2010
DOI: 10.1017/s0001867800050485
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A general comparison theorem for backward stochastic differential equations

Abstract: A useful result when dealing with backward stochastic differential equations is the comparison theorem of Peng (1992). When the equations are not based on Brownian motion, the comparison theorem no longer holds in general. In this paper we present a condition for a comparison theorem to hold for backward stochastic differential equations based on arbitrary martingales. This theorem applies to both vector and scalar situations. Applications to the theory of nonlinear expectations are also explored.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(23 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lately, [12,62] removed the quasileft continuity assumption from the filtration so that the quadratic variation of the driving martingale does not need to be absolutely continuous. On the other hand, based on a general martingale representation result due to Davis and Varaiya [28], Cohen and Elliott [22,23] discussed the case where the driving martingales are not a priori chosen but imposed by the filtration; see Hassani and Ouknine [38] for a similar approach on a BSDE in form of a generic map from a space of semimartingales to the spaces of martingales and those of finite-variation processes. Also, Mania and Tevzadze [57] and Jeanblanc et al [40] studied BSDEs for semimartingales and their applications to mean-variance hedging.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lately, [12,62] removed the quasileft continuity assumption from the filtration so that the quadratic variation of the driving martingale does not need to be absolutely continuous. On the other hand, based on a general martingale representation result due to Davis and Varaiya [28], Cohen and Elliott [22,23] discussed the case where the driving martingales are not a priori chosen but imposed by the filtration; see Hassani and Ouknine [38] for a similar approach on a BSDE in form of a generic map from a space of semimartingales to the spaces of martingales and those of finite-variation processes. Also, Mania and Tevzadze [57] and Jeanblanc et al [40] studied BSDEs for semimartingales and their applications to mean-variance hedging.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…is a triplet of processes that satisfies the BSDE (ξ, f ) with ξ ∈ L 2 and (A 1), (A 2), then (Y, Z, U ) is a solution to (7), i.e., (Y, Z, U ) ∈ S 2 × L 2 (W ) × L 2 (Ñ ). In particular, there exists a constant C 1 > 0 such that…”
Section: Auxiliary Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For such an equation, the proof of existence and uniqueness is a difficult task, and counterexamples can be obtained even in simple cases, see [14]. Only recently, some results in the unconstrained case have been obtained in this context, see [13], [12], [2]. In order to have an existence and uniqueness result for our BSDE, we have to impose the following additional assumption on p * .…”
Section: The Control Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The jump mechanism from the boundary plays a fundamental role as it leads, among other things, to the study of BSDEs driven by a non quasi-left-continuous random measure. Only recently, some results have been obtained on this subject, see [13], [12], [2]; in particular, in [2] well-posedness is proved for unconstrained BSDEs in a general non-diffusive framework, under a specific condition involving the Lipschitz constants of the BSDE generator and the size of the predictable jumps. In the present paper we extend the results in [2] to our class of constrained BSDEs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%