arXiv:1604.06664v1 [math.PR] 22 Apr 2016

Optimal scaling of the Random Walk Metropolis algorithm
under Lp mean differentiability
Alain Durmus∗

Sylvain Le Corff†

Eric Moulines‡

Gareth O. Roberts§

Abstract
This paper considers the optimal scaling problem for high-dimensional random walk
Metropolis algorithms for densities which are differentiable in Lp mean but which may be
irregular at some points (like the Laplace density for example) and / or are supported on
an interval. Our main result is the weak convergence of the Markov chain (appropriately
rescaled in time and space) to a Langevin diffusion process as the dimension d goes to
infinity. Because the log-density might be non-differentiable, the limiting diffusion could
be singular. The scaling limit is established under assumptions which are much weaker
than the one used in the original derivation of [6]. This result has important practical
implications for the use of random walk Metropolis algorithms in Bayesian frameworks
based on sparsity inducing priors.

1

Introduction

A wealth of contributions have been devoted to the study of the behaviour of high-dimensional
Markov chains. One of the most powerful approaches for that purpose is the scaling analysis,
introduced by [6]. Assume that the target distribution has a density with respect to the ddimensional Lebesgue measure given by:
π d (xd ) =

d
Y

π(xdi ) .

(1)

i=1

The Random Walk Metropolis-Hastings (RWM) updating scheme was first applied in [4] and
d
d
proceeds as follows. Given the current state Xkd , a new value Yk+1
= (Yk+1,i
)di=1 is obtained by
d
d
−1/2 d
moving independently each coordinate, i.e. Yk+1,i = Xk,i + `d
Zk+1 where ` > 0 is a scaling
factor and (Zk )k≥1 is a sequence of independent and identically distributed (i. i. d.) Gaussian
random variables. Here ` governs the overall size of the proposed jump and plays a crucial
role in determining the efficiency of the algorithm. The proposal is then accepted or rejected
d
according to the acceptance probability α(Xkd , Yk+1
) where α(xd , y d ) = 1 ∧ π d (y d )/π d (xd ). If
the proposed value is accepted it becomes the next current value, otherwise the current value is
left unchanged:
d
d
Xk+1
= Xkd + `d−1/2 Zk+1
1Adk+1 ,
(
)
d
Y
d
d
−1/2 d
d
Ak+1 = Uk+1 ≤
π(Xk,i + `d
Zk+1,i )/π(Xk,i ) ,
i=1
1 LTCI,

CNRS and Télécom ParisTech.
de Mathématiques d’Orsay, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay.
3 Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées, Ecole Polytechnique.
4 University of Warwick, Department of Statistics.
2 Laboratoire

1

(2)
(3)

Durmus et al.

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

where (Uk )k≥1 of i. i. d. uniform random variables on [0, 1] independent of (Zk )k≥1 .
Under certain regularity assumptions on π, it has been proved in [6] that if the X0d is
distributed under the stationary distribution π d , then each component of (Xkd )k≥0 appropriately
rescaled in time converges weakly to a Langevin diffusion process with invariant distribution π
as d → +∞.
This result allows to compute the asymptotic mean acceptance rate and to derive a practical
rule to tune the factor `. It is shown in [6] that the speed of the limiting diffusion has a function
of ` has a unique maximum. The corresponding mean acceptance rate in stationarity is equal
to 0.234.
These results have been derived for target distributions of the form (1) where π(x) ∝
exp(−V (x)) where V is three-times continuously differentiable. Therefore, they do not cover the
cases where the target density is continuous but not smooth, for example the Laplace distribution which plays a key role as a sparsity-inducing prior in high-dimensional Bayesian inference.
The aim of this paper is to extend the scaling results for the RWM algorithm introduced in the
seminal paper [6, Theorem 3] to densities which are absolutely continuous densities differentiable
in Lp mean (DLM) for some p ≥ 2 but can be either non-differentiable at some points or are
supported on an interval. As shown in [3, Section 17.3], differentiability of the square root of
the density in L2 norm implies a quadratic approximation property for the log-likelihood known
as local asymptotic normality. As shown below, the DLM permits the quadratic expansion of
the log-likelihood without paying the twice-differentiability price usually demanded by such a
Taylor expansion (such expansion of the log-likelihood plays a key role in [6]).
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 the target density π is assumed to be positive
on R. Theorem 2 proves that under the DLM assumption of this paper, the average acceptance
rate and the expected square jump distance are the same as in [6]. Theorem 3 shows that under
the same assumptions the rescaled in time Markov chain produced by the RWM algorithm
converges weakly to a Langevin diffusion. We show that these results may be applied to a
density of the form π(x) ∝ exp(−λ |x| + U (x)), where λ ≥ 0 and U is a smooth function. In
Section 3, we focus on the case where π is supported only on an open interval of R. Under
appropriate assumptions, Theorem 4 and Theorem 5 show that the same asymptotic results
(limiting average acceptance rate and limiting Langevin diffusion associated with π) hold. We
apply our results to Gamma and Beta distributions. The proofs are postponed to Section 4 and
Section 5.

2

Positive Target density on R

The key of the proof of our main result will be to show that the acceptance ratio and the
expected square jump distance converge to a finite and non trivial limit. In the original proof
of [6], the density of the product form (1) with
π(x) ∝ exp(−V (x))

(4)

is three-times continuously differentiable and the acceptance ratio is expanded using the usual
pointwise Taylor formula. More precisely, the
Pd log-ratio of the density evaluated at the proposed
value and at the current state is given by i=1 ∆Vid where



∆Vid = V Xid − V Xid + `d−1/2 Zid ,
(5)
and where X d is distributed according to π d and Z d is a d-dimensional standardPGaussian rand
dom variable independent of X. Heuristically, the two leading terms are `d−1/2 i=1 V̇ (Xid )Zid
2

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Pd
and `2 d−1 i=1 V̈ (Xid )(Zid )2 /2, where V̇ and V̈ are the first and second derivatives of V , respectively. By the central limit theorem, this expression converges in distribution to a zero-mean
Gaussian random variable with variance `2 I where
Z
I=
V̇ 2 (x)π(x)dx .
(6)
R

Note that I is the Fisher information associated with the translation model θ 7→ π(x + θ)
evaluated at θ = 0. Under appropriate technical conditions, the second term converges almost
surely to −`2 I/2. Assuming that these limits exist, the acceptance ratio in the RWM algorithm
2
converges to E[1∧exp(Z)] where Z is a Gaussian random variable with
√ mean −` I/2 and variance
2
` I; elementary computations show that E[1 ∧ exp(Z)] = 2Φ(−`/2 I), where Φ stands for the
cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution.
For t ≥ 0, denote by Ytd the linear interpolation of the Markov chain (Xkd )k≥0 after time
rescaling:
d
d
Ytd = (dd te − d t) Xbd
tc + (d t − bd tc) Xdd te
d
−1/2 d
= Xbd
Zdd te 1Ad
tc + (d t − bd tc) `d

dd te

(7)
,

(8)

where b·c and d·e denote the lower and the upper integer part functions. Note that for all k ≥ 0,
d
Yk/d
= Xkd . Denote by (Bt , t ≥ 0) the standard Brownian motion.
Theorem 1 ([6]). Suppose that the target π d and the proposal distribution are given by (1)-(4)
and (2) respectively. Assume that
(i) V is twice continuously differentiable and V̇ is Lipshitz continuous ;
(ii) E[(V̇ (X))8 ] < ∞ and E[(V̈ (X))4 ] < ∞ where X is distributed according to π.
d
d
Then (Yt,1
, t ≥ 0), where Yt,1
is the first component of the vector Ytd defined in (7), converges
weakly in the Wiener space (equipped with the uniform topology) to the Langevin diffusion

dYt =

p
1
h(`)dBt − h(`)V̇ (Yt )dt ,
2

where Y0 is distributed according to π, h(`) is given by


`√
h(`) = 2`2 Φ −
I ,
2

(9)

(10)

and I is defined in (6).
Whereas V is assumed to be twice continuously differentiable, the dual representation of the
Fisher information −E[V̈ (X)] = E[(V̇ (X))2 ] = I allows us to remove in the statement of the
theorem all mention to the second derivative of V , which hints that two derivatives might not
really be required. For all θ, x ∈ R, define
p
(11)
ξθ (x) = π(x + θ) ,
R
p
For p ≥ 1, denote kf kπ,p = |f (x)|p π(x)dx. Consider the following assumptions:
H1. There exists a measurable function V̇ : R → R such that:

3

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

(i) There exist p > 4, C > 0 and β > 1 such that for all θ ∈ R,
≤ C|θ|β .

V (· + θ) − V (·) − θV̇ (·)
π,p

(ii) The function V̇ satisfies V̇

< +∞.
π,6

Lemma 1. Assume H1. Then, the family of densities θ → π(·+θ) is Differentiable in Quadratic
Mean (DQM) at θ = 0 with derivative V̇ , i.e. there exists C > 0 such that for all θ ∈ R,
Z 

2 1/2
≤ C|θ|β ,
ξθ (x) − ξ0 (x) + θV̇ (x)ξ0 (x)/2 dx

R

where ξθ is given by (11).
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 4.1.

Pd
The first step in the proof is to show that the acceptance ratio P Ad1 = E(1∧exp{ i=1 ∆Vid }),
Pd
and the expected square jump distance E[(Z1d )2 {1 ∧ exp( i=1 ∆Vid )}] both converge to a finite
value. To that purpose, we consider
"
#
!
d
X

q
Ed (q) = E Z1d 1 ∧ exp
∆Vid − 1 ∧ exp(υ d ) ,
i=1

where ∆Vid is given by (5),
υ d = −`d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d ) +

d
X

bd (Xid , Zid )

(12)

i=2


 `2
`z
bd (x, z) = − √ V̇ (x) + E 2ζ d (X1d , Z1d ) − V̇ 2 (x) ,
4d
d
n

 o
ζ d (x, z) = exp V (x) − V x + `d−1/2 z /2 − 1 .

(13)
(14)

Proposition 1. Assume H 1 holds. Let X d be a random variable distributed according to π d
and Z d be a zero-mean standard Gaussian random variable, independent of X d . Then, for any
q ≥ 0, limd→+∞ Ed (q) = 0.
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 4.2.
Proposition 1 shows that it is enough to consider υ d to analyse the asymptotic behaviour
of the acceptance ratio and P
the expected
√ square jump distance as d → +∞. By the central
d
limit theorem, the term −` i=2 (Zid / d)V̇ (Xid ) in (12) converges in distribution to a zero2
mean Gaussian random variable with variance
where
in (6). By Lemma 4
 I is defined

 d ` I,
(Section 4.3), the second term, which is d E 2ζ (X1d , Z1d ) = −d E (ζ d (X1d , Z1d ))2 converges to
−`2 I/4. The last term converges in probability to −`2 I/4. Therefore, the two last terms plays a
similar role in the expansion of the acceptance ratio as the second derivative of V in the regular
case.
√
 
Theorem 2. Assume H1 holds. Then, limd→+∞ P Ad1 = a(`), where a(`) = 2Φ(− I`/2).
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 4.3.
4

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

d
The second result of this paper is that the sequence {(Yt,1
)t≥0 , d ∈ N? } defined by (7)
converges weakly to a Langevin diffusion. Let (µd )d≥1 be the sequence of distributions of
d
{(Yt,1
)t≥0 , d ∈ N? }.

Proposition 2. Assume H1 holds. Then, the sequence (µd )d≥1 is tight in W.
Proof. The proof is adapted from [2]; it is postponed to Section 4.4.
By the Prohorov theorem, the tightness of (µd )d≥1 implies that this sequence has a weak
limit point. We now prove that any limit point is the law of a solution to (9). For that purpose,
we use the equivalence between the weak formulation of stochastic differential equations and
martingale problems. The generator L of the Langevin diffusion (9) is given, for all φ ∈ Cc2 (R, R),
by

h(`) 
−V̇ (x)φ̇(x) + φ̈(x) ,
(15)
Lφ(x) =
2
where for k ∈ N and I an open subset of R, Cck (I, R) is the space of k-times differentiable functions with compact support, endowed
T∞with the topology of uniform convergence of all derivatives
up to order k. We set Cc∞ (I, R) = k=0 Cck (I, R) and W = C(R+ , R). The canonical process is
denoted by (Wt )t≥0 and (Bt )t≥0 is the associated filtration. For any probability measure µ on
W, the expectation with respect to µ is denoted by Eµ . A probability measure µ on W is said
to solve the martingale problem associated with (9) if the pushforward of µ by W0 is π and if
for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R), the process


Z t
φ(Wt ) − φ(W0 ) −
Lφ(Wu )du
0

t≥0

is a martingale with respect to µ and the filtration (Bt )t≥0 , i.e. if for all s, t ∈ R+ , s ≤ t, µ−a.s.


Z t
Z s
µ
E φ(Wt ) − φ(W0 ) −
Lφ(Wu )du Bs = φ(Ws ) − φ(W0 ) −
Lφ(Wu )ds .
0

0

H2. The function V̇ is continuous on R except on a Lebesgue-negligible set DV̇ and is bounded
on all compact sets of R.
If V̇ satisfies H2, [7, Lemma 1.9, Theorem 20.1 Chapter 5] show that any solution to the
martingale problem associated with (9) coincides with the law of a solution to the SDE (9),
and conversely. Therefore, uniqueness in law of weak solutions to (9) implies uniqueness of the
solution of the martingale problem.
Proposition 3. Assume H2 holds. Assume also that for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R), m ∈ N∗ , g : Rm →
R bounded and continuous, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tm ≤ s ≤ t:



Z t
µd
lim E
φ (Wt ) − φ (Ws ) −
Lφ (Wu ) du g (Wt1 , . . . , Wtm ) = 0 .
(16)
d→+∞

s

Then, every limit point of the sequence of probability measures (µd )d≥1 on W is a solution to
the martingale problem associated with (9).
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 4.5.
Theorem
3. Assume H1 and H2 hold. Assume also that (9) has a unique weak solution. Then,
 d
(Yt,1 )t≥0 , d ∈ N∗ converges weakly to the solution (Yt )t≥0 of the Langevin equation defined by
(9). Furthermore, h(`) is maximized at the unique value of ` for which a(`) = 0.234, where a is
defined in Theorem 2.
5

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 4.6.
Example 1 (BayesianR Lasso). We apply the results obtained above to a target density π on R
given by x 7→ e−V (x) / R e−V (y) dy where V is given by
V : x 7→ U (x) + λ |x| ,
where λ
R ≥ 06and U is twice continuously differentiable with bounded second derivative. Furthermore, R |x| e−V (x) dx < +∞. Define V̇ : x 7→ U 0 (x) + λ sign(x), with sign(x) = −1 if x ≤ 0
and sign(x) = 1 otherwise. We first check that H1(i) holds. Note that for all x, y ∈ R,
||x + y| − |x| − sign(x)y| ≤ 2|y|1R+ (|y| − |x|) ,

(17)

which implies that, for any p ≥ 1, there exists Cp such that
V (· + θ) − V (·) − θV̇ (·)
π,p

≤ kU (· + θ) − U (·) − θU 0 (·)kπ,p + λ k|· + θ| − |·| − θ sign(·)kπ,p
≤ kU 00 k∞ θ2 + 2 |θ| λ{π([−θ, θ])}1/p ≤ C |θ|

p+1/p

2

∨ |θ| .

Assumptions H1(ii) and H2 are easy to check. The uniqueness in law of (9) is established in
[1, Theorem 4.5 (i)]. Therefore, Theorem 3 can be applied.

3

Target density supported on an interval of R

We now extend our results to densities supported by a open interval I ⊂ R :
π(x) ∝ exp(−V (x))1I (x) ,
where V : I → R is a measurable function. Note that by convention V (x) = −∞ for all x ∈
/ I.
Denote by I the closure of I in R. The results of Section 2 cannot be directly used in such a
case, as π is no longer positive on R. Consider the following assumption.
G1. There exists a measurable function V̇ : I → R and r > 1 such that:
(i) There exist p > 4, C > 0 and β > 1 such that for all θ ∈ R,
{V (· + θ) − V (·)}1I (· + rθ)1I (· + (1 − r)θ) − θV̇ (·)

≤ C|θ|β ,
π,p

with the convention 0 × ∞ = 0.
(ii) The function V̇ satisfies kV̇ kπ,6 < +∞.
(iii) There exist γ ≥ 6 and C > 0 such that, for all θ ∈ R,
Z
1I c (x + θ)π(x)dx ≤ C|θ|γ .
R

As an important consequence of G1(iii), if X is distributed according to π and is independent
of the standard random variable Z, there exists a constant C such that


P X + `d−1/2 Z ∈ I c ≤ Cd−γ/2 .
(18)

6

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

√
 
Theorem 4. Assume G1 holds. Then, limd→+∞ P Ad1 = a(`), where a(`) = 2Φ(− I`/2).
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 5.1.
d
We now established the weak convergence of the sequence {(Yt,1
)t≥0 , d ∈ N? }, following the
same steps as for the proof of Theorem 3. Denote for all d ≥ 1, µd the law of the process
d
(Yt,1
)t≥0 .

Proposition 4. Assume G1 holds. Then, the sequence (µd )d≥1 is tight in W.
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 5.2.
Contrary to the case where π is positive on R, we do not assume that V̇ is bounded on all
compact sets of R. Therefore, we consider the local martingale problem associated with (9): with
the notations of Section 2, a probability measure µ on W is said to solve the local martingale
problem associated with (9) if the pushforward of µ by W0 is π and if for all ψ ∈ C ∞ (R, R), the
process


Z
t

ψ(Wt ) − ψ(W0 ) −

Lψ(Wu )du
0

t≥0

is a local martingale with respect to µ and the filtration (Bt )t≥0 . By [1, Theorem 1.27], any
solution to the local martingale problem associated with (9) coincides with the law of a solution
to the SDE (9) and conversely. If (9) admits a unique solution in law, this law is the unique
solution to the local martingale problem associated with (9). We first prove that any limit point
µ of (µd )d≥1 is a solution to the local martingale problem associated with (9).
G 2. The function V̇ is continuous on I except on a null-set DV̇ , with respect to the Lebesgue
measure, and is bounded on all compact sets of I.
This condition does not preclude that V̇ is unbounded at the boundary of I.
Proposition 5. Assume G1 and G2 hold. Assume also that for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R), m ∈ N∗ ,
g : Rm → R bounded and continuous, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tm ≤ s ≤ t:



Z t
µd
lim E
φ (Wt ) − φ (Ws ) −
Lφ (Wu ) du g (Wt1 , . . . , Wtm ) = 0 .
(19)
d→+∞

s

Then, every limit point of the sequence of probability measures (µd )d≥1 on W is a solution to
the local martingale problem associated with (9).
Proof. The proof is postponed to Section 5.3.
Theorem
5. Assume G1 and G2 hold. Assume also that (9) has a unique weak solution. Then,
 d
(Yt,1 )t≥0 , d ∈ N∗ converges weakly to the solution (Yt )t≥0 of the Langevin equation defined by
(9). Furthermore, h(`) is maximized at the unique value of ` for which a(`) = 0.234, where a is
defined in Theorem 2.
Proof. The proof is along the same lines as the proof of Theorem 3 and is postponed to Section 5.4.
The conditions for uniqueness in law of singular one-dimensional stochastic differential equations are given in [1]. These conditions are rather involved and difficult to summarize in full
generality. We rather illustrate Theorem 5 by two examples.

7

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Example 2 (Application to the Gamma distribution). Define the class of the generalized
Gamma distributions as the family of densities on R given by
.Z
πγ : x 7→ xa1 −1 exp(−xa2 )1R?+ (x)
y a1 −1 exp(−y a2 )dy ,
R?
+

with two parameters a1 > 6 and a2 > 0. Note that in this case I = R?+ , for all x ∈ I,
Vγ : x 7→ xa2 − (a1 − 1) log x and V̇γ : x 7→ a2 xa2 −1 − (a1 − 1)/x. We check that G1 holds with
r = 3/2. First, we show that G1(i) holds with p = 5. Write for all θ ∈ R and x ∈ I,
{Vγ (x + θ) − Vγ (x)} 1I (x + (1 − r)θ)1I (x + rθ) − θV̇γ (x) = E1 + E2 + E3 ,
where
E1 = θV̇γ (x) {1I (x − θ/2)1I (x + 3θ/2) − 1} ,
E2 = (1 − a1 ) {log(1 + θ/x) − θ/x} 1I (x − θ/2)1I (x + 3θ/2) ,
E3 = ((x + θ)a2 − xa2 − a2 θxa2 −1 )1I (x − θ/2)1I (x + 3θ/2) .
R
5
It is enough to prove that there exists q > 5 such that for all i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, I |Ei | πγ (x)dx ≤ C|θ|q .
The result is proved for θ < 0 (the proof for θ > 0 follows the same lines). For all θ ∈ R using
a1 > 6,
Z

5

5

3|θ|/2

Z

|E1 | πγ (x)dx ≤ C|θ|
R∗
+

n
o
a2
1/x5 + x5(a2 −1) xa1 −1 e−x dx ,

0
a1

Z

3/2

≤ C|θ|

x

a1 −6 −(|θ|x)a2

e

5a2

Z

dx + |θ|

0

!

3/2

x

5(a2 −1)+a1 −1 −(|θ|x)a2

e

dx

,

0

≤ C(|θ|a1 + |θ|5a2 +a1 ) .

(20)

On the other hand, as for all x > −1, x/(x + 1) ≤ log(1 + x) ≤ x, for all θ < 0, and x ≥ 3|θ|/2,
|log(1 + θ/x) − θ/x| ≤

|θ|2
≤ 3|θ|2 /x2 ,
x2 (1 + θ/x)

where the last inequality come from |θ|/x ≤ 2/3. Then, it yields
Z

5

|E2 (x)| πγ (x)dx ≤ C|θ|10

Z

R∗
+

1

xa1 −11 e

−xa2

Z
dx +

3|θ|/2

!

+∞

−xa2

xa1 −11 e

dx

,

1

≤ C(|θ|a1 + |θ|10 ) .

(21)

For the last term, for all θ < 0 and all x ≥ 3|θ|/2, using a Taylor expansion of x 7→ xa2 , there
exists ζ ∈ [x + θ, x] such that
a2 −2

(x + θ)a2 − xa2 − a2 θxa2 −1 ≤ C|θ|2 |ζ|a2 −2 ≤ C|θ|2 |x|
Then,
Z

5

10

Z

+∞

|E3 (x)| πγ (x)dx ≤ C|θ|
R∗
+

a2

.

x5(a2 −2)+a1 −1 e−x dx ≤ C(|θ|5a2 +a1 + |θ|10 ) .

3|θ|/2

8

(22)

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Combining (20), (21),(22) and using that a1 > 6 concludes the proof of G1(i) for p = 5. The
proof of G1(ii) follows from
!
Z
Z
Z
a2

a2

xa1 −1+6(a2 −1) e−x dx +

|V̇γ (x)|6 πγ (x)dx ≤ C

R∗
+

R∗
+

xa1 −7 e−x dx

<∞

R∗
+

R
and G1(iii) follows from R 1I c (x + θ)πγ (x)dx ≤ C|θ|a1 . Now consider the Langevin equation
√
associated with πγ given by dYt = −V̇γ (Yt )dt+ 2dBt with initial distribution πγ . This stochastic
differential equation has 0 as singular point, which has right type 3 according to the terminology
of [1]. On the other hand ∞ has type A and the existence and uniqueness in law for the SDE
follows from [1, Theorem 4.6 (viii)]. Since G2 is straightforward, Theorem 5 can be applied.
Example 3 (Application to the Beta distribution). Consider now the case of the Beta distributions πβ with density x 7→ xa1 −1 (1 − x)a2 −1 1(0,1) (x) with a1 , a2 > 6. Here I = (0, 1) and the
log-density Vβ and its derivative on I are defined by Vβ (x) = −(a1 − 1) log x − (a2 − 1) log(1 − x)
and V̇β (x) = −(a1 − 1)/x − (a2 − 1)/(1 − x). Along the same lines as above, πβ satisfies G 1
and G2. Hence Theorem 4 can be applied if we establish the
√ uniqueness in law for the Langevin
equation associated with πβ defined by dYt = −V̇β (Yt )dt + 2dBt with initial distribution πβ . In
the terminology of [1], 0 has right type 3 and 1 has left type 3. Therefore by [1, Theorem 2.16
(i), (ii)], the SDE has a global unique weak solution. To illustrate our findings, consider the
Beta distribution
a1 = 10 and a2 = 10. Define the expected square distance by
h with parameters
i
d
d
d 2
ESJD (`) = E X1 − X0
where X0d has distribution πβd and X1d is the first iterate of the
Markov chain defined by the Random Walk Metropolis algorithm given in (2). By Theorem 4
and Theorem 5, we have limd→+∞ ESJDd (`) = h(`) = `2 a(`). Figure 1 displays an empirical
estimation for the ESJDd for dimensions d = 10, 50, 100 as a function of the empirical mean
acceptance rate. We can observe that as expected, the ESJDd converges to some limit function
as d goes infinity, and this function has a maximum for a mean acceptance probability around
0.23.

4

Proofs of Section 2

For any real random variable Y and any p ≥ 1, let kY kp := E[|Y |p ]1/p .

4.1

Proof of Lemma 1

Let ∆θ V (x) = V (x) − V (x + θ). By definition of ξθ and π,

2
ξθ (x) − ξ0 (x) + θV̇ (x)ξ0 (x)/2 ≤ 2 {Aθ (x) + Bθ (x)} π(x) ,
where
2

Aθ (x) = (exp(∆θ V (x)/2) − 1 − ∆θ V (x)/2) ,

2
Bθ (x) = ∆θ V (x) + θV̇ (x) /4.

9

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Figure 1: Expected square jumped distance for the beta distribution with parameters a1 = 10
and a2 = 10 as a function of the mean acceptance rate for d = 10, 50, 100.
By H1(i), kBθ kπ,p ≤ C|θ|β . For Aθ , note that for all x ∈ R, (exp(x)−1−x)2 ≤ 2x4 (exp(2x)+1).
Then,
Z
Z


Aθ (x)π(x)dx ≤ C
∆θ V (x)4 1 + e∆θ V (x) π(x)dx
R
ZR

≤C
∆θ V (x)4 + ∆−θ V (x)4 π(x)dx .
R

The proof is completed writing (the same inequality holds for ∆−θ V ):
Z 

Z
Z
4
4
4
4
V̇ (x)π(x)dx
∆θ V (x) π(x)dx ≤ C
∆θ V (x) − θV̇ (x) π(x)dx + θ
R

R

R

and using H1(i)-(ii).

4.2

Proof of Proposition 1

Define

Z

x

R(x) =
0

(x − u)2
du .
(1 + u)3

(23)

R is the remainder term of the Taylor expansion of x 7→ log(1 + x):
log(1 + x) = x − x2 /2 + R(x) .

(24)

We preface the proof by the following Lemma.
Lemma 2. Assume H1 holds. Then, if X is a random variable distributed according to π and
Z is a standard Gaussian random variable independent of X,
10

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

(i) limd→+∞ d
(ii) limd→+∞

√

√
ζ d (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (X)/(2 d)

2

= 0.
2

√
√
d V (X) − V (X + `Z/ d) + `Z V̇ (X)/ d

= 0.
p


(iii) limd→∞ d R ζ d (X, Z)

1

= 0,

where ζ d is given by (14).
Proof. Using the definitions (11) and (14) of ζ d and ξθ ,
ζ d (x, z) = ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x) − 1 .

(25)

(i) The proof follows from Lemma 1 using that β > 1:
√
ζ d (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (X)/(2 d)

2
2



≤ C`2β d−β E |Z|2β .

(ii) Using H1(i), we get that
√
√
V (X) − V (X + `Z/ d) + `Z V̇ (X)/ d

p
p

h
i
βp
≤ C`βp d−βp/2 E |Z|

and the proof follows since β > 1.
(iii) Note that for all x > 0, u ∈ [0, x], |(x − u)(1 + u)−1 | ≤ |x|, and the same inequality holds
for x ∈ (−1, 0] and u ∈ [x, 0]. Then by (23) and (24), for all x > −1, |R(x)| ≤ x2 |log(1 + x)|.
Then by (50), setting Ψd (x, z) = R(ζ d (x, z))
2

|Ψd (x, z)| ≤ (ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x) − 1) V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x) /2 .
Since for all x ∈ R, | exp(x) − 1| ≤ |x|(exp(x) + 1), this yields,



3
|Ψd (x, z)| ≤ 4−1 V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x)
exp V (x) − V (x + `zd−1/2 ) + 1 ,
which implies that
Z
Z
−1
|Ψd (x, z)| π(x)dx ≤ 4
R

3

V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x) {π(x) + π(x + `zd−1/2 )}dx .

R

By Hölder’s inequality and using H1(i),
Z
|Ψd (x, z)| π(x)dx ≤ C

−1/2

3

Z

`zd

R

3/4

4

V̇ (x) π(x)dx

−1/2

+ `zd

3β

!
.

R

The proof follows from H1(ii) since β > 1.

For all d ≥ 1, let X d be distributed according to π d , and Z d be d-dimensional Gaussian
random variable independent of X d , set
Jd =

d
X

∆Vid − bd (Xid , Zid )
i=2

,
1

where ∆Vid and bd are defined in (5) and (13), respectively.
11

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Lemma 3. limd→+∞ Jd = 0.
Proof. Noting that ∆Vid = 2 log 1 + ζ d Xid , Zid
Jd ≤

3
X

Jdi =

i=1



and using (24), we get

d
X



 `Z d
2ζ d Xid , Zid + √ i V̇ (Xid ) − E 2ζ d (Xid , Zid )
d
i=2
+

d
X


d 2

ζ d Xid , Zi

i=2

`2
− V̇ 2 (Xid )
4d

1

+2

d
X

R ζ d Xid , Zid



i=2

1

,
1

where R is defined by (23). By Lemma 2(i), the first term goes to 0 as d goes to +∞ since
Jd1 ≤

√

 `Z d
d 2ζ d X1d , Z1d + √ 1 V̇ (X1d )
d

.
2

Consider now Jd2 . We use the following decomposition for all 2 ≤ i ≤ d,
ζ

d

(Xid , Zid )2


2
`2 2 d
`
d
d
d
d
d
√
− V̇ (Xi ) = ζ (Xi , Zi ) +
Zi V̇ (Xi )
4d
2 d


` d
`
`2  d 2
d
d
d
d
d
d
(Zi ) − 1 V̇ 2 (Xid ) .
− √ Zi V̇ (Xi ) ζ (Xi , Zi ) + √ Zi V̇ (Xi ) +
4d
d
2 d

Then,
`
Jd2 ≤ d ζ d (X1d , Z1d ) + √ Z1d V̇ (X1d )
2 d

2

+
2

d
X

`2
4d


V̇ 2 (Xid ) (Zid )2 − 1

i=2

1


√
`
d
d
d
d
d
+ ` d V̇ (X1 )Z1 ζ (X1 , Z1 ) + √ Z1d V̇ (X1d )
2 d

.
1

Using H1(ii), Lemma 2(i) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
show

 that the first and the last
term converge to zero. For the second term note that E (Zid )2 − 1 = 0 so that
d−1

d
X

h
i1/2

≤ d−1/2 Var V̇ 2 (X1d ) (Z1d )2 − 1
→ 0.


V̇ 2 (Xid ) (Zid )2 − 1

i=2

Finally,

1

limd→∞ Jd3

= 0 by (24) and Lemma 2(iii).

Pd
Proof of Proposition 1. Let q > 0 and Λd = −`d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d ) + i=2 ∆Vid . By the triangle
inequality, Ed (q) ≤ Ed1 (q) + Ed2 (q) where
"
( d
)
#
X


q
Ed1 (q) = E Z1d 1 ∧ exp
∆Vid − 1 ∧ exp Λd
,
i=1

Ed2 (q)

=E

h

q
Z1d

i

1 ∧ exp Λd − 1 ∧ exp υ d
.


Since t 7→ 1 ∧ et is 1-Lipschitz, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get
Ed1 (q) ≤ Z1d

q
2q

∆V1d + `d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d )

.
2

By Lemma 2(ii), Ed1 (q) goes to 0 as d goes to +∞. Consider now Ed2 (q). Using again that
t 7→ 1 ∧ et is 1-Lipschitz and Lemma 3, Ed2 (q) goes to 0.

12

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

4.3

Proof of Theorem 2

Following [2], we introduce the function G defined on R+ × R by:

  b
√ 

Φ 2√a − a
if a ∈ (0, +∞) ,
 exp a−b
2
G(a, b) =
0
if
a = +∞ ,



exp − 2b 1{b>0}
if a = 0 ,
where Φ is the cumulative distribution function of a standard normal variable, and Γ:
 

  b
√ 
a−b
b

√
√ −
+
exp
Φ
a
if a ∈ (0, +∞) ,
Φ
−

2

2 a
2 a
1
if a = +∞ ,
Γ(a, b) =
2




 exp − b+
if a = 0 .

(26)

(27)

2

Note that G and Γ are bounded on R+ × R. G and Γ are used throughout Section 4.
Lemma 4. Assume H1 holds. For all d ∈ N∗ , let X d be a random variable distributed according
to π d and Z d be a standard Gaussian random variable in Rd , independent of X. Then,


`2
lim d E 2ζ d (X1d , Z1d ) = − I ,
d→+∞
4
where I is defined in (6) and ζ d in (14).
Proof. By (14),
Z q



p
d E 2ζ d (X1d , Z1d ) = 2dE
π x + `d−1/2 Z1d
π (x)dx − 1 ,
"Z R
2 #
q
 p


d
−1/2
= −dE
π x + `d
Z1 − π (x) dx = −d E {ζ d (X1d , Z1d )}2 .
R

The proof is then completed by Lemma 2(i).
Proof of Theorem 2. By definition of Ad1 , see (3),
"
( d
)#
X
 d
d
P A1 = E 1 ∧ exp
∆Vi
,
i=1
d
d
d
where ∆Vid = V (X0,i
) − V (X0,i
+ `d−1/2 Z1,i
) and where X0d is distributed according to π d and
independent of the standard d-dimensional Gaussian random variable Z1d . Following the same
steps as in the proof of Proposition 1 yields:
 



lim P Ad1 − E 1 ∧ exp Θd
= 0,
(28)
d→+∞

where
Θd = −`d−1/2

d
X
i=1

d
d
Z1,i
V̇ (X0,i
) − `2

d
X



d 2
d
d
V̇ (X0,i
) /(4d) + 2(d − 1)E ζ d (X0,1
, Z1,1
) .

i=2

13

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Conditional on X0d , Θd is a one dimensional Gaussian random variable with mean µd and
variance σd2 , defined by
µd = −`2

d
X



d 2
d
d
V̇ (X0,i
) /(4d) + 2(d − 1)E ζ d (X0,1
, Z1,1
)

i=2

σd2 = `2 d−1

d
X

d 2
V̇ (X0,i
) .

i=1

Therefore, since for any G ∼ N (µ, σ 2 ), E[1 ∧ exp(G)] = Φ(µ/σ) + exp(µ + σ 2 /2)Φ(−σ − µ/σ),
taking the expectation conditional on X0d , we have





E 1 ∧ exp Θd = E Φ(µd /σd ) + exp(µd + σd2 /2)Φ(−σd − µd /σd )


= E Γ(σd2 , −2µd ) ,
where the function Γ is defined in (27). By Lemma 4 and the law of large numbers, almost
surely, limd→+∞ µd = −`2 I/2 and limd→+∞ σd2 = `2 I. Thus, as Γ is bounded, by Lebesgue’s
dominated convergence theorem:

 √



lim E 1 ∧ exp Θd = 2Φ −` I/2 .
d→+∞

The proof is then completed by (28).

4.4

Proof of Proposition 2

By Kolmogorov’s criterion it is enough to prove that there exists a non-decreasing function
γ : R+ → R+ such that for all d ≥ 1 and all 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
h
 i
d
d 4
− Ys,1
E Yt,1
≤ γ(t)(t − s)2 .
The inequality is straightforward for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t such that bdsc = bdtc. For all 0 ≤ s ≤ t such
that ddse ≤ bdtc,
d
d
d
d
Yt,1
− Ys,1
= Xbdtc,1
− Xddse,1
+

dt − bdtc d
ddse − ds d
√
√
`Zddte,1 1Ad +
`Zddse,1 1Ad .
ddte
ddse
d
d

Then by the Hölder inequality,


h
4 
 i
d
d 4
d
d
E Yt,1
− Ys,1
≤ C (t − s)2 + E Xbdtc,1
− Xddse,1
,
where we have used
(dt − bdtc)2
(ddse − ds)2
(dt − ds)2 + (ddse − bdtc)2
+
≤
≤ 2(t − s)2 .
2
2
d
d
d2
The proof is completed using Lemma 5.
Lemma 5. Assume H1. Then, there exists C > 0 such that, for all 0 ≤ k1 < k2 ,
h
E

Xkd2 ,1 − Xkd1 ,1

4 i

≤C

4
X
(k2 − k1 )p
p=2

14

dp

.

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Proof. For all 0 ≤ k1 < k2 ,
h
E

Xkd2 ,1 − Xkd1 ,1

4 i

4

=



` 
E
d2

k2
X

d
Zk,1
−

k=k1 +1

!4 

k2
X

d
Zk,1
1(Ad )c

.

k

k=k1 +1

Therefore by the Hölder inequality,
h
E

Xkd2 ,1 − Xkd1 ,1

4 i

≤



4

4

8`
24`
(k2 − k1 )2 + 2 E 
d2
d

!4 

k2
X

d
Zk,1
1(Ad )c

.

k

(29)

k=k1 +1

The second term can be written:

!4 
" 4
#
k2
X
X
Y
d
d
c
E
Zk,1
E
1(Ad )c  =
Zm
1
,
i ,1 (Ad
mi )
k
i=1

k=k1 +1

where the sum is over all the quadruplets (mi )4i=1 satisfying mi ∈ {k1 + 1, . . . , k2 }, i = 1, . . . , 4.
The expectation on the right hand side can be upper bounded depending on the cardinality of
{m1 , . . . , m4 }. For all 1 ≤ j ≤ 4, define
Ij = {(m1 , . . . , m4 ) ∈ {k1 + 1, . . . , k2 } ; #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = j} .

(30)

Let (m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 ) ∈ {k1 + 1, . . . , k2 }4 and (X̃kd )k≥0 be defined as:
X̃0d = X0d
with Ãdk+1 =
defined by

n
Uk+1

` d
d
√ Zk+1
1Ãd ,
and X̃k+1
= X̃kd + 1k∈{m
/
1 −1,m2 −1,m3 −1,m4 −1}
k+1
d
P
o
d
d
≤ exp
, where for all k ≥ 0 and all 1 ≤ i ≤ d, ∆Ṽk,i is
i=1 ∆Ṽk,i
d
∆Ṽk,i

=V



d
X̃k,i




−V

d
X̃k,i

` d
+ √ Zk+1,i
d


.

n
oc
Admj , the two processes (Xk )k≥0 and (X̃k )k≥0 are equal. Let
 
F be the σ-field generated by X̃kd
.
Note that on the event

T4

j=1

k≥0

n
o
d
d
(a) #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 4, as the
Umj , Zm
,
.
.
.
,
Z
mj ,d
j ,1

are independent condition1≤j≤4

ally to F,

E

4
Y

j=1


d
Zm
1Ad c
j ,1
mj

F =

4
Y


E

d
Zm
1Ãd c
j ,1

=

"
E

j=1

F ,

mj

j=1
4
Y



d
Zm
ϕ
j ,1

d
X

!
∆Ṽmd j −1,i

#
F

.

i=1

where ϕ(x) = (1 − ex )+ . Since the function ϕ is 1-Lipschitz, we get
ϕ

d
X
i=1

!
∆Ṽmd j −1,i

d
X
`
d
d
√
V̇ (X̃mj −1,1 )Zmj ,1 +
∆Ṽmd j −1,i
−ϕ −
d
i=2

!

`
d
d
≤ ∆Ṽmd j −1,1 + √ V̇ (X̃m
)Zm
.
j −1,1
j ,1
d
15

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Then,

E

4
Y




4 n
o
Y
d
c  ≤ E 
,
Admj + Bm
j


d
Zm
1Ad
j ,1

mj

j=1

j=1

where

`
d
d
d
d
√
∆
Ṽ
+
Zm
F
,
V̇
(
X̃
)Z
mj −1,1
mj −1,1
mj ,1
j ,1
d
"
(
)!
#
d
X
`
d
d
d
d
= E Zmj ,1 1−exp − √ V̇ (X̃mj −1,1 )Zmj ,1 +
F .
∆Ṽmj −1,i
d
i=2

Admj = E
d
Bm
j



+

By the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means and convex inequalities,




4 
4
4 
4
X
Y
d
d
.
Admj + Bm
E
Zm
1Ad c  ≤ 8E 
j ,1
j
mj

j=1

j=1

By Lemma 2(ii) and the Hölder inequality, there exists C > 0 such that E



Admj

4 

≤ Cd−2 .

d
On the other hand, by [2, Lemma 6] since Zm
is independent of F,
j ,1
"
! #
d
X
`
`2
d
d
d
2
d
Bmj = E √ V̇ (X̃mj −1,1 )G
V̇ (X̃mj −1,1 ) , −2
∆Ṽmj −1,i F ,
d
d
i=2
d
where the function G is defined in (26). By H1(ii) and since G is bounded, E[(Bm
)4 ] ≤ Cd−2 .
j
Q4
d
−2
Therefore |E[ j=1 Zmj ,1 1(Adm )c ]| ≤ Cd , showing that
j

"
X

E

ally to F,

d
E  Zm
1 ,1

2

1(Ad )c
m1
≤E

h

3
Y

#
d
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
m

i

i=1

(m1 ,m2 ,m3 ,m4 )∈I4

(b) #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 3, as the

4
Y

n

)

≤

c

d
d
Umj , Zm
, . . . , Zm
j ,1
j ,d



C k2 − k1
.
d2
4

o

(31)

are independent condition1≤j≤3


d
Zm
1Ad
j ,1

c

mj

j=2

d
Zm
1 ,1

2

F

3
i Y

F


d
E Zm
1Ãd
j ,1

mj

j=2


c

F

≤

3
Y


d
E Zm
1Ãd
j ,1

j=2


c

F

.

mj

Then, following the same steps as above, and using Holder’s inequality yields




3
3 
2 
2
Y
X
d
d
 ≤ Cd−1
E
Zm
1Ad c  ≤ CE 
Admj + Bm
j ,1
j
mj

j=2

and

"
X
(m1 ,m2 ,m3 ,m4 )∈I3

E

4
Y

i=1

j=2

#
d
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
m

i

c

)

16



C
C k2 − k1
≤ (k2 − k1 )3 .
≤
d
3
d

(32)

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

(c) If #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 2 two cases have to be considered:
h
i
h
2
2
 2 i h d 2 i
d
d
d
c Z
c
E Zm
1
1
≤
E
E Zm2 ,1
≤ 1,
Z
d
d
m2 ,1
m1 ,1
1 ,1
(Ãm1 )
(Am2 )
h
i
i
h

 d
3
4
3
d
d
d
c
≤ .
E Zm
E Zm
1(Ad )c Zm
1
≤ E Zm
2 ,1
1 ,1
2 ,1 (Ad
1 ,1
m1
m2 )
π
This yields
"
X
(m1 ,m2 ,m3 ,m4 )∈I2

E

4
Y

#
d
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
m

i

i=1

)

c


≤

(d) If #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 1: E



4
3+4·
π



d
c
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
mi )

"
X

E

(m1 ,m2 ,m3 ,m4 )∈I1

4
Y
i=1

(k2 − k1 )(k2 − k1 − 1) ≤ C(k2 − k1 )2 . (33)

4 

≤E

h

d
Zm
1 ,1

4 i

≤ 3, then

#
d
c
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
mi )

≤ 3(k2 − k1 ) .

(34)

The proof is completed by combining (29) with (53), (32), (33) and (34).

4.5

Proof of Proposition 3

We preface the proof by a preliminary lemma.
Lemma
6. Assume that H 1 holds. Let µ be a limit point of the sequence of laws (µd )d≥1 of
 d
(Yt,1 )t≥0 , d ∈ N∗ . Then for all t ≥ 0, the pushforward measure of µ by Wt is π.
Proof. By (7),
h
i
d
d
lim E Yt,1
− Xbdtc,1
= 0.

d→+∞

Since (µd )d≥1 converges weakly to µ, for all bounded Lipschitz function ψ : R → R, Eµ [ψ(Wt )] =
d
d
limd→+∞ E[ψ(Yt,1
)] = limd→+∞ E[ψ(Xbdtc,1
)]. The proof is completed upon noting that for all
∗
d
d ∈ N and all t ≥ 0, Xbdtc,1 is distributed according to π .
Proof of Proposition 3. Let µ be a limit point of (µd )d≥1 . It is straightforward to show that
µ is a solution to the martingale problem associated with L if for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R), m ∈ N∗ ,
g : Rm → R bounded and continuous, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tm ≤ s ≤ t:



Z t
Eµ φ (Wt ) − φ (Ws ) −
Lφ (Wu ) du g (Wt1 , . . . , Wtm ) = 0 .
(35)
s

Cc∞ (R, R),

∗

m

Let φ ∈
m ∈ N , g : R → R continuous and bounded, 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tm ≤ s ≤ t
and WV̇ = {w ∈ W|wu 6∈ DV̇ for almost every u ∈ [s, t]}. Note first that w ∈ WV̇c if and only
Rt
if s 1DV̇ (wu )du > 0. Therefore, by H2 and Fubini’s theorem:
µ

Z

E

s

t

 Z t


1DV̇ (Wu )du =
Eµ 1DV̇ (Wu ) du = 0 ,
s

17

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

showing that µ(WV̇c ) = 0. We now prove that on WV̇ ,

Ψs,t : w 7→

Z
φ(wt ) − φ(ws ) −

t


Lφ(wu )du g(wt1 , . . . , wtm )

(36)

s

Rt
is continuous. It is clear that it is enough to show that w 7→ s Lφ(wu )du is continuous on WV̇ .
So let w ∈ WV̇ and (wn )n≥0 be a sequence in W which converges to w in the uniform topology
on compact sets. Then by H2, for any u such that wu ∈
/ DV̇ , Lφ(wun ) converges to Lφ(wu ) when
n
Therefore by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem,
R tgoes ton infinity and Lφ isRbounded.
t
Lφ(w
)du
converges
to
Lφ(w
)du.
Hence, the map defined by (36) is continuous on WV̇ .
u
u
s
s
Since (µd )d≥1 converges weakly to µ, by (16):
µ (Ψs,t ) = lim µd (Ψs,t ) = 0 ,
d→+∞

which is precisely (35).

4.6

Proof of Theorem 3

By Proposition 3, it is enough to check (16) to prove that µ is a solution to the martingale
problem. The core of the proof of Theorem 3 is Proposition 6, for which we need two technical
lemmata.
Lemma 7. Let X, Y and U be R-valued random variables and  > 0. Assume that U is nonnegative and bounded by 1. Let g : R → R be a bounded function on R such that for all
2
2
(x, y) ∈ (−∞, −] ∪ [, +∞) , |g(x) − g(y)| ≤ Cg |x − y|.
(i) For all a > 0,
E [U |g(X) − g(Y )|] ≤ Cg E [U |X − Y |]

+ osc(g) P [|X| ≤ ] + a−1 E [U |X − Y |] + P [ < |X| <  + a] ,
where osc(g) = sup(g) − inf(g).
(ii) If there exist µ ∈ R and σ, CX ∈ R+ such that
sup |P [X ≤ x] − Φ((x − µ)/σ)| ≤ CX ,
x∈R

then
E [U |g(X) − g(Y )|] ≤ Cg E [U |X − Y |]


q
2 −1/2
2
−1/2
+ 2 osc(g) CX + 2E [U |X − Y |] (2πσ )
+ (2πσ )
.
Proof.

(i) Consider the following decomposition

i
h
E [U |g(X) − g(Y)|] = E U |(g(X) − g(Y))| 1{(X,Y)∈(−∞,−]2 }∪{(X,Y)∈[,+∞)2 }


+ E U |g(X) − g(Y)| 1{X∈[−,]} + 1({X<−}∩{Y≥−})∪({X>}∩{Y≤}) .

18

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

In addition, for all a > 0,
({X < −} ∩ {Y ≥ −}) ∪ ({X > } ∩ {Y ≤ })
⊂ { < |X| <  + a} ∪ ({|X| ≥  + a} ∩ {|X − Y| ≥ a}) .
Then using that U ∈ [0, 1), we get

E [U |g(X) − g(Y)|] ≤ Cg E [U |X − Y|] + osc(g) P [|X| <  + a] + a−1 E [U |X − Y|] .
(ii) The result is straightforward if E [U |X − Y|] = 0. Assume E [U |X − Y|] > 0. Combining
the additional assumption and the previous result,
E [U |g(X) − g(Y)|] ≤ Cg E [U |X − Y|]
n
o
+ osc(g) 2CX + 2( + a)(2πσ 2 )−1/2 + a−1 E [U |X − Y|] .
As this result holds for all a > 0, the proof is concluded by setting a =

p
E [U |X − Y|] (2πσ 2 )1/2 /2.

Lemma 8. Assume H1 holds. Let X d be distributed according to π d and Z d be a d-dimensional
standard Gaussian random variable, independent of X d . Then, limd→+∞ Ed = 0, where
"
(
!
!) #
d
d
X
X
`2
`2
d
d
d 2
d 2
d
d
E = E V̇ (X1 ) G
V̇ (X1 ) , 2
V̇ (X1 ) , 2
∆Vi − G
bi
,
d
d
i=2
i=2
∆Vid and bdi are resp. given by (5) and (13).
Pd
Pd
Proof. Set for all
d ≥ 1, Ȳd = i=2 ∆Vid and X̄d = i=2 bdi . By (26), ∂b G(a, b) = −G(a, b)/2 +
√
exp(−b2 /8a)/(2 2πa). As G is bounded and x 7→ x exp(−x) is bounded on R+ , we get
supa∈R+ ;|b|≥a1/4 ∂b G(a, b) < +∞. Therefore, there exists C ≥ 0 such that, for all a ∈ R+ and
2
2
(b1 , b2 ) ∈ −∞, −a1/4 ∪ a1/4 , +∞ ,
|G(a, b1 ) − G(a, b2 )| ≤ C |b1 − b2 | .

(37)

By definition of bdi (13), X̄d may be expressed as X̄d = σd S̄d + µd , where
i

 `2 (d − 1) h
µd = 2(d − 1)E ζ d (X1d , Z1d ) −
E V̇ (X1d )2 ,
4d

h
i2 
h
i
4
`
d 2
d 2
2
2
d 2
E V̇ (X1 ) − E V̇ (X1 )
,
σd = ` E V̇ (X1 ) +
16d
d
X
√
S̄d = ( dσd )−1
βid ,
i=2

h
i
`2 
βid = −`Zid V̇ (Xid ) − √ V̇ (Xid )2 − E V̇ (Xid )2 .
4 d
By H1(ii) the Berry-Essen Theorem [5, Theorem 5.7] can be applied to S̄d . Then, there exists
a universal constant C such that for all d > 0,
"
#
1/2
√
d
sup P
S̄d ≤ x − Φ(x) ≤ C/ d .
d−1
x∈R
19

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

It follows that

√


sup P X̄d ≤ x − Φ((x − µd )/σ̃d ) ≤ C/ d ,
x∈R

σ̃d2

(d − 1)σd2 /d.

where
=
By this result and (37), Lemma 7 can be applied to obtain a constant
C ≥ 0, independent of d, such that:
i



h 
E G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2Ȳd − G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2X̄d X1d


q
q
≤ C εd + d−1/2 + 2εd (2πσ̃d2 )−1/2 + `|V̇ (X1d )|/(2πd1/2 σ̃d2 ) ,


where εd = E X̄d − Ȳd . Using this result, we have
Ed ≤ C

 h

q
i
εd + d−1/2 + 2εd (2πσ̃d2 )−1/2 E |V̇ (X1d )|
h
i
o
+`1/2 E |V̇ (X1d )|3/2 (2πd1/2 σ̃d2 )−1/2 . (38)

h
i
By Lemma 3, εd goes to 0 as d goes to infinity, and by H 1(ii) limd→+∞ σd2 = `2 E V̇ (X)2 .
Combining these results with (38), it follows that Ed goes to 0 when d goes to infinity.
For all n ≥ 0, define Fnd = σ({Xkd , k ≤ n}) and for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R),
n−1
h
io
` X 0 d n d
d
Mnd (φ) = √
φ (Xk,1 ) Zk+1,1 1Adk+1 − E Zk+1,1
1Adk+1 Fkd
d k=0

+

n−1
h
io
`2 X 00 d n d
d
φ (Xk,1 ) (Zk+1,1 )2 1Adk+1 − E (Zk+1,1
)2 1Adk+1 Fkd
. (39)
2d
k=0

Proposition 6. Assume H1 and H2 hold. Then, for all s ≤ t and all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R),

Z t


d
d
d
d
d
) − φ(Ys,1
)−
Lφ(Yr,1
)dr − Mddte
(φ) − Mddse
(φ)
= 0.
lim E φ(Yt,1
d→+∞

s

d
Proof. First, since dYr,1

√ d
1Ad
= ` dZddre,1

d
φ(Yt,1
)

ddre

−

d
φ(Ys,1
)

dr,

√ Z t 0 d
d
=` d
φ (Yr,1 )Zddre,1
1Ad
s

ddre

dr .

(40)

h
i
d
d
As φ is C 3 , using (7) and a Taylor expansion, for all r ∈ [s, t] there exists χr ∈ Xbdrc,1
, Yr,1
such that:
`
d
d
d
d
φ0 (Yr,1
) = φ0 (Xbdrc,1
) + √ (dr − bdrc)φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)Zddre,1
1Ad
ddre
d

2
`2
d
1Ad .
+ (dr − bdrc)2 φ(3) (χr ) Zddre,1
ddre
2d

20

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Plugging this expression into (40) yields:
√ Z t 0 d
d
d
d
φ (Xbdrc,1 )Zddre,1
1Ad dr
φ(Yt,1
) − φ(Ys,1
)=` d
ddre
s
Z t
d
d
(dr − bdrc)φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(Zddre,1
)2 1Ad dr
+ `2
ddre
s
Z
t
`3
d
+ √
(dr − bdrc)2 φ(3) (χr )(Zddre,1
)3 1Ad dr .
ddre
2 d s
As φ(3) is bounded,


−1/2

t

s

On the other hand, I =

Rt
s

ddre

Z

bdtc/d

Z

1
2


= 0.

dr = I1 + I2 with

t

+
s

d
(χr )(Zddre,1
)3 1Ad dr
ddre

d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(dr − bdrc)(Zddre,1
)2 1Ad

ddse/d

I1 =
I2 =

2 (3)

(dr − bdrc) φ

d

lim E

d→+∞

Z

Z

d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(dr − bdrc − 1/2)(Zddre,1
)2 1Ad

ddre

dr

t
d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(Zddre,1
)2 1Ad

ddre

s

dr .

Note that
I1 =

1
d
d
(ddse − ds)(ds − bdsc)φ00 (Xbdsc,1
)(Zddse,1
)2 1Ad
ddse
2d
1
d
d
+ (ddte − dt)(dt − bdtc)φ00 (Xbdtc,1
)(Zddte,1
)2 1Ad
ddte
2d

showing, as φ00 is bounded, that limd→+∞ E[|I1 |] = 0. Therefore,


d
d
lim E φ(Yt,1
) − φ(Ys,1
) − Is,t = 0 ,
d→+∞

where

Z tn √
o
d
d
d
d
` dφ0 (Xbdrc,1
)Zddre,1
+ `2 φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(Zddre,1
)2 /2 1Ad

Is,t =

ddre

s

dr .

Write
Z
Is,t −

t



d
d
d
Lφ(Yr,1
)dr − Mddte
(φ) − Mddse
(φ) = T1d + T2d + T3d − T4d + T5d ,

s

21

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

where


i h(`)
h
√
d
d
d
d
Fbdrc
+
1Ad
) ` d E Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
) dr ,
φ0 (Xbdrc,1
ddre
2
s
 2 h

Z t
i
h(`)
`
d
00
d
2
d
d
Fbdrc −
φ (Xbdrc,1 )
T2 =
E (Zddre,1 ) 1Ad
dr ,
ddre
2
2
s
Z t

d
d
T3d =
) − Lφ(Yr,1
Lφ(Ybdrc/d,1
) dr ,
T1d =

Z

t

s

i
h

`(ddte − dt) 0 d
d
d
d
√
Fbdtc
1Ad
1Ad − E Zddte,1
φ (Xbdtc,1 ) Zddte,1
T4d =
ddte
ddte
d
i
h

2
` (ddte − dt) 00 d
d
d
d
+
Fbdtc
,
)2 1Ad
φ (Xbdtc,1 ) (Zddte,1
)2 1Ad − E (Zddte,1
ddte
ddte
2d
i
h

`(ddse − ds) 0 d
d
d
d
√
Fbdsc
T5d =
1Ad
1Ad − E Zddse,1
φ (Xbdsc,1 ) Zddse,1
ddse
ddse
d

h
i
`2 (ddse − ds) 00 d
d
d
d
+
φ (Xbdsc,1 ) (Zddse,1
)2 1Ad − E (Zddse,1
)2 1Ad
Fbdsc
.
ddse
ddse
2d
It is now proved that for all 1 ≤ i ≤ 5, limd→+∞ E[|Tid |] = 0. First, as φ0 and φ00 are bounded,


(41)
E T4d + T5d ≤ Cd−1/2 .
Denote for all r ∈ [s, t] and d ≥ 1,




d
d
d
d
∆Vr,i
= V Xbdrc,i
− V Xbdrc,i
+ `d−1/2 Zddre,i
)
(
d
X
√
d
d
d
d
bbdrc,i ,
Ξr = 1 ∧ exp −`Zddre,1 V̇ (Xbdrc,1 )/ d +
i=2

(

d
X
√
d
d
d
∆Vr,i
Υdr = 1 ∧ exp −`Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)/ d +

)
,

i=2
d
d
where for all k, i ≥ 0, bdk,i = bd (Xk,i
, Zk+1,i
), and for all x, z ∈ R, bd (x, y) is given by (13). By
the triangle inequality,
Z t
d
d
φ0 (Xbdrc,1
) (A1,r + A2,r + A3,r )dr ,
(42)
T1 ≤
s

where
h


i
√
d
d
1Ad − Υdr Fbdrc
,
A1,r = ` d E Zddre,1
ddre
h
i
√

d
d
Υdr − Ξdr Fbdrc
,
A2,r = ` d E Zddre,1
h
i
√
d
d
d
A3,r = ` d E Zddre,1
Ξdr Fbdrc
+ V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)h(`)/2 .
Since t 7→ 1 ∧ exp(t) is 1-Lipschitz, by Lemma 2(ii) E[ Ad1,r ] goes to 0 as d → +∞ for almost
all r. So by the Fubini theorem, the first term in (42) goes to 0 as d → +∞. For Ad2,r , by [2,

22

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Lemma 6],
(

"
E



Ad2,r



≤E

2

` V̇

d
)
(Xbdrc,1

G

d
`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

d

,2

d
X

!
d
∆Vr,i

i=2
d
`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

−G

d

,2

d
X

!) #
bdbdrc,i

,

i=2

where G is defined in (26). By Lemma 8, this expectation goes to zero when d goes to infinity.
Then by the Fubini theorem and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, the second term
of (42) goes 0 as d → +∞. For the last term, by [2, Lemma 6] again:
h
i
√
d
d
d
Ξdr Fbdrc
= −`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)
` d E Zddre,1
×G

!
d
d
2 X
 d

`2 X
d
d
2 `
2
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) ,
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) − 4(d − 1)E ζ (X, Z)
, (43)
d i=1
2d i=2

where X is distributed according to π and Z is a standard Gaussian random variable independent
of X. As G is continuous on R+ × R \ {0, 0} (see [2, Lemma 2]), by H1(ii), Lemma 4 and the
law of large numbers, almost surely,
!
d
d
2 X
 d

`2 X
d
2 `
d
2
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) ,
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) − 4(d − 1)E ζ (X, Z)
d i=1
2d i=2


= `2 G `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ], `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ] = h(`)/2 , (44)

2

lim ` G

d→+∞

where h(`) is defined in (10). Therefore by Fubini’s Theorem, (43) and Lebesgue’s dominated
convergence theorem, the last term of (42) goes to 0 as d goes to infinity. The proof for T2d
follows the same lines. By the triangle inequality,
T2d ≤

Z

t

h

d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(`2 /2) E (Zddre,1
)2 1Ad

ddre

s
t

Z
+

− Ξdr



i
d
Fbdrc
dr



h
i

d
d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
) (`2 /2) E (Zddre,1
)2 Ξdr Fbdrc
− h(`)/2 dr . (45)

s

By Fubini’s Theorem, Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem and Proposition 1, the expectation of the first term goes to zero when d goes to infinity. For the second term, by [2, Lemma
6 (A.5)],
"
2

(` /2)E

(

d
(Zddre,1
)2 1

d
d
X
`Zddre,1
d
∧ exp − √
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)+
bdbdrc,i
d
i=2

)

#
d
Fbdrc

= (B1 + B2 − B3 )/2 , (46)

23

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

where
B1 = `2 Γ

d
d


`2 X
`2 X
d
d
)2 ,
)2 − 4(d − 1)E ζ d (X, Z)
V̇ (Xbdrc,i
V̇ (Xbdrc,i
d i=1
2d i=2

!
,

!
d
d
2 X
 d

`2 X
d
2 `
d
2
B2 =
G
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) ,
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) − 4(d − 1)E ζ (X, Z)
,
d
d i=1
2d i=2
!−1/2
d
d
X
`4 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2
2
d
2
2π`
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) /d
B3 =
d
i=1
 h
i2 
P

d
 −(d − 1)E[2ζ d (X, Z)] + (`2 /(4d)) di=2 V̇ (Xbdrc,i

)2 
× exp −
,
P
d
d


)2 /d
2`2 i=1 V̇ (Xbdrc,i


d
`4 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

where Γ is defined in (27). As Γ is continuous on R+ × R \ {0, 0} (see [2, Lemma 2]), by H1(ii),
Lemma 4 and the law of large numbers, almost surely,
2

lim ` Γ

d→+∞

!
d
d
2 X
 d

`2 X
d
2 `
d
2
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) ,
V̇ (Xbdrc,i ) − 4(d − 1)E ζ (X, Z)
d i=1
2d i=2


= `2 Γ `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ], `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ] = h(`) . (47)

By Lemma 4, by H1(ii) and the law of large numbers, almost surely,
 h
i2 
P

d
 −(d − 1)E[2ζ d (X, Z)] + (`2 /(4d)) di=2 V̇ (Xbdrc,i

)2 
lim exp −
P
d
d


d→+∞
2`2 i=1 V̇ (Xbdrc,i
)2 /d


`2
= exp − E[V̇ (X)2 ]
8


Then, as G is bounded on R+ × R,
Z t

d
lim E
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
) (B2 − B3 ) dr = 0 .
d→+∞


.

(48)

s

Therefore, by Fubini’s Theorem, (46), (47), (48) and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem,
d
d
− T3,2
) where
the second term of (45) goes to 0 as d goes to infinity. Write T3d = (h(`)/2)(T3,1
d
T3,1
d
T3,2

Z tn 

o
d
d
=
φ00 Xbdrc,1
− φ00 Yr,1
dr ,
s
Z tn 
 

 0 d o
d
d
d
=
V̇ Xbdrc,1
φ0 Xbdrc,1
− V̇ Yr,1
φ Yr,1 dr .
s

d
d
It is enough to show that E[ T3,1
] and E[ T3,2
] go to 0 when d goes to infinity to conclude the
h
i
d
d
proof. By (7) and the mean value theorem, for all r ∈ [s, t] there exists χr ∈ Xbdrc,1
, Yr,1
such
that


√

d
d
d
φ00 Xbdrc,1
− φ00 Yr,1
= φ(3) (χr ) (dr − bdrc)(`/ d)Zddre,1
1Ad .
ddre

24

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

d
Since φ(3) is bounded, it follows that limd→+∞ E[|T3,1
|] = 0. On the other hand,

d
T3,2

Z tn 


o 0  d
d
d
− V̇ Yr,1
φ Xbdrc,1 dr
=
V̇ Xbdrc,1
s
Z tn 


o
d
d
d
− φ0 Yr,1
+
φ0 Xbdrc,1
V̇ Yr,1
dr .
s

Since φ0 has a bounded support, by H2, Fubini’s theorem, and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence
theorem, the expectation of the absolute value of the first term goes to 0 as d goes to infinity.
d
The second term is dealt with following the same steps as for T3,1
and using H1(ii).
Proof of Theorem 3. By Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Proposition 6, it is enough to prove
that for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R), p ≥ 1, all 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tp ≤ s ≤ t and g : Rp → R bounded and
continuous function,
h
i
d
d
lim E (Mddte
(φ) − Mddse
(φ))g(Ytd1 , . . . , Ytdp ) = 0 ,
d→+∞

where for n ≥ 1, Mnd (φ) is defined in (39). But this result is straightforward taking successively
the conditional expectations with respect to Fk , for k = ddte , . . . , ddse.

5

Proofs of Section 3

5.1

Proof of Theorem 4

The proof of this theorem follows the same steps as the the proof of Theorem 2. Note that ξθ
and ξ0 , given by (11), are well defined on I ∩ {x ∈ R | x + rθ ∈ I}. Let the function υ : R2 → R
be defined for x, θ ∈ R by
υ(x, θ) = 1I (x + rθ)1I (x + (1 − r)θ) .

(49)

Lemma 9. Assume G1 holds. Then, there exists C > 0 such that for all θ ∈ R,
Z 

2 1/2
{ξθ (x) − ξ0 (x)} υ(x, θ) + θV̇ (x)ξ0 (x)/2 dx
≤ C|θ|β .

I

Proof. The proof follows as Lemma 1 and is omitted.
Lemma 10. Assume that G1 holds. Let X be a random variable distributed according to π and
Z be a standard Gaussian random variable independent of X. Define
DI = {X + r`d−1/2 Z ∈ I} ∩ {X + (1 − r)`d−1/2 Z ∈ I} .
Then,
(i) limd→+∞ d

√
1DI ζ d (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (X)/(2 d)

2

= 0.
2

(ii) Let p be given by G1(i). Then,
n
√
√ o
√
d 1DI V (X) − V (X + `Z/ d) + `Z V̇ (X)/ d
lim
d→+∞

25

= 0.
p

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

(iii) limd→∞ d 1DI log(1 + ζd (X, Z)) − ζ d (X, Z) + [ζ d ]2 (X, Z)/2


1

= 0,

where ζ d is given by (14).
Proof. Note by definition of ζ d and ξθ (11), for x ∈ I and x + r`d−1/2 z ∈ I,
ζ d (x, z) = ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x) − 1 .

(50)

Using Lemma 9,
√ 2
1DI ζ d (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (X)/(2 d)
2
Z 

√ 2
−1/2
=E
υ(x, `Zd
) {ξ`Zd−1/2 (x) − ξ0 (x)} + `Z V̇ (x)ξ0 (x)/(2 d) dx
I


2β −β
≤ C` d E |Z|2β .
The proof of (i) is completed using β > 1. For (ii), write for all x ∈ I and x + `zd−1/2 z ∈ I,
∆V (x, z) = V (x) − V (x + `zd−1/2 ). By G1(i)

Z 
√ p
√ p
υ(x, `Zd−1/2 )∆V (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (x)/ d π(x)dx
1DI ∆V (X, Z) + `Z V̇ (X)/ d = E
p
I
h
i
βp
≤ C`βp d−βp/2 E |Z|
and the proof of (ii) follows from β > 1. For (iii), note that for all x > 0, u ∈ [0, x], |(x − u)(1 +
u)−1 | ≤ |x|, and the same inequality holds for x ∈ (−1, 0] and u ∈ [x, 0]. Then by (23) and (24),
for all x > −1,
log(1 + x) − x + x2 /2 = |R(x)| ≤ x2 |log(1 + x)| .
Then by (50), for x ∈ I and x + `d−1/2 z ∈ I,
log(1 + ζd (x, z)) − ζ d (x, z) + [ζ d ]2 (x, z)/2
2

≤ (ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x) − 1) |log(ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x))| ,
2

≤ (ξ`zd−1/2 (x)/ξ0 (x) − 1) V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x) /2 .
Since for all x ∈ R, | exp(x) − 1| ≤ |x|(exp(x) + 1), this yields,
log(1 + ζd (x, z)) − ζ d (x, z) + [ζ d ]2 (x, z)/2
≤ V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x)

3






exp V (x) − V (x + `zd−1/2 ) + 1 /4 .

Therefore,
Z
υ(x, `zd−1/2 ) log(1 + ζd (x, z)) − ζ d (x, z) + [ζ d ]2 (x, z)/2 π(x)dx ≤ (I1 + I2 )/4 ,
I

where
Z
I1 =
ZI
I2 =

3

υ(x, `zd−1/2 ) V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x) π(x)dx
3

υ(x, `zd−1/2 ) V (x + `zd−1/2 ) − V (x) π(x + `zd−1/2 )dx .

I

26

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

By Hölder’s inequality, a change of variable and using G1(i),
Z
3/4
3
4
−1/2
+ `zd−1/2
V̇ (x) π(x)dx
I1 + I2 ≤ C `zd

3β

!
.

I

The proof follows from G1(ii) and β > 1.
For ease of notation, write for all d ≥ 1 and i, j ∈ {1, . . . , d},
n
o n
o
d
DI,j
= Xjd + r`d−1/2 Zjd ∈ I ∩ Xjd + (1 − r)`d−1/2 Zjd ∈ I ,
d
DI,i:j
=

j
\

d
DI,k
.

(51)

k=i

Lemma 11. Assume that G1 holds. For all d ≥ 1, let X d be distributed according to π d , and
Z d be d-dimensional Gaussian random variable independent of X d . Then, limd→+∞ JdI = 0
where


d 
h
i `2
X
`Z d
d
d
d
JdI = 1DI,2:d
∆Vid + √ i V̇ (Xid ) − 2E 1DI,i
V̇ 2 (Xid )
.
d
d ζ (Xi , Zi ) +
4d
d
i=2
1

Proof. The proof follows the same lines as the proof of Lemma 3 and is omitted.
Define for all d ≥ 1,
"
( d
)
X

2
EdI = E Z1d 1DI,1:d
1 ∧ exp
∆Vid
d
i=1

(
−1/2

−1 ∧ exp −`d

Z1d V̇

(X1d )

+

d
X

)#
bdI (Xid , Zid )

,

i=2

where ∆Vid is given by (5), for all x ∈ I, z ∈ R,
h
i `2
`z
d
d
d
bdI (x, z) = − √ V̇ (x) + 2E 1DI,1
V̇ 2 (x) ,
d ζ (X1 , Z1 ) −
4d
d

(52)

and ζ d is given by (14).
Proposition 7. Assume G1 holds. Let X d be a random variable distributed according to π d and
Z d be a zero-mean standard Gaussian random variable, independent of X. Then limd→+∞ EdI =
0.
Pd
Proof. Let Λd = −`d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d ) + i=2 ∆Vid . By the triangle inequality, Ed ≤ Ed1 + Ed2 + Ed3
where
"
( d
)
#
X

 d
d
d 2
d
E1,I = E Z1 1DI,1:d
1 ∧ exp
∆Vi − 1 ∧ exp Λ
,
d
i=1

"
Ed2,I = E


d 2

Z1

(
1DI,2:d
1 ∧ exp Λd − 1 ∧ exp −`d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d ) +
d


d
X

)#
bd (Xid , Zid )

i=2

"
Ed3,I

=E

2
Z1d

(
−1/2

1(Dd )c 1 ∧ exp −`d
I,2:d

Z1d V̇

(X1d )

+

d
X
i=2

27

)#
b

d

(Xid , Zid )

,

,

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Since t 7→ 1 ∧ et is 1-Lipschitz, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get
i
h
2
d
−1/2 d
Z1 V̇ (X1d )
∆V1d + `d−1/2 Z1d V̇ (X1d ) ≤ kZ1d k24 1DI,1
Ed1,I ≤ E Z1d 1DI,1
d ∆V1 + `d
d

.
2

By Lemma 2(ii), Ed1,I goes to 0 as d goes to +∞. Using again that t 7→ 1 ∧ et is 1-Lipschitz and
Lemma 11, Ed2,I goes to 0 as well. Note that, as Z1d and 1(Dd )c are independent, by (18),
I,2:d

Ed3,I ≤ dP




c

d
DI,1

≤ Cd1−γ/2 .

Therefore, Ed3,I goes to 0 as d goes to +∞ by G1(iii).
Lemma 12. Assume G1 holds. For all d ∈ N∗ , let X d be a random variable distributed according
to π d and Z d be a standard Gaussian random variable in Rd , independent of X. Then,
h
i
`2
d
d
d
I,
lim 2d E 1DI,1
d ζ (X1 , Z1 ) = −
d→+∞
4
where I is defined in (6) and ζ d in (14).
Proof. Noting that for all θ ∈ R,
Z
Z
1I (x + rθ)1I (x + (1 − r)θ)π(x + θ)dx =
1I (x + (r − 1)θ)1I (x − rθ)π(x)dx .
I

I

the proof follows the same steps as the the proof of Lemma 4 and is omitted.
Proof of Theorem 4. The proof follows the same lines as the proof of Theorem 2 and is therefore
omitted.

5.2

Proof of Proposition 4

As for the proof of Proposition 2, the proof follows from Lemma 13.
Lemma 13. Assume G1. Then, there exists C > 0 such that, for all 0 ≤ k1 < k2 ,
h
E

Xkd2 ,1 − Xkd1 ,1

4 i

≤C

4
X
(k2 − k1 )p
p=2

dp

.

Proof. We use the same decomposition of E[(Xkd2 ,1 − Xkd1 ,1 )4 ] as in the proof of Lemma 5 so
that we only need to upper bound the following term:

!4 
" 4
#
k2
X
X
Y
−2 
d
−2
d
d E
E
Zmi ,1 1(Ad )c ,
Zk,1 1(Ad )c  = d
mi
k
i=1

k=k1 +1

where the sum is over all the quadruplets (mp )4p=1 satisfying mp ∈ {k1 + 1, . . . , k2 }, p = 1, . . . , 4.
Let (m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 ) ∈ {k1 + 1, . . . , k2 }4 and (X̃kd )k≥0 be defined as:
X̃0d = X0d

d
d
and X̃k+1
= X̃kd + 1k∈{m
`d−1/2 Zk+1
1Ãd
/
1 −1,m2 −1,m3 −1,m4 −1}

k+1

28

,

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

where for all k ≥ 0 and all 1 ≤ i ≤ d,
(
Ãdk+1 =

Uk+1 ≤ exp

d
∆Ṽk,i



d
X

!)
d
∆Ṽk,i

i=1

=V

d
X̃k,i






d
d
− V X̃k,i
.
+ `d−1/2 Zk+1,i

Define, for all k1 + 1 ≤ k ≤ k2 , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d,
n
o n
o
d,k
d
d
d
d
D̃I,j
= X̃k,j
+ r`d−1/2 Zk+1,j
∈ I ∩ X̃k,j
+ (1 − r)`d−1/2 Zk+1,j
∈I ,
d,k
D̃I,i:j
=

j
\

d,k
D̃I,`
.

`=i


c
d,k
Note that by convention V (x) = −∞ for all x ∈
/ I, Ãdk+1 ⊂ D̃I,1:d
so that Ãdk+1
may

c

c S 
c

d,k
d,k
be written Ãdk+1
= D̃I,1:d
Ãdk+1 ∩ D̃I,1:d
. Let F be the σ-field generated by
 
X̃kd
. Consider the case #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 4. The case #{m1 , . . . , m4 } = 3 is dealt
k≥0

with
n similarly and the two
o other cases follow the same lines as the proof of Lemma 13. As
d
d
Umj , Zm
,
·
·
·
,
Z
are independent conditionally to F,
mj ,d
j ,1
1≤j≤4


E

4
Y


d
Zm
1Ad
j ,1

F =

c

mj

j=1

4  
Y
E 1
j=1

d,m
D̃I,1:dj−1

c Z d
mj ,1



F +E 1

d,m
D̃I,1:dj−1

1Ãd

mj



c Z d
mj ,1

F

.

d
d
As Umj is independent of (Zm
, · · · , Zm
) conditionally to F, the second term may be written:
j ,1
j ,d


E 1

d,m

D̃I,1:dj−1

1Ãd

mj

c Z d
mj ,1

"


F =E

(
d
1 d,mj−1 Zm
j ,1
D̃

1 − exp

I,1:d

d
X

)!
∆Ṽmd j −1,i

i=1

#
F

+

d,m

Since the function x 7→ (1 − ex )+ is 1-Lipschitz, on D̃I,1:dj−1
( d
X

1 − exp

)!
d
d
− Θmj ≤ ∆Ṽmd j −1,1 + `d−1/2 V̇ (X̃m
)Zm
,
j −1,1
j ,1

∆Ṽmd j −1,i

i=1

+

d
d
where Θmj = (1 − exp{−`d−1/2 V̇ (X̃m
)Zm
+
j −1,1
j ,1

"
E

(

d
1 d,mj−1 Zm
j ,1
D̃
I,1:d

1 − exp

d
X

Pd

i=2

∆Ṽmd j −1,i })+ . Then,

)!
∆Ṽmd j −1,i

i=1

#
F

d
≤ Admj + Bm
,
j

+

where

d
Bm
j




d
d
−1/2
d
d
Zm
1
∆
Ṽ
+
`d
V̇
(
X̃
)Z
F
,
d,m
mj −1,1
mj −1,1
mj ,1
j ,1
D̃I,1 j−1


d
= E 1 d,mj−1 Zm
Θ
F
.
mj
j ,1

Admj = E

D̃I,2:d

29

.

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

By Jensen inequality,

E

4
Y





d
Zm
1Ad
j ,1

mj

j=1

4  
Y
c  ≤ E 
E 1

d,m

D̃I,1:dj−1

j=1



4
X

≤ CE
E 1

c |Z d
mj ,1 |

d,m

D̃I,1:dj−1

j=1







d
,
F + Admj + Bm
j

4
c |Z d
mj ,1 |






F + Admj

4



d
+ Bm
j

4

,

By G1(iii) and Holder’s inequality applied with α = 1/(1 − 2/γ) > 1, for all 1 ≤ j ≤ 4,

E 1

d,m
D̃I,1:dj−1

4
c |Z d
mj ,1 |




≤ E 1

d,m
D̃I,1 j−1

4
c |Z d
mj ,1 |


d
X
E 1


+



d,m
D̃I,i j−1

i=2

,

c

h
i(α−1)/α
d
4α/(α−1)
d−γ/(2α) + d1−γ/2 ,
≤ E |Zm
|
j ,1
≤ Cd1−γ/2 .
By Lemma 10(ii) and the Holder’s inequality, there exists C > 0 such that E



Admj

4 

≤ Cd−2 .

d
On the other hand, by [2, Lemma 6] since Zm
is independent of F,
j ,1

"
d
Bm
j

= E 1

d,m

D̃I,2:dj−1

`d

−1/2

V̇

d
(X̃m
)G
j −1,1

2 −1

` d

V̇

d
(X̃m
)2 , −2
j −1,1

d
X

!
∆Ṽmd j −1,i

#
F

,

i=2

d
)4 ] ≤ Cd−2 .
where the function G is defined in (26). By G1(ii) and since G is bounded, E[(Bm
j
Q4
d
Since γ ≥ 6 in G1(iii), |E[ j=1 Zm
1 d c ]| ≤ Cd−2 , showing that
j ,1 (Am )
j

"
X

E

(m1 ,m2 ,m3 ,m4 )∈I4

5.3

4
Y

#
d
Zm
1
i ,1 (Ad
m

i

i=1

c

)

−2

≤ Cd



k2 − k1
.
4

(53)

Proof of Proposition 5

Lemma
14. Assume that G1 holds. Let µ be a limit point of the sequence of laws (µd )d≥1 of
 d
(Yt,1 )t≥0 , d ∈ N∗ . Then for all t ≥ 0, the pushforward measure of µ by Wt is π.
Proof. The proof is the same as in Lemma 6 and is omitted.
We preface the proof by a lemma which provides a condition to verify that any limit point
µ of (µd )d≥1 is a solution to the local martingale problem associated with (9).
Lemma 15. Assume G1. Let µ be a limit point of the sequence (µd )d≥1 . If for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R),
Rt
the process (φ(Wt )−φ(W0 )− 0 Lφ(Wu )du)t≥0 is a martingale with respect to µ and the filtration
(Bt )t≥0 , then µ solves the local martingale problem associated with (9).

30

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

d
Proof. As for all t ≥ 0 and d ≥ 1, Yt,1
∈ I, for all d ≥ 1 µd (C(R+ , I)) = 1. Since C(R+ , I) is
closed in W, we have by the Portmanteau theorem, µ(C(R+ , I)) = 1. Therefore, we only need
Rt
to prove that for all ψ ∈ C ∞ (I, R), the process (ψ(Wt ) − ψ(W0 ) − 0 Lψ(Wu )du)t≥0 is a local
martingale with respect to µ and the filtration (Bt )t≥0 . Let ψ ∈ C ∞ (I, R).
Rt
Suppose first that for all $ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R), ($(Wt )−$(Wt )− 0 L$(Wu )du)t≥0 is a martingale.
Then, consider the sequence of stopping time defined for k ≥ 1 by τk = inf{t ≥ 0 | |Wt | ≥ k}
and a sequence ($k )k≥0 in Cc∞ (I, R) satisfying:

1. for all k ≥ 1 and all x ∈ I ∩ [−k, k], $k (x) = ψ(x),
2. limk→+∞ $k = ψ in C ∞ (I, R).
Since for all k ≥ 1,
t∧τk


Z
ψ(Wt∧τk ) − ψ(W0 ) −


Lψ(Wu )du

0

t≥0


Z
= $k (Wt∧τk ) − $k (W0 ) −
0

t∧τk


L$k (Wu )du
t≥0

and the sequence (τk )k≥1 goes to +∞ as k goes to +∞ almost surely, it follows that (ψ(Wt ) −
Rt
ψ(W0 ) − 0 Lψ(Wu )du)t≥0 is a local martingale with respect to µ and the filtration (Bt )t≥0 . It
Rt
remains to show that for all $ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R), ($(Wt )−$(W0 )− 0 L$(Wu )du)t≥0 is a martingale
under the assumption of the proposition. We only need to prove that for all $ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R),
0 ≤ s ≤ t, m ∈ N∗ , g : Rm → R bounded and continuous, and 0 ≤ t1 ≤ · · · ≤ tm ≤ s ≤ t:



Z t
Eµ $ (Wt ) − $ (Ws ) −
L$ (Wu ) du g (Wt1 , . . . , Wtm ) = 0 .
(54)
s

Let (φk )k≥0 be a sequence of functions in Cc∞ (I, R) and converging to $ in Cc∞ (I, R). First
note that for all u ∈ [s, t], µ-almost everywhere,
lim φk (Wu ) = $(Wu ) .

(55)

k→+∞

By Lemma 14, for all u ∈ [s, t] the pushforward measure of µ by Wu has density π with respect
to the Lebesgue measure and µ-almost everywhere, limk→+∞ Lφk (Wu ) = L$(Wu ). On the
other hand, there exists C ≥ 0 such that for all k ≥ 0, |Lφk (Wu )| ≤ C(1 + |V̇ (Wu )|). Then,
Z t 
Z t
 
h
i
Eµ
1 + |V̇ (Wu )| du ≤ (t − s) +
Eµ |V̇ (Wu )| du
s
 s Z

≤ (t − s) 1 + |V̇ (x)|π(x)dx .
I

Therefore, µ-almost everywhere by G1(ii) and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem,
we get
Z t
Z t
lim
Lφk (Wu )du =
L$(Wu )du .
(56)
k→+∞

s

s

Therefore, (54) follows from (55) and (56), using again the Lebesgue dominated convergence
theorem and G1(ii).

31

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Proof of Proposition 5. Let µ be a limit point of (µd )d≥1 . By Lemma 15, we only need to prove
Rt
that for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (I, R), the process (φ(Wt ) − φ(W0 ) − 0 Lφ(Wu )du)t≥0 is a martingale with
respect to µ and the filtration (Bt )t≥0 . Then, the proof follows the same line as the proof of
Proposition 3 and is omitted.

5.4

Proof of Theorem 5

Lemma 16. Assume G1 holds. Let X d be distributed according to π d and Z d be a d-dimensional
standard Gaussian random variable, independent of X d . Then, limd→+∞ Ed = 0, where
n 
h


o i
Ed = E V̇ (X1d )1DI,2:d
G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2Ȳd − G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2X̄d
,
d
Pd
Pd
d
where Ȳd = i=2 ∆Vid , ∆Vid and DI,2:d
are given by (5) and (51) and X̄d = i=2 bdI,i , bdI,i =
bdI (Xid , Zid ) with bdI given by (52).
Pd
Pd
Proof. Set for all d ≥ 1, Ȳd = i=2 ∆Vid and X̄d = i=2 bdI,i . By definition of bdI (52), X̄d may
be expressed as X̄d = σd S̄d + µd , where
i
h
i `2 (d − 1) h
d
d
d
E V̇ (X1d )2 ,
µd = 2(d − 1)E 1DI,1
d ζ (X1 , Z1 ) −
4d

h
h
i
i2 
4
`
σd2 = `2 E V̇ (X1d )2 +
E V̇ (X1d )2 − E V̇ (X1d )2
,
16d
d
X
√
S̄d = ( dσd )−1
βid ,
i=2

h
i
`2 
βid = −`Zid V̇ (Xid ) − √ V̇ (Xid )2 − E V̇ (Xid )2 .
4 d
By G1(ii) the Berry-Essen Theorem [5, Theorem 5.7] can be applied to S̄d . Then, there exists
a universal constant C such that for all d > 0,
"r
#
√
d
sup P
S̄d ≤ x − Φ(x) ≤ C/ d .
d−1
x∈R
It follows, with σ̃d2 = (d − 1)σd2 /d, that
√


sup P X̄d ≤ x − Φ((x − µd )/σ̃d ) ≤ C/ d .
x∈R

By this result and (37), Lemma 7 can be applied to obtain a constant C ≥ 0, independent of d,
such that:
h




i
E 1DI,2:d
G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2Ȳd − G `2 V̇ (X1d )2 /d, 2X̄d X1d
d
r h
i
h
i
−1/2
X̄d − Ȳd (2πσ̃d2 )−1/2
≤ C E 1DI,2:d
X̄d − Ȳd + d
+ 2E 1DI,2:d
d
d

q
+ `|V̇ (X1d )|/(2πd1/2 σ̃d2 ) .

32

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

Using this result, we have
i
h
i
n
h
Ed ≤ C `1/2 E |V̇ (X1d )|3/2 (2πd1/2 σ̃d2 )−1/2 + E |V̇ (X1d )|
r h
i
h
X̄d − Ȳd
× E 1DI,2:d
d

+ d−1/2 +

(57)

X̄d − Ȳd
2E 1DI,2:d
d

i

!)
(2πσ̃d2 )−1/2

.

|X̄d − Ȳd |] goes to 0 as d goes to infinity, and by G1(ii) limd→+∞ σ̃d2 =
By Lemma 11, E[1DI,2:d
d
h
i
`2 E V̇ (X)2 . Combining these results with (57), it follows that Ed goes to 0 when d goes to
infinity.
For all n ≥ 0, define Fnd = σ({Xkd , k ≤ n}) and for all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R),
Mnd (φ)

n−1
io
h
` X 0 d n d
d
=√
φ (Xk,1 ) Zk+1,1 1Adk+1 − E Zk+1,1
1Adk+1 Fkd
d k=0

+

n−1
h
io
`2 X 00 d n d
d
φ (Xk,1 ) (Zk+1,1 )2 1Adk+1 − E (Zk+1,1
)2 1Adk+1 Fkd
. (58)
2d
k=0

Proposition 8. Assume G1 and G2 hold. Then, for all s ≤ t and all φ ∈ Cc∞ (R, R),

Z t


d
d
d
d
d
lim E φ(Yt,1 ) − φ(Ys,1 ) −
Lφ(Yr,1 )dr − Mddte (φ) − Mddse (φ)
= 0.
d→+∞

s

Proof. Using the same decomposition as in the proof of Proposition 6, we only need to prove
that for all 1 ≤ i ≤ 5, limd→+∞ E[|Tid |] = 0, where


Z t
h
i h(`)
√
d
d
d
d
T1d =
φ0 (Xbdrc,1
) ` d E Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
) dr ,
1Ad
Fbdrc
+
ddre
2
s

 2 h
Z t
i
`
h(`)
d
d
d
T2d =
E (Zddre,1
)2 1Ad
Fbdrc
dr ,
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)
−
ddre
2
2
s
Z t

d
d
d
T3 =
Lφ(Ybdrc/d,1
) − Lφ(Yr,1
) dr ,
s


h
i
`(ddte − dt) 0 d
d
d
d
√
=
φ (Xbdtc,1 ) Zddte,1
1Ad − E Zddte,1
1Ad
Fbdtc
ddte
ddte
d

h
i
2
` (ddte − dt) 00 d
d
d
d
φ (Xbdtc,1 ) (Zddte,1
)2 1Ad − E (Zddte,1
)2 1Ad
Fbdtc
,
+
ddte
ddte
2d

h
i
`(ddse − ds) 0 d
d
d
d
√
T5d =
φ (Xbdsc,1 ) Zddse,1
1Ad − E Zddse,1
1Ad
Fbdsc
ddse
ddse
d

h
i
`2 (ddse − ds) 00 d
d
d
d
+
φ (Xbdsc,1 ) (Zddse,1
)2 1Ad − E (Zddse,1
)2 1Ad
Fbdsc
.
ddse
ddse
2d


First, as φ0 and φ00 are bounded, E T4d + T5d ≤ Cd−1/2 . Denote for all r ∈ [s, t] and d ≥ 1,




d
d
d
d
∆Vr,i
= V Xbdrc,i
− V Xbdrc,i
+ `d−1/2 Zddre,i
)
(
d
X
√
d,bdrc
d
d
d
Ξr = 1 ∧ exp −`Zddre,1 V̇ (Xbdrc,1 )/ d +
bI,i
,
T4d

i=2

33

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

d
d
d
d
where for all k, i ≥ 0, bd,k
I,i = bI (Xk,i , Zk+1,i ), and for all x, z ∈ R, bI (x, y) is given by (52). For
all k ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, define
n
o n
o
d,k
d
d
d
d
DI,j
= Xk,j
+ r`d−1/2 Zk+1,j
∈ I ∩ Xk,j
+ (1 − r)`d−1/2 Zk+1,j
∈I
d,k
DI,i:j
=

j
\

d,k
DI,`
.

`=i

By the triangle inequality,
Z
|T1 | ≤

t
d
φ0 (Xbdrc,1
) (A1,r + A2,r + A3,r + A4,r )dr ,

(59)

s

where
(
Πdr

= 1 ∧ exp −`d

−1/2

d
Zddre,1
V̇

d
(Xbdrc,1
)

+

d
X

)
d
∆Vr,i

,

i=2



i
√ h d
d
A1,r = ` dE Zddre,1
1Ad − 1Dd,bdrc Πdr Fbdrc
,
ddre
I,1:d
h
i
√
 d
d
1Dd,bdrc Πdr − Ξdr Fbdrc
A2,r = ` d E Zddre,1
,
I,1:d


√
d
d
,
1Dd,bdrc c Ξdr Fbdrc
A3,r = ` d E Zddre,1
I,1:d
h
i
√
d
d
d
A4,r = ` d E Zddre,1
Ξdr Fbdrc
+ V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)h(`)/2 .
Since t 7→ 1 ∧ exp(t) is 1-Lipschitz,
i
√ h


d
d
d
d
∆Vr,1
− `d−1/2 Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
) ,
E Ad1,r ≤ ` dE 1Dd,bdrc Zddre,1
I,1:d
i
√ h
d
d
d
d
≤ ` dE 1Dd,bdrc Zddre,1
∆Vr,1
− `d−1/2 Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
) ,
I,1
i
√ h d
d
d
d
− `d−1/2 Zddre,1
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)
≤ ` dE Zddre,1 1Dd,bdrc ∆Vr,1
I,1

and E[ Ad1,r ] goes to 0 as d → +∞ for almost all r by Lemma 10(ii). So by the Fubini theorem,
the first term in (59) goes to 0 as d → +∞. For Ad2,r , note that
h
√
 d i
d
1Dd,bdrc Πdr − Ξdr Fbdrc
.
A2,r ≤ ` d E Zddre,1
I,2:d

Then, by [2, Lemma 6],
"
E



Ad2,r



≤E

(
2

` V̇

d
(Xbdrc,1
)1Dd,bdrc

G

d
`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

d

I,2:d

,2

d
X

!
d
∆Vr,i

i=2

−G

d
`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

d

,2

d
X

!) #
d,bdrc
bI,i

,

i=2

where G is defined in (26). By Lemma 16, this expectation goes to zero when d goes to infinity.
Then by the Fubini theorem and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, the second term
34

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

of (59) goes 0 as d → +∞. On the other hand, by G1(iii) and Holder’s inequality applied with
α = 1/(1 − 2/γ) > 1, for all 1 ≤ j ≤ 4,
 X


!
d
√
 d 
d
1Dd,bdrc c +
E 1Dd,bdrc c
,
E A3,r ≤ ` d E Zddre,1
I,1

I,i

i=2

 h

i(α−1)/α
√
d
α/(α−1)
−γ/(2α)
1−γ/2
d
≤ ` d E |Zmj ,1 |
+d
≤ Cd3/2−γ/2
and E[ Ad3,r ] goes to 0 as d → +∞ for almost all r. Define
V̄d,1 =

d
X

d
)2
V̇ (Xbdrc,i

d
)2 .
and V̄d,2 = V̄d,1 − V̇ (Xbdrc,1

i=1

For the last term, by [2, Lemma 6]:
h
i
√
d
d
d
Ξdr Fbdrc
` d E Zddre,1
= −`2 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)
 2

 2


`
`
V̄d,1 ,
V̄d,2 − 4(d − 1)E 1DI ζ d (X, Z)
, (60)
×G
d
2d

where DI = X + `d−1/2 Z ∈ I , X is distributed according to π and Z is a standard Gaussian
random variable independent of X. As G is continuous on R+ × R \ {0, 0} (see [2, Lemma 2]),
by G1(ii), Lemma 12 and the law of large numbers, almost surely,


lim `2 G `2 V̄d,1 /d, `2 V̄d,2 /(2d) − 4(d − 1)E 1DI ζ d (X, Z)


= `2 G `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ], `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ] = h(`)/2 , (61)

d→+∞

where h(`) is defined in (10). Therefore by Fubini’s Theorem, (60) and Lebesgue’s dominated
convergence theorem, the last term of (59) goes to 0 as d goes to infinity. The proof for T2d
follows the same lines. By the triangle inequality,
T2d

Z
≤

t

h

d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
)(`2 /2) E (Zddre,1
)2 1Ad

ddre

s
t

Z
+

− Ξdr



i
d
Fbdrc
dr



h
i

d
d
d
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
) (`2 /2) E (Zddre,1
)2 Ξdr Fbdrc
− h(`)/2 dr . (62)

s

By Fubini’s Theorem, Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem and Proposition 7, the expectation of the first term goes to zero when d goes to infinity. For the second term, by [2, Lemma
6 (A.5)],
(

"
2

(` /2)E

d
(Zddre,1
)2 1

d
d
X
`Zddre,1
d,bdrc
d
)+
bI,i
V̇ (Xbdrc,1
∧ exp − √
d
i=2

)

#
d
Fbdrc

= (B1 + B2 − B3 )/2 , (63)

35

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

Durmus et al.

where


B1 = `2 Γ `2 V̄d,1 /d, `2 V̄d,2 /(2d) − 4(d − 1)E 1DI ζ d (X, Z) ,
B2 =
B3 =

d
`4 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2

d
d
`4 V̇ (Xbdrc,1
)2
d



G `2 V̄d,1 /d, `2 V̄d,2 /(2d) − 4(d − 1)E 1DI ζ d (X, Z) ,
−1/2
2π`2 V̄d,1 /d
( 
2 )
−2(d − 1)E[1DI ζ d (X, Z)] + (`2 /(4d))V̄d,2
× exp −
,
2`2 V̄d,1 /d

where Γ is defined in (27). As Γ is continuous on R+ × R \ {0, 0} (see [2, Lemma 2]), by G1(ii),
Lemma 12 and the law of large numbers, almost surely,


 
lim `2 Γ `2 V̄d,1 /d, `2 V̄d,2 /(2d) − 4(d − 1)E 1DI ζ d (X, Z)
d→+∞


= `2 Γ `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ], `2 E[V̇ (X)2 ] = h(`) . (64)
By Lemma 12, by G1(ii) and the law of large numbers, almost surely,
( 
2 )

 2
−2(d − 1)E[1DI ζ d (X, Z)] + (`2 /(4d))V̄d,2
`
2
E[
V̇
(X)
]
.
=
exp
−
lim exp −
d→+∞
8
2`2 V̄d,1 /d
Then, as G is bounded on R+ × R,
Z t

d
lim E
φ00 (Xbdrc,1
) (B2 − B3 ) dr = 0 .
d→+∞

(65)

s

Therefore, by Fubini’s Theorem, (63), (64), (65) and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem,
the second term of (62) goes to 0 as d goes to infinity. The proof for T3d follows exactly the
same lines as the proof of Proposition 6.
Proof of Theorem 5. Using Proposition 4, Proposition 5 and Proposition 8, the proof follows
the same lines as the proof of Theorem 3.

Acknowledgment
The work of A.D. and E.M. is supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, under grant
ANR-14-CE23-0012 (COSMOS).

References
[1] A. S. Cherny and H.-J. Engelbert. Singular stochastic differential equations, volume 1858 of
Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[2] B. Jourdain, T. Lelievre, and B. Miasojedow. Optimal scaling for the transient phase of the
random walk Metropolis algorithm: the mean-field limit. The annals of Applied Probability,
2015.
36

Durmus et al.

Optimal scaling under Lp mean differentiability

[3] L. Le Cam. Asymptotic Methods in Statistical Decision Theory. Springer Series in Statistics.
Springer-Verlag New York, New York, 1986.
[4] N. Metropolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, and A.H. Teller. Equations of state
calculations by fast computing machine. J. Chem. Phys., 21:1087–1091, 1953.
[5] V.V. Petrov. Limit theorems of probability theory, volume 4 of Oxford Studies in Probability.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. Sequences of independent
random variables, Oxford Science Publications.
[6] G.O. Roberts, A. Gelman, and W.R. Gilks. Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random
walk Metropolis algorithms. The Annals of Applied Probability, 7(1):110–120, 1997.
[7] L.C.G. Rogers and D. Williams. Diffusions, Markov processes and martingales. Vol 2: Ito
calculus. Cambridge University press, 2000.

37

