4
$\begingroup$

Let $C_b^2(\mathbb R_+)$ be the set of functions $f: \mathbb R_+\to\mathbb R$ s.t. $f, f' ,f''$ are bounded and $f(0)=0$. Consider a measurable function $p: \mathbb R_+^2\to\mathbb R_+$ satisfying

$$\int_0^\infty f(x)\big(p(t,x)-\rho(x)\big)dx = \int_0^t\int_0^\infty\left(b(s,x)f'(x)+\frac{\sigma(s,x)^2}{2}f''(x)\right)p(s,x)dxds,\quad \forall t\ge 0,~ f\in C_b^2(\mathbb R_+)\quad \quad (\ast).$$

Assuming $\rho\ge 0$ ($\int_0^\infty \rho dx=1$), $b\ge 0$, $\sigma>0$ are nice enough (bounded, Lipschitz, elliptic), what is the "minimal condition" that ensures the uniqueness of $p$? In addition, what is the "minimal condition" under which $p$ is the classical solution of the Fokker-Plank equation below?

$$\partial_t p(t,x) = \frac{1}{2}\partial_{xx}^2\big(\sigma^2(t,x)p(t,x)\big)- \partial_x\big(b(t,x)p(t,x)\big),\quad \forall (t, x)\in(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty),$$

$$p(0,\cdot)=\rho,\quad p(\cdot,0)=0.$$

PS : Thanks for the comments below. Let me describe quickly the motivation. Consider the stochastic differential equation: $X_0\sim \rho(x)dx$ and

$$dX_t = {\bf 1}_{\{X_t>0\}}\big(b(t,X_t)dt + \sigma(t,X_t)dW_t\big),\quad \forall t>0.$$

We may show rigorously that $X_t{\bf 1}_{\{X_t>0\}}$ admits a sub-probability density $p(t,\cdot)$. Further, applying Ito's formula, we find $(\ast)$ is satisfied by for test functin $f\in C_b^2(\mathbb R_+)$. If $p$ is regular enough, then $p$ solves the F-P equation. Now, knowing the F-P equation admits a unique classical solution, can we say the uniqueness of $p$ satisfying $(ast)$? In other words, does the uniqueness of the classical solution implies that of the "weak" solution? If so, then we can also derive the uniqueness of $X$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is an extensive literature on parabolic PDEs. This question is too general and unfocused to be appropriate for this site. $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2022 at 14:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Many thanks for the remark and sorry for the inconvenience due to my knowledge on this field. The above formulation seems to be lying between the weak solution and the classical solution. Is there any reference for this issue? I looke for this in Evans' book but don't find the result with non-constant coefficients $\endgroup$
    – GJC20
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 15:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ just for the record: in the PDE community this is somteimes called "very weak solutions" (because the diffusion term is integrated by parts twice in the weak formulation), perhaps the keyword can help you look it up? $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2022 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @leomonsaingeon Thanks for the comment. I've made some edits on my post s.t. the motivation is clear $\endgroup$
    – GJC20
    Commented May 27, 2022 at 9:45

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .