arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 11 Jan 2019

Transcription

1 Concentration inequalities for Stochastic Differential Equations with additive fractional noise Maylis Varvenne January 4, 9 arxiv:9.35v math.pr] Jan 9 Abstract In this paper, we establish concentration inequalities both for functionals of the whole solution on an interval, T ] of an additive SDE driven by a fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter H, and for functionals of discrete-time observations of this process. Then, we apply this general result to specific functionals related to discrete and continuous-time occupation measures of the process. Keywords: Concentration inequalities; Fractional Brownian Motion; Occupation measures; Stochastic Differential Equations. Introduction In this article, we consider the solution Y t t of the followingr d -valued Stochastic Differential Equation SDE with additive noise: Y t = x + t by s ds + σb t.. with B a d-dimensional fractional Brownian motion fbm with Hurst parameter H,. We are interested in questions of long-time concentration phenomenon of the law of the solution Y. A well known way to overcome this type of problem is to prove L -transportation inequalities. Let us precise what it means. Let E, d be a metric space equipped with a σ-field B such that the distance d is B B- measurable. Given p and two probability measures µ and ν on E, the Wasserstein distance is defined by W p µ, ν = inf Hν µ = dν dµ dx, y p dπx, y, where the infimum runs over all the probability measures π on E E with marginals µ and ν. The entropy of ν with respect to µ is defined by { log dν, if ν µ, + otherwise. Then, we say that µ satisfies an L p -transportation inequality with constant C noted µ T p C if for any probability measure ν, W p µ, ν CHν µ.. The concentration of measure is intrinsically linked to the above inequality when p =. This fact was first emphasized by K.Marton, ], M.Talagrand 6], Bobkov and Götze ] and amply investigated by M.Ledoux, 9]. Indeed, it can be shown see ] for a detailed proof that. for p = is actually Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, 8 route de Narbonne, 36 Toulouse, France. maylis.varvenne@math.univ-toulouse.fr

2 equivalent to the following: for any µ-integrable α-lipschitz function F real valued we have for all λ R, E exp λ FX EFX] exp Cα λ.3 with LX = µ. This upperbound naturally leads to concentration inequalities through the classical Markov inequality. For several years, L and L since T C implies T C transportation inequalities have then been widely studied and in particular for diffusion processes see for instance 5, 7, 7]. For SDE s driven by more general Gaussian processes, S.Riedel established transportation cost inequalities in 3] using Rough Path theory. However, his results do not give long-time concentration, which is our focus here. In the setting of fractional noise, T.Guendouzi 8] and B.Saussereau 5] have studied transportation inequalities with different metrics in the case where H /,. In particular, B.Saussereau gave an important contribution: he proved T C and T C for the law of Y t t,t ] in various settings and he got a result of large-time asymptotics in the case of a contractive drift. Our first motivation to this work was to get equivalent results in a discrete-time context, i.e. for LY k k n for a given step > and then long-time concentration inequalities for the occupation measure, i.e. for n n k= fy k where f is a general Lipschitz function real valued. Indeed, in a statistical framework we only have access to discrete-time observations of the process Y and such a result could be meaningful in such context. To the best of our knowledge, this type of result is unknown in the fractional setting. We first tried to adapt the methods used in 5] in several ways as for example: find a distance such that y t t,t ] y k k n is Lipschitz and prove T C with this metric. But the constants obtained in the L -transportation inequalities were not sharp enough, so that we couldn t deduce large-time asymptotic as B.Saussereau. In 5], H.Djellout, A.Guillin and L.Wu explored transportation inequalities in the diffusive case and both in a continuous and discrete-time setting. In particular, for the discrete-time case, they used a kind of tensorization of the L transportation inequality but the Markovian nature of the process was essential. However, they prove T C through its equivalent formulation.3 and to this end, they apply a decomposition of the functional in.3 into a sum of martingale increments, namely: FX EFX] = n EFX F k ] EFX F k ] k= with X = Y k k n and Y is the solution of. when B is the classical Brownian motion. This decomposition has inspired the approach described in this paper: instead of proving a transportation inequality, we prove a result of the type.3 by using a similar decomposition and the series expansion of the exponential function. Through this strategy, we prove several results under an assumption of contractivity on the drift term b in.. First, in a discrete-time setting, we work in the space R d n endowed with the L metric and we show that for any α-lipschitz functional F : R d n R and for any λ >, E exp λ FX EFX] C exp Cα λ n H with X = Y k k n. In a similar way, we consider the space of continuous functions C, T ],R d endowed with the L metric and we prove that for any α-lipschitz functional F : C, T ],R d R and for any λ >, E exp λ FX E F X] C exp Cα λ T H with X = Y t t,t ]. From these inequalities, we deduce some general concentration inequalities and large-time asymptotics for occupation measures. Let us note that these results are a bit weaker than transportation inequalities since we do not have a constant equal to behind the exponential function in the right hand term as in.3. However, we have no restriction on the Hurst parameter H and we retrieve the results given by B.Saussereau for H /, in a continuous setting and also the result given in 5] for H = /, namely for diffusion. The paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we describe the assumptions on the drift term and we state the general theorem about concentration, namely Theorem.. Then, in Subsection.3, we apply this result to specific functionals related to the occupation measures both in a discrete-time and

3 in a continuous-time framework. Section 3 outlines our strategy of proof which is fulfilled in Sections 4, 5 and 6. Setting and main results. Notations The usual scalar product on R d is denoted by, and. stands either for the Euclidean norm on R d or the absolute value on R. We denote by M d R the space of real matrices of size d d. For a given n N and x, y R d n R d n, we denote by dn the following L -distance: d n x, y := n x i y i.. k= Analogeously, for a given T > and x, y C, T ],R d C, T ],R d, we denote by d T the classical L -distance: d T x, y := T x t y t dt.. Let F : E, d E E, d E be a Lipschiz function between two metric spaces, we denote by its Lipschitz norm.. Assumptions and general result d E Fx, Fy F Lip := x y d E x, y Let B be a d-dimensional fractional Brownian motion fbm with Hurst parameter H, defined on Ω, F, P and transferred from a d-dimensional Brownian motion W through the Volterra representation see e.g. 4, ] with K H t, s := c H t H s H t R +, B t = t K H t, sdw s,.3 t s H H ] t u H 3 u s H s s H du..4 We consider the following R d -valued stochastic differential equation driven by B: Y t = x + t by s ds + σb t, t..5 Here x R d is a given initial condition, B is the aformentioned fractional Brownian motion and σ M d R. We are working under the following assumption : Hypothesis.. We have b CR d ;R d and there exist constants α, L > such that: i For every x, y R d, bx by, x y α x y. ii For every x, y R d, bx by L x y. Remark.. This contractivity assumption on the drift term is quite usual to get long-time concentration results see 5, 5] for instance. At this stage, a more general framework seems elusive. 3

4 Let T > and n N. Let F : R d n, d n R, and F : C, T ],R d, d T R, be two Lipschitz functions and set F Y := FY t,..., Y tn and FY = FY t t,t ].6 with < = t < < t n and t k+ t k = for a given >. We are now in position to state our results for general functionals F and F. First, we prove a result on the exponential moments of F Y and F Y which is crucial to get Theorem.. Proposition.. Let H, and >. Let n N, T and d n, d T respectively by. and.. Then, be the metrics defined i there exist C H, > such that for all Lipschitz function F : R d n, d n R, and for all λ >, E exp λf Y EF Y ]] C H, exp C H, F Lip λ n H..7 ii there exist C H > such that for all Lipschitz function F : C, T ],R d, d T R, and for all λ >, E exp λ F Y E F Y ] ] C H exp CH F Lip λ T H..8 From this result, we deduce the following concentration inequalities: Theorem.. Let H, and >. Let n N, T and d n, d T respectively by. and.. Then, be the metrics defined i there exist C H, > such that for all Lipschitz function F : R d n, d n R, and for all r, P F Y EF Y ] > r C H, exp r 4C H, F Lip nh..9 ii there exist C H > such that for all Lipschitz function F : C, T ],R d, d T R, and for all r, P FY E F Y ] > r C H exp r 4 C H F Lip T H.. Proof. We use Markov inequality and Proposition.. Then, we optimize in λ to get the result. Remark.. The dependency on the Lipschitz constant of F and F is essential since they depend on n and T. Hence, if they decrease fastest than n H and T H, we get large time concentration inequalities. In the following subsection, we outline our main application of Theorem. for which long time concentration holds..3 Long time concentration inequalities for occupation measures We now apply our general result to specific functionals to get the following theorem. Theorem.3. Let H, and >. Let n N and T. Then, i there exist C H, > such that for all Lipschitz function f : R d, R, and for all r, P n n fy tk EfY tk ] > r C H, exp r n H 4C H, f Lip k=.. 4

5 ii there exist C H > such that for all Lipschitz function f : R d, R, and for all r, T P fy t EfY t ]dt > r T C H exp r T H 4 C.. H f Lip Proof. We apply Theorem. with the following functions F and F: x R d n n, Fx = fx i n and x C, T ],R d, Fx = T k= T fx t dt which are respectively f Lip n -Lipschitz with respect to d n defined by. and f Lip T -Lipschitz with respect to d T defined by.. 3 Sketch of proof The proof of Proposition. is based on a control on every moment of the quantities F Y EF Y ] and F Y E F Y ]: Proposition 3.. Let >, n N and T. For all p, for all H,, i there exist C H,, ζ > E F Y EF Y ] p ] C H, F p Lip nph p p ζ pγ 3. ii there exist C H, ζ > E F Y E F Y ] p] C H F p Lip T ph p p ζ pγ 3. where Γx := + e u u x du. Remark 3.. The quantity ζ p pγ p is an upperbound on moments of Sub-Gaussian random variables: if a random variable Z is such that P Z > t Ce ζ t, then for all p, E Z p ] C ζ p pγ p. Proof of Proposition.. For the sake of conciseness, assume that F Lip =. Let us begin by i. With Propostion 3. i in hand, since EF Y EF Y ]] = we have the following inequality by using the series expansion of the exponential function: + λ p n ph p ζ pγ p + E exp λf Y EF Y ]] + C H, C H, λ p n ph p ζ pγ p + p! p! We set t = λ n H ζ, then + + p= t p pγ p p! p= + = + p= + = + p= + + t + + t t p pγ p p! t p Γ p + p! + p= t p p! p! + + p= p= t p+ p + Γ p + p +! + t p Γ p + + t p! p= e t since p! p!

6 Since for all t R, t et, we get t et e t e t which is equivalent to + + t e t e t, so that: Hence, we have in 3.3: + + p= t p pγ p p! e t. E exp λf Y EF Y ]] C H, λ exp n H ζ which concludes the proof of i. The proof of ii is exactly the same by using Propostion 3. ii. Remark 3.. The previous proof follows the proof of Lemma.5 in Chapter of 4]. We chose to give the details here since this step is crucial to get our main results. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are devoted to the proof of Proposition 3.. They correspond to three steps: decompose F Y and F Y into a sum of martingale increments, control all the moments of these increments and finally prove the proposition. Throughout the paper, constants may change from line to line. 4 Decomposition into a sum of martingale increments Recall that F Y and F Y are defined by.6. The key element to get the bound 3. and 3. is to decompose F Y and F Y in a sum of martingale increments as follows. Let F t t be the natural filtration associated to the standard Brownian motion W from which the fbm is derived through.3. For all k N, set M k := EF Y F tk ] EF Y ] and Mk := E F Y F k ] E F Y ]. 4. For the sake of clarity, we set = in the sequel, so that by.6 we have t k = k. When > is arbitrary, the arguments are the same, it sufficies to apply a rescaling. With these definitions, we have: F Y EF Y ] = M n = n M k M k and FY E F Y ] = M T = k= where T denotes the least integer greater than or equal to T. T k= M k M k 4. Through equation.5 and the fact that b is Lipschitz continuous, for all t, Y t can be seen as a functional of the time t, the initial condition x and the Brownian motion W s s,t]. Denote by Φ : R + R d CR +,R d R d this functional, we then have Now, let k, we have M k M k t, Y t := Φ t x, W s s,t]. 4.3 = EF Y F k ] EF Y F k ] = F Φ x, W,],..., Φk x, W,k], Φk+ x, W,k] w k,k+],..., Φn x, W,k] w k,n] Ω F Φ x, W,],..., Φk x, W,k ], Φk x, W,k ] w k,k],..., Φn x, W,k ] w PW k,n] d w n F Lip Φt x, W,k] w k,t] Φt x, W,k ] w PW k,t] d w. 4.4 Ω t=k 6

7 With exactly the same procedure, we get M k M k F Lip Ω T k Φt x, W,k] w k,t] Φt x, W,k ] w k,t] dt PW d w. 4.5 Let us introduce now some notations. First, for all t set u := t k +, then for all u, we define { Φu+k x, Ws X u := s,k] w s s k,u+k ] if u Φ u+k x, Ws s,u+k ] otherwise, and We then have and X u = X + X u =X + + σ X u := Φ u+k x, Ws s,k ] w s s k,u+k ]. bx s ds + σ k u+k k b X s ds + σ k k K H u + k, s K H k, sdw s K H u + k, sdw s + σ k u+k K H u + k, s K H k, sdw s + σ k K H u + k, sd w s 4.6 +k k K H u + k, sd w s. Remark 4.. Let us note that the integrals involving w in 4.6 and 4.7 and in the sequel have to be seen as Wiener integrals, so that they are defined P W d w almost surely. Since X = X = Φ k x, Ws s,k ], we deduce from 4.6 and 4.7 that for all u X u X u = = bx s b X s ds + σ bx s b X s ds + σ k u+k k u K H u + k, sdw w s 4.7 K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s 4.8 where we have set W s k s := W s+k W k s which is a Brownian motion independent from F k and w s k s := w s+k w k s. In the next section, we proceed to a control of the quantity X u X u. 5 Control of X u X u We have the following upperbound on X u X u : Proposition 5.. There exists C H > such that for all u > and k N, X u X u C H ΨH u, k W v k w v k + v,] v,/] where X u X u is defined in 4.8, Ψ H is defined by { Ψ H u, k := C H u H 3 if H, / k H u 4H 4 + u H 3 if H /, s H vs H 3 dw w s + G k v v,] 5. 7

8 with C H > and Gk is given by G k v = v In Subsections 5. and 5., we prove Proposition First case : u 5.. When k Lemma 5.. Let k. Then, for all u, K H v + k, s + k dw k w k s. X u X u e αu X X + Ψ H u, k W s k w s k s,] where Ψ H is defined in Proposition 5.. Proof. Let u. In the following inequalities, we make use of Hypothesis. on the function b and to the elementary Young inequality a, b ε a + ε b with ε = α. By 4.8, d du X u X u = X u X u, bx u b X u + X u X u, σ u K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s α X u X u + α X u X u + σ α u K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s α X u X u + σ α We then apply Gronwall s lemma to obtain X u X u e αu X X + σ α Now, we set for all v, ϕ k v := v K Hv+k, s+k dw k w k s = c H u K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s. e αu v v K Hv + k, s + k dw k w k s dv. 5. H v + k v s H 3 dw k w k s. s + k 5.3 We apply an integration by parts to ϕ k taking into account that W k = w k = : H v + k ϕ k v = c H v H 3 k W w k k c H / H c H 3/ H v + k H s + k H v s H 3 W k s H v + k v s H 5 W k s s + k w s k ds w s k ds =: c H I v + I v + I 3 v. 5.4 Recall that by 5., our goal here is to manage e αu v ϕ k v dv 3c H e αu v I v dv + e αu v I v dv + e αu v I 3 v dv 5.5 8

9 To control each term involving I, I and I 3 in 5.5, we will need the following inequality: e αu v k H v + k H v H 3 dv C H { k H u 4H 4 + u H 3 for H > / u H 3 for H < /. 5.6 Inequality 5.6 is obtained through Lemma 5. and the elementary inequalities v + k H v H + k H if H > / and v + k H k H if H < /. Lemma 5.. Let α, β >. Then, for all u, e αu v v β dv C α,β u β. Proof. It is enough to apply an integration by parts and then use that e αu v v β = max e αu, u β v,u] to conclude the proof. It remains to show how the terms involving I, I and I 3 in 5.5 can be reduced to the term 5.6. Let us begin with I which is straightforward: e αu v I v dv W k w k W s k s,] Then, using the definition of I, Finally, e αu v I v dv w k s e αu v k H v + k H v H 3 dv e αu v k H v + k H v H 3 dv. 5.7 / H e αu v v + k H v H 3 k H C H W s k s,] e αu v I 3 v dv w k s W k s w k s ds dv e αu v k H v + k H v H 3 dv / H e αu v v + k H v H 5 s + k H W s k C H C H W s k s,] W s k s,] w k s w k s w k s ds dv e αu v v + k H v H 3 s + k ds H dv e αu v k H v + k H v H 3 dv 5.9 where the last inequality is given by the following fact: there exists C H > such that for all k, s + k H C H k H. s,] 9

10 It remains to combine the three above inequalities 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 with 5.6 to get the following in 5.5: e αu v ϕ k v dv C H s,] { k W s k w s k H u 4H 4 + u H 3 for H > / u H 3 for H < /. Putting this inequality into 5. gives the result we can replace u by u, the inequality remains true when u up to a constant. 5.. When k = Lemma 5.3. Let k =. Then, for all u, X u X u e αu X X + Ψ H u, where Ψ H is defined in Proposition 5.. v,/] s H vs H 3 d W w s Proof. The proof begins as in the proof of Lemma 5.. We have through inequality 5.: with Since for v, v H X u X u e αu X X + σ α ϕ v = c H v H = c H v H v H 3 s H v s H 3 dw w s s H s v is bounded when H < /, we have e αu v ϕ v dv 5. H 3 dw w s. 5. e αu v ϕ v dv c H e αu v v 4H 4 H 3 s H s H 3 dw w s dv v C H s H v s H 3 dw w s e αu v v 4H 4 H 3 dv. v,/] Then, we use Lemma 5. in the previous inequality, which gives: e αu v ϕ v dv C H s H v s H 3 dw w s u 4H 4 H 3. v,/] This inequality combined with 5. concludes the proof we can replace u by u, the inequality remains true when u up to a constant. 5. Second case : u, ] The idea here is to use Gronwall lemma in its integral form. By Hypothesis., b is L-Lipschitz so that: X u X u L X s X u s ds + K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s. Then, for u, ], X u X u u e L K H u + k, s + k dw k w k s + v,] v v K H v + k, s + k dw k w k s e Lu v dv K H v + k, s + k dw k w k s 5.

11 For all k and for all v, ], we set G k v W w = v K H v + k, s + k dw k w k s. 5.3 The inequality 5. combined with Lemma 5. and Lemma 5.3 finally prove Proposition Moments of F Y EF Y ] and F Y E F Y ] 6. Moments of the martingale increments Proposition 6.. i There exists C, ζ > such that for all k N and for all p, p /p E M k M k p ] /p C F Lip ψ n,k ζ p/ Γ. 6. ii There exists C, ζ > such that for all k N and for all p, ΨH u, k, ψ T,k := T k+ ΨH u, kdu and Ψ H is defined in Propo- where ψ n,k := n k+ u= sition 5.. E M k M k p ] /p C F Lip ψ T,k p /p ζ p/ Γ. 6. To prove this result, we need first the following intermediate outcome. Lemma 6.. For all k N, let G k be defined by 5.3. Then, for all p E M k M k p ] /p 3 F Lip ψ n,k E W v v,] W v p ] /p +E v,/] ] /p +E G k v W W p v,] s H vs H 3 dw W s p ] /p Or equivalently, since W k and W k are iid we can replace W k W k by W k : E M k M k p ] /p 3 F Lip ψ n,k E ] /p W v p +E v,] v,/] ] /p +E G k v W p v,] s H vs H 3 dw s where ψ n,k = n k+ u= ΨH u, k and Ψ H is defined in Proposition 5.. The same occurs for M instead of M by replacing F by F and ψ n,k by ψ T,k = T k+ p ] /p ΨH u, kdu. Proof. For the sake of simplicity, assume that F Lip =. By inequality 4.4, we have for all p, M k M k p Ω n k+ u= X u X u P W d w p.

12 Now, we use Proposition 5. and for the sake of clarity we set W k w k,,] := AW w := s H vs H 3 dw w s and v,/] C k W k w k := G k v W w. Then, by Jensen inequality, v,] v,] M k M k p ψ p n,k W k w k,,] + AW w + C k W k w k P W d w Ω p 3 p ψ p n,k W k w k p,,] P W d w + AW w PW d w Ω Ω ] p + C k W k w k PW d w Ω We denote by F k the filtration associated to W k, we then have E M k M k p ] 3 p ψ p n,k E E = 3 p ψ p n,k W k W ]] k p,,] F k +E E AW W p ]] F +E E C k W k W p ]] k k F E W k W ] k p,,] +E AW W p ] W v k w v k, p +E C k W k W p ] k Using the elementary inequality a + b /p a /p + b /p, we finally get : E M k M k p ] /p 3ψ n,k E ] /p p ] /p p ] /p W k W k p,,] +E AW W +E C k W k W k and the proof is over since W k and W k have respectively the same distribution as W and W. In the same way, we prove the result for M by using 4.5 which gives p T k+ M k M k p X u X u P W d w and Proposition 5.. Ω Proof of Proposition 6.. With Lemma 6. in hand, we just need to prove that there exist ζ > such that for all k N and for all p p /p E ζ p/ Γ, 6.3 E v,/] ] /p W v p v,] s H vs H 3 dw s and E p ] /p ] /p G k v W p v,] p /p ζ p/ Γ 6.4 p /p ζ p/ Γ. 6.5 Condition 6.3 is given in Appendix A and condition 6.5 follows from Proposition B. since ] /p ] /p E G k v W p α H E G k p α. H v,],,]

13 Hence, it remains to get 6.4. To this end, we set for all v, /], Let v < v /, we have G v := s H vs H 3 dw s. E G v G v ] = = s H vs H 3 v s H 3 ] ds 3/ H v s H us H 5 du ds. v Since for all u, /] and for all s, ] we have us, we deduce that Hence, for all α,, E G v G v ] C H v v s H ds = C H H v v. v <v E G v G v ] / v v α < Now, following carefully the proof of Proposition B. in Appendix B, one can show that 6.6 and the fact that G is a Gaussian process implies 6.4 since for all α, ] /p E G v p α E G /p α,,/]] p +E G p ] /p. v,/] 6. Proof of Proposition 3. Recall that with our notations: F Y EF Y ] = M n = n k= M k M k. Hence, we want to manage E M n p ] = E F Y EF Y ] p ] for all p. To this end, let us use Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality see 3] for instance: there exists C > such that for all p, n p/ n p/ E M n p ] C p E M k M k C p E M k M k p ] /p. k= Then, through Proposition 6., we get n E M n p ] C p C F Lipψn,k k= Similarly for F Y, we obtain T E M T p ] C p k= p/ p /p ζ p/ Γ C p F p p Lip ζp/ Γ n p/ ψn,k. 6.7 k= k= C F Lip ψ T,k C p F p p Lip ζp/ Γ T p ζ p/ Γ ψ T,k k= We conclude the proof of Proposition 3. with the following lemma: p/ /p p/

14 Lemma 6.. that i Let n N and ψ n,k be defined as in Proposition 6.. There exists C H > such n ψn,k C H n H. k= ii Let T and ψ T,k be defined as in Proposition 6.. There exists C H > such that T k= Proof. i Recall that ψ n,k = n k+ u= ΨH u, k with and C H >. First case: H, /. We have Then, ψ T,k C H T H. Ψ H u, k := C H { u H 3 if H, / k H u 4H 4 + u H 3 if H /, n k+ u= which concludes the proof for H, /. and Then, Since Second case: H /,. We have n k+ u= n k+ u= n ψn,k C,H k= n + n+ k= u H 3 u H n k= u H 3 + u= u H 3 n ψn,k C H n k= n k+ n k+ < +. t H 3 dt = H / n k + H t H dt = H n k + H. n n k + H + C,H k H n k + 4H C,H n H + C,H n + H n + k= n+ k= H k k 4H n + n + n + we finally get the result when H /,. ii Recall that ψ T,k = T k+ ΨH u, kdu. First case: H, /. We have T k+ H k k 4H. n + n + + u H 3 du + u H 3 du < +. x H x 4H dx < + 4

15 Then, T k= which concludes the proof for H, /. Second case: H /,. We have ψ T,k C H T C H T and Then, T k+ T k+ u H 3 du = + H / T k + H / ] H / T k + H u H du = + H T k + H ] H T k + H. T T T ψ T,k C,H T k + H + C,H k H T k + 4H k= k= k= C,H T T H + C,H T + H T + T + k= k T + H 4H k. T + Since T + T + k= k T + H 4H k T + T + x H x 4H dx < + we finally get the result when H /,. A Sub-Gaussianity of the remum of the Browian motion Proposition A.. Let W t t be a d-dimensional standard Brownian motion. There exist η, η > such that Consequently, for all p, where Γx := + e u u x du. Proof. x, d / W t = Wt i = t,] t,] i= E P W t > x t,] ] W t p η t,] t,] i= Therefore for all x, we have d P W t x P Wt i x t,] t,] i= η e ηx p/ p Γ η / d d Wt i i= / Wt i t,] d i= t,] A. A. W i t. d P Wt i x = d P Wt x. t,] t,] i= 5

16 Since Wt = max t,] P W t x t,] d Wt, t,] P Wt t,] Wt x t,] +P and W t t L = W t t, we have Wt x t,] = d P Wt x t,] By the reflection principle, we know that P Wt x = PW x which induces finally that t,] P W t x 4d PW x = 4d + e s ds C d e 4 x. A.3 t,] π Then, A. follows from A. by using the formula EX] = + PX > xdx for non-negative random variables and a simple change of variable. x. B Uniform sub-gaussianity of G k α,,] In this section, we consider the following Gaussian processes: for all k N, v, ], G k v := v K H v + k, s + k dw s where W t t,t ] is a d-dimensional Brownian motion and K H is defined by.4. B. Remark B.. Since we are interested in the law of G k, we have replaced W k by W in the expression of G k given by 5.3. First, we have the following control on the second moment of G k -increments. Proposition B.. There exists C H > such that for all k N and for all v < v, G ] k E v G k v C H v v α H B. { H if H < / with α H := H if H > /. Proof. Let v < v. Then, G v k v v = = with G k v K H v + k, s + k K H v + k, s + k dw s + v v v v K H v + k, s + k dw s v u K H u + k, s + k du dw s + K H v + k, s + k dw s B.3 v u K Hu + k, s + k = c H H u + k u s H 3. B.4 s + k Then, we deduce the following expression for the moment of order : E G k v G k v ] v v v = u K H u + k, s + k du ds + K H v + k, s + k ds v =: I v, v + I v, v. B.5 v 6

17 Now, let us distinguish the two cases: k > and k = : Hence, First case: k > We begin with the first integral in B.5, namely I v, v : let us note that in the expression B.4 k> u,s,] v I v, v C H = C H H / H / C H C H v H u + k < +. s + k u s H 3 du ds v ] v s H v s H ds v v and the last inequality is given by the following estimate: v s H v s H ] ds Lemma B.. There exists C H > such that for all v < v, v Proof. First, we easily have v Now, since { v v H if H < / v v H if H > /. B.6 ] { v s H v s H v v H if H < / ds CH v v H if H > /. ] v s H v s H ds = v H + v H v v H] H we get after some computations v v sv s] H { v s H if H < / v s H if H > / v v sv s] H ds. ] { v s H v s H v H v H + v v H if H < / ds H v H v H v v H if H > /. Moreover, when H > /, for all v < v, v H v H + v v H = v H v H v H + v H v v H = v v H v H + v H v v H C H v v H and when H < /, v H v H <. So finally, we have the desired result. We can now move on the second term in B.5, namely I v, v. By Theorem 3. in 4], we have the following upperbound I v, v c H v s + k H v s H + ds v 7

18 where x + = maxx,. Then, since s + k H < +, we have k> s,] I v, v C H v v v s H + ds = C H v v H C H v v H C H { v v H if H < / v v H if H > /. B.7 By using B.6 and B.7 in B.5, we end the proof of Proposition B. for k >. Second case: k = Let us divide this part of the proof into three new cases: First, consider v < v, then G coincides in law with the fractional Brownian motion: E G v G v ] = v v H. Secondly, for v < v, by B.5: E G v G v ] = v v v v v = v v H. u K Hu + k, s + k du ds u K H u + k, s + k du v ds + K H v + k, s + k ds Finally, if v < v, we get the following by using the two previous cases: E G v G ] E G v G ] + E G G v ] v v H + v H 4v v H. This inequality concludes the proof of Proposition B. for k =. We can now state the result of uniform Sub-Gaussianity: v Proposition B.. There exist η, η > such that for all k N, x, P G k α H,,] > x η e ηx with < α H < α H and α H is defined in Proposition B.. Consequently, for all k N and for all p, ] E G k pα H,,] η p/ p Γ η B.8 B.9 where Γx := + e u u x du. Proof. Let us first note that since G k is a centered Gaussian process for all k N, there exists C > such that for all p and for all v < v : G k E v G k p] /p G ] v C p E k v G k / v. 8

19 Then, we obtain through Proposition B., p, G k E v G k p] /p v v <v v v C H p. B. αh Now by Theorem A.9 in 6], B. implies that for all < α H < α H, there exists η > such that ] E exp η G k α H,,] < + and by Lemma A.7 in 6] characterization of Gaussian integrability, this condition is equivalent to the existence of η, η > depending only on η such that B.8 is true. Then, B.9 follows from B.8 by using the formula EX] = + PX > xdx for non-negative random variables and a simple change of variable. Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge my PhD advisors Fabien Panloup and Laure Coutin for suggesting the problem and for their valuable comments. References ] S. G. Bobkov and F. Götze. Exponential integrability and transportation cost related to logarithmic Sobolev inequalities. J. Funct. Anal., 63: 8, 999. ] Philippe Carmona, Laure Coutin, and Gérard Montseny. Stochastic integration with respect to fractional Brownian motion. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist., 39:7 68, 3. 3] Anirban DasGupta. Discrete time martingales and concentration inequalities. In Probability for Statistics and Machine Learning, pages Springer,. 4] L. Decreusefond and A. S. Üstünel. Stochastic analysis of the fractional Brownian motion. Potential Anal., :77 4, ] H. Djellout, A. Guillin, and L. Wu. Transportation cost-information inequalities and applications to random dynamical systems and diffusions. The Annals of Probability, 33B:7 73, 4. 6] Peter K. Friz and Nicolas B. Victoir. Multidimensional stochastic processes as rough paths, volume of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,. Theory and applications. 7] Mathieu Gourcy and Liming Wu. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities of diffusions for the L metric. Potential Anal., 5:77, 6. 8] Toufik Guendouzi. Transportation inequalities for SDEs involving fractional Brownian motion and standard Brownian motion. Adv. Model. Optim., 43:65 634,. 9] M Ledoux. Concentration, transportation and functional inequalities. Preprint,. ] Michel Ledoux. The concentration of measure phenomenon, volume 89 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,. ] K. Marton. Bounding d-distance by informational divergence: a method to prove measure concentration. The Annals of Probability, 4: , 996. ] K. Marton. A measure concentration inequality for contracting Markov chains. Geom. Funct. Anal., 63:556 57,

20 3] Sebastian Riedel. Transportation-cost inequalities for diffusions driven by Gaussian processes. Electron. J. Probab., :Paper No. 4, 6, 7. 4] Philippe Rigollet and Jan-Christian Hütter. High dimensional statistics. Lecture notes MIT, 7. 5] Bruno Saussereau. Transportation inequalities for stochastic differential equations driven by a fractional Brownian motion. Bernoulli, 8: 3,. 6] M. Talagrand. Transportation cost for Gaussian and other product measures. Geom. Funct. Anal., 63:587 6, ] Li-ming Wu and Zheng-liang Zhang. Talagrand s T -transportation inequality w.r.t. a uniform metric for diffusions. Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser., 3: , 4.