2017
DOI: 10.1214/17-aap1278
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reflected BSDEs when the obstacle is not right-continuous and optimal stopping

Abstract: In the first part of the paper, we study reflected backward stochastic differential equations (RBSDEs) with lower obstacle which is assumed to be right upper-semicontinuous but not necessarily right-continuous. We prove existence and uniqueness of the solutions to such RBSDEs in appropriate Banach spaces. The result is established by using some results from optimal stopping theory, some tools from the general theory of processes such as Mertens decomposition of optional strong supermartingales, as well as an a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
114
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(121 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(55 reference statements)
7
114
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The approach used in the literature to address the non-linear case (where f is not necessarily equal to 0) is an RBSDE-approach, based on the study of a related Reflected BSDE and on linking directly the solution of the Reflected BSDE with the value family (V (S), S ∈ T 0,T ) (and thus avoiding, in particular, more technical aggregation questions). This approach (cf., e.g., [17], [39]) requires at least the uppersemicontinuity of the reward process ξ which we do not have here (cf. also Remark 10.1).…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The approach used in the literature to address the non-linear case (where f is not necessarily equal to 0) is an RBSDE-approach, based on the study of a related Reflected BSDE and on linking directly the solution of the Reflected BSDE with the value family (V (S), S ∈ T 0,T ) (and thus avoiding, in particular, more technical aggregation questions). This approach (cf., e.g., [17], [39]) requires at least the uppersemicontinuity of the reward process ξ which we do not have here (cf. also Remark 10.1).…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Ek s (e)Ñ (ds, de) +h t , α t := − t 0f s ds −Ã t +Ã t and γ t := −C t− +C t− (cf., e.g., Theorem A.3. and Corollary A.2 in [23] Proof of the statement of Proposition 3.20 Let (A, C) (resp. (A , C )) be the Mertens process associated with the strong supermartingale X f (resp.…”
Section: Proofsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…−2 ]t,T ] e βsỸ s− dà s ≤ 0) The proof uses property (3.3) of the definition of the DRBSDE and the properties Y ≥ ξ, Y ≥ ξ (resp. Y ≤ ζ,Ȳ ≤ ζ) ; the details are similar to those in the case of RBSDE (with one lower obstacle) (cf., for instance, the proof of Lemma 3.2 in [23]).…”
Section: Application To the Pricing Of Game Options With Irregular Pamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As+s) U 2 s (e)φ s (de)dA s .By plugging this last estimate into(20), by choosing α, γ such that As) U 2s (e)φ s (de)dA s + E ds + γE sup t e (β+δ)At h 2 t − ,for some constant C independent of n. Now let S = lim n S n and by the last estimate, considering how S n are defined, we have S = T . This implies thatY ∈ L 2,β (A) ∩ L 2,β (W ), Z ∈ L 2,β (W ) and U ∈ L 2,β (p).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%