Erratum to "Higher order scrambled digital nets achieve the optimal rate of the root mean square error for smooth integrands"

Each coordinate of \Pi(z) is uniformly distributed on [0,1), and the ds coordinates are independent. More explicitly, fix L\ge1 and prescribe the first dL digits of every output coordinate. By the definition of interlacing, this is exactly the same as prescribing the first L digits of each of the ds scrambled input coordinates. Those dsL digits are independent and uniform, so every such output digit pattern has probability b^{-dsL}.

It follows that every half-open s-dimensional base-b box whose side length is b^{-dL} has probability equal to its volume. To pass from these grid boxes to an arbitrary rectangle [0,x_1)\times\cdots\times[0,x_s), round each x_i down and up to the nearest multiple of b^{-dL}. The desired probability is squeezed between the volumes of the two resulting grid rectangles. As L\to\infty, both volumes converge to x_1\cdots x_s. Thus the joint distribution function of Y is the distribution function of the uniform measure on [0,1)^s.

We first prove the corresponding one-dimensional statement and then use independence of the scrambling permutations between coordinates.

Let x,x'\in[0,1), and write their base-b expansions as

For k,k'\in\mathbb N_0, write

where only finitely many digits are nonzero. Let \omega_b=\exp(2\pi i/b). Then

Under nested uniform scrambling, for every finite digit string (a_1,\ldots,a_m) there is an independent uniformly distributed permutation

of \{0,\ldots,b-1\}. Thus, if \widetilde x=\Pi(x) and \widetilde x'=\Pi(x'), then

The same family of permutations is used for both x and x'.

We shall repeatedly use the following elementary fact. If \pi is a uniform random permutation of \{0,\ldots,b-1\}, then for any a\in\{0,\ldots,b-1\} and any u\in\{0,\ldots,b-1\},

Moreover, if a\neq a', then (\pi(a),\pi(a')) is uniformly distributed over all ordered pairs of distinct digits, and hence

Indeed,

is the required expectation, and the displayed values follow from

We now consider

Since

suppose first that k\neq k'. Then there is a digit position r such that

Condition on all scrambling permutations except the permutation or permutations used to generate the r-th scrambled digits. There are three possibilities.

If

then the same permutation is applied to the same digit and the r-th factor is

Its conditional expectation is zero because \kappa_{r-1}-\kappa'_{r-1}\not\equiv 0\pmod b.

If

then the same random permutation is applied to two different digits. By (?), the corresponding conditional expectation is zero because \kappa_{r-1}\neq\kappa'_{r-1}.

Finally, if

then the two r-th scrambled digits are generated by independent random permutations. Hence the corresponding conditional expectation factors as

Since \kappa_{r-1}\neq\kappa'_{r-1}, at least one of these two digits is nonzero, so at least one factor is zero. Thus in every case

It remains to consider the diagonal case. Let k=k'\in B_\ell. For \ell\geq 1, this means that

Let q be the number of initial base-b digits shared by x and x', that is,

and either x_{q+1}\neq x'_{q+1} or q=\infty if x=x'.

If q\geq\ell, then the first \ell scrambled digits of x and x' agree, so

and therefore the expectation equals 1.

If q=\ell-1, then the two points agree through digit \ell-1 and differ at digit \ell. The factors corresponding to digits 1,\ldots,\ell-1 cancel. At digit \ell, the same random permutation is applied to two distinct digits, and since \kappa_{\ell-1}\neq 0, (?) gives

Hence in this case the covariance equals -1/(b-1).

If q\leq\ell-2, then the prefixes of length \ell-1 of the two points are already different. Therefore their \ell-th scrambled digits are generated by independent random permutations. Since \kappa_{\ell-1}\neq0,

and consequently the covariance is zero.

Thus, for every k\in B_\ell,

By the definition in (?), this is precisely

For \ell=0, we have k=0 and \operatorname{wal}_0\equiv1, so the same conclusion holds with \chi_0(x,x')=1. We have therefore proved the one-dimensional identity

We now return to ds dimensions. Write

and

Since multivariate Walsh functions factor coordinatewise,

The nested scrambling permutation families used in different coordinates are independent. Hence

If \boldsymbol k\neq\boldsymbol k', then k_j\neq k'_j for at least one coordinate j, and the corresponding factor vanishes by (?). Therefore

Finally, if \boldsymbol k=\boldsymbol k'\in B_{\boldsymbol\ell}, then k_j\in B_{\ell_j} for every j, and (?) gives

The right-hand side depends on \boldsymbol k only through its block index \boldsymbol\ell, which proves the final assertion.

Let

The digit interlacing map \mathcal D_d is measure preserving: apart from the null set on which a number has two base-b expansions, it merely rearranges the base-b digits of the ds input coordinates into the digits of the s output coordinates. Consequently,

In particular, g\in L_2([0,1)^{ds}).

Let \mathcal E_d:\mathbb N_0^{ds}\to\mathbb N_0^s denote the corresponding digit interlacing map on Walsh frequencies. The defining digit rearrangements give

Since \mathcal D_d is measure preserving, the Walsh coefficients of g therefore satisfy

In particular,

Unbiasedness. For each fixed deterministic point z_n, nested uniform scrambling makes \Pi(z_n) uniformly distributed on [0,1)^{ds}. Indeed, in each coordinate the permutation used at a given digit is uniform, and, conditionally on all preceding scrambled digits, the next scrambled digit is uniform on \{0,\ldots,b-1\}. The permutation families belonging to different coordinates are independent. Thus every finite collection of leading digits of \Pi(z_n) has the uniform distribution, which proves the asserted uniformity.

Because \mathcal D_d is measure preserving, \mathcal D_d(\Pi(z_n)) is consequently uniform on [0,1)^s. Moreover, f\in L_2([0,1)^s)\subset L_1([0,1)^s), since the domain has measure one. Hence

It follows by linearity of expectation that

Thus \widehat I_N(f) is unbiased. Notice that independence of the scrambled points is neither assumed nor needed; only the marginal uniformity of each scrambled point is used here.

Finite Walsh projections. The Walsh system is a complete orthonormal basis of L_2([0,1)^{ds}). The coefficient identity above therefore gives the L_2-expansion

We first work with finite Walsh projections, thereby avoiding any formal interchange of an infinite series and expectation. For L\geq1, put

With the usual convention B_0=\{0\} and B_\ell=\{b^{\ell-1},\ldots,b^\ell-1\} for \ell\geq1, this is equivalently

Define

Then g_L\to g in L_2([0,1)^{ds}). Since the constant coefficient is retained,

and hence

Set

All sums in the following computation are finite. Expanding the squared absolute value and taking expectations gives

By Proposition 2.2, the expectation in the last display vanishes whenever \boldsymbol k\neq\boldsymbol k'. Thus all off-diagonal Walsh-frequency terms disappear, leaving

If \boldsymbol k\in B_{\boldsymbol\ell}, the diagonal part of that proposition yields

The right-hand side depends on \boldsymbol k only through its block index \boldsymbol\ell. We may therefore group the preceding sum by Walsh blocks to obtain

By the definitions of the block energy and the gain coefficient,

and

Consequently,

The zero block is absent because B_{\boldsymbol0}=\{\boldsymbol0\} contains only the constant Walsh frequency, which disappears upon centering by I(f).

Passage to the L_2-limit. For each n, the point \Pi(z_n) is uniform on [0,1)^{ds}. It follows that

The triangle inequality in L_2(\Omega) now gives

Therefore

and hence

where the last equality uses the unbiasedness already proved.

It remains only to identify the limit of the finite sums. For every \boldsymbol\ell and any \boldsymbol k\in B_{\boldsymbol\ell}, Proposition 2.2 implies

Thus 0\leq\Gamma_{d,\boldsymbol\ell}(P)\leq1, because every Walsh function has modulus one. Hence the finite sums above increase, as L\to\infty, to the full series. This series is finite: by Parseval’s identity and the coefficient identity for g,

Letting L\to\infty in the finite-projection identity therefore gives

which is the asserted variance decomposition.

If a_{(h)}>c_{(h)}, at least h indices satisfy c_j\le c_{(h)}<a_{(h)}. For those indices, a_j\le c_j<a_{(h)}, contradicting the definition of the hth order statistic. Multiplication gives the second assertion.

Write

For each output coordinate i\in\{1,\ldots,s\}, define

and put

Thus r_i is the number of increments which will be retained in output coordinate i, while q(\boldsymbol\ell) is the total number of discarded increments.

We first derive the finite Walsh-block identity which is the starting point of the argument.

For \boldsymbol m=(m_1,\ldots,m_{ds})\in\mathbb N_0^{ds}, define

In particular,

For u\subseteq K, let \boldsymbol1_u denote its indicator vector. Since, for j\in K,

multiplication over the active coordinates gives

Consequently,

Equivalently, define the finite Walsh polynomial

By orthogonality of the Walsh system,

Using (?), we may also write

All frequencies occurring in this expression vanish in the output coordinates outside v. After integrating out those inactive coordinates, the corresponding Walsh coefficients may therefore be computed from f_v. We work from now on on [0,1]^{|v|}.

For a\in\mathcal A_{\boldsymbol\ell}, define the fine interlaced cell

The cells E_a, a\in\mathcal A_{\boldsymbol\ell}, are pairwise disjoint up to their boundaries and partition [0,1]^{|v|}. They fix exactly

base-b digits, and hence

For u\subseteq K, put

and define \pi_u(a)\in\mathcal A_{\boldsymbol m_u} by

Let

Thus E_{u,a} is obtained from E_a by forgetting the last prescribed digit in each input coordinate j\in u.

We shall use the finite Walsh-kernel identity

This follows coordinatewise from the one-dimensional identity

together with the fact that \mathcal E_d interlaces the corresponding frequency digits in the same way that \mathcal D_d interlaces the point digits.

For x\in E_a, applying (?) gives

Hence G_{\boldsymbol\ell} is constant on every E_a, and

Using (?) in (?), we obtain the exact identity

We next resolve each parent cell E_{u,a} into its fine children. For a\in\mathcal A_{\boldsymbol\ell}, write

Thus d_j(a)\in\{0,\ldots,b-1\} is the last base-b digit of a_j.

For u\subseteq K and \kappa_u\in\{0,\ldots,b-1\}^{u}, let a^{(u,\kappa)} be the fine-child index defined by

Then, up to boundaries,

and therefore

Since the summand depends only on the components of the replacement digit vector in u, we may equivalently average over the full set \mathcal A_1=\{0,\ldots,b-1\}^{ds}:

Indeed, each choice of the digits k_j, j\in u, occurs exactly b^{ds-|u|} times in the full sum over k.

We now express the child cells as translates of E_a. If

define

Changing the final prescribed digit in input coordinate j from d_j(a) to k_j changes the corresponding digit of output coordinate i, namely the digit in position

and therefore translates that output coordinate by exactly z_j(a,k).

For u\subseteq K, let Z_u(a,k)\in\mathbb R^{|v|} have ith active component

Then, up to boundaries,

and translation invariance of Lebesgue measure gives

Define

Combining (?) and (?), we obtain

Substituting this identity into (?) yields the exact finite Walsh-block identity

Up to this point all steps are equalities; no Sobolev estimate has yet been used.

By the triangle inequality,

Set

Then

By Cauchy–Schwarz in the finite sum over k, using |\mathcal A_1|=b^{ds},

A second application of Cauchy–Schwarz, now on E_a, gives

Substituting these estimates into (?) gives

We now estimate the finite differences. Fix a and k. From (?),

For a fixed output coordinate i\in v, arrange the numbers |z_j(a,k)|, j\in K_i, in nondecreasing order and retain the r_i smallest. Finite-difference operators in the same coordinate commute, so the order of the increments is irrelevant.

Likewise arrange the numbers \eta'_j, j\in K_i, in nondecreasing order. Since

Lemma 5.1 shows that the hth smallest actual increment is no larger than the hth smallest upper bound. Hence the product of the r_i retained absolute increments is at most the product of the r_i smallest \eta'_j. Multiplication over i\in v, together with the definition (?), gives

We next reduce the order of the finite difference. Write

Up to the harmless global sign determined by the convention in (?), the contribution from output coordinate i is

Let R_i\subseteq K_i be the indices of the r_i retained increments and let

Then

Thus a difference of order |K_i| is an alternating sum of 2^{|K_i|-r_i} translates of differences of order r_i. Multiplication over all active output coordinates shows that \delta_{a,k} is an alternating sum of exactly

translates of mixed finite differences of order \boldsymbol r=(r_i)_{i\in v}.

For a signed increment z, write

Repeated use of the fundamental theorem of calculus gives, up to an irrelevant sign,

Consequently, if S\subseteq[0,1]^{|v|} and the translated points which occur in the integral remain in [0,1]^{|v|}, Minkowski’s integral inequality gives

It remains to organize the sum over the fine cells E_a. The increments in (?) depend on a only through the last active digits

For

define

The union is disjoint up to boundaries. If \rho(a)=\rho, then, for fixed k, all increments z_j(a,k) are the same; denote them by z_j(\rho,k). Hence the finite-difference expression \delta_{a,k} is the same function of its argument for every a in this group. Denote it by \delta_{\rho,k}. Then

For t\in S_\rho, every vertex which occurs in \delta_{\rho,k}(t) belongs to [0,1]^{|v|}. Indeed, adding z_j(\rho,k) changes the relevant prescribed interlaced digit from \rho_j to k_j and leaves all other prescribed digits unchanged. The boxes parametrized by the variables \theta_{i,h} in (?) are contained in the convex hull of the corresponding finite-difference vertices. Since the cube [0,1]^{|v|} is convex, these boxes remain in the cube.

We may therefore apply (?) to each of the 2^{q(\boldsymbol\ell)} reduced differences. By the triangle inequality in L_2, followed by (?),

Squaring and using (?), we obtain

There are exactly b^{|K|} possible vectors \rho\in\{0,\ldots,b-1\}^{K}. Therefore, for every fixed k\in\mathcal A_1,

Substituting (?) into (?) and using |\mathcal A_1|=b^{ds}, we obtain

Taking square roots yields

Since b^{|K|/2}\le b^{|K|}, this implies

which proves (5.2).

Finally,

because |K_i|\le d. Summing over at most s output coordinates gives

Moreover,

By the definition of the Sobolev norm in (?),

Consequently,

which is (5.2).

Write p=L+n. Since L+n+2\le(L+2)(n+1),

The last series is finite.

Use Lemma 3.1, the gain bound (?), and Lemma 5.2. All factors depending only on b,s,\alpha,d are absorbed into C_{b,s,\alpha,d}.

Suppose first that d\le\alpha. Then r_i=\lvert K_i\rvert and q(\boldsymbol\ell)=0. From (?),

The number of vectors in \mathbb N_0^{ds} with coordinate sum p is \binom{p+ds-1}{ds-1}. Hence Lemma 6.1 gives

Multiplication by the factor b^{-M} from (?) proves the claim in this case.

Now suppose that d>\alpha. Within each group of d coordinates, arrange the levels in nonincreasing order, \ell_{i,1}\ge\cdots\ge\ell_{i,d}. There are at most (d!)^s reorderings and

If \sum_{i,j}\ell_{i,j}>M, then, since the mean of the largest \alpha entries is at least the mean of all d entries,

Put k_i=\sum_{j=1}^{\alpha}\ell_{i,j} and p_i=dk_i. For fixed k_i, the number of choices of the first \alpha entries is at most \binom{k_i+\alpha-1}{\alpha-1}, while each of the remaining d-\alpha entries is at most \lfloor k_i/\alpha\rfloor. After relaxing the condition that p_i is divisible by d, the required sum is bounded by

Grouping by p=p_1+\cdots+p_s and using \binom{p+s-1}{s-1}\le(p+2)^{s-1} gives

Lemma 6.1 bounds this by

Again multiply by b^{-M} from (?). This proves (6.2).