Fix a discount rate $r>0$, and let $m,v,f:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be bounded measurable functions of locally bounded variation, with $v$ globally bounded below by some strictly positive constant i.e. $v(x) > c > 0$

Given a standard Brownian motion B and a starting value x, I know the SDE $dX_t = m(X_t) dt + v(X_t) dB_t$ has a unique strong solution with $X_0 = x$.

Let $U(x):= E [ \int_0^\infty re^{-rt} f(X_t) dt | X_0=x]$, a well-defined number for each $x.$

Question: How nice is U guaranteed to be, without imposing further conditions on m,v,f? [In particular, I don't want to assume any of them to be continuous. If further boundedness-type conditions help, I'm more okay imposing those.] Is U guaranteed to be continuous? Differentiable?


This is just a partial answer addressing the continuity: $U$ is continuous, even uniformly continuous. Below is the idea.

Denote $\tau_x^y = \inf\{ t\ge 0: X_t = y\,|\, X_0 = x\}$, then $\tau_x^y<\infty$ a.s. in view of the uniform non-degeneracy of $v$ and boundedness of $m$, so, using the strong Markov property, $$U(x) = rE\left[\int_0^{\tau_x^y} e^{-rs}f(X_t)dt \,\Big|\, X_0=x\right] + E\big[e^{-r\tau_x^y}\big]U(y).$$ The first term converges to $0$ uniformly as $|y-x|\to 0$ in view of the uniform non-degeneracy of $v$ and boundedness of $m$. For the same reason, $E\big[e^{-r\tau_x^y}\big]\to 1$ uniformly.

Update: $U'$ is in general discontinuous. Start by noting that we expect $U$ to solve equation $$rU - \mathcal A U - f = 0,\tag{1}$$ where $\mathcal A$ is the generator of $X$, at least in some weak sense. Then it is already clear that $U'$ or $U''$ must be discontinuous in the point where $f$, $m$ or $v$ are discontinuous.

But $U'$ may be discontinuous even if $f$ and $m$ are continuous. Consider a simple situation: $m = 0$, $f$ smooth, $v(x) = \sigma_1 \mathbf{1}_{x\ge 0} + \sigma_2 \mathbf{1}_{x<0}$. In this case $X_t = W_t\big( \sigma_1\mathbf{1}_{W_t\ge 0} + \sigma_2 \mathbf{1}_{W_t<0}\big)$, where $W$ is a Wiener process. Then $$ T_t g(x) = E_x[g\big(W_t( \sigma_1\mathbf{1}_{W_t\ge 0} + \sigma_2 \mathbf{1}_{W_t<0})\big)] = P_t h(x), $$ where $P$ is the semigroup of $W$ (the heat semigroup), and $h(x) = g(x v(x))$. Then $\mathcal A g(x) = \frac12 h''(x)$, so it is easy to see that the domain of $\mathcal A$ in $C_b(\mathbb R)$ consists of twice continuously differentiable functions $g$ on $\mathbb R\setminus\{0\}$ such that $g'(0+)\sigma_1 = g'(0-)\sigma_2$ and $g''(0+)\sigma_1^2 = g''(0-)\sigma_2^2$.

In other words, $U'$ should have jumps where $v$ does. It is even more obvious that it jumps where $m$ does; when both jump, it will be more complicated.

  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for your answer. This is extremely useful. A quick question before I fully digest your answer. What exactly is uniform degeneracy? $\endgroup$ – avk255 Sep 8 '15 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Aditiya, uniforn non-degeneracy, sorry. This is $v(x) > c > 0$. $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Sep 8 '15 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ Brilliant. This is the intuition I too had. Your reply is extremely useful. Sorry to bug you more but since I didn't know that $E(e^{-r \tau^y_x}) \rightarrow 1$ I tried to prove it myself. My proof is very complicated as it involves time change of the stochastic integral. The reason why I have to do it is because $v(x)$ is a function of $x$ and not a constant. So I was wondering if you had an easy proof of this, seemingly obvious, claim. $\endgroup$ – avk255 Sep 8 '15 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Aditiya, this is a standard fact about one-dimensional diffusions, see Section 4.7 in Ikeda-Watanabe or Ito-McKean (here can't say where exactly as I don't have the book at hand). But yes, you can change the time to get a Wiener process + bounded drift, and here this is just the consequence of ILL. And don't hesitate to ask, I will be glad to help (although I am not a great specialist in diffusions). $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Sep 8 '15 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. The "problem" with Ito-McKean, from what I see, is that most of the work on diffusion assumes continuous drift and volatility. Part of the reason, I guess, they do that is because having a strong solution could be an issue otherwise for the associated SDE. In my case, my starting point is that I know that I have a strong solution to the SDE despite the coefficients not being continuous. But I also know they're bounded the way I said. So I am not able to find the exact result I can readily use (which I would like) that'll tell me that $E(e^{-r\tau^y_x}) \rightarrow 1$. $\endgroup$ – avk255 Sep 8 '15 at 16:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.