Abstract
A function \(f=f_T\) is called least energy approximation to a function B on the interval [0, T] with penalty Q if it solves the variational problem
For quadratic penalty, the least energy approximation can be found explicitly. If B is a random process with stationary increments, then on large intervals, \(f_T\) also is close to a process of the same class, and the relation between the corresponding spectral measures can be found. We show that in a long run (when \(T\rightarrow \infty \)), the expectation of energy of optimal approximation per unit of time converges to some limit which we compute explicitly. For Gaussian and Lévy processes, we complete this result with almost sure and \(L^1\) convergence. As an example, the asymptotic expression of approximation energy is found for fractional Brownian motion.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Least energy approximations play important role both in pure and in applied mathematics. The most important approximation of this kind is known under the name of taut string.
Given a target function \(B(\cdot )\) and a nonnegative width function \(r(\cdot )\) defined on a time interval [0, T], the taut string is a function \(f_T\) providing minimum for the energy functional
among all absolutely continuous functions h with given starting and final values and satisfying
The same function optimizes (under the same restrictions) the graph length \(\int _0^T \sqrt{1+h'(t)^2} \mathrm{d}t\), variation \(\int _0^T |h'(t)| \mathrm{d}t\), and other functionals represented as integrals of a convex function of \(h'\).
Taut string is a classical object well known in variational calculus, in mathematical statistics, see [1, 6], and in a broad range of applications such as image processing, see [11, Chapter 4, Subsection 4.4] or communication theory, see [12].
For the case when a random function \(B(\cdot )\) is approximated, very few information is available. Lifshits and Setterqvist studied in [5] the energy of taut string accompanying Wiener process.
Unfortunately, the taut string is rather hard to describe and to compute explicitly. Therefore, the study of other least energy approximations makes sense. One possible alternative is to replace the rigid boundary restrictions by introducing some penalty function that controls the deviation from the target function.
A function \(f=f_T\) is called least energy approximation to a function B on the interval [0, T] with penalty Q, if it solves the variational problem
Notice that this approach is very much in the spirit of interpolation theory from functional analysis. The classical taut string can be formally included in this setting by using time-inhomogeneous penalty
One of the most natural choices for penalty is the quadratic penalty \(Q(y)=y^2\) where one can advance sufficiently far with explicit calculations.
For quadratic penalty, the least energy approximation can be found explicitly. We study its behavior in a long run (when \(T\rightarrow \infty \)) and show that under weak assumption on B, it converges to some limit with exponential rate.
In Sect. 2, we provide necessary exact and asymptotic formulas for the least energy approximation of a deterministic function. In Sect. 3, the central results of the article related to the approximation of a random process with stationary increments are obtained. If B is a random process with stationary increments, then on large intervals, its least energy approximation (cf. Fig. 1) also is close to a process of the same class, and the relation between the corresponding spectral measures can be found. We show that in a long run (when \(T\rightarrow \infty \)), the expectation of energy of optimal approximation per unit of time converges to some limit. For Gaussian and Lévy processes, we complete this result with almost sure and \(L^1\) convergence. As an example, the asymptotic expression of approximation energy is found for fractional Brownian motion. In view of the importance of Wiener process, we propose an alternative approach to its least energy approximation in Sect. 4.
Finally, we wish to notice that our results can be considered as a complement to those of traditional stochastic control theory, where the best approximating function is chosen among the adapted ones, i.e., its value at time t must be determined by the values of the target function \(B(s), s\le t\). Adaptive approach is more realistic, but it leads to the problems solvable mainly for Markov target processes (see, e.g., [4, 5], for the least energy approximation of Wiener process). One may consider our results as the lower bounds for the least energy achievable by adaptive control in case it is unknown, or as the evaluation of price to be paid for not knowing the future, in case when both optimal adaptive and non-adaptive least energy approximations are known.
2 Least Energy Approximation: Deterministic Setting
2.1 Approximation on a Fixed Interval
The following variational problem (which is our starting point) and its solution are quite standard facts from variational calculus. We provide the proof for the sake of completeness but postpone it to the end of the article.
Let \(B(\cdot )\) be a fixed deterministic function on an interval [0, T]. In this section, we deal with minimization problem of the functional
over the Sobolev space \({\mathbb W}_{2}^{1}[0,T]\) of all absolutely continuous functions \(f:[0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) having square integrable derivative. Here, \(Q(\cdot )\) is an appropriate penalty function.
Proposition 2.1
Let \(B(\cdot )\) be a measurable function on [0, T], and let \(Q(\cdot )\) be a strictly convex nonnegative differentiable function on \(\mathbb {R}\) such that
Assume that either B is bounded or for some \(A>0, p\ge 0\), it is true that \(B\in L_{p+1}[0,T]\) and
Then, there exists a unique solution \(f_T\) of the problem
This solution has absolutely continuous first derivative \(f_T'(\cdot )\) and satisfies the equation
and the boundary conditions \((f_T)_+'(0)=(f_T)_-'(T)=0\).
Remark 2.2
In the following, we will apply this proposition to random functions B that are not necessarily bounded but belong to \(L_2[0,T]\) almost surely. Therefore, assumption (1) is adequate.
For the rest of the paper, we restrict attention to the quadratic penalty \(Q(y)=y^2\) because in this case, we are able to obtain explicit and quite meaningful results.
Proposition 2.3
Let \(B\in L_2[0,T]\). The solution of the minimization problem with quadratic penalty
is given for \(0\le t\le T\) by
Moreover, for \(0< t<T\), we have
Proof
From Proposition 2.1, we know that the minimizer \(f_T\) exists uniquely and solves the differential equation
with boundary conditions
The general form of the solution for linear equation (5) without boundary conditions is
where \(f_*\) is any fixed solution of (5).
Let us check that
indeed provides a solution of (5). Elementary calculation shows that
and
and we see that (5) holds.
Next, we adjust the coefficients \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) by using boundary conditions and (6). It follows that
and we arrive at formulas (3) and (4). \(\square \)
2.2 Approximation in a Long Run
We are going now to study the behavior of the least energy approximation in a long run, i.e., when the subject of approximation, function \(B(\cdot )\), is fixed while the interval length T goes to infinity.
In view of future applications, it will be more convenient for us to let \(B(\cdot )\) be defined on the entire real line. Although approximation problem involves only the restriction of B on the positive half-line, if necessary, one can always extend B to the negative half-line by assigning to B zero values there.
Recall that the function \(f_T(\cdot )\) defined by formula (3) provides the least energy approximation to \(B(\cdot )\) on the interval [0, T].
We first derive a simple approximative heuristics for \(f_T\) and then transform this heuristics into a rigorous result.
2.2.1 Heuristics
We will simplify the expressions for (3) and (4) as follows. Assume that \(t,T,T-t,T-s\rightarrow +\infty \) and drop all small exponential terms \(e^{-t}, e^{-T}, e^{-(T-t)}, e^{-(T-s)}\) where appropriate.
In particular, we let
By plugging this into (3) and (4), we get
Similarly,
Assuming that the function \(B(\cdot )\) is defined on entire \(\mathbb {R}\), it is more natural to use approximations based on “stationary” kernels, i.e., \(f_T(t) \approx {\widehat{f}}(t)\) and \(f_T'(t) \approx {\widehat{f}}\,'(t)\), where
and
Notice that the approximations \({\widehat{f}}\) and \({\widehat{f}}\,'\) do not depend on T. This shows a local nature of the least energy approximation in a long run.
2.2.2 Rigorous Result
The following result shows that the least energy approximation is exponentially close to its stationary approximation at the bulk values of time.
Proposition 2.4
Assume that
for some \(C,p>0\). Let \(f_T\) be the least energy approximation given by (3), and let approximation \({\widehat{f}}\) be given by (7).
Then, for all \(T\ge 1\) and all \(t\in [0,T]\), we have
and
where a constant \(A_p\) depends only on p.
Remark 2.5
Since we are tempted by maximal generality in what concerns B, we will not use this proposition directly in the stochastic part of the article because of the weak but still a bit restrictive assumption (9). Instead, we will use the elements of its proof later on.
Proof of Proposition 2.4
Using the definitions (3) and (7), we see that
where
and
By (9), we have
and
In order to evaluate \(I_2\), notice that
where \(h_1:=e^{-2(T-s)}, h_2:=e^{-2t}, h_3:=e^{-2T}\). Notice that assumption \(T\ge 1\) yields \(0\le h_3\le \tfrac{1}{2}\). Therefore, we have
Furthermore, inequalities \(0\le h_1\le 1, 0\le h_2\le 1, 0\le h_3\le \tfrac{1}{2}\) yield
We infer that
It follows that
where
By combining all estimates, we obtain (10).
The proof of (11) is completely similar. One should use the function
instead of \(K_T(s,t)\). Then, (12) is replaced by
and all calculations go in the same way. \(\square \)
Once the proposition is proved, we have straightforward integral estimates. Let \(||\cdot ||_{2,T}\) denote the norm in the space \(L_2[0,T]\).
Corollary 2.6
Under assumptions of Proposition 2.1, we have
and
Proof
We have
where at the last step we used assumption \(T\ge 1\).
The proof of (14) is completely similar. \(\square \)
3 Application to Processes with Stationary Increments
3.1 A Brief Reminder on the Processes with Stationary Increments
A complex-valued random process \(B(t),t\in \mathbb {R}\), is called process with stationary increments in the wide sense if it has finite second moments, and the mean and the covariance of the process \(B_{t_0}(t):= B(t_0+t)-B(t_0)\) are the same for all \(t_0\in \mathbb {R}\). If such process is stochastically continuous, then it admits a spectral representation of the form
where \(B_0, D_0\) are random variables with finite second moment, and \(X(\mathrm{d}u)\) is a complex-valued zero mean uncorrelated random measure on \(\mathbb {R}\backslash \{0\}\), uncorrelated with \(D_0\), see [13].
Actually, the initial value \(B_0\) is irrelevant to our purposes. Indeed, if \(f(\cdot )\) is an optimal approximation to \(B(\cdot )-B_0\), then \(f(\cdot )+B_0\) is an optimal approximation to \(B(\cdot )\) with the same energy. Therefore, in the following, we assume \(B_0=0\).
Recall that the covariance structure of B is characterized by a deterministic spectral measure \(\mu _B\) on \(\mathbb {R}\backslash \{0\}\) defined by \(\mu _B(A):=\mathbb {E}\,|X(A)|^2\). The spectral measure may be infinite but it must satisfy Lévy’s integrability condition
In the sequel, \(B(t), t\in \mathbb {R}\), denotes a stochastically continuous, real-valued process with stationary increments in the wide sense such that \(B(0)=0\). We always work with a measurable version of B. Let us stress that even though B is a real-valued process, the random measure X may be complex; yet, it must satisfy condition \(X(-A)=\overline{X(A)}\).
The standard deviation of B grows at most linearly. We will use the following estimate:
where
It follows that for any \(T>0\)
therefore \(B\in L_2[0,T]\) almost surely, and Proposition 2.1 applies to the sample paths of B with \(p=1\).
If we additionally assume that the random measure X is Gaussian, then the process B is also Gaussian. Fractional Brownian motions \(W^{(H)}(t), 0<H\le 1\), are the most known Gaussian processes with stationary increments. The range of parameter \(0<H<1\) is associated with the family of spectral measures
with \(D_0=0\). Here and elsewhere, \(\Gamma (\cdot )\) stands for the classical gamma function. We have a power-type variance
The case \(H=1\) is degenerate linear, i.e., \(W^{(1)}(t)=D_0 t\), with \(D_0\) being a standard Gaussian random variable. The remarkable properties of fractional Brownian motions are described, e.g., in [10, Section 7.2] and in [2, Chapter 4].
Wiener process W is a special case of fractional Brownian motion corresponding to \(H=\tfrac{1}{2}\). It has a spectral measure \(\mu _W(\mathrm{d}u)= \tfrac{\mathrm{d}u}{2\pi |u|^2}\).
3.2 Convergence of Average Least Energy
The following result describes the behavior of the average least energy approximation for arbitrary process with (wide sense) stationary increments. We call
the energy of function f with respect to B on the interval [0, T]. If the function B is fixed, we omit it from the notation.
Theorem 3.1
Let \(B(t), t\in \mathbb {R}\), be a stochastically continuous process with wide sense stationary increments given by its spectral representation (15). Recall that \(f_T\) denotes the minimizer of \({\mathcal E}_T(f,B)\) over all \(f\in {\mathbb W}_{2}^{1}[0,T]\). Then,
where
The constant \({\mathcal C}\) means the smallest average amount of energy per unit of time needed for approximation of B.
Corollary 3.2
For the fractional Brownian motion, we have
For the Wiener process \(H=\tfrac{1}{2}\), this yields the constant
that can be also obtained by other method (see Sect. 4 below).
Remark 3.3
We can give an alternative non-spectral representation for the constant \({\mathcal C}\), namely
Indeed,
Remark 3.4
Would we introduce a viscosity constant \(\kappa >0\), i.e., change the penalty to \(Q(y)=\kappa ^2 y^2\), by a linear time change the minimal energy approximation problem on [0, T] for B reduces to that for the process \(\widetilde{B}(t):= B(t/\kappa )\) on the interval \([0,\kappa T]\) with \(\kappa =1\). Thus, the limit energy constant from (18) becomes
in this case.
Remark 3.5
It is worthwhile to compare the least energy approximation constant for Wiener process (19) with analogous result of adaptive control; see [4, p. 319]. It turns out that the optimal adaptive control requires two times more energy than the non-adaptive one.
Proof of Theorem 3.1
Consider approximations (7) and (8) related to B. They become
and
where we have expressions for respective kernels
and
We conclude that
and
We see that both deviation \({\widehat{f}}-B\) and derivative \({\widehat{f}}\,'\) are wide sense stationary processes. By the well-known isometric property, we have
and
Hence, for any \(T>0\), we have
It remains to show that the average energy of the least energy approximation \(f_T\) and that of stationary approximation \({\widehat{f}}\) are sufficiently close, i.e.,
To this aim, consider two elements of \(L_2\left( [0,T],\mathbb {R}^2\right) \),
By the triangle inequality, we have
Notice that the algebraic identity
yields
Hence,
and by Hölder inequality
We see that
would imply the desired relation (21).
We first analyze the potential energy and prove that
The part concerning \({\widehat{f}}\) is trivial because \({\widehat{f}}-B\) is stationary. Furthermore, let us represent
where for \(s\in [t,T]\), we have by (12)
while for \(s\in [0,t]\), we have
Hence,
with A from (16), and (24) follows. By using also (25), we obtain
This estimate is still too crude, and we continue as follows.
For \(G_1\), we have
For \(G_3\), we have
This estimate is not good enough when t is close to T. This is why we need (26). For \(G_2\), we have by (12)
where
Moreover,
We summarize the latter calculations as
Now, we proceed with integration over [0, T]. By applying (27) on the interval \([0,T-3\ln T]\) and (26) on the interval \([T-3\ln T,T]\), we obtain
Kinetic energy is studied in the same fashion. By using (13) instead of (12), we replace (24), (25) with
Hence (26) may be replaced by
Further, using again (13), we replace (27) with
Integration yields
By merging (28) and (29), we get
which is a quantitative version of the remaining relation (23). \(\square \)
3.3 Almost Sure and \(L_1\) Convergence
The random variable
is a right candidate for the a.s. least energy limit. Notice that if B has no systematic drift (i.e., \(D_0=0\)), then \(Z={\mathcal C}\) is a deterministic constant.
We first develop a reduction tool showing that almost sure and \(L_1\) convergence of the least approximation energy are reduced to the stationary case.
Proposition 3.6
If \( T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T({\widehat{f}},B) \ {\buildrel \hbox {a.s. }\over \rightarrow }\ Z\), then \( T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T(f_T,B) \ {\buildrel \hbox {a.s. }\over \rightarrow }\ Z\).
If \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T({\widehat{f}},B) \ {\buildrel L_1 \over \rightarrow }\ Z\), then \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T(f_T,B) \ {\buildrel L_1 \over \rightarrow }\ Z\).
Proof
We know from (22) and (30) that for any T
Let us fix any \(a>1\) and consider geometric sequence of times \(T_n:= a^n\). It follows from (31) that
Therefore,
almost surely and in \(L_1\). Under assumptions of our proposition, we obtain
almost surely (respectively, in \(L_1\)).
Furthermore, since the least approximation energy \( {\mathcal E}_T (f_T,B) \) is an increasing function of T, we have for any \(T\in [T_n,T_{n+1}]\)
Now, the a.s. convergence (respectively, \(L_1\)-convergence) of \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_{T} (f_{T},B)\) to Z follows from that of \(T_n^{-1} {\mathcal E}_{T_n} (f_{T_n},B)\) by letting \(a \searrow 1\). \(\square \)
Proposition 3.7
If the process B is Gaussian and its spectral measure \(\mu _B\) has no atoms, then \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T(f_T,B) \rightarrow Z\) in \(L_1\) and almost surely, as \(T\rightarrow \infty \).
Proof
According to Proposition 3.6, it is sufficient to prove that
in \(L_1\) and almost surely. We may split the energy into potential and kinetic parts and check that
and
Recall that by (20), we have a representation
where Y is a centered stationary Gaussian process with the spectral measure
It follows that
Recall that Gaussian stationary processes whose spectral measure has no atoms are ergodic, see [3, 7]. Since both \(B(t)-{\widehat{f}}(t)\) and Y(t) belong to this class, we may use Birkhoff ergodic theorem and obtain convergence of time averages to the corresponding expectations in any \(L_p, p\in (1,\infty )\), and almost surely, i.e.,
and we are done. \(\square \)
Another interesting class of examples where we can provide an affirmative answer for the least energy convergence is given by Lévy processes (i.e., processes with independent stationary increments).
Proposition 3.8
Let \(B(t), t\ge 0\), be Lévy process having finite second moments. Then, \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T(f_T,B) \ {\buildrel L_1 \over \rightarrow }\ Z\), and \(T^{-1} {\mathcal E}_T(f_T,B) \ {\buildrel \hbox {a.s. }\over \rightarrow }\ Z\), as \(T\rightarrow \infty \), where
Proof
Without loss of generality, we may extend B to the negative half-axis in such a way that \(-B(-t), t\le 0\), is an independent equidistributed copy of \(B(t), t\ge 0\). Looking at B as a process with stationary increments in the wide sense, we see that its linear part \(D_0 t\) is deterministic, and \(\mathbb {E}\,B(t)= D_0 t\), while the spectral measure \(\mu _B\) is the same as that of Wiener process up to the numerical factor \({{\mathrm{Var}}}B(1)\). It follows that the hypothetic energy limit Z indeed has the form given in proposition.
Given the two-sided process \(B(t), t\in \mathbb {R}\), we may define an associated Lévy noise (an independently scattered homogeneous random measure) \(X(\mathrm{d}u)\) on \(\mathbb {R}\) by
Elementary calculations show that
and
Both processes belong to the class of Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes driven by Lévy noise. As such, they are ergodic, cf. [8, Theorem 5], [9], and their squares satisfy almost sure and \(L_1\) ergodic theorems. By applying Proposition 3.6, we complete the proof. \(\square \)
Remark 3.9
There exist strong invariance principles providing certain closeness between sample paths of a Wiener process and a Lévy process. However, they do not seem to be good enough for the transfer of least energy approximation estimates.
We conclude this series of examples by mentioning an interesting open problem. Let \(B(t),t\ge 0\), be an \(\alpha \)-stable Lévy process with \(0<\alpha <2\). Then, the sample paths of B are locally bounded; thus, the least energy approximation problem is perfectly meaningful. However, since B(t) has infinite second moment for any \(t>0\), the results of the present paper do not apply. We conjecture that in this case, the least approximation energy would not grow in a quasi-deterministic linear way, but rather imitate a stable subordinator of order \(\alpha /2\) with scaling \(T^{2/\alpha }\) because every jump of B of large size r would be reflected by a fast accumulation of energy for approximation function of size \(r^2\) during a finite time interval. The handling of such different behavior would be obviously beyond the size of the present contribution.
4 Wiener Process: Alternative Approach
In view of the importance of the Wiener process \(W:=W^{(1/2)}\), we find it reasonable to trace an alternative approach to its least energy approximation. We prove that
as obtained before in (19). By the scaling property of the Wiener process, the optimization problem
is equivalent to the problem
Let \((e_j)_{j\ge 1}\) be the eigenbase of the covariance operator of W in \(L_2[0,1]\), and let \((\gamma _j)_{j\ge 1}\) be the corresponding eigenvalues. It is well known that
Denoting by \(w_1, w_2,\ldots \) independent Gaussian random variables with \(\mathbb {E}\,w_j=0\) and \({{\mathrm{Var}}}w_j = \gamma _j\), we have the Karhunen–Loève expansion of the Wiener process
For any absolutely continuous function f having square integrable derivative, we may write expansions
and
Since the system of functions \(( \gamma _j^{1/2} e'_j)_{j\ge 1}\) is orthonormal, we have
It follows that the problem (33) takes a coordinate form
where
We first optimize over initial value f(0) with other coordinates \(f_j\) fixed and find \(f(0)=-S\). Now, the optimization problem becomes
Since partial derivatives in each \(f_j\) must vanish, we find
It follows that
We plug these expressions into (36), notice that the terms containing \(S w_j\) cancel and obtain the least approximation energy
By using the identity
we may rewrite the least energy as
Recall that \(\mathbb {E}\,w_j^2= \gamma _j\). We find the average least energy
Since
and, as we will see,
we arrive at (32).
It remains to analyze the behavior of S. By using the definition of S in (35) and formulae (37), we get an equation
Solving it in S, we get
with
Notice that A(T) is a centered normal random variable with variance
and for the non-random denominator D(T) by using (38) and (39), we have
Now, (40) is confirmed, and we are done.
5 Addendum: Proof of Proposition 2.1
Proof of Proposition 2.1
We first notice that
Indeed, if \(B(\cdot )\) is bounded, then \(Q(-B(\cdot ))\) is bounded. If (1) holds, then we have
with \(\widetilde{A} := 2A+Q(0)\). Hence, if \(B\in L_{p+1}[0,T]\), then
Second, we show that we may restrict the minimization in (2) on a subclass
with sufficiently large parameters C and M. To justify this statement, it is sufficient to show that for each \(r>0\), there exists C, M such that
Let f be such that \({\mathcal E}_T(f) \le r\). Then,
and we may let \(C:=r\). Moreover, for any \(0\le s,t\le T\), we have \(|f(s)-f(t)|\le \sqrt{rT}\) by using Hölder inequality. Therefore, if \(|f(s)|\ge M\) holds for some \(s\in [0,T]\), then \(|f(t)|\ge M- \sqrt{rT}\) for all \(t\in [0,T]\). We see that
When M goes to infinity, then the first term tends to T, while the second tends to infinity due to the assumption \(\lim _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }Q(x)=+\infty \). Therefore, for large M, we obtain a contradiction. Hence, for such M assumption \(|f(s)|\ge M\) cannot hold, and (41) is confirmed.
Next, we show that the minimum of the problem (2) is attained. Since the functional \({\mathcal E}_T(\cdot )\) is lower semi-continuous with respect to the uniform convergence (notice that the potential part of the energy is even continuous), and since \({\mathbb W}_{C,M}\) is relatively compact with respect to the topology of uniform convergence, the minimum of \({\mathcal E}_T(\cdot )\) on \({\mathbb W}_{C,M}\) is indeed attained on some set of minimizers.
Next, since \(Q(\cdot )\) is strictly convex, the functional \({\mathcal E}_T(\cdot )\) is also strictly convex; hence, the minimizer is unique. Let us denote it \(f_T\).
By Lebesgue theorem, Gâteaux (directional) derivative of \({\mathcal E}_T(\cdot )\)
is well defined and must vanish at \(f_T\) for any \(\varepsilon \in {\mathbb W}_{2}^{1}[0,T]\). We have thus
To justify the application of Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem to the integrals
notice that both functions \(f_T\) and \(\varepsilon \) are bounded, say \(\max |f_T(t)|\le M_1, \max |\varepsilon (t)|\le M_2\). Thus, if the function \(B(\cdot )\) is bounded, say \(\max |B(t)|\le M_3\), then the integrand’s values are uniformly bounded by the constant \(M_2 \sup _{|x|\le M_1+M_2+M_3} |Q'(x)|\) for \(|h|\le 1\), and we use the fact that the derivative of a convex function (if it exists everywhere) is locally bounded.
Alternatively, if (1) holds, we have
which also provides an integrable majorant due to \(B\in L_p[0,T]\).
Let us fix some \(\tau \in (0,T]\) and apply (42) to the functions
with \(0<u<\tau \). We obtain
Now, we let \(u\searrow 0\) and see that the left derivative \((f_T)_-'(\tau )\) exists and
In exactly the same way, one obtains
Since \(f_T'(\cdot )\) exists almost everywhere, for some \(\tau \in (0,T)\), we have \((f_T)_-'(\tau )=(f_T)_+'(\tau )\), i.e.,
This fact in turn proves that \((f_T)_-'(\tau )=(f_T)_+'(\tau )\) for every \(\tau \in (0,T)\), i.e., the function \(f_T(\cdot )\) is differentiable everywhere, and we have
By (45), the boundary conditions \((f_T)_+'(0)=(f_T)_-'(T)=0\) also follow from representations (43) and (44). \(\square \)
6 Concluding Remark
Of course, one would like to handle the case of more or less general penalty functions Q. But in this case, the equation replacing (5) is not linear, and we do not know whether we may proceed with some, may be inexplicit, analogues of exponential functions. It would be also nice to guess a stationary approximation for least energy functions related to general penalty Q.
References
Davies, P.L., Kovac, A.: Local extremes, runs, strings and multiresolution. Ann. Stat. 29(1), 1–65 (2001)
Embrechts, P., Maejima, M.: Selfsimilar Processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2002)
Grenander, U.: Stochastic processes and statistical inference. Arkiv Mat. 1, 195–277 (1950)
Karatzas, I.: On a stochastic representation for the principal eigenvalue of a second order differential equation. Stochastics 3, 305–321 (1980)
Lifshits, M., Setterqvist, E.: Energy of taut string accompanying Wiener process. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 125, 401–427 (2015)
Mammen, E., van de Geer, S.: Locally adaptive regression splines. Ann. Stat. 25(1), 387–413 (1997)
Maruyama, G.: The harmonic analysis of stationary stochastic processes. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyusyu Univ. A4, 45–106 (1949)
Rosinski, J., Zak, T.: Simple conditions for mixing of infinitely divisible processes. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 61, 277–288 (1996)
Rosinski, J., Zak, T.: The equivalence of ergodicity and weak mixing for infinitely divisible processes. J. Theor. Probab. 10, 73–86 (1997)
Samorodnitsky, G., Taqqu, M.S.: Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes. Chapman & Hall, New York (1994)
Scherzer, O., et al.: Variational Methods in Imaging. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 167. Springer, New York (2009)
Setterqvist, E., Forchheimer, R.: Application of \(\varphi \)-stable sets to a buffered real-time communication system. In: Proceedings of the 10th Swedish National computer networking workshop (2014)
Yaglom, A.M.: An Introduction to the Theory of Stationary Random Functions. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1962). (revised English edition)
Acknowledgments
The work of Mikhail Lifshits was supported by Grants NSh.2504.2014.1, RFBR 13-01-00172, and SPbSU 6.38.672.2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kabluchko, Z., Lifshits, M. Least Energy Approximation for Processes with Stationary Increments. J Theor Probab 30, 268–296 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10959-015-0642-8
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10959-015-0642-8
Keywords
- Least energy approximation
- Gaussian process
- Lévy process
- Fractional Brownian motion
- Process with stationary increments
- Taut string
- Variational calculus