Home BSDEs with right upper-semicontinuous reflecting obstacle and stochastic Lipschitz coefficient
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

BSDEs with right upper-semicontinuous reflecting obstacle and stochastic Lipschitz coefficient

  • Mohamed Marzougue EMAIL logo and Mohamed El Otmani
Published/Copyright: February 1, 2019

Abstract

This paper proves the existence and uniqueness of a solution to reflected backward stochastic differential equations with a lower obstacle, which is assumed to be right upper-semicontinuous. The result is established where the coefficient is stochastic Lipschitz by using some tools from the general theory of processes such as Mertens decomposition of optional strong supermartingales and other tools from optimal stopping theory.

MSC 2010: 60H20; 60H30; 65C30

Communicated by Vyacheslav L. Girko


Funding statement: This work has been supported by the “Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique et Technique (CNRST), Maroc”, Programme de Bourses d’Excellence de Recherche (PBER).

A Appendix

Definition A.1.

Let τT[0,T]. An optional process (ξt)tT is said to be right upper-semicontinuous (r.u.s.c.) along stopping times at the stopping time τ if for all nonincreasing sequence of stopping times (τn)n0 such that τnτ a.s., we have ξτlim supn+ξτn a.s. The process (ξt)tT is said to be r.u.s.c. along stopping times if it is r.u.s.c. along stopping times at each τT[0,T].

Remark A.2.

If the process (ξt)tT has left limits, (ξt)tT is left-continuous along stopping times if and only if for each predictable stopping time τT[0,T], we have ξτ-=ξτ a.s.

Definition A.3.

Let (Yt)tT be an optional process. We say that Y is a strong (optional) supermartingale if

  1. Yτ is integrable for all τ𝒯[0,T],

  2. Yν𝔼[Yτν] a.s. for all ν,τ𝒯[0,T] such that ντ a.s.

Theorem A.4 (Mertens decomposition).

Let Y~ be a strong optional supermartingale of class (D). There exists a unique uniformly integrable martingale (càdlàg) M, a unique nondecreasing right-continuous predictable process K with K0=0 and E[KT]<+ and a unique nondecreasing right-continuous adapted purely discontinuous process C with C0-=0 and E[CT]<+, such that

Y~t=Mt-Kt-Ct-for alltTa.s.

Theorem A.5 (Dellacherie–Meyer).

Let K be a nondecreasing predictable process. Let U be the potential of the process K, i.e., U:=E[KTFt]-Kt for all tT. We assume that there exists a positive FT-measurable random variable X such that |Uν|E[XFν] a.s. for all νT[0,T]. Then

𝔼|KT|2c𝔼|X|2,

where c is a positive constant.

The proof is established in [5, Chapter VI, Theorem 99] for the case of a nondecreasing process that is neither necessarily right continuous nor left continuous.

Corollary A.6.

Let Y be a strong optional supermartingale of class (D) such that for all νT[0,T], we have |Yν|E[XFν] a.s., where X is a nonnegative FT-measurable random variable. Let K~ be the Mertens process associated with Y. There exists a positive constant c such that

𝔼|K~T|2c𝔼|X|2.

Proof.

Let ν𝒯[0,T]. From the Mertens decomposition, we have Yν=Mν-K~ν a.s. and YT=MT-K~T a.s. Taking the conditional expectation in the second equation gives 𝔼[YTν]=𝔼[MTν]-𝔼[K~Tν] a.s. By subtracting this equation from the first, we obtain Yν-𝔼[YTν]=Mν-𝔼[MTν]+𝔼[K~Tν]-K~ν a.s. Since M is a martingale, we have Yν-𝔼[YTν]=𝔼[K~Tν]-K~τ a.s. Thus

|𝔼[K~Tν]-K~ν|=|Yν-𝔼[YTν]||Yν|+𝔼[|YT|ν]𝔼[2Xν]a.s.

By applying Theorem A.5, we obtain the desired result. ∎

Proposition A.7.

Let X and Y be two optional processes such that XνYν a.s. for all νT[0,T]. Then XY, up to an evanescent set.

The proof is established in [4, Chapter IV, Theorem 86].

Theorem A.8 (Gal’chouk–Lenglart formula).

Let nN. Let Y be an n-dimensional optional semimartingale with decomposition Yk=Y0k+Mk+Vk+Wk for all k=1,,n, where Mk is a (càdlàg) local martingale, Vk is a right-continuous process of finite variation such that V0k=0 and Wk is a left-continuous process of finite variation which is purely discontinuous and such that W0k=0. Let F be a twice continuously differentiable function on Rn. Then, almost surely, for all t0,

F(Yt)=F(Y0)+k=1n]0,t]DkF(Ys-)d(Mk+Vk)s+12k,l=1n]0,t]DkDlF(Ys-)dMk,c,Ml,cs+0<st[F(Ys)-F(Ys-)-k=1nDkF(Ys-)ΔYsk]+k=1n[0,t[DkF(Ys)d(Wk)s++0s<t[F(Ys+)-F(Ys)-k=1nDkF(Ys)Δ+Ysk],

where Dk denotes the differentiation operator with respect to the k-th coordinate and Mk,c denotes the continuous part of Mk.

Corollary A.9.

Let Y be a one-dimensional optional semimartingale with decomposition Y=Y0+M+V+W, where M, V and W are as in the above theorem. Let X be a continuous process of finite variation. Then, almost surely, for all t0,

F(Xt,Yt)=F(X0,Y0)+]0,t]XF(Xs,Ys)ds+]0,t]YF(Xs,Ys-)d(M+V)s+12]0,t]Y2F(Xs,Ys-)dMc,Mcs+[0,t[YF(Xs,Ys)d(W)s++0<st[F(Xs,Ys)-F(Xs,Ys-)-YF(Xs,Ys-)ΔYs]+0s<t[F(Xs,Ys+)-F(Xs,Ys)-YF(Xs,Ys)Δ+Ys],

where Y is the partial derivative operator with respect to Y.

In what follows, we find a special case to the Gal’chouk–Lenglart formula for the convex function xx+ due to E. Lenglart [16].

Theorem A.10.

Let Y be a one-dimensional optional semimartingale. Then, almost surely, for all t0,

Yt+=Y0++0t𝟙{Ys->0}dYs+12Lt(Y)+0s<t[Ys++𝟙{Ys-0}+Ys--𝟙{Ys->0}]+Yt+𝟙{Yt-0}+Yt-𝟙{Yt->0},

where (Lt)tT is a local time (nondecreasing continuous process). Moreover, Y+ is an optional semimartingale.

Theorem A.11.

If Y be an optional semimartingale, then 0s<tYs+1{Ys-0}+Ys-1{Ys->0} is finite a.s.

Proposition A.12.

𝔅2(β,a) is the Banach space of the processes endowed with the norm

|||Y|||𝔅β22:=Y𝒮β22+aY𝒮β2,a2.

References

[1] B. Baadi and Y. Ouknine, Reflected BSDEs when the obstacle is not right-continuous in a general filtration, ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 14 (2017), no. 1, 201–218. 10.30757/ALEA.v14-12Search in Google Scholar

[2] C. Bender and M. Kohlmann, Backward stochastic differential Equations with Stochastic Lipschitz Condition, preprint (2000), http://www.math.uni-konstanz.de/~kohlmann/ftp/dp00_08.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

[3] J.-M. Bismut, Conjugate convex functions in optimal stochastic control, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 44 (1973), 384–404. 10.1016/0022-247X(73)90066-8Search in Google Scholar

[4] C. Dellacherie and P.-A. Meyer, Probabilités et potentiel, Hermann, Paris, 1975. Search in Google Scholar

[5] C. Dellacherie and P.-A. Meyer, Probabilités et potentiel. Chapitres V à VIII, revised ed., Act. Sci. Indust. 1385, Hermann, Paris, 1980. Search in Google Scholar

[6] N. El Karoui, C. Kapoudjian, E. Pardoux, S. Peng and M. C. Quenez, Reflected solutions of backward SDEs, and related obstacle problems for PDEs, Ann. Probab. 25 (1997), no. 2, 702–737. 10.1214/aop/1024404416Search in Google Scholar

[7] N. El Karoui, E. Pardoux and M. C. Quenez, Reflected backward SDEs and American options, Numerical Methods in Finance, Publ. Newton Inst. 13, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997), 215–231. 10.1017/CBO9781139173056.012Search in Google Scholar

[8] N. El Karoui, S. Peng and M. C. Quenez, Backward stochastic differential equations in finance, Math. Finance 7 (1997), no. 1, 1–71. 10.1111/1467-9965.00022Search in Google Scholar

[9] N. El Karoui and M. C. Quenez, Non-linear pricing theory and backward stochastic differential equations, Financial Mathematics (Bressanone 1996), Lecture Notes in Math. 1656, Springer, Berlin (1997), 191–246. 10.1007/BFb0092001Search in Google Scholar

[10] M. Grigorova, P. Imkeller, E. Offen, Y. Ouknine and M.-C. Quenez, Reflected BSDEs when the obstacle is not right-continuous and optimal stopping, Ann. Appl. Probab. 27 (2017), no. 5, 3153–3188. 10.1214/17-AAP1278Search in Google Scholar

[11] S. Hamadène, Reflected BSDEs with discontinuous barrier and application, Stoch. Stoch. Rep. 74 (2002), no. 3–4, 571–596. 10.1080/1045112021000036545Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. Hamadène and J.-P. Lepeltier, Reflected BSDEs and mixed game problem, Stochastic Process. Appl. 85 (2000), no. 2, 177–188. 10.1016/S0304-4149(99)00072-1Search in Google Scholar

[13] S. Hamadène and Y. Ouknine, Reflected backward stochastic differential equation with jumps and random obstacle, Electron. J. Probab. 8 (2003), Paper No. 2. 10.1214/EJP.v8-124Search in Google Scholar

[14] S. Hamadène and Y. Ouknine, Reflected backward SDEs with general jumps, Theory Probab. Appl. 60 (2016), no. 2, 263–280. 10.1137/S0040585X97T987648Search in Google Scholar

[15] M. Kobylanski and M.-C. Quenez, Optimal stopping time problem in a general framework, Electron. J. Probab. 17 (2012), Paper No. 72. 10.1214/EJP.v17-2262Search in Google Scholar

[16] E. Lenglart, Tribus de Meyer et théorie des processus, Seminar on Probability XIV (Paris, 1978/1979), Lecture Notes in Math. 784, Springer, Berlin (1980), 500–546. 10.1007/BFb0089512Search in Google Scholar

[17] E. Pardoux and S. Peng, Backward stochastic differential equations and quasilinear parabolic partial differential equations, Stochastic Partial Differential Equations and Their Applications (Charlotte, NC, 1991), Lect. Notes Control Inf. Sci. 176, Springer, Berlin (1992), 200–217. 10.1007/BFb0007334Search in Google Scholar

[18] E. Pardoux and S. G. Peng, Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation, Systems Control Lett. 14 (1990), no. 1, 55–61. 10.1016/0167-6911(90)90082-6Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-02-21
Accepted: 2018-11-04
Published Online: 2019-02-01
Published in Print: 2019-03-01

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 1.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/rose-2019-2005/html
Scroll to top button