Arxiv:2002.01458V3 [Math.PR]

Home , Functional derivative

arXiv:2002.01458v3 [math.PR] 27 Apr 2020 R oto h ieaue ecnie eea functions general consider we literature, the of most vectors U linearize vracaso etfntos(e o ntneScin 2.5 Sections instance for (see functions test of att class particular a literature, over depend statistics for mathematical versions the corresponding In th are Since there CLTs. and of enormous versions is different of history the regarding nrmnst pl oteaoetr n o h eane to remainder the functions for nonlinear and for term CLT centra above a the the state for to conditions apply sufficient to giving increments By remainder. a and nteLneegcniin(rpsdi 92 n sue nm di in non-identically used with is and considered 1922) is in distribution (proposed normal condition Lindeberg the in h admvralst eidpnet u o necessarily order not some but of independent, moments L of by be conditions proposed to growth was CLTs variables the random of the generalisation notable first The R √ d hsrsac eetdfo h upr fte“hieRisqu “Chaire the of support the from benefited research This nti ae,w r neetdi h ovrec nlwof law in convergence the in interested are we paper, this In eta ii hoes(Ls n hi eeaiain ha generalisations their and (CLTs) theorems limit Central safnto endo oeWsesensaeo probabilit of space Wasserstein some on defined function a is N ϕ ( MIIA ESRSWT PLCTOST H MEAN-FIELD THE TO APPLICATIONS WITH MEASURES EMPIRICAL x ETA II HOE VRNNLNA UCINL OF FUNCTIONALS NON-LINEAR OVER THEOREM LIMIT CENTRAL ) Abstract. oerglrt supin o h soitdlna func linear associated varia the random for i.i.d. assumptions of regularity measure some empirical the of functionals esr a h ubro atce ost nnt) hnth when infinity), to goes particles of number the interactin al an (as we in measure particles result, of this measure of empirical consequence the between even a As methods, component. Monte-Carlo measure to the applied be can generalisation N ( 1 m ζ √ i ( X ) i N dx =1 N i ≥ ( 1 ) U LCUTO FITRCIGPRIL SYSTEMS PARTICLE INTERACTING OF FLUCTUATION δm δU o oemsrbefunction mesurable some for r ...acrigto according i.i.d. are ( N 1 nti ok eeaie eso ftecnrllmttheo limit central the of version generalised a work, this In P N i N =1 1 + N δ ζ − i ) i − m U 0 1. ( + ejmnJudi n li Tse Alvin and Jourdain Benjamin m nrdcinadnotations and Introduction N 0 U 1 )) . m X j i − =1 notesmof sum the into 0 1 δ hc eog oti asrti pc.I otatwith contrast In space. Wasserstein this to belongs which ζ j ϕ ζ , + 2 on i R − δ 1 h oetcniincnb ute weakened further be can condition moment The . d Z yuigtelna ucinlderivative functional linear the using By . U R d ninhsbe adt Lsta r uniform are that CLTs to paid been has ention sFnnir” odto uRisque. du Fondation Financiers”, es atcesse n hi enfil limiting mean-field their and system particle g n o nylna nso h form the of ones linear only not and δm δU tiue aibe.Se[ See variables. stributed ls rvddta h ucinlsatisfies functional the that provided bles, n h ieaueo ieettpso CLTs of types different on literature the en, inldrvtvso aiu res This orders. various of derivatives tional n . n[ in 2.8 and hnteei olna eedneon dependence nonlinear a is there when n rcse,mriglsadtm series. time and martingales processes, ent oaayetecnegneo fluctuation of convergence the analyse so eedneo esr snonlinear. is measure on dependence e eln ensuidi h atcentury. last the in studied been long ve N ii hoe o raso martingale of arrays for theorem limit l s ae hr ekcnegnet a to convergence weak where cases ost dnial itiue,udrcertain under distributed, identically auo n10,wihol requires only which 1901, in yapunov 1 + √ aihi rbblt as probability in vanish N esrson measures y N − e spooe o nonlinear for proposed is rem ( U 21 i m ( ]). N 1 0 P + i N N 1 =1 X j i δ − =1 R ζ 18 1 i d ) δ o oedetails more for ] − ζ n h random the and j x , U ( N m m 0 ∞ → 0 )) U ( dx δm δU ( where m ) we , we , = ) 2 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

The second main result of this work is a CLT on mean-field fluctuations. Large systems of interacting individuals/agents occur in many different areas of science; the individuals/agents may be people, computers, flocks of animals, or particles in moving fluid. Mean-field theory was developed to study particle systems by considering the asymptotic behaviour of the agents or particles, as their number goes to infinity. Instead of considering a system with a huge dimension, one can effectively approximate macroscopic and statistical features of the system as well as the average behaviour of particles. In a probabilistic setting, the limiting behaviour can be described by a type of SDEs, called McKean-Vlasov SDEs, whose coefficients depend on the probability distribution of the process itself. We consider the i,N fluctuation between a standard particle system (Y )1≤i≤N (see (4.7) for its model) and its standard McKean-Vlasov limiting process X (see (4.8) for its equation). The standard approach in the literature involves an approximation of the average position of a smooth test function φ : Rd R of the particles by (4.8) and its limiting fluctuation. More precisely, denoting µN to be the empirical→ measure of all the particles and µ∞ to be the law of X, one considers the decomposition N 1 1 φ(Y i,N )= E φ(X ) + SN , φ , N t t √ t i=1 N X where the fluctuation measure SN is defined by SN := √N µN µ∞ − and m, φ := Rd φ dm, for any signed measure m. The classical approach is to show that the sequence h i of random measures (SN ) converges in law as random processes taking values in some Sobolev R N≥1 space. This is done via a classical tightness argument, which implies the existence of a weak limit (through a subsequence) by the Prokhorov’s theorem. The limit is shown to satisfy an Ornstein- ′ Uhlenbeck process in an appropriate space. In [13], the Sobolev space being considered is C([0, T ], Φp), ′ where Φp is the dual of Φp, with Φp being the completion of the Schwarz space of rapidly decreasing infinitely differentiable functions under a suitable class of seminorms p. This result was generalised −(2+2D),D k · k in [17] to the Sobolev space C([0, T ],W0 ), whereas the limiting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process −(4+2D),D d is in C([0, T ],W0 ), where D =1+ 2 . A similar result was proven in [10] to include mean- field equations with additive common noise. We remark that, in all these approaches, by considering measures to be in the dual of a Sobolev space, a linear dependence on the measure component is imposed implicitly. Unlike the approach in [10], [13] and [17], we analyse the fluctuation under nonlinear functionals Φ : (Rd) R, i.e. we consider the limiting distribution of the process P2 → F N := √N Φ(µN ) Φ(µ∞) · − · in the space C(R , R), where (Rd) denotes the space of probability measures with finite second + P2 moments. This gives us a limiting CLT in mean-field fluctuations in the space C(R+, R). The development of the theory in this paper relies on the calculus on the Wasserstein space. We use two notions of derivatives in measure in this paper. The first notion, the linear functional derivative, is an analogue of the variational derivative over a manifold (see [5]). Linear functional derivatives are used to prove the different versions of CLTs for i.i.d. random variables. The second notion, the L- derivative (see the notes by Cardaliaguet [4]), was introduced by Lions in his lectures at the Collège de 2 France by defining a derivative in the W2 space based on the ‘lift’ to the L space of square-integrable CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 3 random variables (see (4.1)). According to [11], the L-derivative coincides with the geometric derivative introduced formerly in [1]. L-derivatives are used to prove the CLT for mean-field fluctuations. The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 focuses on the notion of linear functional derivatives as well as their properties. Section 3 exhibits three versions of CLTs (with different sufficient conditions) through the properties of linear functional derivatives developed in Section 2. Finally, Section 4 develops the notion of L-derivatives followed by a version of CLT on mean-field fluctuations.

1.1. Notations. R+ denotes the set of non-negative real numbers. For real numbers a and b, a b and a b denote respectively the minimum and maximum of a and b. For c, d Rd, c d denotes the∧ dot product∨ between c and d. We denote the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of any matrix∈ by · . For any a, b R that depend on N, the notation a . b denotes a Cb, for some constant C > 0 thatk · k does not depend∈ on N. ≤ For any function g : R R, we adopt the notations g′ (s) or d g(ǫ) to denote the right-hand → + dǫ ǫ=s+ derivative of g at s R. In the ﬁnal section, we consider the space C(R , R), which is the space of ∈ + continuous functions from R+ to R equipped with the metric ∞ 1 dC(R ,R)(f, g) := max f(t) g(t) 1 . + 2k 1≤t≤k | − |∧ Xk=1 h i Rd Rd ℓ For ℓ 0, we denote by ℓ( ) the set of probability measures m on such that Rd x m(dx) < . For ℓ> ≥0, we consider thePℓ-Wasserstein metric, deﬁned by | | ∞ R 1/(ℓ∨1) ℓ 2d Wℓ(µ1,µ2) := inf x y ρ(dx, dy) ρ ℓ(R ) with Rd Rd | − | ∈ P Z ×

ρ Rd)= µ , ρ Rd )= µ , µ ,µ (Rd). (1.1) ·× 1 × · 2 1 2 ∈ Pℓ d d For ℓ 1, it is well known that Wℓ is a metric on ℓ(R ) and that if µ ℓ(R ) and (µn)n∈N is a sequence≥ in this space, then lim W (µ ,µ) =P 0 iff µ converges weakly∈ P to µ as n and n→∞ ℓ n n → ∞ lim x ℓµ (dx) = x ℓµ(dx) (see for instance Definition 6.4 and Theorem 6.9 in [22]). For n→∞ Rd | | n Rd | | ℓ (0, 1), the definition of Wℓ is not so standard and we check in Lemma 5.1 in Appendix that these ∈ R R d properties remain true. We also consider the total variation metric on the set 0(R ) of all probability measures on Rd given by P

2d W0(µ1,µ2) := inf 1{x6=y}ρ(dx, dy) ρ 0(R ) with Rd Rd ∈ P Z ×

ρ Rd)= µ , ρ Rd )= µ , µ ,µ (Rd). ·× 1 × · 2 1 2 ∈ P0 1 d d Notice that W (µ ,µ ) = sup Rd µ (A) µ (A) = µ µ (R ), where (R ) denotes the Borel 0 1 2 A∈B( ) | 1 − 2 | 2 | 1 − 2| B σ-algebra of Rd and µ µ the absolute value (or total variation) of the signed measure µ µ . We | 1 − 2| 1 − 2 have infℓ≥0 Wℓ W where W , deﬁned like W1 but with x y 1 replacing the integrand x y in (1.1), metricizes≥ the topology of weak convergence according| − to|∧Corollary 6.13 [22]. | − | For any random variable ξ, (ξ) denotes the law of ξ. Finally, L2(Ω, , P; Rd) denotes the Hilbert space of L2 random variables takingL values in Rd, equipped with the innerF product ξ, η = E[ξ η]. h i · 4 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

2. Linear functional derivatives and their properties The notion of linear functional derivatives appears in quite a few papers in the literature. It is defined as a functional derivative in [5], through a limit of perturbation by linear interpolation of measures (see (2.1)). It can also be defined via an explicit formula concerning the difference between the values of the function evaluated at two probability measures (see (2.4)), in the literature of mean-field games and McKean-Vlasov equations, such as [6], [8] and [10]. Corollary 2.4 shows that (2.1) implies (2.4) under some growth assumption. Conversely, if we assume that the linear functional derivative is continuous in the product topology of (Rd) Rd, then one can easily check that (2.4) implies (2.1). Pℓ × d Definition 2.1. Let ℓ 0. A function U : ℓ(R ) R admits a linear functional derivative at d ≥ P d → δU δU µ (R ) if there exists a measurable function R y (µ,y) such that sup Rd (µ,y) /(1 + ∈ Pℓ ∋ 7→ δm y∈ δm y ℓ) < and

| | ∞ d d δU ν ℓ(R ), U µ + ε(ν µ) = (µ,y) (ν µ)(dy). (2.1) ∀ ∈ P dε + − Rd δm − ε=0 Z Inductively, for j 2, supposing that U admits a (j 1)-th order linear functional derivative Rd j−1 δj−1U ≥ − Rd ( ) y δmj−1 (m, y) at m for m in a Wℓ-neighbourhood of µ ℓ( ), we say that U admits a ∋ 7→ ∈ P j y Rd j−1 δ −1U y j-th order linear functional derivative derivative at µ if for each ( ) , m δmj−1 (m, ) admits ∈ 7→ j a linear functional derivative at µ i.e. there exists a measurable function Rd y δ U (µ, y,y) such ∋ 7→ δmj δj U ℓ that sup Rd (µ, y,y) /(1 + y ) < and y∈ δmj | | ∞ d δj−1U δjU Rd y y ν 2( ), j−1 µ + ε(ν µ), )= j (µ, ,y) (ν µ)(dy). (2.2) ∀ ∈ P dε + δm − Rd δm − ε=0 Z 1∧1/ℓ Notice that Wℓ(µ,µ+ε(ν µ)) ε Wℓ(µ,ν) so that µ+ε(ν µ) belongs to the Wℓ-neighbourhood − ≤ Rd δU − of µ for ε small enough. Since (ν µ)( ) = 0, δm is defined up to an additive constant via (2.1). Iteratively, we normalise the higher− order derivatives via the convention that δj U (m,y ,...,y ) = 0, if y = 0 for some i 1,...,j . (2.3) δmj 1 j i ∈ { } d The following class j,k( ℓ(R )) is used as hypotheses of the central limit theorems in the subsequent section. S P Definition 2.2 (Class ( (Rd))). For j N and k,ℓ 0, the class ( (Rd)) is defined by Sj,k Pℓ ∈ ≥ Sj,k Pℓ ∂iU ( (Rd)) := U : (Rd) R : for each 1 i j, exists on (Rd) (Rd)i . Sj,k Pℓ Pℓ → ≤ ≤ ∂mi Pℓ × ∂iU The map (x ,...,x ) (µ,x ,...,x ) is measurable and 1 i 7→ ∂mi 1 i i k/ℓ ∂ U k k ℓ i (µ,x1,...,xi) C 1+ x1 + . . . + xi + 1{ℓ>0} x µ(dx) , ∂m ≤ | | | | Rd | | Z

for each x ,...,x Rd and µ (Rd), for some C < . 1 i ∈ ∈ Pℓ ∞ CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 5

The next theorem expresses a ﬁnite diﬀerence of the (j 1)-th order functional derivative as an integral of the j-th order functional derivative. − ′ d Theorem 2.3. Let ℓ 0, m,m ℓ(R ), and suppose that the jth order linear functional derivative of a function U : (R≥d) R exists∈ P on the segment (m := sm′ + (1 s)m) . Then for every y Pℓ → s − s∈[0,1] ∈ d j−1 δj U ℓ δj−1U (R ) such that sup Rd (m , y,y) /(1+ y ) < , the function [0, 1] s (m , y) (s,y)∈[0,1]× δmj s | | ∞ ∋ 7→ δmj−1 s is Lipschitz continuous and

δj−1U δj−1U 1 δ jU ′ y y ′ y ′ ′ ′ j−1 (m , ) j−1 (m, )= j ((1 s)m + sm , ,y ) (m m)(dy ) ds. (2.4) δm − δm Rd δm − − Z0 Z One easily deduces the following corollary. Corollary 2.4. If U ( (Rd)) with 0 k ℓ, then (2.4) holds for all (m,m′, y) (Rd) ∈ Sj,k Pℓ ≤ ≤ ∈ Pℓ × (Rd) (Rd)j−1. Pℓ × Proof of Theorem 2.3. For simplicity of notations, the proof is presented for j = 1. The argument for other values of k is identical. For s (0, 1) and 0

h→0+ 1 δU ′ (ms,y)s(m m )(dy). −→ s × Rd δm − Z δU ′ Hence [0, 1] s U(ms) is differentiable on (0, 1) with derivative g(s) := Rd δm (ms,y)(m m)(dy), admits the right-hand∋ 7→ derivative g(0) at 0 and the left-hand derivative g(1) at 1. This function− is ′ d RδU ℓ therefore continuous on [0, 1]. Since m,m (R ) and sup Rd (m ,y) /(1 + y ) < , ∈ Pℓ (s,y)∈[0,1]× δm s | | ∞ the function g is bounded on [0, 1]. Therefore [0, 1] s U(m ) is Lipschitz continuous. We last apply s the (only) theorem in [23] to deduce that ∋ 7→ 1 g(s) ds = U m U m = U(m′) U(m). (2.5) 1 − 0 − Z0 We now state a chain rule concerning the computation of linear functional derivatives. It is an easy consequence of the classical chain rule and the fact the normalisation convention (2.3) clearly holds. d q Theorem 2.5 (Chain rule). Let ℓ 0, ϕ : ℓ(R ) R be a function such that each of its coordinates ≥ P R→d δϕ Rq admits a linear functional derivative at µ ℓ( ). We denote by δm (µ,y) the vector in with coordinates given by these linear functional∈ derivatives. P Let F : Rq R be a function differentiable d → at ϕ(µ). Then the function U : ℓ(R ) R defined by U(µ) := F (ϕ(µ)) admits a linear functional derivative at µ given by P → δU δϕ (µ,y)= F ϕ(µ) . (µ,y). δm ∇ δm 6 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

The following example is an easy but important consequence of the chain rule and will be used in subsequent parts of the paper. Example 2.6 (A differentiable function of a linear functional of measures). Let ℓ 0, G : Rd R be a measurable function such that ≥ → G(x) sup | |ℓ < Rd 1+ x ∞ x∈ | | and let F : R R be a j-times differentiable function. Let U : (Rd) R be defined by → Pℓ → U(µ) := F G(x) µ(dx) . Rd Z Then, by Theorem 2.5, for i 1,...,j , the ith order linear functional derivative is given by ∈ { } i i δ U (i) (µ,y1,...,yk)= F G(x) µ(dx) (G(yi′ ) G(0)). i d δm R ′ − Z iY=1 Suppose that there exist constants C > 0 and k 0, i 1,...,j , such that i ≥ ∈ { } F (i)(y) C(1 + y ki ), y R. | |≤ | | ∈ Then it can be checked by Young’s inequality that U ( (Rd)). ∈ Sj,ℓ max1≤i≤j {ki+i} Pℓ Example 2.7 (U-statistics (see [14] or [16]) and polynomials on the Wasserstein space). Let k 0, n N, ϕ : (Rd)n R be measurable and such that ≥ ∈ → C < , x ,...x Rd, ϕ(x ,...,x ) C(1 + x k + . . . + x k). ∃ ∞ ∀ 1 n ∈ 1 n ≤ | 1| | n| For ℓ k, we consider the function on (R d) defined by ≥ Pℓ

U(µ) := . . . ϕ(x1,...,xn) µ(dxn) ... µ(dx1). Rd Rd Z Z Since replacing ϕ by its symmetrisation does not change the above integral, we suppose without loss of generality that (x1,...,xn) ϕ(x1,...,xn) is symmetric i.e. invariant by permutation of the d 7→ coordinates xi. For µ,ν ℓ(R ) and ε (0, 1], we have, denoting by the cardinality of a subset of 1,...,n , ∈ P ∈ |N | N { } 1 |N|−1 (U(µ + ε(ν µ)) U(µ)) = ε ϕ(x1,...,xn) (ν µ)(dxi) µ(dxi) ε − − (Rd)n − N ⊂{1,...,nX}:|N|≥1 Z iO∈N i∈{1,...,nO}\N n ε→0+ ϕ(x1,...,xn)(ν µ)(dxj) µ(dxi) −→ (Rd)n − Xj=1 Z i∈{1,...,nO}\{j}

= n ϕ(y,x2,...,xn)µ(dxn) ...µ(dx2)(ν µ)(dy), Rd Rd n−1 − Z Z( ) CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 7 where we used the symmetry of ϕ for the last equality. Therefore U ( (Rd)) with ∈ S1,k Pℓ δU (µ,y)= n (ϕ(y,x2,...,xn) ϕ(0,x2,...,xn)) µ(dxn) ...µ(dx2). δm Rd n−1 − Z( ) For j 1,...,n , let ∈ { } d ϕ(y ,...,y ,x ,...,x )= ( 1)j−|J|ϕ(y ,x ,...,x ) j 1 j j+1 n − J j+1 n J ⊂{X1,...,j} d j where yJ denotes the vector in (R ) with all coordinates with indices in equal to those of (y1,...,yj) and all coordinates with indices in 1,...,j equal to 0. Notice that,J for i 1,...,j , { }\J ∈ { } d ϕ(y ,...,y ,x ,...,x )= ( 1)j−|J| ϕ(y ,x ,...,x ) ϕ(y ,x ,...,x ) j 1 j j+1 n − J j+1 n − J ∪{i} j+1 n J ⊂{1,...,j}\{i} X and when y = 0 then for each 1,...,j i , y = y so that d ϕ(y ,...,y ,x ,...,x )= i J ⊂ { }\{ } J J ∪{i} j 1 j j+1 n 0. More generally, for each j N, U ( (Rd)) with ∈ ∈ Sj,k Pℓ δj U n! y y j (µ, ,y)= djϕ( ,y,xj+1,...,xn)µ(dxn) ...µ(dxj+1) δm (n j)! Rd n−j − Z( ) when j n and 0 when j>n. ≤ n+1 Let us suppose conversely that for some ℓ 0 and n 0, U ( (Rd)) with vanishing δ U . ≥ ≥ ∈ Sn+1,ℓ Pℓ δmn+1 Then by Lemma 2.2 in [8], for µ,m (Rd), ∈ Pℓ n 1 δjU y ⊗j y U(µ) U(m)= j (m, ) (µ m) (d ) − j! (Rd)j δm − Xj=1 Z 1 1 δn+1U n y ⊗(n+1) y + (1 t) n+1 ((1 t)m + tµ, ) (µ m) (d ) dt. n! − Rd n+1 δm − − Z0 Z( ) The assumption and the normalisation condition then give, for the choice m = δ0, n 1 δjU U(µ)= U(δ0)+ j (δ0,x1,...,xj)µ(dxj ) ...µ(dx1). j! (Rd)j δm Xj=1 Z The following theorem generalizes Example 2.7 by enabling a diﬀerentiable dependence of the integrand on the measure.

d d n d Theorem 2.8. Let ℓ 0, µ ℓ(R ) and ϕ : (R ) ℓ(R ) R be a function symmetric in its n ﬁrst variables such that≥ ∈ P × P → (i) for each m (Rd), (Rd)n (x ,...,x ) ϕ(x ,...,x ,m) is measurable and integrable ∈ Pℓ ∋ 1 n 7→ 1 n with respect to m(dxn) ...m(dx1), 8 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

d n d (ii) there exists a Wℓ-neighbourhood µ of µ such that for each (x1,...,xn) (R ) , ℓ(R ) N δϕ ∈ P ∋ m ϕ(x1,...,xn,m) admits a linear functional derivative δm (x1,...,xn,m,y) at m for m in 7→and Nµ δϕ ℓ ℓ ℓ sup ϕ(x1,...,xn,m) + (x1,...,xn,m,y) /(1+ x1 +. . .+ xn + y ) < . Rd n+1 | | δm | | | | | | ∞ (m,x1,...,xn,y)∈Nµ×( )

(2.6)

Then the function U : (Rd) R deﬁned by Pℓ →

U(m) := ϕ(x1,...,xn,m) m(dxn) ...m(dx1) Rd Z admits a linear functional derivative at µ given by δU δϕ (µ,y)= (x1,...,xn,µ,y)+ n (ϕ(y,x2,...,xn,µ) ϕ(0,x2,...,xn,µ)) µ(dxn) ...µ(dx1). δm Rd n δm − Z( ) Proof. Clearly, the normalisation convention (2.3) holds. The power ℓ growth condition in y follows from (2.6). Let ν (Rd). For ε (0, 1], denoting by the cardinality of a subset of 1,...,n ∈ Pℓ ∈ |N | N { } as in Example 2.7, we check that the slope 1 (U(µ + ε(ν µ)) U(µ)) is equal to ε − − 1 (ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ + ε(ν µ)) ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ)) µ(dxn) ...µ(dx1) Rd n ε − − Z( ) n + ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ + ε(ν µ))(ν µ)(dxj) µ(dxi) (Rd)n − − Xj=1 Z i∈{1,...,nO}\{j} |N|−2 + ε ε ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ + ε(ν µ)) (ν µ)(dxi) µ(dxi). (2.7) (Rd)n − − N ⊂{1,...,nX}:|N|≥2 Z iO∈N i∈{1,...,nO}\N For ε small enough so that s [0, 1], µ + sε(ν µ) , by Theorem 2.3, ∀ ∈ − ∈Nµ 1 (ϕ(x ,...,x ,µ + ε(ν µ)) ϕ(x ,...,x ,µ)) (2.8) ε 1 n − − 1 n is equal to 1 δϕ (x ,...,x ,µ + sε(ν µ),y)(ν µ)(dy)ds and has power ℓ growth in (x ,...,x ) 0 Rd δm 1 n − − 1 n uniformly in ε according to (2.6). Since (2.8) converges to δϕ (x ,...,x ,µ,y)(ν µ)(dy) when R R Rd δm 1 n − ε 0+, Lebesgue’s theorem ensures that the ﬁrst term in (2.7) goes to → R δϕ (x1,...,xn,µ,y)(ν µ)(dy) µ(dxn) ...µ(dx1). Rd n Rd δm − Z( ) Z δϕ By Fubini’s theorem, this limit is equal to Rd (Rd)n δm (x1,...,xn,µ,y)µ(dxn) ...µ(dx1)(ν µ)(dy). + − By Theorem 2.3, ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ + ε(ν µR)) goesR to ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ) as ε 0 . With the growth assumption (2.6), we deduce by Lebesgue’s− theorem that the second term in→ (2.7) goes to n ϕ(x1,...,xn,µ)(ν µ)(dxj) µ(dxi). (Rd)n − Xj=1 Z i∈{1,...,nO}\{j} CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 9

By Fubini’s theorem, symmetry of ϕ in its ﬁrst n variables and since (ν µ)(Rd) = 0, this limit is equal to −

n (ϕ(y,x2 ...,xn,µ) ϕ(0,x2,...,xn,µ)) µ(dxn) ...µ(dx2)(ν µ)(dy), Rd Rd n−1 − − Z Z( ) which concludes the proof. The following theorem is similar to Theorem 2.8, but the measure in the integral is not necessarily the same as the measure in the argument of the function U. d Theorem 2.9 (Integral w.r.t. a different measure). Let ℓ 0, µ ℓ(R ), λ be a Borel measure on d d d ≥ ∈ P R and ϕ : R ℓ(R ) R be a function such that × P → d d (i) for each m ℓ(R ), R x ϕ(x,m) is Borel-measurable and integrable with respect to λ, ∈ P ∋ 7→ d d (ii) there exists a Wℓ-neighbourhood µ of µ such that for each x R , ℓ(R ) m ϕ(x,m) admits a linear functional derivativeN in and there exists a∈ nonnegativeP Borel-measurable∋ 7→ Nµ function C : Rd R such that → δϕ δm (x,m,y) C(x) λ(dx) < + and sup ℓ < . (2.9) Rd ∞ Rd 2 C(x)(1 + y ) ∞ (m,x,y)∈Nµ×( ) Z | | Let U : (Rd) R be defined by Pℓ → U(m) := ϕ(x,m) λ(dx). Rd Z Then U admits a linear functional derivative at µ given by δU δϕ (µ,y)= (x,µ,y) λ(dx). δm Rd δm Z Proof. We have 1 δϕ lim ϕ(x,µ + ǫ(ν µ)) ϕ(x,µ) = (x,µ,y) (ν µ)(dy). ǫ→0+ ǫ − − Rd δm − Z Since, by Theorem 2.3, for ǫ> 0, 1 1 δϕ ϕ(x,µ + ǫ(ν µ)) ϕ(x,µ) = (x,µ + sǫ(ν µ),y) (ν µ)(dy) ds, ǫ − − Rd δm − − Z0 Z (2.9) permits to apply the dominated convergence theorem and obtain 1 lim ϕ(x,µ + ǫ(ν µ)) λ(dx) ϕ(x,µ) λ(dx) ǫ→0+ ǫ Rd − − Rd Z Z δϕ = (x,µ,y) (ν µ)(dy) λ(dx) Rd Rd δm − Z Z δϕ = (x,µ,y) λ(dx) (ν µ)(dy). Rd Rd δm − Z Z Let us finally consider, in dimension d = 1, the example of the quantile function of m. 10 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

Theorem 2.10. Let for w (0, 1) and m 0(R), U(w,m) := inf x R : m(( ,x]) w . Let v (0, 1), m (R) be such∈ that the restriction∈ P of m to a neighbourhood{ ∈ of −∞U(v,m )≥admits} a ∈ 0 ∈ P0 0 0 positive and continuous density p0 with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Then for ν 0(R) such that ν( U(v,m ) ) = 0, ∈ P { 0 }

d 1{y≤U(v,m0 )} U w,m0 + ε(ν m0) = (ν m0)(dy). dε + − − R p (U(v,µ)) − ε=0 Z 0 δU As a consequence, in a generalized sense related to the restriction ν( U(v,m0) ) = 0, δm (v,m0,y)= 1 { } {y≤U(v,m0)} . − p0(U(v,m0)) Proof. Let for ε [0, 1], m := m + ε(ν m ) and x := U(v,m ). We have ∈ ε 0 − 0 ε ε sup mε(( ,x)) m0(( ,x)) mε(( ,x]) m0(( ,x]) ε. (2.10) x∈R | −∞ − −∞ | ∨ | −∞ − −∞ |≤

On the neighbourhood of x0 = U(v,m0) on which m0 admits a positive and continuous density, x m (( ,x]) is continuously differentiable with derivative p (x). The image of the neighbour- 7→ 0 −∞ 0 hood by this function is a neighbourhood of v, on which its inverse w U(w,m0) is also continu- 1 7→ ously differentiable with derivative . By (2.10) and the definition of xε, m0(( ,xε)) p0(U(w,m0)) −∞ ≤ mε(( ,xε)) + ε v + ε and m0(( ,xε]) mε(( ,xε]) ε v ε. hence for ε small enough,−∞m (( ,x≤]) and m (( ,x−∞)) are equal,≥ belong−∞ to the− neighbourhood≥ − of v and x = 0 −∞ ε 0 −∞ ε ε U(m (( ,x ]),m ) [U(v ε, m ),U(v + ε, m )] so that lim + x = x . 0 −∞ ε 0 ∈ − 0 0 ε→0 ε 0 Since mε(( ,xε)) v and w U(w,m0) is non-increasing, we have for ε > 0 small enough so that x = U(m−∞(( ,x≤)),m ) 7→ ε 0 −∞ ε 0 x x U(m (( ,x )),m ) U(m (( ,x )),m ) ε − 0 0 −∞ ε 0 − ε −∞ ε 0 ε ≤ ε U(m (( ,x )),m ) U(m (( ,x )),m ) = 0 −∞ ε 0 − ε −∞ ε 0 (m ν)(( ,x )), (2.11) m (( ,x )) m (( ,x )) 0 − −∞ ε 0 −∞ ε − ε −∞ ε ∂U 1 where, by convention, the first factor is equal to (v,m0) = when m0(( ,xε)) = ∂w p0(U(v,m0 )) −∞ m (( ,x )) which is equivalent to m (( ,x )) = ν(( ,x )). We have lim + m (( ,x )) = ε −∞ ε 0 −∞ ε −∞ ε ε→0 0 −∞ ε v and, by (2.10), lim + m (( ,x )) = v. Hence, with the continuous differentiability of w ε→0 ε −∞ ε 7→ U(w,m0) in the neighbourhood of v, U(m (( ,x )),m ) U(m (( ,x )),m ) 1 lim 0 −∞ ε 0 − ε −∞ ε 0 = . ε→0+ m (( ,x )) m (( ,x )) p (U(v,m )) 0 −∞ ε − ε −∞ ε 0 0 Since ν( x ) = m ( x ) = 0, we also have lim + (m ν)(( ,x )) = (m ν)(( ,x ]) and { 0} 0 { 0} ε→0 0 − −∞ ε 0 − −∞ 0 the right-hand side of (2.11) converges to (m0−ν)((−∞,x0]) as ε 0+. We conclude by remarking that, p0(U(v,m0)) → since m (( ,x ]) v, xε−x0 U(m0((−∞,xε]),m0)−U(mε((−∞,xε]),m0) where, by the same arguments, ε −∞ ε ≥ ε ≥ ε the right-hand side also converges to (m0−ν)((−∞,x0]) as ε 0+. p0(U(v,m0)) → CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 11

3. Central limit theorem over nonlinear functionals of empirical measures Let ℓ 0, m (Rd) and mN = 1 N δ where ζ ,...,ζ are i.i.d. random variables with ≥ 0 ∈ Pℓ N i=1 ζi 1 N law m . For some nonlinear functionals U on (Rd), we want to prove that √N(U(mN ) U(m )) 0 P ℓ 0 converges in law to some centered Gaussian randomP variable to generalise the result of the classical− CLT which addresses linear functionals U(µ) = ϕ(x) µ(dx) with ϕ : Rd R measurable and such that ℓ/2 → supx∈Rd ϕ(x) /(1 + x ) < . Note that, by this growth assumption and Example 2.7, this linear | | | | ∞Rd δUR Rd functional belongs to 1,ℓ/2( ℓ( )) with δm (m,x)= ϕ(x). For general functionals U 1,ℓ/2( ℓ( )), by the classical centralS limitP theorem, ∈ S P

δU N d δU √N (m0,x) (m m0)(dx) = 0, Var (m0,ζ1) . Rd δm − ⇒ N δm Z One could consider a linearisation in measure by Theorem 2.3 to express the remainder

N δU N RN := U(m ) U(m0) (m0,x) (m m0)(dx) (3.1) − − Rd δm − Z and check that, under extra regularity assumptions on U, √NRN goes to 0 in probability as N . d d →∞ For instance, when U 4,4( 2(R )) and m0 8(R ), Theorem 2.5 in [20] which is inspired by ∈ S P E 2 1 ∈ P Lemma 5.10 in [10] ensures that [RN ] . N 2 . In Theorem 3.1 below, we will rather ﬁnd weaker regularity assumptions under which

N i−1 i−1 √ 1 δU N + 1 i 1 δU N + 1 i 1 N − m0 + δζj ,ζi − m0 + δζj ,x m0(dx) N δm N N − Rd δm N N Xi=1 Xj=1 Z Xj=1 converges in distribution to 0, Var δU (m ,ζ ) by the central limit theorem for martingale N δm 0 1 N increments and the diﬀerence between this term and √N(U(m ) U(m0)) goes to 0 in probability as N . − →∞ δU Since the asymptotic variance is expressed in terms of δm , one can easily compute its value via Theorems 2.5, 2.8 and 2.9. For functionals U which do not satisfy the regularity assumptions in Theorem δU 3.1, the asymptotic variance in the central limit theorem can still be given by Var δm (m0,ζ1) . Indeed, for the example of the quantile function in dimension d = 1, it is shown that under the assumptions N of Theorem 2.10, √N(U(v,m ) U(v,m0)) converges in distribution to a centered Gaussian random v(1−v) − variable with variance 2 . Since 1{ζ1≤U(v,m0)} is a Bernoulli random variable with parameter v p0(U(v,m0)) δU v(1−v) and variance v(1 v), Var δm (v,m0,ζ1) = p2(U(v,m )) . − 0 0 Theorem 3.1. Let ℓ 0, m (Rd) and mN = 1 N δ , where ζ ,...,ζ are i.i.d. random ≥ 0 ∈ Pℓ N i=1 ζi 1 N variables with law m . Let D(µ ,µ ) denote the metric on (Rd) equal to (1 + y ℓ) µ µ (dy) if 0 2 1 PPℓ Rd | | | 2 − 1| m0 is discrete and otherwise to 1{ℓ>0}Wℓ(µ2,µ1) + 1{ℓ=0}W (µ2,µ1). Suppose that there exists r> 0 such that R

U admits a linear functional derivative on the ball B(m0, r) centered at m0 with radius r for • the metric D, 12 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

• 1/2 d δU ℓ/2 ℓ C < , (µ,x) B(m0, r) R , (µ,x) C 1+ x + 1{ℓ>0} y µ(dy) , (3.2) ∃ ∞ ∀ ∈ × δm ≤ | | Rd | | Z !

α (1/2, 1], C < , µ ,µ B(m , r), x Rd, • ∃ ∈ ∃ ∞ ∀ 1 2 ∈ 0 ∀ ∈ α δU δU ℓ α ℓ(1−α) ℓ (µ2,x) (µ1,x) C (1 + x )W0 (µ2,µ1)+(1+ x ) y µ2 µ1 (dy) , (3.3) δm − δm ≤ | | | | Rd | | | − | Z

• δU δU δm (µ,x) δm (m0,x) sup − converges to 0 when D(µ,m ) goes to 0. (3.4) ℓ/2 0 Rd 1+ x x∈ | | Then the following convergence in distribution holds :

d δU √N U(mN ) U(m ) = 0, Var (m ,ζ ) . − 0 ⇒ N δm 0 1 Proof. For every i 1,...,N and s [0, 1], let ∈ { } ∈ i−1 1 i s 1 s mN,i := 1+ − − m + δ + δ . (3.5) s N 0 N ζj N ζi Xj=1 d N,i d N Notice that since m (R ), the random measure ms also belongs to (R ). We have U(m ) 0 ∈ Pℓ Pℓ − U(m ) = N (U(mN,i) U(mN,i)). To be able to write the diﬀerence U(mN,i) U(mN,i) in terms 0 i=1 1 − 0 1 − 0 of the linear functional derivative δU , we are ﬁrst going to check that a.s. P δm N,i max sup D(ms ,m0) 1≤i≤N s∈[0,1] converges a.s. to 0 as N . →∞ N,i First step : a.s. uniform convergence of ms to m0 N,i N,i N,i−1 N,0 Since for s [0, 1], ms = sm + (1 s)m under the convention m = m , we have ∈ 1 − 1 1 0 W ℓ∨1(mN,i,m ) sW ℓ∨1(mN,i,m )+(1 s)W ℓ∨1(mN,i−1,m ) W ℓ∨1(mN,i,m ) W ℓ∨1(mN,i−1,m ). ℓ s 0 ≤ ℓ 1 0 − ℓ 1 0 ≤ ℓ 1 0 ∨ ℓ 1 0 Dealing in the same way with W , we deduce that N,i N,i max sup 1{ℓ>0}Wℓ(ms ,m0) + 1{ℓ=0}W (ms ,m0) 1≤i≤N s∈[0,1] N,i N,i = max 1{ℓ>0}Wℓ(m1 ,m0) + 1{ℓ=0}W (m1 ,m0) . (3.6) 1≤i≤N N ℓ N ℓ Since a.s. m converges weakly to m0 and Rd x m (dx) goes to Rd x m0(dx) as N , for ℓ> 0, N | | | | →∞ the sequence Wℓ(m ,m0) converges a.s. to 0 as N and is therefore a.s. bounded. Moreover, N,i 1∧1/ℓ i R → ∞ R Wℓ(m1 ,m0) (i/N) Wℓ(m ,m0). For α (0, 1), by considering the two cases i/N α and i/N > α, we deduce≤ that ∈ ≤ N,i 1∧1/ℓ j j max Wℓ(m1 ,m0) α max Wℓ(m ,m0)+ max Wℓ(m ,m0). 1≤i≤N ≤ j≥1 j≥⌈αN⌉ CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 13

N,i Choosing small values of α followed by large values of N, we conclude that max1≤i≤N Wℓ(m1 ,m0) goes to 0 a.s. as N . →∞ d By Corollary 6.13 [22], W metricises the topology of weak convergence on 0(R ) and therefore N P ˜ W (m ,m0) converges a.s. to 0 as N . Moreover, since x y 1 1{x=6 y}, W1 W0 and N,i N,i i → ∞ | − |∧ ≤ ≤ W (m1 ,m0) W0(m1 ,m0) N . By adapting to W , as well as the above reasoning for Wℓ, we ≤ N,i ≤ deduce that max1≤i≤N W (m1 ,m0) goes to 0 a.s. as N . Let us now assume that m is discrete, i.e. there is a→∞ sequence (y ) with N∗ + 0 k 1≤k≤K K ∈ ∪ { ∞} of distinct elements of Rd such that K m ( y ) = 1. Then, by the strong law of large numbers, k=1 0 { j} a.s. for each 1 k , mN ( y ) = 1 N 1 converges to m ( y ). When is ﬁnite, we ≤ ≤ K { k} PN i=1 {ζi=yk} 0 { k} K deduce that (1 + y ℓ) mN m (dy)= K (1 + y ℓ) mN ( y ) m ( y ) converges to 0 a.s. Rd | | | − 0| P k=1 | k| | { k} − 0 { k} | as N . When is inﬁnite, we have, for each k¯ N∗, →∞ R K P ∈ k¯ ℓ N ℓ N (1 + y ) m m0 (dy) (1 + yk ) m ( yk ) m0( yk ) Rd | | | − | ≤ | | | { } − { } | Z Xk=1 N 1 ℓ ℓ ℓ + (1 + ζi )1 (ζi) (1 + yk )m0( yk ) + 2 (1 + yk )m0( yk ). N | | {yk¯+1,yk¯+2,...} − | | { } | | { } i=1 k>k¯ k>k¯ X X X

The third term of the right-hand side is arbitrarily small for k¯ large enough, whereas for ﬁxed k¯, by the strong law of large numbers, the sum of the two ﬁrst terms converges a.s. to 0 as N . Hence, →∞ (1 + y ℓ) mN m (dy) goes a.s. to 0 as N . Since (1 + y ℓ) mN,i m (dy)= i (1 + Rd | | | − 0| →∞ Rd | | | 1 − 0| N Rd y ℓ) mi m (dy), by repeating the above reasoning performed for W , we obtain that max (1+ R 0 R ℓ 1≤i≤NR Rd | |ℓ | N,i− | N,i N,i N,i y ) m1 m0 (dy) converges a.s. to 0. Since for s [0, 1], ms m0 s m1 m0 +(1 s)Rm1 | | | − | ∈ℓ N,i| − |≤ | − | − ℓ | N,i − m , we conclude that max sup d (1+ y ) ms m (dy) = max d (1+ y ) m 0| 1≤i≤N s∈[0,1] R | | | − 0| 1≤i≤N R | | | 1 − m0 (dy) converges a.s. to 0 as N . Second| step : introduction of→∞ the linearR functional derivative R Under the convention min := N + 1, we deduce that ∅ I := min 1 i N : s [0, 1] : D(mN,i,m ) r (3.7) N { ≤ ≤ ∃ ∈ s 0 ≥ } is almost surely N + 1 for each N N ∗, for some random variable N ∗ taking integer values. For N N ∗, we have, using (3.2) and Theorem≥ 2.3 for the second equality, ≥ N U(mN ) U(m ) = U mN,i U mN,i − 0 1 − 0 Xi=1 h i N 1 1 δU N,i = (ms ,y) (δζi m0)(dy) ds. N 0 Rd δm − Xi=1 Z Z Setting N 1 δU N,i∧IN δU N,i∧IN QN := (m0 ,ζi) (m0 ,x)m0(dx) , (3.8) N Rd δm − Rd δm Xi=1 Z Z 14 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES we deduce that for N N ∗, U(mN ) U(m ) Q coincides with ≥ − 0 − N N 1 1{N≥N ∗} δU N,i δU N,i RN := (ms ,y) (m0 ,y) (δζi m0)(dy) ds. (3.9) N 0 Rd δm − δm − Xi=1 Z Z Therefore to check that √N(U(mN ) U(m ) Q ) goes to 0 in probability as N , it is enough to − 0 − N →∞ check that so does √NRN , which is the purpose of the third step of the proof. By Slutsky’s theorem, to d complete the proof, it is enough to check that √NQ = 0, Var δU (m ,ζ ) , which is done N ⇒ N δm 0 1 in the fourth step using the Central Limit Theorem for arrays of martingale increments. Third step : convergence in probability of √NRN to 0 N,i N,i s Since ms m0 (dy) N (δζi + m0)(dy), using (3.3) and Young’s inequality, we obtain that for N N| ∗, − | ≤ ≥ α α δU N,i δU N,i ℓ 2s ℓ(1−α) s ℓ s ℓ (ms ,x) (m0 ,x) C (1 + x ) +(1+ x ) ζi + y m0(dy) δm − δm ≤ | | N | | N | | N Rd | | Z

C α ℓ ℓ ℓ α (2 + 1)(1 + x ) + 2 ζi + 2 y m0(dy) . ≤ N | | | | Rd | | Z d −α Using that m0 ℓ(R ), we easily deduce that E RN . N and since α> 1/2, limN→∞ E√N RN = 0. ∈ P | | | | Fourth step : application of the Central Limit Theorem for martingales Let us introduce the ﬁltration ( i := σ(ζ1,...,ζi))i≥1 for which IN deﬁned in (3.7) is a stopping time. By (3.2), for 1 i N, the randomF variable ≤ ≤

1 δU N,i∧IN δU N,i∧IN XN,i := (m0 ,ζi) (m0 ,x)m0(dx) √N Rd δm − Rd δm Z Z is square integrable. Since mN,i∧IN = i−1 1 mN,j + 1 mN,i is := σ(ζ ,...,ζ )- 0 j=1 {In=j} 0 {IN >i−1} 0 Fi−1 1 i−1 measurable and ζ is independent of this sigma-ﬁeld, we have E [X ] = 0. Moreover, i P N,i|Fi N N 1 δU 2 δU 2 E 2 N,i∧IN N,i∧IN XN,i i−1 = (m0 ,x) m0(dx) (m0 ,x)m0(dx) . |F N Rd δm − Rd δm i=1 i=1 Z Z ! X X δU δU ℓ/2 The convergence of supx∈Rd δm (µ,x) δm (m0,x) /(1 + x ) to 0 when D(µ,m0) goes to 0 together − N,i | | with the a.s. convergence of max1≤i≤N D(m0 ,m0 ) to 0 imply the existence of a sequence of random variables (ε ) converging a.s. to 0 as N such that N N≥0 →∞ δU δU 1 i N, (mN,i∧IN ,x) (m ,x) (1 + x ℓ/2)ε . (3.10) ∀ ≤ ≤ δm 0 − δm 0 ≤ | | N

Since m (Rd) (Rd), we deduce that 0 ∈ Pℓ ⊂ Pℓ/2

δU N,i∧IN δU max (m0 ,x)m0(dx) (m0,x)m0(dx) 1≤i≤N Rd δm − Rd δm Z Z

CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 15 converges a.s. to 0. By continuity of the square function, so do 2 2 δU N,i∧IN δU max (m0 ,x)m0(dx) (m0,x)m0(dx) 1≤i≤N Rd δm − Rd δm Z Z 2 1 N δU N,i∧IN δU 2 and the smaller diﬀerence of mean values d (m ,x)m0(dx) d (m0,x)m0(dx) . N i=1 R δm 0 − R δm

On the other hand, using (3.10) and (3.2 ), weP obtainR that R

2 2 δU N,i∧IN δU (m0 ,x) (m0,x) δm − δm 2 δU N,i∧I δU δU δU N,i∧I δU (m N ,x) (m ,x) + 2 (m ,x) (m N ,x) (m ,x) ≤ δm 0 − δm 0 δm 0 δm 0 − δm 0 1/2 ℓ/2 ℓ/2 ℓ ℓ/2 (1 + x )εN + 2C 1+ x + 1{ℓ> 0} y m 0(dy) (1 + x )εN . ≤ | | | | Rd | | | | Z !! 2 2 Since m (Rd), we deduce that max δU (mN,i∧IN ,x) m (dx) δU (m ,x) m (dx) 0 ∈ Pℓ 1≤i≤N Rd δm 0 0 − Rd δm 0 0 2 1 N δU N,i ∧RIN δU R 2 converges a.s. to 0 and d (m ,x) m (dx) to d (m ,x) m (dx). Therefore N i=1 R δm 0 0 R δm 0 0 2 2 N E X2 convergesP a.s.R to δU (m ,x) m (dx) R δU(m ,x)m (dx) = Var δU (m ,ζ ) i=1 N,i|Fi−1 Rd δm 0 0 − Rd δm 0 0 δm 0 1 Pas N h . By Corollaryi 3.1 p58 [12R], to conclude that R →∞ N d δU √NQ = X = 0, Var (m ,ζ ) , N N,i ⇒ N δm 0 1 Xi=1 N E 2 it is enough to check the Lindeberg condition : for each ε> 0, X 1{X2 >ε} i−1 goes to 0 i=1 N,i N,i |F δU Rd in probability as N . When ℓ = 0, δm is bounded on B(mP0, r) h and this conditioni is clearly satisﬁed. Let us suppose→∞ that ℓ> 0 and check that it is also satisﬁed.× By (3.2), 2 d δU ℓ ℓ C < , (µ,x) B(m0, r) R , (µ,x) C 1+ x + y µ(dy) . ∃ ∞ ∀ ∈ × δm ≤ | | Rd | | Z Therefore 2 2 2 δU N,i∧IN δU N,i∧IN NXN,i 2 (m0 ,ζi) + 2 (m0 ,x) m0(dx) ≤ δm Rd δm Z i−1 ℓ 2 ℓ ℓ 2C 2+ ζi + ζj + 3 y m0(dy) . (3.11) ≤  | | N | | Rd | |  Xj=1 Z As, for a, b, c, d R ,   ∈ + (a + b + c)1{a+b+c≥d} = (a + b + c) 1{a>b,a>c,a+b+c≥d} + 1{b≥a,b>c,a+b+c≥d} + 1{c≥a,c≥b,a+b+c≥d} 16 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

3a1 + 3b1 + 3c1 ≤ {a>b,a>c,a+b+c≥d} {b≥a,b>c,a+b+c≥d} {c≥a,c≥b,a+b+c≥d} 3a1 + 3b1 + 3c1 , ≤ {a≥d/3} {b≥d/3} {c≥d/3} it is enough to check that for each ε> 0,

N ℓ N i−1 ζi 1 ℓ E 1 ℓ + E ζ 1 1 i−1 | | |ζi| i−1 2 j { P |ζ |ℓ>ε} i−1 N { >ε}|F N | | N2 j=1 j F  i=1 N i=1 j=1 X X X   ℓ N E |ζi| E ℓ goes to 0 as N . On the one hand, 1 |ζ |ℓ i−1 = ζ1 1 ℓ goes to 0 as →∞ i=1 N { i >ε}|F | | {|ζ1| >Nε} N N since ζ ℓ integrable. On the otherP hand, h i →∞ | 1| N i−1 N i−1 1 ℓ 1 ℓ E ζ 1 1 i−1 ℓ = 1 1 i−1 ℓ ζ 2 j { P |ζj | >ε} i−1 2 { P |ζj | >ε} j N | | N2 j=1 F  N N2 j=1 | | i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 X X X X   N 1 ℓ 1{ 1 PN |ζ |ℓ>Nε} ζj , ≤ N j=1 j N | | Xj=1 where the right-hand side goes a.s. to 0 as N , since by the strong law of large numbers, 1 N ℓ ℓ → ∞ N j=1 ζj converges a.s. to Rd y m0(dy) < . | | | | ∞ P R In the two next corollaries, we give suﬃcient conditions in terms of second order linear functional derivatives for the assumptions (3.3) and (3.4) to hold. The assumption (3.3) is directly implied by the existence of a second order linear functional derivative with appropriate growth. In the case m0 discrete treated in Corollary 3.3 below, so does assumption (3.4), which is of similar nature since, then, ℓ D(µ1,µ2)= Rd (1 + y ) µ2 µ1 (dy). When D(µ1,µ2) = 1{ℓ>0}Wℓ(µ2,µ1) + 1{ℓ=0}W (µ2,µ1), we also | δ|2U| − | suppose regularityR of δm2 (µ,x,y) with respect to y to get (3.4). Rd N 1 N Corollary 3.2. Let ℓ 0, m0 ℓ( ) and m = N i=1 δζi , where ζ1,...,ζN are i.i.d. random ≥ ∈ P 2 variables with law m . If U ( (Rd)) ( (Rd)) is such that Rd y δ U (µ,x,y)/(1 + 0 ∈ S1,ℓ/2 Pℓ ∩ S2,ℓ Pℓ P ∋ 7→ δm2 x ℓ/2) is globally Hölder continuous with exponent α (0, 1 +ℓ 1] uniformly in (µ,x) (Rd) | | ∈ {ℓ=0} ∧ ∈ Pℓ × Rd, then

d δU √N U(mN ) U(m ) = 0, Var (m ,ζ ) . − 0 ⇒ N δm 0 1 Furthermore, N sup √NE U(m ) U(m0) < . (3.12) N∈N − ∞

Proof. Let us check for the ﬁrst statement that the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 are satisﬁed. Since U ( (Rd)), (3.2) holds. ∈ S1,ℓ/2 Pℓ CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 17

2 If ℓ = 0, U ( (Rd)) and δ U is bounded by some ﬁnite constant C so that for all µ ,µ ∈ S2,0 P0 δm2 1 2 ∈ (Rd) and x Rd, P0 ∈ δU δU 1 δ2U (µ2,x) (µ1,x) = 2 (sµ2 + (1 s)µ1,x,y)(µ2 µ1)(dy)ds CW0(µ2,µ1) δm − δm Rd δm − − ≤ Z0 Z and (3.3) is satisﬁed for ℓ = 0. If ℓ> 0, U ( (Rd)) and ∈ S2,ℓ Pℓ 2 Rd Rd Rd δ U ℓ ℓ ℓ C < , (µ,x,y) ℓ( ) , 2 (µ,x,y) C 1+ x + y + z µ(dz) . ∃ ∞ ∀ ∈ P × × δm ≤ | | | | Rd | | Z

For m (Rd) and µ B(m , r) the ball centered at m with W radius r , 0 ∈ Pℓ ∈ 0 0 ℓ ℓ (ℓ−1)∨0 ℓ ℓ∨1 (ℓ−1)∨0 ℓ ℓ∨1 z µ(dz) 2 z m0(dz)+ Wℓ (m0,µ) 2 z m0(dz)+ r . Rd | | ≤ Rd | | ≤ Rd | | Z Z Z Let µ ,µ B(m , r) and x Rd. Since for s [0, 1], sµ + (1 s)µ B(m , r), we deduce that 1 2 ∈ 0 ∈ ∈ 2 − 1 ∈ 0 δU δU (ℓ−1)∨0 ℓ ℓ∨1 ℓ (µ2,x) (µ1,x) C 1 + 2 z m0(dz)+ r + x W0(µ2,µ1) δm − δm ≤ Rd | | | | Z

ℓ + C y µ2 µ1 (dy), (3.13) Rd | | | − | Z so that (3.3) is satisﬁed with α = 1. Still for ℓ > 0, introducing a Wℓ-optimal coupling π between µ1 and µ2, we deduce from the Hölder continuity property that δU δU (µ ,x) (µ ,x) δm 2 − δm 1

1 2 2 δ U δ U = 2 (sµ2 + (1 s)µ1,x,y) 2 (sµ2 + (1 s)µ1,x,z) π(dy, dz)ds Rd Rd δm − − δm − Z0 Z ×

δU δU α α (µ2,x) (µ1,x) C ( y z 1)π(dy, dz) CW (µ2,µ1). (3.15) δm − δm ≤ Rd Rd | − | ∧ ≤ Z ×

Using a W -optimal coupling between µ and µ , one easily checks (see, for instance, Theorem 6.15 in 0 1 2 [22] when ℓ 1) that ≥ ℓ∨1 (ℓ−1)∨0 ℓ Wℓ (µ2,µ1) 2 y µ2 µ1 (dy). (3.16) ≤ Rd | | | − | Z Since W (µ2,µ1) W0(µ2,µ1) = Rd µ2 µ1 (dy), we deduce that any ball for the metric D is included in a ball≤ for 1 W + 1 |W −and that| the convergence to 0 of D(µ,m ) implies that of {ℓ>0} ℓ {Rℓ=0} 0 18 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

δU δU ℓ/2 1 W (µ,m ) + 1 W (µ,m ) and of sup Rd (µ,x) (m ,x) /(1 + x ) by (3.14) and {ℓ>0} ℓ 0 {ℓ=0} 0 x∈ | δm − δm 0 | | | (3.15). For the second statement, we may choose r =+ in the proof of Theorem 3.1, so that IN = N + 1 ∗ ∞ N in (3.8) and N = 0 in (3.9) deﬁne the two terms in the decomposition U(m ) U(m0)= QN + RN . −α − From the third step of that proof, we have E RN . N with α> 1/2, while the martingale property and the estimation (3.11) ensure that sup | NE| [Q2 ] sup NE[X2 ] < . N≥1 N ≤ (i,N):1≤i≤N N,i ∞ Corollary 3.3. Let ℓ 0, m (Rd) be discrete and mN = 1 N δ , where ζ ,...,ζ are i.i.d. ≥ 0 ∈ Pℓ N i=1 ζi 1 N random variables with law m . If U ( (Rd)) ( (Rd)) is such that 0 ∈ S1,ℓ/2 Pℓ ∩ S2,ℓ Pℓ P 2 Rd Rd Rd δ U ℓ/2 ℓ ℓ C < , (µ,x,y) ℓ( ) , 2 (µ,x,y) C 1+ x + y + z µ(dz) , ∃ ∞ ∀ ∈ P × × δm ≤ | | | | Rd | | Z then

d δU √N U(mN ) U(m ) = 0, Var (m ,ζ ) . − 0 ⇒ N δm 0 1 Furthermore, N sup √NE U(m ) U(m0) < . N∈N − ∞

Notice that the assumptions on U are satisﬁed as soon as U ( (Rd)). ∈ S2,ℓ/2 Pℓ δU δU Proof. The only diﬀerence with Corollary 3.2 concerns the proof that supx∈Rd δm (µ,x) δm (m0,x) /(1+ ℓ/2 ℓ | − | x ) goes to 0 as D(µ,m0)= Rd (1 + x ) µ m0 (dx) goes to 0. This continuity property is implied | | | | | − 2| by the fact that, under the growth assumption on δ U (µ,x,y), (3.13) holds with x ℓ replaced by x ℓ/2 R δm2 in the right-hand side. | | | |

The following example illustrates the power of Corollary 3.2, if a function behaves badly w.r.t. the measure component, but is very regular w.r.t. the spatial components. In this case, the conditions in Corollary 3.2 are easier to verify than Theorem 3.1. Example 3.4 (Conditions in Corollary 3.2 are satisﬁed). Let U : (R) R be deﬁned by P0 → 5/2 U(µ) := sin(y) µ(dy) . R Z

By Example 2.6,

δU 5 3/2 (µ,x1)= sin(y) µ(dy) sign sin(y) µ(dy) sin(x1), δm 2 R R Z Z where sign : R R is the function deﬁned by → 1, x< 0, − sign(x) := 0, x = 0, 1, x> 0,

 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 19 and δ2U 15 1/2 (µ,x1,x2)= sin(y) µ(dy) sin(x1) sin(x2). δm2 4 R Z R R δ 2U Clearly, U 1,0( 0( )) 2,0( 0( )). Moreover, x2 2 (µ,x1,x2) is Lipschitz continuous, uni- ∈ S P ∩ S P 7→ δm formly in µ and x1. Therefore, CLT holds for U by Corollary 3.2 applied with ℓ = 0. We note that since Theorem 3.1 is more general than Corollary 3.2, there are examples where conditions of Theorem 3.1 hold but not Corollary 3.2.

Example 3.5 (Conditions in Theorem 3.1 hold but not Corollary 3.2). Let U : 12(R) R be deﬁned by P → 3 U(µ) := x2 µ(dx) . R Z δU δ2U δ3U By Example 2.6, δm δm2 and δm3 all exist and are given by 2 δU 2 2 (µ,y1) = 3 x µ(dx) y1, δm R Z 2 δ U 2 2 2 (µ,y1,y2) = 6 x µ(dx) y1y2, δm2 R Z and δ3U (µ,y ,y ,y ) = 6y2y2y2. δm3 1 2 3 1 2 3 By Young’s inequality, U ( (R)). Therefore, U ( (R)) ( (R)). However, the ∈ S3,6 P12 ∈ S1,6 P12 ∩ S2,12 P12 condition on Hölder continuity in Corollary 3.2 does not hold, since y y2 is not uniformly continuous on R, therefore it cannot be Hölder continuous. 7→ We now show that the conditions of Theorem 3.1 hold for ℓ = 12 by showing that (3.3) and (3.4) are satisﬁed. Pick r > 0 and consider the ball B(m0, r) in the W12 metric for m0 12(R). Since W W , there exists a constant C > 0 (depending on r and m ) such that ∈ P 2 ≤ 12 0 2 x µ(dx) C, µ B(m0, r). R ≤ ∀ ∈ Z This implies that, for every µ ,µ B(m , r), 1 2 ∈ 0 δU δU 2 2 4 4 (µ2,x) (µ1,x) 6C x y µ2 µ1 (dy) 3Cx W0(µ2,µ1) + 3C y µ2 µ1 (dy) δm − δm ≤ R | − | ≤ R | − | Z Z 12 12 3C(1 + x )W0(µ2,µ1) + 3C (1 + y ) µ2 µ1 (dy) ≤ R | − | Z 12 12 6C(1 + x )W0(µ2,µ1) + 3C y µ2 µ1 (dy) ≤ R | − | Z which proves (3.3) for α = 1. Finally, we recall from Theorem 5.5 of [6] that W2(µ,m0) 0 implies that → 2 2 x µ(dx) x m0(dx). R → R Z Z 20 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

Consequently, as W12(µ,m0) and therefore W2(µ,m0) go to 0, δU (µ,x) δU (m ,x) 3 y2 µ(dy) 2 y2 m (dy) 2 x2 δm − δm 0 R − R 0 sup 6 = sup 6 x∈R 1+ x x∈R hR 1+ Rx i | | | | 2 2 2 2 3 y µ(dy) y m0(dy) 0, ≤ R − R → h Z Z i which proves (3.4).

4. An application in mean-field theory: fluctuations of interacting diffusion over nonlinear functionals of measures

4.1. L-derivatives. The notion of linear functional derivatives is proven to be insufficient for the analysis of the McKean-Vlasov SDEs in the section on fluctuations. In this section, we introduce the notion proposed by P.-L. Lions, which was expounded in other works in the literature (e.g. [3, 4, 6, 9]). Suppose that the probability space (Ω, , P) is atomless (i.e. there does not exist a measurable set F d which has positive measure and contains no set of smaller positive measure). Then for any µ 0(R ), we can always construct an Rd-valued random variable on Ω with law µ (see page 376 from∈ [6 P]). For any function U : (Rd) R, we define the lift U : L2(Ω, , P; Rd) R by P2 → F → U(θ) := U( (θ)). (4.1) Le Recall that U is said to the Fréchet differentiable at θ if there exists a linear continuous map DU(θ ) : e 0 0 L2(Ω, , P; Rd) R such that F → e e U(θ + η) U(θ )= DU(θ )(η)+ o( η 2 ), 0 − 0 0 k kL P as η L2 0. By the Riesz representation theorem, there exists a ( -a.s.) unique random variable L k kL2(Ω→, , P; Rd) such thate e e θ0 ∈ F DU(θ )(η)= E[L η], η L2(Ω, , P; Rd). 0 θ0 ∀ ∈ F The following theorem follows from Theorem 6.2 and Theorem 6.5 from [4] (or equivalently, Proposition 5.24 and Proposition 5.25 frome [6]) combined with Corollary 3.22 [11].

Theorem 4.1. Suppose that U is Fréchet differentiable at θ0 and θˆ0. Suppose that (θ0) = (θˆ0) = µ (Rd). Then L L ∈ P2 (i) The joint law (θ ,L )eis equal to the joint law of (θˆ ,L ). 0 θ0 0 θˆ0 (ii) There exists a Borel-measurable function h : Rd Rd (uniquely determined µ-a.e.) such that h(x) 2 µ(dx) < + and → Rd | | ∞ R h(θ )= L , h(θˆ )= L , a.s. 0 θ0 0 θˆ0 We are now in a position to define L-derivatives. The previous theorem tells us that the following definition makes sense. Definition 4.2. (i) A function U : (Rd) R is said to be L-differentiable at µ (Rd) if P2 → ∈ P2 there exists a random variable θ0 with law µ such that U is Fréchet differentiable at θ0.

e CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 21

(ii) If U : (Rd) R is L-differentiable at µ (Rd), then its L-derivative 1 ∂ U(µ) is defined P2 → ∈ P2 µ to be ∂ U(µ) := h, where h : Rd Rd is the Borel-measurable function in ((ii)) of Theorem µ → 4.1. Moreover, we define the joint map ∂ U : (Rd) Rd Rd by µ P2 × → ∂µU(µ,y) := [∂µU(µ)](y). We define higher order derivatives of measure functionals by iterating the definitions of L-derivatives. Following the approach adopted in the work [8] and [9], for any k N, we formally define higher order derivatives in measures through the following iteration (provided∈ that they actually exist): for any k Rd k Rd Rd k Rd ⊗k k 2, (i1,...,ik) 1,...,d and x1,...,xk , the function ∂µf : 2( ) ( ) ( ) is defined≥ by ∈ { } ∈ P × →

k k−1 ∂µf(µ,x1,...,xk) := ∂µ ∂µ f( ,x1,...,xk−1) (µ,xk) , (4.2) (i ,...,i ) · (i1,...,ik−1) i 1 k k ℓk ℓ1 k Rd Rd k Rd ⊗(k+ℓ1+...ℓk) and its corresponding mixed derivatives in space ∂vk ...∂v1 ∂µf : 2( ) ( ) ( ) are deﬁned by P × →

ℓk ℓ1 ℓk ℓ1 k ∂ ∂ k ∂v ...∂v ∂µf(µ,x1,...,xk) := . . . ∂µf(µ,x1,...,xk) , (4.3) k 1 ∂xℓk ∂xℓ1 (i1,...,ik) k 1 (i1,...,ik) for ℓ ...ℓ N 0 . The spatial derivatives commute with the derivatives in measure as long as 1 k ∈ ∪ { } j derivatives in the measure are kept at the right of each ∂vj . Since this notation for higher order derivatives in measure is quite cumbersome, we introduce the following multi-index notation for brevity.

Definition 4.3 (Multi-index notation). Let n,ℓ be non-negative integers. Also, let β = (β1,...,βn) be an n-dimensional vector of non-negative integers. Then we call any ordered tuple of the form (n,ℓ, β) d d (n,ℓ,β) or (n, β) a multi-index. For any function f : R 2(R ) R, the derivative D f(x, µ, v1, . . . , vn) is defined as × P → (n,ℓ,β) βn β1 ℓ n D f(x, µ, v1, . . . , vn) := ∂vn ...∂v1 ∂x∂µ f(x, µ, v1, . . . , vn), if this derivative is well-defined. For any function Φ : (Rd) R, we define P2 → (n,β) βn β1 n D Φ(µ, v1, . . . , vn) := ∂vn ...∂v1 ∂µ Φ(µ, v1, . . . , vn), if this derivative is well-defined. Finally, we also define the order 2 (n,ℓ, β) (resp. (n, β) ) by | | | | (n,ℓ, β) := n + β + . . . + β + ℓ, (n, β) := n + β + . . . + β . (4.4) | | 1 n | | 1 n We now introduce a convenient class of functionals of measure that will serve as a hypothesis for some results. Definition 4.4. A function f : Rd (Rd) R belongs to class (Rd (Rd)), if the derivatives × P2 → Mk × P2 D(n,ℓ,β)f(x, µ, v , . . . , v ) exist for every multi-index (n,ℓ, β) such that (n,ℓ, β) k and satisfy 1 n | |≤ (i) D(n,ℓ,β)f(x, µ, v , . . . , v ) C, (4.5) 1 n ≤ 1 For brevity, in this work, we say the L-derivative, rather than a µ-version of L-derivative. Any property imposed on the L-derivatives in later parts means that it is applicable to at least one µ-version. 2 We do not consider ‘zeroth’ order derivatives in our definition, i.e. at least one of n, β1,...,βn and ℓ must be non-zero, for every multi-index n, ℓ, (β1,...,βn). 22 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

(ii) D(n,ℓ,β)f(x, µ, v , . . . , v ) D(n,ℓ,β)f(x′,µ′, v′ , . . . , v′ ) 1 n − 1 n n

C x x′ + v v′ + W (µ,µ′) , (4.6) ≤ | − | | i − i| 2 Xi=1 ′ ′ ′ Rd ′ Rd for any x,x , v1, v1, . . . , vn, vn and µ,µ 2( ), for some constant C > 0. d ∈ ∈d P d Any function f : 2(R ) R can be extended to R 2(R ) naturally by (x,µ) f(µ), for all x Rd. This allowsP us to define→ the class ( (Rd)). × P 7→ ∈ Mk P2 Remark 4.5. By the mean-value theorem, assumption (4.6) automatically holds for any (n,ℓ, β) < k, by assumption (4.5). | | For the time-dependent case, we extend the previous definition as follows. Definition 4.6. A function : [0, T ] (Rd) R is said to be in ([0, T ] (Rd)), if V × P2 → Mk × P2 (i) s (s,µ) is continuously differentiable on [0, T ]. 7→ V d (ii) (s, ) k( 2(R )), for each s [0, T ], where the constant C in (4.5) and (4.6) is uniform Vin s · [0∈,M T ]. P ∈ (iii) All derivatives∈ in measure (including the zeroth order derivative) of ( , ) up to the kth order are jointly continuous in time and measure. V · · Examples regarding the computations of L-derivatives for various functionals of measures are given in Section 5.2.2 of [6]. In particular, Example 5.2.2.3 from [6] gives an analogue version to Theorem 2.8 for L-derivatives. The following examples are a direct consequence of this result. Example 4.7. The following functions F : Rd (Rd) R belong to (Rd (Rd)). × P2 → Mk × P2 (i) pth-degree interaction:

F (x,µ)= . . . ϕ(x,y1,...,yp) µ(dy1) ...µ(dyp), Rd Rd Z Z where ϕ : (Rd)p+1 R is bounded and Ck with bounded and Lipschitz partial derivatives up to and including order→ k. (ii) pth-degree polynomial on the Wasserstein space: p F (x,µ)= ϕi(x,y) µ(dy), Rd Yi=1 Z d 2 k where, for each i 1,...,p , ϕi : (R ) R is bounded and C with bounded and Lipschitz partial derivatives∈ up { to and} including order→ k. The following results establish links between linear functional derivatives and L-derivatives. Rd R k Theorem 4.8 (Theorem 2.6 of [8]). Consider U : 2( ) . Suppose that ∂µU exists and is Lipschitz continuous. Then the kth order linear functionalP derivative→ of U exists and satisﬁes the relation δkU ∂kU(µ,y ,...,y )= ∂ ...∂ (µ,y ,...,y ). µ 1 k y1 yk δmk 1 k CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 23

Lemma 4.9 (Lemma 2.7 of [8]). Let k 2. Then ( (Rd)) ( (Rd)). ≥ Mk P2 ⊆ Sk,k P2 The next Lemma gives sufficient conditions in terms of L-derivatives for the hypotheses of Corollary 3.2 to be satisfied. Lemma 4.10. Let U ( (Rd)). Then the second order linear functional derivative of U satisfies ∈ M2 P2 δ2U δ2U C < , µ (Rd), x,y, y˜ Rd, (µ,x,y) (µ,x, y˜) C x y y˜ , ∃ ∞ ∈ P2 ∀ ∈ δm2 − δm2 ≤ | || − |

Moreover, U satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary 3.2 for each ℓ 4. ≥ 2 R2d R 2 Proof. For any C function F : let 1F and 12F denote the vector and the matrix with ∂ → ∇ ∂∇2 respective entries ∂ F (z1,...,zd, zd+1,...,z2d) and ∂ ∂ F (z1,...,zd, zd+1,...,z2d), 1 i, j d. zi zi zd+j ≤ ≤ For points x, x,y,˜ y˜ Rd, ∈ F (x,y) F (˜x,y) F (x, y˜)+ F (˜x, y˜) 1 − − 1 = (x x˜). 1F ((1 s)˜x + sx,y) ds (x x˜). 1F ((1 s)˜x + sx, y˜) ds 0 − ∇ − − 0 − ∇ − Z 1 1 Z = (x x˜) 2 F ((1 s)˜x + sx, (1 t)˜y + ty)(y y˜) dt ds. − ·∇12 − − − Z0 Z0 Therefore, by Theorem 4.8, δ2U δ2U δ2U δ2U (µ,x,y) (µ, x,y˜ ) (µ,x, y˜)+ (µ, x,˜ y˜) δm2 − δm2 − δm2 δm2 1 1 = (x x˜) ∂2U(µ, (1 s)˜x + sx, (1 t)˜y + ty)(y y˜) dt ds. − · µ − − − Z0 Z0 By setting x˜ := 0, the normalisation condition (2.3) gives δ2U δ2U 1 1 (µ,x,y) (µ,x, y˜)= x ∂2U(µ,sx, (1 t)˜y + ty)(y y˜) dt ds, δm2 − δm2 · µ − − Z0 Z0 2 from which we conclude the result by the boundedness of ∂µU. d d Let now ℓ 2. By Lemma 4.9, U 2,2( 2(R )) 2,2( ℓ(R )). Moreover, the first statement ensures that the≥ Hölder continuity condition∈ S inP Corollary⊂3.2 S is satisfiedP for α = 1 (Lipschitz continuity). Rd Rd Last, when ℓ 4, 2,2( ℓ( )) 1,ℓ/2( ℓ( )) and all the hypotheses in this corollary are satisfied. ≥ S P ⊂ S P

d 4.2. Mean-field fluctuation. We define Lipschitz-continuous (w.r.t. the product topology of 2(R ) d d d d d d d d′ P × R ) functions b : R 2(R ) R and σ : R 2(R ) R R as the drift and diffusion coefficients respectively. Let× P(Ω, , P→) be an atomless,× complete P → probability⊗ space, on which we consider an interacting particle system F i,N t i,N N t i,N N i Y = ξ + b(Ys ,µ ) ds + σ(Ys ,µ ) dW , 1 i N, t 0, t i 0 s 0 s s ≤ ≤ ≥  R R (4.7) N 1 N µ := δ i,N ,  s N i=1 Ys  P 24 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

i ′ where W , 1 i N, are independent d -dimensional Brownian motions and ξi, 1 i N, are i.i.d. ≤ ≤ d 1 N ≤ ≤ random variables with law ν 2(R ) that are also independent of W ,...,W . This type of equations provides a probabilistic representation∈ P to many high-dimensional PDEs arising from kinetic theory and mean-field games. A standard approximation of this particle system is through the mean-field limit N of µt (by the theory of propagation of chaos), which leads to the consideration of a corresponding McKean-Vlasov SDE given by X = ξ + t b(X ,µ∞) ds + t σ(X ,µ∞) dW , t 0, t 0 s s 0 s s s ≥ (4.8)  R R  ∞ µs := Law(Xs), ′ where W is a d -dimensional Brownian motion and ξ ν is independent of W . Analyses of the approximation of (4.7) by the mean-field limiting equation∼ (4.8) are widely considered in the literature, such as [2], [17] and [19]. In particular, by [19], the condition of Lipschitz continuity of b and σ ensures existence and uniqueness of the solutions to (4.7) and (4.8) respectively. We consider the nonlinear fluctuation between the standard particle system (4.7) and its standard d McKean-Vlasov limiting equation (4.8) under non-linear functionals Φ k( 2(R )), i.e. we consider the limiting distribution of the process ∈ M P F N := √N Φ(µN ) Φ(µ∞) · − · R R in the space C( +, ). The main analysis depends on the following function: : R (Rd) R defined by V + × P2 → (t, (θ))=Φ (Xθ) (4.9) V L L t where, for θ an Rd-valued random vector independent of W , t t Xθ = θ + b(Xθ, (Xθ)) ds + σ(Xθ, (Xθ)) dW , t 0. t s L s s L s s ≥ Z0 Z0 d d d d It is proven in Theorem 7.2 of [3] that, if ν 2(R ), Φ 2( 2(R )) and bi,σi,j 2(R 2(R )), for i 1,...,d and j 1,...,d′ , then∈ Psatisfies the∈ MmasterP equation given by∈ M ×P ∈ { } ∈ { } V ∂ (s,µ)= ∂ (s,µ)(x) b(x,µ)+ 1 Tr ∂ ∂ (s,µ)(x)a(x,µ) µ(dx), s 0, sV Rd µV · 2 v µV ≥ (4.10)  R  (0,µ)=Φ(µ), V where  a(x,µ) := σ(x,µ)σ(x,µ)T . By the initial condition of (4.9), along with the definition of , we have the decomposition V Φ(µN ) Φ(µ∞) = (0,µN ) (t,ν) t − t V t −V = (0,µN ) (t,µN ) + (t,µN ) (t,ν) . (4.11) V t −V 0 V 0 −V To treat the first term, we define a finite dimensional projecti onV : [0,t] (Rd)N R by × → N 1 V (s,x ,...,x ) := t s, δ . (4.12) 1 N V − N xi Xi=1 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 25

Then (0,µN ) (t,µN )= V (t,Y 1,N ,...,Y N,N ) V (0,Y 1,N ,...,Y N,N ). V t −V 0 t t − 0 0 We can now apply Itô’s formula to this equality. Proposition 3.1 of [7] allows us to conclude that V is differentiable in the time component and twice-differentiable in the space components. Moreover, Proposition 3.1 of [7] expresses the first and second order partial derivatives of V in terms of the L-derivatives of . This allows us to use (4.10) to obtain a cancellation in the L-derivatives (except the second order term).V We refer the reader to the proof of Theorem B.2 in [20] for details in the argument. The following proposition provides information on the regularity of , as well as a connection of to the fluctuation process. V V d d d Proposition 4.11. Let k 2. Suppose that ν 2(R ), Φ k( 2(R )) and bi,σi,j k(R d ≥ ∈′ P ∈ M P ∈ M d× 2(R )), for i 1,...,d and that j 1,...,d . Then, for each T > 0, k([0, T ] 2(R )) andP the marginal∈ { fluctuation} at time t ∈[0 { , T ] can} be expressed as V ∈ M × P ∈ √N Φ(µN ) Φ(µ∞) = √N (t,µN ) (t,ν) t − t V 0 −V h i N t 1 1 + Tr a Y i,N ,µN ∂2 t s,µN (Y i,N ,Y i,N ) ds 2 N 3/2 s s µV − s s s Z0 " i=1 # X N t 1 i,N N T N i,N i + σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) dWs. (4.13) √N V − · i=1 Z0 X Proof. The statement concerning the regularity of comes from Theorem 2.15 of [8] (or Theorem 7.2 in [3] for the case k = 2). Equation (4.13) comes fromV (B.7) of [20]. The following theorem concerns the limiting distribution of F N . Theorem 4.12. Suppose that Φ ( (Rd)) and that b ,σ (Rd (Rd)), for i 1,...,d ∈ M4 P2 i i,j ∈ M4 ×P2 ∈ { } and j 1,...,d′ . Moreover, let ν (Rd). Then, in C(R , R), the process ∈ { } ∈ P12 + F N := √N Φ(µN ) Φ(µ∞) · − · converges weakly to a Gaussian process L whose finite dimensional distribution (Lt1 ,...,LtK ), 0 t . . . t , has a zero expectation vector and covariance matrix Σ given by ≤ 1 ≤ ≤ K δ δ Σ := Cov V (t ,ν,ξ ), V (t ,ν,ξ ) i,j δm i 1 δm j 1 ti∧tj +E ∂ t s,µ∞ (X )T a(X ,µ∞)∂ t s,µ∞ (X ) ds . (4.14) µV i − s s s s µV j − s s Z0 Proof. Firstly, by (4.13), we decompose F N as N N N Ft =Θt + Λt , where N t 1 1 ΘN := Tr a Y i,N ,µN ∂2 t s,µN (Y i,N ,Y i,N ) ds t 2 N 3/2 s s µV − s s s Z0 " i=1 # X 26 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES and N t N √ N 1 i,N N T N i,N i Λt := N (t,µ0 ) (t,ν) + σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) dWs. V −V √N V − · i=1 Z0 X By Lemma 4.9 and Corollary 3.2 applied with ℓ = 12, E ΛN = E √N (0,µN ) (0,ν) C, (4.15) 0 V 0 −V ≤ for some constant C that does not depend on N. Since b and σ are Lipschitz (w.r.t. the Euclidean and W norms respectively) and ν (Rd) , we have 2 ∈ P12 N E 12 E 1 i,N 12 sup [ Xu ] < + and sup sup Yu < + , (4.16) u∈[0,t] | | ∞ N∈N u∈[0,t] N | | ∞ Xi=1 d for any t > 0. Consequently, by (4.16) and the fact that 4([0, T ] 2(R )) (which implies boundedness of ∂2 by definition) for any T > 0, we deduceV that, ∈ M for any t>× P0, µV N t 1 2 E ΘN 2 = E Tr a Y i,N ,µN ∂2 t s,µN (Y i,N ,Y i,N ) ds | t | 2N 3/2 s s µV − s s s " Z0 i=1 # X t N 2 1 N→∞ tE Tr a Y i,N ,µN ∂2 t s,µN (Y i,N ,Y i,N ) ds 0.(4.17) ≤ 2N 3/2 s s µV − s s s −−−−→ Z0 i=1 X It follows by a similar argument that for any t ,t [0, T ], there exists a constant C > 0 such that 1 2 ∈ T E ΘN ΘN 4 C t t 4. (4.18) | t2 − t1 | ≤ T | 2 − 1| Take any t1,t2 [0, T ] with t1 < t2. Then, by the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, Jensen’s inequality and Hölder’s∈ inequality, N 4 t2 4 E N N E 1 i,N N T N i,N i Λt2 Λt1 = σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) dWs − √N t1 V − · Xi=1 Z 2 N · (1)E 1 i,N N T N i,N i CT σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) dWs ≤ *√N t1 V − · + i=1 Z t2 X N t2 2 2 (1)E 1 i,N N T N i,N = CT σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) ds N t1 V − Xi=1 Z N t2 2 2 (1)E 1 i,N N T N i,N CT σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) ds ≤ N t V − i=1 Z 1 X C(2) t t 2, (4.19) ≤ T | 2 − 1| (1) (2) for some constants CT ,CT that depend on T , but not on t1,t2 and N. By (4.15), (4.18) and (4.19), N we conclude that the sequence of probability measures (F ) N is tight on C(R+, R) (see Problem 2.4.11 in [15]). {L } CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 27

Next, we compute the weak limit of the finite dimensional distributions of F N . We first define the coupling of (4.8) given by t t Xi = ξ + b(Xi,µ∞) ds + σ(Xi,µ∞) dW i, t [0, T ], i N. t i s s s s s ∈ ∈ Z0 Z0 Let N t N 1 i,N N T N i,N i Et := σ(Ys ,µs ) ∂µ t s,µs (Ys ) dWs √N V − · i=1 Z0 X N t 1 i ∞ T ∞ i i σ(X ,µ ) ∂µ t s,µ (X ) dW , −√N s s V − s s · s i=1 Z0 X which implies that

N 1 t E EN 2 = E σ(Y i,N ,µN )T ∂ t s,µN (Y i,N ) | t | N s s µV − s s i=1 Z0 X 2 σ(Xi,µ∞)T ∂ t s,µ∞ (Xi) ds . − s s µV − s s d d d The assumptions that Φ 4( 2(R )) and that bi,σi,j 4 (R 2(R )), for i 1,...,d ∈ M P ∈ M × P ∈ { 34 } and j 1,...,d′ , allow us to repeat the calculations of (3.3) and (3.5) in [20] to deduce that E N 2∈ { } N Et 0, which implies that Et converges to 0 in probability. | | → N N N Let 0 t1 . . . tK. Then (Et1 , Et2 ,...,EtK ) converges in probability to (0, 0,..., 0) and hence ≤ ≤ ≤ N N N converges in distribution to (0, 0,..., 0) as well. Similarly, by (4.17), (Θt1 , Θt2 ,..., ΘtK ) converges in distribution to (0, 0,..., 0). For simplicity of notations, for 0 s t, we denote ≤ ≤ ′ Σ((s,t),x,µ) := σ(x,µ)T ∂ t s,µ (x) Rd . µV − ∈ Let θ be arbitrary real numbers, k 1,...,K . Then k ∈ { } K E N lim exp i θkFt N→∞ k Xk=1 K K E √ N = lim exp i N θk (tk,µ0 ) θk (tk,ν) N→∞ " V − V Xk=1 Xk=1 K N tk E 1 j ∞ j exp i θk Σ((s,tk), Xs ,µs ) dWs × √N 0 · # Xk=1 Xj=1 Z 4 This is the main step which requires such a strong regularity assumption on b, σ and Φ, i.e. the assumption that d d d d ′ ν ∈P12(R ), Φ ∈M4(P2(R )) and that bi,σi,j ∈M4(R ×P2(R )), for i ∈ {1,...,d} and j ∈ {1,...,d }. The reader is recommended to consult (3.3) and (3.5) in [20] for details. 28 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

K K E √ N = lim exp i N θk (tk,µ0 ) θk (tk,ν) N→∞ " V − V Xk=1 Xk=1 N K tk E 1 j ∞ j exp i θk Σ((s,tk), Xs ,µs ) dWs × √N 0 · # Xj=1 Xk=1 Z = E[exp iZ ]E[exp iZ ], (4.20) { 1} { 2} where Z1 and Z2 are independent normal random variables given by K δ Z N 0, Var θ V (t ,ν,ξ ) 1 ∼ k δm k 1 Xk=1 and K tk 2 E 1 ∞ 1 Z2 N 0, θk Σ((s,tk), Xs ,µs ) dWs , ∼ 0 · Xk=1 Z by Corollary 3.2 along with Lemma 4.9 and the classical central limit theorem respectively. Note that we can also rewrite the variances as K δ Var θ V (t ,ν,ξ ) k δm k 1 Xk=1 K δ δ = θ θ Cov V (t ,ν,ξ ), V (t ,ν,ξ ) i j δm i 1 δm j 1 i,jX=1 and

K tk 2 E 1 ∞ 1 θk Σ((s,tk), Xs ,µs ) dWs 0 · Xk=1 Z K ti tj E 1 ∞ 1 1 ∞ 1 = θiθj Σ((s,ti), Xs ,µs ) dWs Σ((s,tj), Xs ,µs ) dWs 0 · 0 · i,jX=1 Z Z K ti∧tj E 1 ∞ 1 ∞ = θiθj Σ((s,ti), Xs ,µs ) Σ((s,tj), Xs ,µs ) ds . 0 · i,jX=1 Z By (4.20), K E N lim exp i θkFt N→∞ k Xk=1 K 1 δ δ = exp θ θ Cov V (t ,ν,ξ ), V (t ,ν,ξ ) + − 2 i j δm i 1 δm j 1 i,jX=1 ti∧tj E Σ((s,t ), X1,µ∞) Σ((s,t ), X1,µ∞) ds . i s s · j s s Z0 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICALMEASURES 29

N N By the Lévy’s continuity theorem, this shows that the random vector (Λt1 ,..., ΛtK ) converges weakly to some normal random vector (Lt1 ,...,LtK ), whose expectation vector is zero and covariance matrix Σ is given by δ δ ti∧tj Σ := Cov V (t ,ν,ξ ), V (t ,ν,ξ ) + E Σ((s,t ), X1,µ∞) Σ((s,t ), X1,µ∞) ds . i,j δm i 1 δm j 1 i s s · j s s Z0

5. Appendix d d Lemma 5.1. For ℓ (0, 1), Wℓ is a metric on ℓ(R ). Moreover, if µ ℓ(R ) and (µn)n∈N is a sequence in this space,∈ then lim W (µ ,µ) =P 0 iﬀ µ converges weakly∈ P to µ as n and n→∞ ℓ n n → ∞ lim x ℓµ (dx)= x ℓµ(dx). n→∞ Rd | | n Rd | | d Proof. LetR µ,ν,η ℓ(R R). Clearly Wℓ(µ,ν) = Wℓ(ν,µ). By the triangle inequality and the subadditivity of R u ∈u Pℓ, + ∋ 7→ (x,y) Rd Rd, x y ℓ x ℓ + y ℓ and x ℓ y ℓ x y ℓ. (5.1) ∀ ∈ × | − | ≤ | | | | | | − | | ≤ | − |

With the definition (1.1) of W , the first inequality implies that W (µ,ν) x ℓµ(dx)+ y ℓν(dy) < ℓ ℓ ≤ Rd | | Rd | | . By Theorem 4.1 in [22], there is an optimal coupling ρ between µ and ν i.e. an element of (Rd Rd) ∞ R R Pℓ × with first marginal µ and second marginal ν such that W (µ,ν) = x y ℓρ(dx, dy). When ℓ Rd×Rd | − | W (µ,ν) = 0 then the optimal coupling ρ gives full weight to the diagonal (x,x) : x Rd so that the ℓ R two marginals µ and ν coincide. Since x y ℓδ (dy)µ(dx) = 0, where{ δ (dy)µ∈(dx) }is a coupling Rd×Rd | − | x x between µ and µ, W (µ,µ) = 0. To prove the triangle inequality we write disintegrations ρ (dx)ν(dy) ℓ R y and πy(dz)ν(dy) of optimal couplings ρ(dx, dy) and π(dy, dz) between µ and ν and between ν and η. Then ρ (dx)π (dz)ν(dy) is a coupling between µ and η and by subadditivity of R u uℓ, y∈Rd y y + ∋ 7→

R ℓ Wℓ(µ, η) x z ρy(dx)πy(dz)ν(dy) ≤ Rd Rd | − | Rd Z(x,z) × Zy∈ ℓ ℓ x y + y z ρy(dx)πy(dz)ν(dy)= Wℓ(µ,ν)+ Wℓ(ν, η) ≤ Rd Rd Rd | − | | − | Z × × so that the triangle inequality holds. Therefore W is a metric on (Rd). ℓ Pℓ Let W be deﬁned as W1 but with x y 1 replacing the integrand x y in (1.1). By Corollary 6.13 | − |∧ d | − | d [22], W metricises the topology of weak convergence on 0(R ). Since for all x,y R , x y 1 ℓ P ∈ | − |∧ ≤ x y , W Wℓ. Morover, the second inequality in (5.1) and the existence of an optimal coupling ρ between| − | µ and≤ ν imply that

x ℓµ(dx) y ℓµ(dy) = x ℓ y ℓ ρ(dx, dy) x ℓ y ℓ ρ(dx, dy) Rd | | − Rd | | Rd Rd | | − | | ≤ Rd Rd | | − | | Z Z Z × Z × ℓ x y ρ(dx, dy)= Wℓ (µ,ν). ≤ Rd Rd | − | Z × 30 CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM OVER NON-LINEAR FUNCTIONALS OF EMPIRICAL MEASURES

d Hence if (µn)n∈N is a sequence in ℓ(R ) such that limn→∞ Wℓ(µn,µ) = 0, then µn converges weakly Pℓ ℓ to µ as n and limn→∞ Rd x µn(dx) = Rd x µ(dx). The converse implication can be checked by repeating→ ∞the proof of the same| | statement for ℓ| | 1 p101-103 [22]. R R ≥ References

[1] Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savaré. Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008. [2] Mireille Bossy and Denis Talay. A stochastic particle method for the Mckean-Vlasov and the Burgers equation. Mathematics of Computation of the American Mathematical Society, 66(217):157–192, 1997. [3] Rainer Buckdahn, Juan Li, Shige Peng, and Catherine Rainer. Mean-field stochastic differential equations and associated PDEs. The Annals of Probability, 45(2):824–878, 2017. [4] Pierre Cardaliaguet. Notes on mean field games. Technical report, Technical report, 2010. [5] Pierre Cardaliaguet, François Delarue, Jean-Michel Lasry, and Pierre-Louis Lions. The Master Equation and the Convergence Problem in Mean Field Games:(AMS-201), volume 201. Princeton University Press, 2019. [6] Rene Carmona and Francois Delarue. Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications I: Mean Field FBSDEs, Control, and Games. Springer, 2017. [7] Jean-François Chassagneux, Dan Crisan, and François Delarue. A probabilistic approach to classical solutions of the master equation for large population equilibria. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.3009, 2014. [8] Jean-François Chassagneux, Lukasz Szpruch, and Alvin Tse. Weak quantitative propagation of chaos via differential calculus on the space of measures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02556, 2019. [9] Dan Crisan and Eamon McMurray. Smoothing properties of McKean–Vlasov SDEs. Probability Theory and Related Fields, pages 1–52, 2017. [10] Francois Delarue, Daniel Lacker, and Kavita Ramanan. From the master equation to mean field game limit theory: a central limit theorem. Electronic Journal of Probability, 24(51), 2019. [11] Wilfrid Gangbo and Adrian Tudorascu. On differentiability in the wasserstein space and well-posedness for hamilton- jacobi equations. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 2018. [12] Peter Hall and Christopher C Heyde. Martingale limit theory and its applications. Academic press, 2014. [13] Masuyuki Hitsuda and Itaru Mitoma. Tightness problem and stochastic evolution equation arising from fluctuation phenomena for interacting diffusions. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 19(2):311–328, 1986. [14] Wassily Hoeffding. A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. In Breakthroughs in Statistics, pages 308–334. Springer, 1992. [15] Ioannis Karatzas and Steven Shreve. Brownian motion and stochastic calculus, volume 113. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. [16] A J Lee. U-statistics: Theory and Practice. Routledge, 2019. [17] Sylvie Méléard. Asymptotic behaviour of some interacting particle systems; Mckean-Vlasov and Boltzmann models. In Probabilistic models for nonlinear partial differential equations, pages 42–95. Springer, 1996. [18] Max Mether. The history of the central limit theorem. Sovelletun Matematiikan erikoistyöt, 2(1):08, 2003. [19] Alain-Sol Sznitman. Topics in propagation of chaos. Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIX 1989, pages 165–251, 1991. [20] Łukasz Szpruch and Alvin Tse. Antithetic multilevel particle system sampling method for McKean-Vlasov SDEs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.07063, 2019. [21] Aad W. van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner. Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics,. Springer Series in Statistics, 1996. [22] Cédric Villani. Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008. [23] PL Walker. On Lebesgue integrable derivatives. The American Mathematical Monthly, 84(4):287–288, 1977.

Université Paris-Est, Cermics (ENPC), INRIA, F-77455 Marne-la-Vallée, France. E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]