distributed according to

1224: %    \eqref{messel} and $(\xi^i_{n+1,j})_{0\leq j\leq \kappa}$ a Markov

1225: %    chain with transition kernel $Q$. Notice that in this remark, we use the notation

1226: %    $\xi^i_{n+1,0}=X^i_{n+1,0}$, for $0\leq n

1227: % \leq \nu-1$ and $1\leq i \leq N$.

1228: Looking carefully at the proof

1229:    of Proposition \ref{propvitpart} above, one remarks that \eqref{vitpart}

1230:    holds in this framework as soon as

1231:    Lemma~\ref{contetag} holds, and the following property, which

1232:    replaces Lemma \ref{contmom}, is satisfied:

1233: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hyp_schemaurel}

1234: \exists C>0,\;\forall x\in\R_+,\;Qf(x)\leq e^{C\delta

1235:   t}(1+f(x))-1\mbox{ for }f(x)\equiv x^4\mbox{ and }f(x)\equiv x^8.

1236: \end{equation}

1237: Let us first prove~(\ref{eq:hyp_schemaurel}). We have:

1238: $Qf(x)=\E\left(f\left(\bar{X}^x_{\delta t}\right)\right)$ where $\bar{X}^x_\dt=\left((1-\omega

1239:     \delta t)^2x^2+2xW_\dt+\frac{W_\dt^2}{(1-\omega

1240:     \delta t)^2}+2\delta t\right)^{1/2}$. Now, for $q\in\N^*$,

1241: $$(\bar{X}^x_{\delta t})^{2q}=\sum_{j_1+j_2+j_3=q}\frac{q!}{j_1!j_2!j_3!}\,(1-\omega\dt)^{2j_1}\,2^{j_2}\,x^{2j_1+j_2}\,W_\dt^{j_2}\left(\frac{W_\dt^2}{(1-\omega

1242:     \delta t)^2}+2\delta t\right)^{j_3},$$

1243: where the indices $(j_1,j_2,j_3)$ are non negative integers. Remarking that the expectation of the terms with $j_2$ odd vanishes and

1244:     then using Young's inequality, one deduces that for $\dt\leq

1245:     \frac{1}{2\omega}$,

1246: \begin{eqnarray}

1247:    \E\left((\bar{X}^x_{\delta t})^{2q}\right)&\leq& (1-\omega\dt)^{2q}x^{2q}+\E\left(\left(\frac{W_\dt^2}{(1-\omega

1248:     \delta t)^2}+2\delta

1249:     t\right)^{q}\right)+C_q \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\stackrel{j_1+j_2+j_3=q}{j_1<q,j_2\;even\;,j_3<q}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!x^{2\left(q-\frac{j_2+2j_3}{2}\right)}\dt^{\frac{j_2+2j_3}{2}},\nonumber\\

1250: &\leq& x^{2q}+C_q\dt+C_q\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\stackrel{j_1+j_2+j_3=q}{j_1<q,j_2

1251:     \;even\;,

1252:     j_3<q}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left(x^{2q}\dt+\dt^{1+q\left(1-\frac{2}{j_2+2j_3}\right)}\right),\nonumber\\

1253: &\leq& (1+C_q\dt)x^{2q}+C_q\dt\leq e^{C_q\dt}(1+x^{2q})-1. \label{eq:Xbar_estim}

1254: \end{eqnarray}

1255: Let us now prove Lemma~\ref{contetag} for the scheme

1256: \eqref{schemaurel}. As noticed in the proof of  Lemma~\ref{contetag}

1257: above, it is sufficient to bound from below

1258: $\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\nu\kappa}\bar{X}_{k\dt}^4\right)\right)$.

1259: By Jensen inequality, we have

1260: $\E\left(\exp\left(-\t\dt\sum_{k=1}^{\nu\kappa}\bar{X}_{k\dt}^4\right)\right)

1261:  \geq \exp\left(-\t\frac{T}{\nu \kappa}\sum_{k=1}^{\nu\kappa}

1262:    \E\left(\bar{X}_{k\dt}^4\right)\right)$. By

1263:  using~(\ref{eq:Xbar_estim}), it is easy to prove by induction that

1264:  $\E\left(\bar{X}_{k\dt}^4\right)\leq e^{C_2 k \dt}

1265:  (1+\E\left(\bar{X}_{0}^4\right))-1$ and this concludes the proof of

1266:  Lemma~\ref{contetag} in this framework.

1267: \end{adem}

1268: In order to obtain a complete convergence result of the

1269: form~(\ref{eq:est_err}) for the scheme \eqref{schemaurel}, it remains to

1270: prove the complementary bound \eqref{discretaurel}, that we have not

1271: obtained so far. However, we will check by numerical simulations that (\ref{eq:est_err}) still holds.

1272: 

1273: \section{Numerical results}\label{sec:num_res}

1274: 

1275: \subsection{Computation of a reference solution by a spectral method}\label{sec:num_res_spec}

1276: 

1277: In this section, we would like to explain how we can obtain a very

1278: precise reference solution by using a partial differential equation approach to compute

1279: $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ (see~\cite{CJL}).

1280: 

1281: \subsubsection{A partial differential equation approach to compute $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$}

1282: 

1283: Let us introduce the solution $\phi$ to the following partial

1284: differential equation for :

1285: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phi}

1286: \left\{

1287: \begin{array}{l}

1288: \displaystyle{\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=-H \phi},\;(t,x) \in \R_+ \times \R\\

1289: \phi(0,x)=\psi_I(x),\;x\in\R

1290: \end{array}

1291: \right.

1292: \end{equation}

1293: where $H$ (resp. $\psi_I$) is defined by~(\ref{eq:H})

1294: (resp.~(\ref{eq:psi_I})). Since $\psi_I \in {\mathcal H}$, it

1295: is a standard result that this problem admits a unique solution

1296: $\phi  \in C^0(\R_+,{\mathcal H}) \cap C^0(\R_+^*,D_{\mathcal H}(H))

1297: \cap C^1(\R_+^*,{\mathcal H})$. The function $\phi$ is

1298: regular and odd, and therefore is such that $\phi(t,0)=0$ for all $t

1299: \geq 0$. Therefore the function $\phi$ is also solution to the following

1300: partial differential equation:

1301: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phi_prime}

1302: \left\{

1303: \begin{array}{l}

1304: \displaystyle{\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=-H \phi},\;(t,x) \in \R_+ \times \R\\

1305: \phi(t,0)=0,\; t\geq 0\\

1306: \phi(0,x)=\psi_I(x),\;x\in\R.

1307: \end{array}

1308: \right.

1309: \end{equation}

1310: In~\cite{CJL}, we have shown that since $\phi$ satisfies~(\ref{eq:phi_prime}), we can express $E_{\rm DMC}(t)$

1311: (defined by~(\ref{eq:EDMC}))

1312: using the function $\phi$ (see Proposition 11 in~\cite{CJL}):

1313: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EDMC_phi}

1314: E_{\rm DMC}(t)=\frac{\langle H \psi_I,\phi(t)\rangle}{\langle

1315:   \psi_I,\phi(t)\rangle}.

1316: \end{equation}

1317: Our reference solution $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ will rely on formula

1318: \eqref{eq:EDMC_phi} after discretization of (\ref{eq:phi}) by a spectral

1319: method.

1320: 

1321: % \begin{arem}

1322: % We would like to emphasize one important point. In general (namely in

1323: % the situation described at the beginning of the introduction), it is false

1324: % that~(\ref{eq:phi}) and~(\ref{eq:phi_prime}) admit the same

1325: % solution. Let us make this precise: in general,

1326: % \begin{itemize}

1327: % \item Equation~(\ref{eq:EDMC_phi}) holds with $\phi$ solution

1328: %   to~(\ref{eq:phi_prime}) (see Proposition 11 in~\cite{CJL}),

1329: % \item The quantity $E(t)=\frac{\langle H \psi_I,\phi(t)\rangle}{\langle

1330: %   \psi_I,\phi(t)\rangle}$ where $\phi$ is solution to~(\ref{eq:phi}) is

1331: % different from $E_{\rm DMC}(t)$, and is such that $\lim_{t \to \infty}

1332: % E(t)=E_0$ where $E_0$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:E0}) (see Section 3 in~\cite{CJL}),

1333: % \item However, even if $E(t) \neq E_{{\rm

1334: %       DMC}}(t)$, in the case when the nodal surfaces of $\psi_I$ coincide with

1335: %   those of a ground state of $H$, their longtime limits are the same: $E_0=E_{{\rm DMC},0}$, where $E_{{\rm

1336: %       DMC},0}$ is defined by~(\ref{eq:CV_E_DMC}) (see Theorem 12 in~\cite{CJL}).

1337: % \end{itemize}

1338: % On our toy problem, we have $E(t)=E_{\rm DMC}(t)$ for two reasons: first, the function $\psi_I$ we have chosen has indeed a zero set

1339: % which coincides with the zero set of a ground state of $H$ (namely

1340: % $\{0\}$), and second, the

1341: % antisymmetry property of the solution $\psi$ to~(\ref{eq:phi_prime})

1342: % constrains the function $\phi$ to be zero on this set:

1343: % $\forall t \geq 0,\, \phi(t,0)=0$.

1344: % \end{arem}

1345: 

1346: \subsubsection{Computation of the wave function $\phi$}

1347: 

1348: We will briefly present the spectral method developed to compute an

1349: approximation of $\phi$.

1350: We recall that the Hermite polynomials are defined by  :

1351: $$

1352: \forall n \in \N,\; h_n(x)=(-1)^n e^{x^2}\displaystyle\frac{d^n}{dx^n}(e^{-x^2}).

1353: $$ 

1354: We introduce the eigenfunctions 

1355: of the operator $H_0$, 

1356: normalized for the $L^2(\R)$ norm associated with the eigenvalues

1357: $E_n=\omega(n+1/2)$ for $n \geq 0$,

1358: $$

1359: \varphi_n(x)=\displaystyle h_n(\sqrt \omega x) \exp({-\frac{1}{2}\omega x^2})

1360: \left(\frac{(\omega /\pi)^{1/4}}{\sqrt{2^n n!}}\right).

1361: $$

1362: It is well known

1363: that the vector space spanned by the set of functions

1364: $\{\varphi_{2k+1}\}_{k \geq 0}$ is dense in ${\mathcal V}_0=\{\varphi\in

1365: H^1(\R) \cap {\mathcal H} \;| \;  x\varphi \in L^2\}$, which is the

1366: domain of the quadratic form associated with $H_0$.

1367: 

1368: Let us now introduce the functional space  

1369:  ${\mathcal V}=\{\varphi\in H^1(\R) \cap {\mathcal H} \;| \;

1370:  x^2\varphi\in L^2\}$, which is the

1371: domain of the quadratic form associated with $H$. The set of functions $\{\varphi_{2k+1}\}_{k \geq 0}$ is also a

1372:  basis of ${\mathcal V}$.

1373: 

1374: % Since the functions $\varphi_{2k+1}$ are also in

1375: %  ${\mathcal V}$ and that ${\mathcal V}$ is a closed subset of ${\mathcal

1376: %    V}_0$, the set of functions $\{\varphi_{2k+1}\}_{k \geq 0}$ is also a

1377: %  basis of ${\mathcal V}$.

1378:  Let ${\mathcal V}_n

1379:  =Span({\varphi_1},{\varphi_3},\dots ,{\varphi}_{2n-1})$. We use this

1380:  approximation space to build the following Galerkin scheme

1381:  for~(\ref{eq:phi}): find $\phi_n \in C^0(\R_+,{\mathcal V}_{n})$ such

1382:  that\footnote{Notice that $\psi_I=\varphi_1\in {\mathcal V}_n$.}  

1383: $\phi_n(0,x)=\psi_I$, and $\forall \varphi \in {\mathcal V}_n$

1384: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1}

1385: \displaystyle\left\langle\frac {\partial \phi_n(t)}{\partial t},\varphi\right\rangle=

1386: \displaystyle-\left\langle H \phi_n(x,t),\varphi\right\rangle.

1387: \end{equation}

1388: 

1389: We diagonalize the operator $H$ restricted to ${\mathcal V}_n$. We denote 

1390: $({\varphi_0^n},{\varphi}_2^n,\dots ,{\varphi}_{n-1}^n)$ 

1391: the eigenfunctions and ${E_0^n},{E_2^n},\dots, { E_{n-1}^n}$

1392:  the associated eigenvalues. Because of the symmetry of $H$, it is easy

1393:  to check that ${\mathcal V}_n$ can also be spanned by $({\varphi_0^n},{\varphi}_2^n,\dots ,{\varphi}_{n-1}^n)$:

1394: \begin{equation}\label{eq:span}

1395: {\mathcal V}_n=Span({\varphi_0^n},{\varphi}_2^n,\dots ,{\varphi}_{n-1}^n).

1396: \end{equation}

1397: Since for $t\geq 0$, $\phi_n(t,.) \in {\mathcal V}_n$, there exists $u_{k}(t), \;k=0,\dots,n-1$, such that 

1398: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psi}

1399: \displaystyle\phi_n=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} u_{k}(t){\varphi_{k}^n}.

1400: \end{equation}

1401: In view of (\ref{eq:span}) and (\ref{eq:psi}), (\ref{eq:1}) is equivalent

1402:  to the  equations: $\forall i=0,\dots,n-1$,

1403: $$

1404: \begin{array}{ccl}

1405: \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac {\partial u_{k}(t)}{\partial t} 

1406: \left\langle{\varphi}_{k}^n,{\varphi}_{i}^n\right\rangle&=&

1407: \displaystyle-\left\langle H\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} u_{k}(t) 

1408: {\varphi}_{k}^n,{\varphi}_{i}^n\right\rangle, \\

1409: &=&\displaystyle-\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{ E}_{k}^nu_{k}(t)\left\langle{\varphi}_{k}^n,  

1410: {\varphi}_{i}^n\right\rangle.

1411: \end{array}

1412: $$

1413: We deduce that  $\forall k =0,\dots,n-1,$

1414: $$

1415: \displaystyle\frac {\partial u_{k}(t)}{\partial t} = -{E}_{k}^n u_{k}(t),

1416: $$

1417: so that

1418: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psi2}

1419: \displaystyle\phi_n(t,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}u_{k}(0)\exp(-{E}_{k}^n t){\varphi_{k}^n}(x),

1420: \end{equation}

1421: where $u_{k}(0)=\left\langle\psi_I,{\varphi}_k^n\right\rangle$.

1422: 

1423: \begin{arem}

1424: The eigenfunctions of $H$ are obtained by diagonalization of the matrix

1425: $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j=0,\dots,n-1}$ with $\:\:\forall i,j=0,\dots,n-1$ :

1426: $$

1427: \begin{array}{ccl}

1428: a_{ij}&=&\left\langle H\varphi_{2i+1},\varphi_{2j+1}\right\rangle, \\

1429:            &=&\left\langle H_0\varphi_{2i+1},\varphi_{2j+1}\right\rangle+

1430:              \theta \left\langle x^4\varphi_{2i+1},\varphi_{2j+1}\right\rangle,\\

1431:   &=&\delta_{ij} \, \omega \, (2i+\frac{3}{2}) + \theta\, \left\langle  x^4\varphi_{2i+1},

1432: \varphi_{2j+1}\right\rangle.

1433: \end{array}

1434: $$

1435: We can use the  n--point Gauss-Hermite formula to  deal with the integration of the

1436:  second term on the right. We recall that this method  provides an exact

1437:  result for

1438: $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}p(x) \exp(-x^2)dx $ as long as $p$ is a

1439: polynomial of degree $2n-1$ or less.

1440:  

1441: \end{arem}

1442: \subsubsection{Approximation of  $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$}

1443: %+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1444: 

1445: We now use formula~(\ref{eq:EDMC_phi}) to approximate $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$.

1446: By an elementary calculation, we obtain the following approximation:

1447: \begin{equation}\label{eq:E2}

1448: E_{\rm DMC}(T) \simeq \displaystyle\frac{{E}_0^n+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\displaystyle\frac{u_{i}(0)\left\langle{\varphi}_i^n,\varphi_1\right\rangle}

1449: {u_{0}(0)\left\langle{\varphi}_1^n,\varphi_1\right\rangle}{E}_{i}^n\exp(-({E}_{i}^n-{E}_0^n)T)}

1450: {1+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{u_{i}(0)\left\langle{\varphi}_i^n,\varphi_1\right\rangle}

1451: {u_{0}(0)\left\langle{\varphi}_1^n,\varphi_1\right\rangle}\exp(-({E}_{i}^n-{E}_0^n)T)}.

1452: \end{equation}

1453: In our test cases, we have observed that $n=40$ is enough to reach

1454: convergence.

1455: 

1456: Notice that for a given $n$, the convergence in time to the lowest eigenvalue

1457: ${E}_0^n$ is exponentially fast, with an exponent equal to the 

1458: spectral gap ${E}_1^n-{E}_0^n$. 

1459: 

1460: 

1461: \subsection{Numerical results of Monte Carlo simulations}

1462: 

1463: In this section, we perform various numerical experiments to validate

1464: our theoretical results, and to explore some features of DMC

1465: computation. In particular, we propose in Section~\ref{sec:optim_var} an

1466: empirical method to determine the optimal number of reconfigurations. In

1467: all the computations, the final time is $T=5$, which appears to be

1468: sufficiently large for the convergence $t \to \infty$ to be achieved

1469: with enough accuracy.

1470: 

1471: \subsubsection{Error and variance as a function of the numerical parameters}\label{sec:err_var}

1472: 

1473: \begin{figure}

1474: \begin{center}

1475: \psfrag {e(dt)}{$e(\delta t)$}

1476: \psfrag{v(dt)}{$v(\delta t)$}

1477: \psfrag{e(N)}{$e(N)$}

1478: \psfrag{v(N)}{$v(N)$}

1479: \psfrag{e(Nu)}{$e(\nu)$}

1480: \psfrag{v(Nu)}{$v(\nu)$}

1481: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1482:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{erreurEnNombre2Marcheur.eps} &

1483:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{varianceEnNombre2Marcheur.eps} \\

1484:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{erreurEndt.eps} &

1485:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{varianceEndt.eps} \\

1486:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{erreurEnNombre2reconf.eps} &

1487:       \includegraphics[width=6cm]{varianceEnNombre2reconf.eps} \\

1488:     \end{tabular}

1489: \caption{Expectation and variance of the error when \eqref{eds} is

1490:   discretized according to the method 

1491:   described in Appendix (dotted curve) and according to the

1492:   scheme~(\ref{schemaurel}) (solid curve).}\label{fig}

1493:   \end{center}

1494: \end{figure}

1495: 

1496: % \begin{figure}[ht]

1497: % \begin{center}

1498: % \psfrag {e(dt)}{$e(\delta t)$}

1499: % \psfrag{v(dt)}{$v(\delta t)$}

1500: % \psfrag{e(N)}{$e(N)$}

1501: % \psfrag{v(N)}{$v(N)$}

1502: % \psfrag{e(Nu)}{$e(\nu)$}

1503: % \psfrag{v(Nu)}{$v(\nu)$}

1504: % \includegraphics[height=10cm]{fig.eps}

1505: % \caption{Expectation and variance of the error when \eqref{eds} is

1506: %   discretized according to the method 

1507: %   described in Appendix (solid curve) and according to the

1508: %   scheme~(\ref{schemaurel}) (dotted curve).}\label{fig}

1509: % \end{center}

1510: % \end{figure}

1511: 

1512: 

1513: We represent on Figure \ref{fig}, the expectation $e$ and the variance

1514: $v$ of the error : $\left|E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(T)-E_{\rm DMC}(T) \right|$ as a function of the  

1515: number of walkers $N$, the time step $\delta t$ and the number of

1516: reconfigurations $\nu-1$, where $E_{\rm DMC}(T)$ is approximated

1517: using~(\ref{eq:E2}) and $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(T)$ is defined

1518: by~(\ref{expr2}). The multinomial resampling method (which is (S1) with

1519:   $\epsilon_n=0$) was used.

1520: 

1521: The top figures represent the expectation of the error and its  variance 

1522: according to the number of walkers. 

1523: To compute these quantities, we perform $2000$ independent realizations,

1524:  with the  number of reconfigurations 

1525: $\nu -1=50$, a small time step $\delta t=5.10^{-3}$ and  $\theta=0.5$.

1526: The simulations confirm the theoretical result : the

1527: error decreases as $C/\sqrt{N}$.

1528: 

1529: The effect of the time step is shown on the two figures in the center.

1530: The numerical parameters are: a large number of particles $N=5000$, number of configurations

1531:  $\nu -1=30$, $\theta=2$ and $300$ independent realizations. We can  see on the figure on the left that the  error 

1532: decreases linearly as the time step decreases. We also remark that the

1533: error is smaller with the approximate scheme~(\ref{schemaurel}) than when using

1534: the exact simulation of the SDE~(\ref{eds}) proposed in the

1535: Appendix. This rather amazing result can be interpreted as follows. When

1536: using the exact simulation of the SDE, there is only one source of error

1537: related to the time discretization, namely the approximation of the

1538: integral in the exponential factor in~(\ref{eq:EDMC}). When using the

1539: scheme~(\ref{schemaurel}), we add a weak error term which seems to

1540: partly compensate the previous one.

1541: 

1542: The last figures represent the effect of the number of

1543:   reconfiguration steps. The numerical parameters are: time step $\delta

1544:   t=5.10^{-3}$, number of particles $N=5000$, $\theta=2$ and $300$ independent realizations.

1545: The curve representing the variation of the error according to the number of

1546:  reconfigurations has the shape of a basin.

1547: We deduce that on the one hand a small number of reconfigurations has 

1548: the disadvantage that walkers with increasingly differing weights are kept. On the other hand 

1549: a large number of reconfigurations introduces much noise. An optimal

1550: number of reconfiguration seems to lie between 20 and 50.

1551: 

1552: \subsubsection{Optimal number of reconfigurations}\label{sec:optim_var}

1553: 

1554: On Figure~\ref{fig:var_EDMC}, we check that the

1555: optimal number of reconfigurations in terms of the variance $\tilde{v}$

1556: of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(T)$ (and not of the error as

1557: in Section~\ref{sec:err_var}) is also obtained

1558: for a number of reconfiguration which seems to lie between 20 and 50

1559: (using again the multinomial resampling method). The numerical

1560: parameters are those considered for the figures below in

1561: Figure~\ref{fig}: time step $\delta

1562:   t=5.10^{-3}$, number of particles $N=5000$, $\theta=2$ and $300$

1563:   independent realizations. We have not studied how the optimal number of reconfigurations varies according to the other

1564: numerical parameters.

1565: 

1566: \begin{figure}[ht]

1567: \begin{center}

1568: \psfrag{var(EDMC)}{$\tilde{v}(\nu)$}

1569: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{var_edmc.eps}

1570: \caption{Variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(T)$ in function of the number of

1571:   reconfigurations when \eqref{eds} is

1572:   discretized according to the method 

1573:   described in Appendix (solid curve) and according to the

1574:   scheme~(\ref{schemaurel}) (dashed curve).}\label{fig:var_EDMC}

1575: \end{center}

1576: \end{figure}

1577: 

1578: We have investigated a practical method to estimate numerically the optimal number of 

1579: reconfigurations. On Figure~\ref{Nreconf} we represent the variance of

1580: $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,1,t / \delta t}(t)$ according 

1581: to time $t$, without any reconfiguration step (which corresponds to $\nu=1$). The other numerical

1582: parameters are again those considered for the figures below in

1583: Figure~\ref{fig}. We observe that the variance is minimal at $t^*

1584: \approx 0.25 $. We remark that $\nu =

1585: T/t^*= 20$ is close to the optimal number of reconfigurations 

1586: obtained on the previous figures. We have checked this empirical result

1587: for various sets of the parameters. 

1588: It seems that the optimal

1589: number of reconfigurations is related to $T/t^*$ where $t^*$ minimizes

1590: the variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,1,t / \delta t}(t)$. Since $\nu=1$, no

1591: selection step occurs and the particles are thus

1592: independent. According to the multidimensional

1593: central limit theorem, the variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,1,t / \delta

1594:   t}(t)$ can be approximated by

1595: $$\frac{1}{N}\left( \frac{{\rm Var}(Y_t)}{ (\E(Z_t))^2} - 2 \E(Y_t) \frac{{\rm

1596:        Covar}(Y_t,Z_t)}{(\E(Z_t))^3} + (\E(Y_t))^2 \frac{{\rm Var}(Z_t)}{(\E(Z_t))^4}\right)$$

1597: where

1598: $$Y_t=E_L(X_t) \exp\left(-\dt \sum_{k=1}^{t /\dt} E_L(X_{k \dt}) \right)$$

1599: and

1600: $$Z_t=\exp\left(-\dt \sum_{k=1}^{t /\dt} E_L(X_{k \dt}) \right).$$

1601: 

1602:  Therefore, the optimal number of reconfiguration steps

1603: could be estimated by this method, through a precomputation over a

1604: few independent trajectories.

1605: 

1606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1607: % Details pour le calcul de la variance asymptotique

1608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1609: % \begin{alem}\label{lem:var}

1610: % Let us consider two sequences of random variables $(X_i)_{i

1611: %   \ge 1}$ and $(Y_i)_{i \ge 1}$ such that the $X_i$ (resp. the $Y_i$)

1612: % are i.i.d. and square integrable. Then,

1613: % $$\lim_{N \to \infty} N \, {\rm Var}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N X_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N

1614: %     Y_i} \right) = \frac{{\rm Var}(X_1)}{ \E(Y_1)^2} - 2 \E(X_1) \frac{{\rm

1615: %       Covar}(X_1,Y_1)}{\E(Y_1)^3} + \E(X_1)^2 \frac{{\rm Var}(Y_1)}{\E(Y_1)^4}.$$

1616: % \end{alem}

1617: % \begin{proof}

1618: % Observe that

1619: % \begin{equation}\label{eq:TCL1}

1620: % \sqrt{N} \left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N X_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N Y_i} -

1621: %   \frac{\E(X_1)}{\E(Y_1)}\right) 

1622: %  =\sqrt{N} \left( \frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N X_i -

1623: %     \E(X_1)}{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i} \right) + \E(X_1) \sqrt{N}

1624: % \frac{\E(Y_1)-\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i}{\E(Y_1) \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i}

1625: % \end{equation}

1626: % and then apply the multi-dimensional central limit theorem and Slutsky's

1627: % Lemma to obtain that

1628: % \begin{align}

1629: % &\lim_{N \to \infty}\frac{\sqrt{N}}{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i}

1630: %  \left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N X_i -

1631: %      \E(X_1) \\ \left(\E(Y_1)-\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i\right) \Big/

1632: %      \E(Y_1) \end{array}\right) \\

1633: % &\qquad \stackrel{{\mathcal

1634: %   L}}{=} {\mathcal N}\left(

1635: % \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\0\end{array}\right),

1636: % \left[\begin{array}{cc}{\rm Var}(X_1) / \E(Y_1)^2 & - {\rm

1637: %       Covar}(X_1,Y_1)/ \E(Y_1)^3\\- {\rm

1638: %       Covar}(X_1,Y_1)/ \E(Y_1)^3 & {\rm Var}(Y_1) / \E(Y_1)^4

1639: %   \end{array}\right] \right).\label{eq:TCL2}

1640: % \end{align}

1641: % The result can now be deduced from~(\ref{eq:TCL1})--(\ref{eq:TCL2}) and the fact that $$N \, {\rm Var}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N X_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N

1642: %     Y_i} \right) = {\rm Var} \left( \sqrt{N} \left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N

1643: %       X_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N Y_i} - \frac{\E(X_1)}{\E(Y_1)}\right)\right).$$

1644: % \end{proof}

1645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1646: 

1647: \begin{figure}[ht]

1648: \begin{center}

1649: \psfrag{var EDMC(t)}{$\tilde{v}(t)$}

1650: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{var.eps}

1651: \caption{Variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,1,t / \delta t}(t)$ as a function of time $t$.}\label{Nreconf}

1652: \end{center}

1653: \end{figure}  

1654: 

1655:  \subsubsection{Comparison of the resampling algorithms}

1656: 

1657: \begin{figure}[ht]

1658: \begin{center}

1659: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1660:       \includegraphics[width=8cm]{methode2reconfiguration.eps} &

1661:       \includegraphics[width=8cm]{zoomSur2_4.eps}

1662: \end{tabular}

1663: \caption{Variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(t)$ as a

1664:   function of time $t$, for various resampling algorithms: Without =

1665:   without resampling, Mult = multinomial resampling, CMult = correlated

1666:   multinomial resampling, Res = residual resampling, Strat = stratified

1667:   resampling, StratRem = stratified remainder resampling, Syst = systematic resampling.}\label{fig:var_resamp}

1668:   \end{center}

1669: \end{figure}

1670: 

1671: We finally compare various resampling algorithms on

1672: Figure~\ref{fig:var_resamp}, where the variance of $E_{\rm DMC}^{N,\nu,T / (\nu \delta t)}(t)$ as a

1673:   function of time is represented. The numerical parameters are:

1674:   $N=1000$, $\dt=5.10^{-3}$, $\nu - 1 =20$, $\theta=2$ and 200

1675:   independent realizations.

1676: 

1677: We first observe on the figure on the

1678:   left that without any resampling, the variance of the results explodes

1679:   with increasing time. This shows the necessity to use resampling

1680:   algorithms. We compare the following resampling algorithms: multinomial resampling (which is (S1) with

1681:   $\epsilon_n=0$), correlated multinomial resampling (which is (S1) with

1682:   $\epsilon_n=1 / \max_{1\leq i\leq N}g(\xi_n^i)$), residual resampling

1683:   (which is (S2)), stratified resampling (which is (S3)),

1684:   stratified remainder resampling (which combines residual and

1685:   stratified resampling, see Remark~\ref{rem:SRR}) and

1686:   systematic resampling (which corresponds to stratified resampling with

1687:   $U^1_n= \ldots=U^N_n=U_n$, see the Introduction). We observe that, as

1688:   expected, when more correlation is introduced, the variance due to the

1689:   resampling is reduced. The multinomial resampling method is generally

1690:   the worse, while the best resampling methods seem to be systematic

1691:   resampling or stratified remainder resampling.

1692: 

1693: \section*{Conclusion}

1694: 

1695: In this paper, we have proved on a simple example convergence of

1696: numerical implementations of the DMC method with a fixed number of

1697: walkers. The theoretical rates of convergence are confirmed by

1698: numerical experiments and are likely to hold in more general situations. We

1699: have also checked numerically the existence of an optimal number of

1700: reconfiguration steps. Various resampling algorithms have been

1701: considered, both theoretically and numerically. For future work, we plan to investigate criteria

1702: devoted to the choice of the number of reconfiguration steps. One

1703: interesting direction is the use of automatic criteria based on a

1704: measure of the discrepancy between the weights carried by the walkers to

1705: decide when to perform a reconfiguration step.

1706: 

1707: % Future works: proof of \eqref{discretaurel}, reconfiguration en fonction de

1708: % discrepancy between weights, comparison with the continuous in time

1709: % version~\cite{Rousset}.

1710: \section*{Appendix : Simulation of the stochastic differential equation

1711:   \eqref{eds}}

1712: In this appendix, we show that it is possible to simulate exactly in law

1713: the $(K+1)$-plet

1714: $(X_0,X_{\dt},\hdots,X_{K \dt})$, where $X_t$ is defined by~(\ref{eds}). Let $(G,U)$ denote a couple of independent random variables with $G$

1715: normal and

1716: $U$ uniformly distributed on the interval $[0,1]$.

1717: \subsection*{Simulation of the increment $X_t-X_s$, for $t \geq s$.}

1718: The square $R_t$ of the norm of a $3$-dimensional Brownian motion $\uu{W}_t=\left(\uu{W}^1_t,\uu{W}^2_t,\uu{W}^3_t\right)$ solves

1719: $dR_t=3dt+2\sqrt{R_t}dB_t$ where $\ds{B_t=\int_0^t \frac{\uu{W}_s \cdot

1720:   d\uu{W}_s}{\|\uu{W}_s \|}}$ is a one-dimensional Brownian

1721: motion. Hence $\ds{\rho_t=\frac{R_t}{1+2\omega t}}$ solves

1722: \begin{equation}

1723:    d\rho_t=(3-2\omega \rho_t)\frac{dt}{1+2\omega

1724:   t}+2\sqrt{\rho_t}\frac{dB_t}{\sqrt{1+2\omega t}}.\label{sqbes}

1725: \end{equation}

1726: It is easy to check that $\left(\int_0^{\frac{1}{2\omega}(e^{2\omega

1727:   t}-1)}\frac{dB_s}{\sqrt{1+2\omega s}}\right)_t$ is a Brownian

1728:   motion. Hence, performing a time-change in \eqref{sqbes}, one obtains that $\rho_{\frac{1}{2\omega}(e^{2\omega

1729:   t}-1)}=e^{-2\omega t}R_{\frac{1}{2\omega}(e^{2\omega

1730:   t}-1)}$ is a weak solution of the equation $dY_t=(3-2\omega

1731:   Y_t)dt+2\sqrt{Y_t}\;dW_t$ satisfied by $Y_t=X_t^2$. Therefore $e^{-\omega t}\sqrt{R_{\frac{1}{2\omega}(e^{2\omega

1732:   t}-1)}}$ is a weak solution of \eqref{eds}.\\

1733: For $v\geq u$, $R_v$ has the same distribution as $\left(\sqrt{R_u}

1734:   +\uu{W}^1_v -\uu{W}^1_u  \right)^2 + (\uu{W}^2_v -\uu{W}^2_u)^2 +

1735: (\uu{W}^3_v -\uu{W}^3_u)^2$, and therefore as

1736:   $(\sqrt{R_u}+G\sqrt{v-u})^2-2(v-u)\log(U)$ with

1737:   $(G,U)$ independent from $R_u$. Hence for $t\geq s$, $X_{t}$ has the same

1738:   distribution as

1739: \begin{align*}&\left(e^{-2\omega t}\left(\left(e^{\omega

1740:       s}X_s+\frac{G}{\sqrt{2\omega}}(e^{2\omega t}-e^{2\omega

1741:       s})^{1/2}\right)^2-2\frac{1}{2\omega}(e^{2\omega t}-e^{2\omega

1742:       s})\log(U)\right)\right)^{1/2}\\

1743: &=\left(\left(e^{-\omega

1744:       (t-s)}X_s+\frac{G}{\sqrt{2\omega}}(1-e^{-2\omega(t-s)})^{1/2}\right)^2-\frac{1}{\omega}(1-e^{-2\omega

1745:       (t-s)})\log(U)\right)^{1/2}\end{align*}

1746: where the couple $(G,U)$ is

1747:       independent from $X_s$.

1748: \subsection*{Simulation of $X_0$ with distribution $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$.}

1749: The random variable

1750: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega}}\left(G^2-2\log(U)\right)^{1/2}$ is

1751: distributed according to the invariant measure

1752: $2\psi_I^2(x)1_{\{x>0\}}dx$, as suggested by letting the time increment $t-s$ tend to $+\infty$ in the previous

1753: simulation. Indeed, $G^2-2\log(U)$ is a Gamma random

1754: variable with density $\frac{1}{2^{3/2}\Gamma(3/2)}1_{\{z>0\}}

1755: \sqrt{z}e^{-z/2}$. And one deduces the

1756: density of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega}}\left(G^2-2\log(U)\right)^{1/2}$ by an easy change of variables.

1757: 

1758: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1759: 

1760:    \bibitem{Alfonsi} A. Alfonsi, {\em  On the discretization schemes for

1761:     the CIR (and Bessel squared) processes}, Monte Carlo Methods

1762:   Appl. 11(4), 355--384, (2005).

1763: 

1764: \bibitem{Caffarel} R. Assaraf, M. Caffarel and A. Khelif, {\em Diffusion

1765:     Monte Carlo with a fixed number of walkers}, Phys. Rev. E 61,

1766:   4566--4575, (2000). 

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{CJL} E. Cancès, B. Jourdain and T. Lelièvre, {\em Quantum Monte

1769:     Carlo simulations of fermions. A mathematical analysis of the

1770:     fixed-node approximation}, Mathematical Models and Methods in

1771:   Applied Sciences 16(9), 1403--1440, (2006).

1772: 

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{handbook} E.  Canc\`es, M. Defranceschi, 

1775: W. Kutzelnigg, C. Le Bris, and Y. Maday,  {\em Computational Quantum 

1776:   Chemistry: a Primer}, in: Handbook of 

1777: Numerical Analysis, Special volume, Computational Chemistry, volume X, 

1778:  Ph. G. Ciarlet and C. Le Bris (eds), 

1779:  North-Holland, 3--270, (2003). 

1780: 

1781: \bibitem{CDM05} O. Cappé, R. Douc and E. Moulines, {\it Comparison of Resampling Schemes for Particle Filtering}, In 4th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA), Zagreb, Croatia, (2005).

1782:   

1783: \bibitem{C04} N. Chopin, {\em Central limit theorem for sequential Monte Carlo

1784: methods and its application to Bayesian inference}, Ann.

1785: Statist. 32(6), 2385--2411, (2004).

1786: 

1787: \bibitem{Delmoral} P. Del Moral, {\em Feynman-Kac Formulae :

1788:     Genealogical and Interacting Particle Systems with Applications},

1789:     Springer-Verlag (2004).

1790: 

1791: \bibitem{DD04} P. Del Moral and A. Doucet, {\em Particle motions in

1792:     absorbing medium with hard and soft obstacles}, Stochastic

1793:   Anal. Appl. 22(5), 1175--1207, (2004).

1794: 

1795: \bibitem{Delmoralmiclo} P. Del Moral and L. Miclo, {\em

1796:     Branching and Interacting Particle Systems. Approximation of

1797:     Feynman-Kac Formulae with Applications to Non-Linear Filtering}, in

1798:     S\'eminaire de Probabilit\'es XXXIV, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1729,

1799:     1--145, Springer-Verlag (2000).

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{DM03} P. Del Moral and L. Miclo, {\em Particle approximations

1802:     of {L}yapunov exponents connected to {S}chr\"odinger operators and

1803:     {F}eynman-{K}ac semigroups}, ESAIM Probab. Stat. 7, 171--208, (2003).

1804: 

1805: \bibitem{Glasserman} P. Glasserman, {\em Monte Carlo methods in

1806:   financial engineering}, Springer-Verlag (2004).

1807: 

1808: \bibitem{H84} J. H. Hetherington, {\em Observations on the statistical

1809:     iteration of matrices}, Phys. Rev. A 30(5), 2713--2719, (1984).

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{RCAL82}  P.J. Reynolds, D.M. Ceperley, B.J. Alder and

1812:   W.A. Lester,  {\em Fixed-node quantum Monte Carlo for molecules},

1813:   J. Chem. Phys. 77(11), 5593--5603, (1982).

1814:  

1815: \bibitem{Rousset} M. Rousset, {\em On the Control of an Interacting

1816:     Particle Approximation of Schr\"odinger Groundstates},

1817: SIAM J. Math. Anal., 38(3), 824--844, (2006).

1818: 

1819: 

1820: \bibitem{Sorella} S. Sorella, {\em Green Function Monte Carlo with

1821:     Stochastic Reconfiguration}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(20), 4558--4561,

1822:   (1998).

1823: 

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{Talay-Tubaro} D. Talay and L. Tubaro, {\em Expansion of the

1826:     global error for numerical schemes solving stochastic differential

1827:     equations}, Stochastic Analysis and Applications 8(4), 94--120, (1990).

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{Umrigar} C.J. Umrigar, M.P. Nightingale and K.J. Runge, {\em A

1830:     Diffusion Monte Carlo algorithm with very small time-step errors},

1831:   J. Chem. Phys. 99(4), 2865--2890, (1993).

1832: 

1833: \end{thebibliography}

1834: \end{document}

1835: 

1836: