On the solvability of forward-backward stochastic differential equations driven by Teugels Martingales
Dalila Guerdouh, Nabil Khelfallah, Brahim Mezerdi

TL;DR
This paper proves the existence, uniqueness, stability, and comparison results for fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equations driven by Teugels martingales associated with Le9vy processes, extending previous Brownian motion results.
Contribution
It extends known results on FBSDEs driven by Brownian motion to those driven by general Le9vy processes using Teugels martingales.
Findings
Proved existence and uniqueness of solutions on large time intervals.
Established stability and comparison theorems for these FBSDEs.
Extended previous Brownian motion results to Le9vy process-driven equations.
Abstract
We deal with a class of fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDE for short), driven by Teugels martingales associated with some L\'evy process. Under some assumptions on the derivatives of the coefficients, we prove the existence and uniqueness of a global solution on an arbitrarily large time interval. Moreover, we establish stability and comparison theorems for the solutions of such equations. Note that the present work extends known results by Jianfeng Zhang (Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 6 (2006), no. 4, 927--940), proved for FBSDEs driven by a Brownian motion, to FBSDEs driven by general L\'evy processes.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStochastic processes and financial applications · Stability and Controllability of Differential Equations · Financial Risk and Volatility Modeling
On the solvability of forward-backward stochastic differential
equations driven by Teugels Martingales
Dalila Guerdouh, Nabil Khelfallah, Brahim Mezerdi
University of Biskra, Laboratory of Applied Mathematics,
Po. Box 145 Biskra (07000), Algeria
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
( )
Abstract
We deal with a class of fully coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDE for short), driven by Teugels martingales associated with some Lévy process. Under some assumptions on the derivatives of the coefficients, we prove the existence and uniqueness of a global solution on an arbitrarily large time interval. Moreover, we establish stability and comparison theorems for the solutions of such equations. Note that the present work extends known results by Jianfeng Zhang (Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 6 (2006), no. 4, 927–940), proved for FBSDEs driven by a Brownian motion, to FBSDEs driven by general Lévy processes.
Keywords Forward-backward stochastic differential equations; Teugels Martingale; Lévy process.
1 Introduction
Let be a valued Lévy process defined on a complete filtered probability space satisfying the usual conditions. Assume that the Lévy measure corresponding to the Lévy process satisfies:
,
there exist such that for every
[TABLE]
Assumptions and imply in particular that the random variable has moments of all orders. We also assume that where denotes the field generated by and is the totality of the -negligible sets.
The aim of this work is to prove existence and uniqueness of solutions of the following coupled forward-backward stochastic differential equation (FBSDE for short)
[TABLE]
where are pairwise strongly orthonormal Teugels martingales associated with the Lévy process . For any -valued and -measurable random vector , satisfying , we are looking for an -valued solution on an arbitrarily fixed large time duration, which is square-integrable and adapted with respect to the filtration generated by and satisfying
[TABLE]
The existence and uniqueness of solutions of FBSDEs without the Teugels part have been widely studied by many authors (see, e.g. [1], [4], [6], [7], [10], [11], and [15]). The first study of FBSDEs has been performed by Antonelli [1] in the early 1990s. The author has used the contraction mapping technique to obtain a local existence and uniqueness result in a small time interval. Hu and Peng [6] have used a probabilistic method to establish an existence and uniqueness result, under certain monotonicity conditions, in the case where the forward and backward components have the same dimension. Then Hamadène [5] improved their result by proving it under weaker monotonicity assumptions. Peng and Wu provided in [11] more general results by extending the two above results, without the restriction on the dimensions of the forward and backward parts.
In spite of the large literature devoted to the Brownian case as we have mentioned above, there are relatively a few results on FBSDEs driven by Teugels Martingales. To the best of our knowledge, the first paper dealing with this kind of equations driven by Lévy processes is [12], where the authors have proved the existence and uniqueness via the solution of its associated partial integro-differential equation (PIDE for short). Then Baghery et al. [2] proved under some monotonicity assumptions, the existence and uniqueness of solutions on an arbitrarily fixed large time duration.
Motivated by the above results and by imposing an assumption on the derivatives of the coefficients, introduced by Zhang [16], we establish two main results. We shall first prove the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the FBSDE 1.1, without any restriction on the time duration. The main idea of the proof is to construct the solution on small intervals, and then extend it piece by piece to the whole interval. In a second step, we prove stability and comparison theorems for the solutions. Let us point out that our work extends the results of Jianfeng Zhang (Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 6 (2006), no. 4, 927–940), to FBSDEs driven by general Lévy processes. We note that much of the technical difficulties coming from the Teugels martingales are due to the fact that the quadratic variation is not absolutely continuous, with respect to the Lebesgue measure. To overcome these difficulties, we use the fact that the predictable quadratic variation process is equal to and that is a martingale.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section , we give some preliminaries and notations about Teugels martingales. In Section , we give some assumptions and provide our main results. The proofs are provided in the last section.
2 Notations and assumptions
Let us recall briefly the theory of Lévy processes as it is investigated in Nualart-Schoutens [8]. A convenient basis for martingale representation is provided by the so-called Teugels martingales. This means that this family has the predictable representation property.
Denote by where
[TABLE]
and define the power jump processes by
[TABLE]
If we denote
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
and, for
[TABLE]
Then the family of Teugels martingales is defined by
[TABLE]
The coefficients correspond to the orthonormalization of the polynomials with respect to the measure . Then is a family of strongly orthogonal martingales such that and is a martingale, see [8, 13].
The following lemma which gives some useful properties of the Teugels martingale will be needed in the sequel.
Lemma 2.1**.**
* The process can be represented as follows:*
[TABLE]
where be a Brownian motion, and is the compensated Poisson random measure that corresponds to the pure jump part of and the polynomials and associated to
* The polynomials and are linked by the relation:*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **See [12].
In the rest of this section, we list all the notations that will be frequently used throughout this work.
the Hilbert space of real-valued sequences with norm
[TABLE]
Let us define
the space of -valued process such that
[TABLE]
the Banach space of valued predictable processes such that
[TABLE]
the Banach space of valued adapted and càdlàg processes such that
[TABLE]
the Banach space of valued, square integrable random variables on Here and in what follows, for notational simplicity, we shall denote
[TABLE]
instead of
[TABLE]
respectively, where Further, for the notational simplicity, we have suppressed and we will do so below. We also use the following notation
[TABLE]
The following assumptions will be considered in this paper.
We suppose that the coefficients
[TABLE]
are progressively measurable, such that:
There exist such that and ** in **
[TABLE] 2.
The functions are differentiable with respect to with uniformly bounded derivatives such that
[TABLE]
Let us mention that assumption (H has been introduced bfor the first time by Zhang [16] in the case of FBSDEs without jumps.
3 The main results
3.1 Existence and uniqueness
The following theorem gives the existence of a solution in a small time duration.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Suppose that is satisfied. Assume further that
[TABLE]
Then, for every -measurable random vector there exists a constant depending only on and such that for equation has a unique solution which belongs to .
The following proposition gives a priori estimates, which shows in particular the continuous dependence of the solution upon the data.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Under the same assumptions of the Theorem 3.1, there exist and depending on and such that for the following estimates hold true:
- i)
[TABLE]
- ii)
[TABLE]
The next Theorem extends the result in Theorem 3.1 to arbitrary large time duration.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Assume , and Then:
* Equation has a unique solution *
* The following estimate holds*
[TABLE]
3.2 Stability theorem
The following results state the stability of the solution of FBSDE with respect to the initial condition and the data. This means that the solution of equation does not change too much under small perturbations of the data. In other words, the trajectories which are close to each other at specific instant should therefore remain close to each other at all subsequent instants. To state the next theorem and its corollary, let us consider the solutions of corresponding to . We shall consider the following notations, and for any function , we set
Theorem 3.3**.**
Assume that satisfy the same conditions of Theorem 3.2. Then
[TABLE]
Corollary 3.1**.**
Suppose that for satisfy the same conditions of Theorem 3.2. Moreover assume that:
i) in
ii) for , as
* *
Then if denotes the solution of corresponding to (resp. , we obtain
[TABLE]
3.3 Comparison theorem
In what follows we provide, under the same assumptions as for the existence and uniqueness results, another important result, which is the comparison theorem. Let be the solution to the following LFBSDE:
[TABLE]
Then we have the following proposition, which is the linear version of the next theorem.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Assume and holds true. Assume further that and Then
[TABLE]
Further we have the following general result. Let be the solution of the following FBSDE:
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let be the solutions of the FBSDEs (1.1). If
* satisfy and *
* For any and Then*
[TABLE]
We would like to mention that the above comparison theorem holds true only at time . We cannot get the result in the whole interval even in the Brownian case. See for instance, the counterexample which is given in [14].
Remark 3.1**.**
We should point out that the following cases are in fact, involved in our present study.
FBSDEs driven by Brownian motion*: If then all non–zero degree polynomials will vanish, is a standard Brownian motion and for * 2. 2.
FBSDEs driven by Poisson Process*: assume that only has mass at , then is the compensated Poisson process with intensity and also for For example, If we have , where denotes the positive mass measure at of size . Then, The process takes the form*
[TABLE]
where denote the sequence of independent Poisson process with parameters In this case
[TABLE]
4 Proofs and technical results
4.1 Small time duration
In this subsection, we shall start by giving and proving the following technical Lemma, which will be used in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Let us introduce the following decoupled FBSDE:
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
Assume that all the conditions in Theorem are satisfied. Let and belong to and satisfy the equation , then there exists three constants and depending on and such that the following estimates hold true
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof of Lemma 4.1. Let us consider
First, we proceed to prove Applying Itô’s formula to taking expectation and using the fact that is an -martingale and then there exists a constant , depending on such that
[TABLE]
Burkholder-Davis-Gundy’s inequality applied to the martingale
[TABLE]
yields the existence of a constant such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, since and where is a uniformly integrable martingale starting at [math], then
[TABLE]
Then, modifying if necessary, we have
[TABLE]
which implies that,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by applying Itô’s formula to , we get
[TABLE]
Thus, by taking expectations, invoking the assumption and using the fact that is an -martingale and , one can show that there exists a constant , depending on and , such that
[TABLE]
Using the fact that for any we have
[TABLE]
By modifying if necessary, we obtain
[TABLE]
Using equality once again, and the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, we show that there exists a constant , only depending on and , such that
[TABLE]
Then, Taking into account using Young’s inequality one more time, and modifying if necessary, we get
[TABLE]
Then, modifying if necessary, we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1 is proved.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let be a possible solution of FBSDE and be defined as in Lemma 4.1. It is clear that the process is a solution of a Forward component of the SDE , whereas the couple is a solution of a Backward component of the SDE SDE. Then is a solution of the above decoupled Forward Backward SDE . To prove the existence and the uniqueness of the solution in , we use the fixed point method. Let us define a mapping from into itself defined by
[TABLE]
We want to prove that there exists a constant only depending on and such that for is a contraction on equipped with the norm
[TABLE]
In order to achieve this goal, we firstly assume that Further, we set
[TABLE]
where be two elements of Thus, by invoking and combining the results and of the Lemma a simple computation shows that there exists a constant depending on and such that for the following estimate holds true
[TABLE]
For some constant This proves that the map is contraction from into itself. Furthermore, It follows immediately that this mapping has a unique fixed point progressively measurable which is the unique solution of FBSDE The proof is complete.
Proof of Proposition 3.1. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 4.1 and standard arguments of FBSDEs (see for example [1] for the Brownian case), one can prove Now we proceed to prove For this end, let us define the stopping time
[TABLE]
For each denoting It is clear that the stopped process is bounded by , and is a semimartingale as a product of two semimartingles, which is valid for as well. Therefore, by applying Itô’s formula, using the fact that is an -martingale, and standart techniques from FBSDE theory, one can prove that
[TABLE]
where we have denoted by and the restriction of the functions of and Now, we proceed to prove that
[TABLE]
Since takes its values in intervals of the form , for it is easy to show that
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Therefore by similar arguments developed above, one can easily derive that
[TABLE]
Combining and we get
[TABLE]
Since the last inequality is valid for for each , it also remains valid for and this completes the proof.
4.2 Large time duration
To prove Theorem 3.2, we need the following proposition, which allows us to prove global existence and uniqueness of the equation . By using similar arguments introduced in [16] consisting in solving the system iteratively in small intervals having fixed length.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let be the solution to FBSDEs:
[TABLE]
Assume that is satisfied and Then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
The following lemma gives estimates of in terms of and . This estimation is the key step for the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Consider the following linear FBSDE:
[TABLE]
Assume and Let be as in theorem 3.1. And assume further that
[TABLE]
Then for
* The LFBSDE admits a unique solution.*
**
[TABLE]
where is defined by
Proof of Lemma 4.2. First, we can easily check that LFBSDE satisfy assumptions of Theorem 3.1, then it has a unique solution which belongs to the space . This gives the proof of the assertion
We shall prove the assertion . We split the proof into two steps.
. For any and any we put Then satisfies the following linear FBSDE
[TABLE]
By assertion of Theorem 3.1, we get
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we have , -a.s.,
. We define
[TABLE]
Then and for We also define the pure jump process by the following formula
[TABLE]
The above product is clearly càdlàg, adapted, converges and is of finite variation. We put for any
[TABLE]
It should be noted that when we apply Itô’s formula to a sum of discontinuous quantities appears. To eliminate this, we shall apply Itô’s formula to instead of Firstly, applying Itô’s formula to , we have
[TABLE]
Note that is a pure jump process. Hence and
[TABLE]
Then becomes
[TABLE]
The following equality is obvious, from the definition of the process
[TABLE]
Now by replacing the above equality into the previous one, one can get
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Thanks to Lemma 2.1, we get
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Let us define the following processes
[TABLE]
Then after the result of the Step , we have
[TABLE]
Now, applying Itô’s formula to , we obtain
[TABLE]
where we have denoted by By using the definition of the processes it follows that
[TABLE]
Thus, by taking into account
[TABLE]
We put
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Applying Itô’s formula to we obtain
[TABLE]
Taking expectations, we get
[TABLE]
Since is an –martingale and Moreover, we observe that
if
If and thus
Therefore, in both cases it holds that
Now, applying Ito’s formula to from to we obtain
[TABLE]
Similarly, applying Ito’s formula to from to we obtain,
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Note that then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Now by , we get
[TABLE]
Note that satisfies the following LFBSDE:
[TABLE]
By of Proposition 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Then for we get That is, This complete the proof.
Proof of Proposition The proof is the same as in Corollary 1 in [16], by replacing the Brownian part by the Teugels martingales and using the above lemma.
Now we are able to give the proof of our main result. We shall extend by induction the theorem 3.1 to 3.2.
Proof of Theorem First we prove . Let and be as in Theorem and is a constant defined as in . Let be a constant as in Theorem but corresponding to and instead of and . For some integer , we assume** **and consider a partition of with .
We consider the mapping:
[TABLE]
Let us consider the following FBSDE over the small interval ,
[TABLE]
Let denotes the Lipschitz constant of the mapping Then, by Theorem 3.1 the required solution of FBSDE exists and is unique. Define then for fixed , Further, in view of the Proposition it’s straightforward to verify that
[TABLE]
Next, for , we consider the following FBSDE:
[TABLE]
Once again, since by Theorem the FBSDE has a unique solution.
Then as well, we may define such that
[TABLE]
Repeating this procedure backwardly for , we may define such that
[TABLE]
As a conclusion, one can repeat the above construction and, after a finite number of steps, we obtain the required unique solution in each subinterval of the type for
Now, for and for any , we construct a solution for the following FBSDE
[TABLE]
Obviously this provides a solution to the FBSDE . From the construction and the uniqueness of each step, it is clear that this solution is unique.
Now, let us prove . We denote
[TABLE]
From Theorem 3.1 and by the definition of , we get
[TABLE]
By induction one can easily prove that
[TABLE]
Set is a fixed constant depending only on and , then so is . Now for , by using of Theorem 3.1, we get
[TABLE]
Then by induction one can prove
[TABLE]
On the other hand, applying Ito’s formula to , we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Finally, combining and leads to which achieves the proof.
4.3 Proof of stability theorem
Proof of Theorem 3.3. For let be the solution to the following FBSDE
[TABLE]
and be the solution of the following variational linear FBSDE
[TABLE]
Then by Theorem 3.1, the above FBSDEs has a unique solution. Moreover, a simple calculation shows that
[TABLE]
since satisfies , by Lemma 4.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
which implies the desired result.
Proof of Corollary 3.1 Using Theorem 3.3 we have
[TABLE]
Thus, the desired result follows immediately, by letting tend to [math], and using the dominated convergence theorem.
4.4 Proof of comparison theorem
4.4.1 Some auxiliary results
In order to prove Proposition 3.2, we need the following two Lemmas. Let us introduce the following linear FBSDE
[TABLE]
Here, , where , and
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.3**.**
Let be the solution of LFBSDE assume and .Then is the solution of the linear FBSDE .
Proof of Lemma By the definition of , and , we get
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Is easy to prove that are bounded and still satisfy the assumptions . Then this gives the desired result.
Lemma 4.4**.**
Assume , for some integer we assume Then there exist small constants and depending on and such that and that for some
[TABLE]
Proof of Lemma By standard arguments and using Young’s inequality, for every , there exist constant depending only on that
[TABLE]
If we choose the constant and will specify later. Then for , we get
[TABLE]
And
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
This ends the proof.
4.4.2 **Proof of Proposition.3.2. **
The proof of the proposition 3.2 will be splitted into several steps.
Assume that and . If let us define the following stopping time
[TABLE]
Since we get Define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In view of Lemma 4.2, the following LFBSDE:
[TABLE]
has a unique solution, with That is to say obviously this leads to a contradiction. In other words, we have proved that
Assume that all the conditions in Lemma 4.3 are fulfilled, then . Applying we get
Assume One can find satisfying the condition in Lemma 4.3 such that a.s. and Let denotes the solution corresponding to Apply the result of to conclude that . Then from Corollary we get
Assume all the conditions in Lemma 4.4 are in force. Then
[TABLE]
Now choose , we get .
Assume and where is the same as in Lemma 4.4. Denote
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By Step , , and by Step , . Then,
Assume Let be as in Lemma 4.4 but corresponding to instead of , and assume . Denote , and For , let
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Denote
[TABLE]
By the proof of Theorem we know that Apply the result of , we get We note that, for , satisfies
[TABLE]
Repeating the same arguments, we may define and and it holds that
[TABLE]
By step , we have
. In the general case, we put and let denote the solution corresponding to We know by Step that Then by Corollary This gives the result.
We are now in position to give the proof of comparison theorem.
4.4.3 **Proof of Theorem 3.4. **
For let and be as in the prove of Theorem Then, we get From Proposition 3.2, we have This proves the theorem.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] F. Antonelli, Backward-forward stochastic differential equations. Ann. Appl. Probab. 3 ( 1993 ) 1993 \left(1993\right) , 777-793.
- 2[2] F. Baghery, N. Khelfallah, B. Mezerdi and I. Turpin, Fully coupled forward backward stochastic differential equations driven by Lévy processes and application to differential games , Rand. Operat. Stoch. Equa. 22 ( 2014 ) 2014 \left(2014\right) , 151–161.
- 3[3] K. Bahlali, M. Eddahbi and E. Essaky, BSDE associated with Lévy processes and application to PDIE , Journal of Applied Mathematics and Stochastic Analysis. 16, part 1 ( 2003 ) 2003 (2003) , 1–17.
- 4[4] F. Delarue, On the existence and uniqueness of solutions to FBSD Es in a non-degenerate case , Stoch. Proc. Appl. 99 ( 2002 ) 2002 \left(2002\right) , 209–286.
- 5[5] S. Hamadène, Backward-Forward SDE’s and stochastic differential game , Stoch. Proc. Appl. 77 ( 1998 ) 1998 \left(1998\right) , 1-15.
- 6[6] Y. Hu and S. Peng, Solution of forward-backward stochastic differential equations , Probab. Th. Rel. Fields. 103 ( 1995 ) 1995 \left(1995\right) , 273–283.
- 7[7] J. Ma, P. Protter and J. Yong, Solving forward-backward stochastic differential equations explicitly - a four step scheme, Probab. Th. Rel. Fields. 98 ( 1994 ) 1994 \left(1994\right) , 339–359.
- 8[8] D. Nualart and W. Schoutens, Chaotic and predictable representation for Lévy processes with applications in finance , Stoch.. Process. Appl. 90 ( 2000 ) 2000 \left(2000\right) , 109–122.
