The Maximum Principle for Progressive Optimal Stochastic Control Problems with Random Jumps
Yuanzhuo Song, Shanjian Tang, Zhen Wu

TL;DR
This paper develops a maximum principle for stochastic control systems with jumps, allowing controls in both diffusion and jump terms without requiring convex control domains, using a novel variation method.
Contribution
It introduces a new variation method to derive the maximum principle for stochastic systems with jumps, accommodating controls in diffusion and jump components without convexity restrictions.
Findings
Derived the maximum principle for systems with jumps
Allowed controls in both diffusion and jump terms
No convexity assumption on control domain
Abstract
In this paper, we obtain the maximum principle for optimal controls of stochastic systems with jumps by introducing a new method of variation. The control is allowed to enter both diffusion and jump term and the control domain need not to be convex.
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 · Risk and Portfolio Optimization · Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
\headers
Maximum Principle with random jumpsYuanzhuo Song, Shanjian Tang, Zhen Wu
The Maximum Principle for progressive optimal stochastic control problems with random jumps††thanks: Submitted to the editors
DATE. \fundingThis work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (11631104, 61573217, 11831010), the National High-level personnel of special support program, and the Chang Jiang Scholar Program of Chinese Education Ministry.
Yuanzhuo Song School of Mathematics and Zhongtai Securities Institute for Financial Study, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China (). [email protected]
Shanjian Tang School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China (). [email protected]
Zhen Wu Corresponding author. School of Mathematics and Zhongtai Securities Institute for Financial Study, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China ( ). [email protected]
Abstract
In this paper, we obtain the maximum principle for optimal controls of stochastic systems with jumps by introducing a new method of variation. The control is allowed to enter both diffusion and jump term and the control domain need not to be convex.
keywords:
Maximum Principle, random jumps, spike variation, adjoint equation
{AMS}
93E20, 60H10
1 Introduction
Stochastic optimal control problem is an important problem in control theory. Maximum principle, the necessary condition for the optimal control, is one of the central results. A lot of work has been done on this topic, Peng [2] proved the general maximum principle for forward stochastic control system without jump by using second-order variation equation to overcome the difficulty appeared along with the non-convex control domain and control entering the diffusion term. Situ [7] obtained the maximum principle for forward stochastic control system with jumps, but in his system the jump coefficient doesn’t contain the control variable. Tang and Li [8] proved the maximum principle for forward control system where the control variable is allowed into both diffusion and jump coefficients. There are many results for other stochastic control systems, we refer the reader for Peng [3], Wu [9], Shi and Wu [6] for forward-backward system.
In this paper, we consider optimal control of progressive stochastic differential systems with random jumps, where the integrand of stochastic integrals w.r.t. the compensated Poisson point process could be progressively measurable instead of predictable as in Tang and Li [8]. In this new setting, the incorrect estimate (i.e. the third one) in (2.10) of [8] is not required anymore by considering only those perturbed admissible controls which admit no perturbation to the optimal control at the jumping times of the underlying point process.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we give some preliminaries about the stochastic integral with respect to jumps. The difference between our model with the model in [8] is that we need the integrand to be progressive in order to make our variation effective. Our main results are stated in Sections 3, 4 and 5. In these sections, we employ the new spike variation and introduce second order variation equations to get the desired maximum principle, which is the rigorous version in strict mathematical framework. In section 6, we explain the characteristic of our results and show our future research directions. Some results about stochastic differential equation (SDE) with jumps are put in appendix.
2 Preliminaries
Let be a complete probability space with filtration, and on the probability space, there is a -Brownian motion ; and a Poisson random measure on adapted to , where is a standard measure space with a -field . The mean measure of is a measure on which has the form , where denotes the Lebesgue measure on and is a finite measure on . For any and , since , we set . It is well known that is a martingale for every . We assume that is generated by , that is
[TABLE]
where denotes the totality of -null sets. Then satisfies the usual condition.
Suppose that is a Euclid space, is the Borel -field on . Given , a process is called progressive (predictable) if is () measurable, where () is the progressive (predictable) -field on ; a process is called -progressive (-predictable) if is () measurable. On contrast to [8], the stochastic integral we used is more general, that is the integrand of the stochastic integral in our paper is -progressive rather than -predictable.
Now we introduce some notations. Given a process with càdlàg paths, and . Let denote the measure on generated by that . For any measurable integrable process , we set and denote by the Radon-Nikodym derivatives with respect to . Note that is not an expectation (for is not a probability measure), though it has similar properties to expectation. Then we introduce the definition of stochastic integral of random measure which is more general than that in [8] based on the theory of stochastic integral of process. We will use the theory of dual predictable projection (also called compensator) and we will not give the definition here. The definition and other details of the theory can be found in [1].
Suppose . We define
[TABLE]
Then for any -progressive simple function with the form , we can define by linear extension.
For -progressive process that , there exist a sequence of -progressive simple functions which have the form above that
[TABLE]
.
We can verify that is a cauchy sequence in , so we define
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.1**.**
If is a positive -progressive process that
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
*where is the dual predictable projection of . *
Proof 2.2**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
where is the measure on generated by . Now we need a claim.
Claim 1**.**
[TABLE]
Proof 2.3**.**
It is obvious that both sides of the equation are predictable. Now for any ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
*The proof is then complete. *
We come back to the proof of proposition. The claim above shows that Eq. 1 is true for functions of the form , now we define
[TABLE]
* is a -system that generate . Define*
[TABLE]
Then , and by the linear property of dual predictable projection we can verify that is a linear space. If , and is bounded, then we have for each in sense and this implies that . So, by monotone class theorem, we prove that all bounded -progressive process satisfy the result.
For -progressive such that , we set
[TABLE]
*and take limit to show that satisfies Eq. 1. *
Proposition 2.4**.**
If is -progressive and satisfies then we have
[TABLE]
Proof 2.5**.**
If , by the definition of stochastic integral,
[TABLE]
So for any -progressive simple process which has the form with , and , the conclusion is true.
If is positive and , then and there exists a sequence of positive increasing simple functions with the above form such that
[TABLE]
as goes to infinity, so
[TABLE]
*If is not positive, we decompose and get the result. *
From the last two propositions, we have
Proposition 2.6**.**
If is -progressive and , then
[TABLE]
*. *
Remark 2.7**.**
Under the condition of the proposition above, we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if is -predictable, we have the well-known result
[TABLE]
Since is quasi-left-continuous for each , we have the following two propositions.
Proposition 2.8**.**
If is -progressive and , then we have
[TABLE]
*. *
Proof 2.9**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
So for any -progressive simple functions with the form , the conclusion is true.
Then for any positive that , there exists a sequence of positive increasing simple functions that as goes to infinity, so
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.10**.**
If is -progressive and , then we have
[TABLE]
Proof 2.11**.**
*The proof is the same as above. *
3 Statement of the Problem
Given time duration , let be the jump time of , , then is a sequence of stopping times that strictly increasing. Let be a nonempty subset of . We define the admissible control set
[TABLE]
For any admissible control and initial state , we consider the following progressive stochastic system with jumps:
[TABLE]
along with the cost functional:
[TABLE]
where , , , , . The optimal control is to find an element such that
[TABLE]
We aim at finding necessary conditions for an optimal control in . We need the following assumption.
**Assumption H:
**
- •
is measurable, is measurable, is measurable.
- •
are twice continuously differentiable about with bounded first and second order derivatives and there is a constant such that .
- •
are twice continuously differentiable about with bounded second order derivatives and there is a constant such that , and , .
- •
, ,
.
Under the assumption, we know that there exists a unique solution of Eq. 3 for any admissible control from Theorem A.1 in appendix.
4 Variation
Since is not necessarily convex, we employ spike variations. Suppose is the optimal control, for any , the spike variation of is defined as follow:
[TABLE]
where is the graph of , is a bounded measurable function that takes values in . Since is a stopping time, is a progressive set. Therefore, the spike variation is progressive and it is easy to show that is in .
The method of variation is showed in Fig. 1. Fix , we consider one path of and . The difference between the new method and the traditional method is that if there are jumps in , for example, as the figure shows that is in , then the value of at is equal to rather than .
Remark 4.1**.**
*As we know, is not a predictable time, so is not predictable which means that is not predictable, that’s the reason why we need the integrand of the stochastic integral to be progressive. In fact, are totally unpredictable times. *
We denote by the trajectory of , and by the trajectory of . By the estimate of SDE and notice that , we can get that:
[TABLE]
Since there is no jump on , we have:
[TABLE]
That means the jump term does not influence the order of variation. In fact, if we do not subtract the jump term in variation, is always of order no matter how large is. Thanks to this, we can use the method in [2] to get the desired conclusion. Then we introduce the variation equations:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where . .
It is easy to show that Eqs. 7 and 8 have unique solution. We have some basic estimates about and .
Lemma 4.2**.**
For , we have the following estimate:
[TABLE]
Proof 4.3**.**
By the elementary estimate, for we have:
[TABLE]
for , notice the boundness of , we have:
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.4**.**
[TABLE]
Proof 4.5**.**
First find the equation that satisfies.
[TABLE]
Since we have for
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.4, we have
[TABLE]
So by the basic estimate we have
[TABLE]
*which shows the result. *
Now we get the variation equation for cost functional. We have
[TABLE]
define
[TABLE]
Then we have the following lemma.
Lemma 4.6**.**
[TABLE]
Proof 4.7**.**
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
*By the same method we can show that , which proves the result. *
5 Adjoint Equations and the Maximum Principle
We introduce the first order and second order adjoint equation.
First order:
[TABLE]
And the second order:
[TABLE]
where
In order to get the existence and uniqueness of the two BSDE above, we refer to Lemma 2.4 in [8]. Since are bounded, there exists a unique solution of (12) and a unique solution of (13) , where
[TABLE]
with norm ,
[TABLE]
with norm , and
[TABLE]
with norm . Next, we need an Itô’s formula for processes with jumps referring to Theorem 32 and Theorem 33 from [4].
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let be semimartingales, and be a function on . Set , then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Apply Itô’s formula for and , we get
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In 16, we use the fact
[TABLE]
The second equality follows from the fact that for any , or [math].
From Eqs. 14, 15 and 16, we can get the form of and . Then we have
[TABLE]
where represents
We define . Then we have
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let Assumption H be satisfied. Assume that is the optimal control, is the trajectory of , and satisfies Eq. 12, and satisfies Eq. 13. Then , we have a.e a.s: for any ,
[TABLE]
Proof 5.3**.**
Notice that is negligible under , so by Eq. 17 we have
[TABLE]
then both sides are divided by and let , we have for a.e
[TABLE]
Then for any and , let , we have
[TABLE]
which means a.e a.s
[TABLE]
6 Conclusions
In this paper, we introduce a new method of variation. With the help of our new variation, we overcome the difficulty that the jumps caused in estimate, in other words, Eq. 6 holds, and the order of this estimate grows with the growth of , this feature is important to make the variation equations effective.
The form of our maximum principle with jumps is the same as the form of maximum principle in [2] without jumps. The reason is that both maximum principles are hold a.e a.s. In our case with jumps, since the measure of all jumps’ graphs is a negligible set under , jumps does not influence our result. In other words, our maximum principle only describe the optimal control on the area that is continuous, it has no information about the optimal control on the time jumps. However, this is a rigorous maximum principle obtained in a clear and concise mathematical framework and laid a solid foundation for further related theoretical and application research. Our future research is to find a way to characterize optimal control on the time jumps and explore wide applications in practice.
Appendix A Existence and Uniqueness of SDE and estimate
Given a SDE with jump:
[TABLE]
where , , , , is the dimension of Brownian Motion and is the dimension of . We introduce a Banach space
[TABLE]
with norm . We have the following assumptions:
**Assumption H1:
**
- •
is measurable, is measurable, is measurable.
- •
are uniform lipschitz continuous about .
- •
, ,
.
Theorem A.1**.**
*Under Assumption H1, Eq. 19 has a unique solution in . *
Proof A.2**.**
First we show that for each in , is well defined. Since is left continuous, it is progressive, and is -progressive by assumption. This implies that is -progressive. And for any
[TABLE]
That means that the stochastic integral is well defined.
Next we show that there is a unique solution in small time duration. We construct a map from to :
[TABLE]
It is easy to show that the image of is actually in , then we show it is a contraction. For any ,
[TABLE]
* is a constant not related to but changed every step. So we can choose small enough that , then is a contraction.*
*For arbitrary , we can split into finite small pieces, then we get a unique solution on each piece and connect them together. *
Remark A.3**.**
*The difference between our results and the results in [5] is that in our case is -progressive and in [5]’s case is -predictable. In fact from the proof above, the difference is slight. *
The theorem below is the estimate:
Theorem A.4**.**
For , suppose that is the solution of the follow equations
[TABLE]
which satisfy assumption H1, then we have
[TABLE]
* is a positive real number related to and the Lipschitz constant. *
Proof A.5**.**
By a simple calculation, we have
[TABLE]
Now we set , then is a pure jump process and so is . Notice that the jump time of is also a jump time of and the jump size of is always equal to . So we have
[TABLE]
Since and are predictable, we have
[TABLE]
So if we choose small enough that , then we have
[TABLE]
*By the calculation of Eq. 21, choose smaller if necessary, we have the estimate in small time duration by subtract on both sides of Eq. 21. For any , we can split into small pieces and get the desired conclusion. *
Remark A.6**.**
Without loss of generality, we assume
[TABLE]
*in the preceding proof. If not, we can introduce a sequence of stopping times that make Eq. 22 true, then get the estimate with stopping time and take limits. So we can subtract that term on both sides of Eq. 21. *
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S.-w. He, J.-g. Wang, and J.-a. Yan , Semimartingale theory and stochastic calculus , Routledge, 2018.
- 2[2] S. Peng , A general stochastic maximum principle for optimal control problems , SIAM Journal on control and optimization, 28 (1990), pp. 966–979.
- 3[3] S. Peng , Backward stochastic differential equations and applications to optimal control , Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 27 (1993), pp. 125–144.
- 4[4] P. E. Protter , Stochastic integration and differential equations , Applications of mathematics 21 0172-4568, Springer, 2nd ed ed., 2004.
- 5[5] S. Rong , Theory of stochastic differential equations with jumps and applications: mathematical and analytical techniques with applications to engineering , Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
- 6[6] J. Shi and Z. Wu , The maximum principle for fully coupled forward-backward stochastic control system , Acta Automatica Sinica, 32 (2006), p. 161.
- 7[7] R. Situ , A maximum principle for optimal controls of stochastic systems with random jumps , in Proceedings of the National Conference on Control Theory and Applications, 1991.
- 8[8] S. Tang and X. Li , Necessary conditions for optimal control of stochastic systems with random jumps , SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 32 (1994), pp. 1447–1475.
