Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs - arXiv

arX

iv:2

201.

1035

9v2

[m

ath.

PR]

15

Feb

2022

Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs

Ying Hu∗ Remi Moreau † Falei Wang‡

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze mean-field reflected backward stochastic differential equations whenthe driver has quadratic growth in the second unknown z. Using linearization technique and BMOmartingale theory, we first apply fixed point argument to establish uniqueness and existence resultfor the case with bounded terminal condition and obstacle. Then, with the help of a θ-method,we develop a successive approximation procedure to remove the boundedness condition on theterminal condition and obstacle when the generator is concave (or convex) with respect to the2nd unknown z.

Key words: mean-field, reflected BSDEs, linearization technique, θ-methodMSC-classification: 60H10, 60H30

1 Introduction

Let (Ω,F ,P) be a given complete probability space under which B is a d-dimensional standardBrownian motion. Suppose (Ft)0≤t≤T is the natural filtration generated by B augmented by theP-null sets and P the corresponding sigma algebra of progressive sets of Ω × [0, T ]. This paperis devoted to the study of the following mean-field type reflected backward stochastic differentialequations (BSDEs):

Yt = ξ +

∫ T

tf(s, Ys,PYs

, Zs)ds−∫ T

tZsdBs +KT −Kt, 0 ≤ t ≤ T,

Yt ≥ h(t, Yt,PYt), ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and

∫ T

0 (Yt − h(t, Yt,PYt))dKt = 0,

(1)

where PYtis the marginal probability distribution of the process Y at time t, the terminal condition

ξ is a scalar-valued FT -measurable random variable, the driver f : Ω× [0, T ]× R×P1(R)× Rd → R

and the constraint h : Ω× [0, T ]×P1(R)×R → R are progressively measurable maps with respect toP × B(R)× B(P1(R))× B(Rd) and P × B(P1(R))× B(R) respectively.

It is well known that El Karoui et al. [18] introduced the following reflected BSDE

Yt = ξ +

∫ T

tf(s, Ys, Zs)ds−

∫ T


Yt ≥ Lt, ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and∫ T

0 (Yt − Lt)dKt = 0,(2)

∗Univ. Rennes, CNRS, IRMAR-UMR 6625, F-35000, Rennes, France and School of Mathematical Sciences, FudanUniversity, Shanghai 200433, China. [email protected]. Research supported by Lebesgue Center of Mathematics“Investissements d’avenir” program-ANR-11-LABX-0020-01, by CAESARS-ANR-15-CE05-0024 and by MFG-ANR-16-CE40-0015-01.

†Univ. Rennes, CNRS, IRMAR-UMR 6625, F-35000, Rennes, France. [email protected].‡Zhongtai Securities Institute for Financial Studies and School of Mathematics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100,

China. [email protected]. Research supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province forExcellent Youth Scholars (ZR2021YQ01), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 12171280, 12031009and 11871458) and the Young Scholars Program of Shandong University.

1

http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10359v2

in which the obstacle L is a given stochastic process. When the terminal condition is square-integrableand the driver is Lipschitz in the unknowns (y, z), the authors of [18] obtained the existence anduniqueness of solution to reflected BSDE (2) both by a fixed point argument and by penalizationmethod. Great progress has since then been made in this field, as it has rich connections withobstacle problems of partial differential equations, American option pricing, zero-sum games, switchingproblems and many others, e.g., see [3, 14, 19, 22, 24, 26] and the references therein for more detailson this topic. In particular, the term Y can be seen as a solution of an optimal stopping problem

Yt = ess supτ stopping time≥ t

Et

[η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, Ys, Zs)ds

], ∀t ≤ T. (3)

Recently, in order to study partial hedging of financial derivatives, various mean-field type reflectedBSDEs were introduced, in which the driver f and the obstacle h may depend on the law of the termY . For example, Briand, Elie and Hu [8] considered BSDEs with mean reflection to study the super-hedging problem under running risk management constraint. We refer the reader to [4–6, 12, 16, 32]and the references therein for some other important contributions.

In particular, motivated by applications in pricing life insurance contracts with surrender options,Djehiche, Elie and Hamadene formulated in [15] mean-field reflected BSDEs of the form (1). Underthe Lipschitz hypothesis on the driver, they used a fixed point method to prove the existence anduniqueness result for mean-field reflected BSDEs (1) via the Snell envelope representation (3):

Γ(U)t = ess supτ stopping time≥ t

Et

[ξ1τ=T + h (τ, Uτ , (PUs)s=τ )1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, Us,PUs)ds

], ∀t ≤ T, (4)

in which the driver f is independent of the second unknown z. Indeed, any solution Y to (1) is afixed point of the solution map Γ(U). Note that the comparison principle for mean-filed BSDE isquite restricted, which involves some additional monotone hypothesis on the driver (see [11]). Thus,under some additional assumptions, they applied a penalization method to obtain the existence of asolution when the driver f also depends on the second unknown z. More precisely, they used a globaldomination condition in the z component and assumed that

f(s, Ys,PYs, Zs) = F (s, Ys,E[Ys], Zs), h(t, Yt,PYt

) = H(t, Yt,E[Yt]),

where F and H are non-decreasing with respect to E[Ys].

Recently, Djehiche, Dumitrescu and Zeng [17] studied the mean-field reflected BSDEs with jumpsand right-continuous and left-limited obstacle. In the Lipschitz driver case, they introduced a novelfixed point argument to establish the existence as well as the uniqueness of the solution withoutthese additional assumptions. The main idea is based on the following nonlinear Snell enveloperepresentation for the reflected BSDE (2):

Yt = ess supτ stopping time≥ t

Egt,τ [η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T], ∀t ≤ T, (5)

where Egt,τ [η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T] := yτt is the solution to the following standard BSDE:

yτt = η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, yτs , zτs )ds−

∫ τ

t

zτs dBs, (6)

which does not explicitly involve the term Z and allows to construct a solution map Γ when the driverf depends on the second unknown z. Our aim is to establish the existence and uniqueness of thesolution to the mean-field reflected BSDE (1) with quadratic driver, i.e., the driver f is allowed tohave quadratic growth in the second unknown z.

2

In the BSDEs theory, the research of quadratic case is significantly more difficult than that ofLipschitz case. Based on the monotone convergence method and PDE-based approximation technique,Kobylanski [29] established the solvability of real-valued quadratic BSDEs with bounded terminalcondition. Then, using monotone convergence method and localization stopping times, Briand andHu [9] extended the existence result of real-valued quadratic BSDEs to the case that the terminalcondition can have exponential moment of certain order. Under the additional assumption that thedriver f is concave (or convex) with respect to the 2nd unknown z, Briand and Hu [10] used a θ-methodto obtain the uniqueness result.

With the help of the afore-mentioned results, some generalizations were obtained for quadraticreflected BSDEs. Indeed, Kobylanski et al. [30] and Bayraktar and Yao [2] made a counterpart studyfor the case of bounded terminal condition and obstacle and of unbounded terminal condition andobstacle, respectively. In particular, they also established the corresponding nonlinear Snell enveloperepresentation (5), which allows us to construct a iteration map U → Γ(U) as that of Lipschitz case.

However, the monotone convergence method for mean-filed BSDE is quite restricted. Thus, we haveto develop an alternative approximation approach to obtain a fixed point of the quadratic solutionmap Γ. Note that Tevzadze [36] proposed a fixed point method for real-valued quadratic BSDEswith bounded terminal condition through BMO martingale theory. However, when the terminalcondition is unbounded, the fixed point argument fails to work since the 2nd unknown Z may beunbounded in the BMO space. Recently, it was found in Fan et al. [21] that θ-method also providesan approximation procedure for (multi-dimensional) quadratic BSDEs when the driver is concave (orconvex) and terminal value has exponential moments of arbitrary order. For more research on thisfield, we refer the reader to [1, 7, 13, 25, 27, 33, 37] and the references therein.

Thanks to these results, we could show that the quadratic solution map Γ admits a unique fixedpoint by contraction map argument and the θ-method. When the terminal condition and obstacle arebounded, we combine nonlinear Snell envelope representation and BMO martingale theory to show thequadratic solution map is a contraction. In comparison to that of [17], we use linearization techniqueto estimate the difference of two solutions instead of Ito’s formula. As a byproduct, our argumentremoves a domination condition [17, Assumption 2.1 (ii)(b)] for the Lipschitz case.

In the unbounded case, we first apply nonlinear Snell envelope representation to introduce anapproximation procedure through a sequence of quadratic reflected BSDEs with unbounded terminalcondition and obstacle. Then, utilizing quadratic BSDEs theory and the θ-method, we show theconvergence of the approximating sequences by some delicate and involved technique computations.In particular, the corresponding limit is the unique solution to the quadratic mean-field reflectedBSDE (1) with the concave driver and the terminal value of exponential moments of arbitrary order.In conclusion, we develop quadratic mean-field reflected BSDEs theory which gives some extension ofthe result from [15] and [17] to the quadratic case.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we start with some technical lemmas and a revisitto Lipschitz case to illustrate the main idea. Section 3 is devoted to the quadratic case with boundedterminal condition and obstacle, while Section 4 removes the boundedness condition using convexityon the driver.

Notation.

For each Euclidian space, we denote by 〈·, ·〉 and | · | its scalar product and the associated norm,respectively. Then, for each p ≥ 1, we consider the following collections:

• Lp is the collection of real-valued FT -measurable random variables ξ satisfying

‖ξ‖Lp = E [|ξ|p]1p < ∞;

3

• L∞ is the collection of real-valued FT -measurable random variables ξ satisfying

‖ξ‖L∞ = ess supω∈Ω

|ξ(ω)| < ∞;

• Hp,d is the collection of Rd-valued F -progressively measurable processes (zt)0≤t≤T satisfying

‖z‖Hp = E

[(∫ T

0

|zt|2dt

) p2] 1

p

< ∞;

• Sp is the collection of real-valued F -adapted continuous processes (yt)0≤t≤T satisfying

‖y‖Sp = E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

|yt|p

] 1p

< ∞;

• S∞ is the collection of real-valued F -adapted continuous processes (yt)0≤t≤T satisfying

‖y‖S∞ = ess sup(t,ω)∈[0,T ]×Ω

|y(t, ω)| < ∞;

• Ap is the collection of continuous non-decreasing processes (Kt)0≤t≤T ∈ Sp with K0 = 0;

• Pp(R) is the collection of all probability measures over (R,B(R)) with finite pth moment, endowedwith the p-Wasserstein distance Wp;

• Lp is the collection of real-valued FT -measurable random variables ξ satisfying E

[ep|ξ|

]< ∞;

• Sp is the collection of all stochastic processes Y such that eY ∈ Sp;

• L is the collection of all random variables ξ ∈ Lp for any p ≥ 1, and Hd, A and S are defined in a

similar way;

• Tt is the collection of [0, T ]-valued F -stopping times τ such that τ ≥ t P-a.s.;

• BMO is the collection of Rd-valued progressively measurable processes (zt)0≤t≤T such that

‖z‖BMO := supτ∈T0

ess supω∈Ω

Eτ

[∫ T

τ

|zs|2ds

] 12

< ∞.

Denote by ℓ[a,b] the corresponding collections for the stochastic processes with time indexes on [a, b]

for ℓ = Hp,d,Sp,S∞ and so on. For each Z ∈ BMO, we set

E (Z · B)t0 = exp

(∫ t

0

ZsdBs −1

2

∫ t

0

|Zs|2ds

),

which is a martingale by [28]. Thus it follows from Girsanov’s theorem that (Bt −∫ t

0 Zsds)0≤t≤T is aBrownian motion under the equivalent probability measure E (Z ·B)T0 dP.

4

2 A reminder in the Lipschitz case

2.1 Preliminaries

Let us start by giving the definition of a solution and some technical results, which will be frequentlyused in our subsequent discussions.

Definition 2.1 By a solution to (1), we mean a triple of progressively measurable processes (Y, Z,K)such that (1) holds.

For each F -stopping time τ taking values in [0, T ] and for every Fτ -measurable function η ∈ Lp forsome p > 1, we first define the following g-evaluation (see [35]):

Egt,τ [η] := yτt , ∀t ∈ [0, T ],

where yτ is the solution to the following BSDE on the random time horizon [0, τ ]

yτt = η +

∫ τ

t

g(s, yτs , zτs )ds−

∫ τ

t

zτs dBs. (7)

If the BSDE (7) admits a unique solution (Y, Z) ∈ Sp ×Hp,d, then it is easy to check that

yτt = yτt∧τ , zτt = zτt 1[0,τ ](t), ∀t ∈ [0, T ].

Next, we introduce the following reflected BSDE:

Yt = η +

∫ T

tg(s, Ys, Zs)ds−

∫ T


Yt ≥ Lt, ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and∫ T

0(Yt − Lt)dKt = 0,

(8)

where η ∈ Lp, L ∈ Sp with LT ≤ η. We assume that the driver g satisfies the following comparisonprinciple.

Comparison principle: For i = 1, 2, let (yi, zi, vi) ∈ Sp ×Hp,d ×Ap be a solution to the followingBSDE

yi = ξi +

∫ T

t

g(s, yis, zis)ds+ viT − vit −

∫ T

t

zisdBs.

If ξ1 ≥ ξ2 and v2 ≡ 0, then y1t ≥ y2t for every t ∈ [0, T ].

We have the following nonlinear Snell envelope representation for the solution of the reflected BSDE(8).

Lemma 2.2 Let (Y, Z,K) ∈ Sp × Hp,d × Ap be a solution to the reflected BSDE (8). If g satisfiesthe comparison principle, then

Yt = ess supτ∈Tt

Egt,τ [η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T].

In particular, the reflected BSDE (8) has at most one solution.

Proof. For any τ ∈ Tt, we have

Ys = Yτ +

∫ τ

s

g(r, Yr, Zr)ds−

∫ τ

s

ZrdBr +Kτ −Kr, ∀s ∈ [t, τ ].

5

Note that Yτ ≥ η1τ=T+Lτ1τ<T andK is a non-decreasing process. It follows from the comparisonprinciple that

Yt ≥ Egt,τ [η1τ=T + Lτ1τ<T], ∀τ ∈ Tt.

On the other hand, we define the stopping time τ∗ = infr ∈ [t, T ] : Yr = Lr ∧ T. Since Yr ≥ Lr and∫ T

t(Yr − Lr)dKr = 0, we conclude that Kτ∗ = Kt, which indicates that

Ys = Yτ∗ +

∫ τ∗

s

g(r, Yr, Zr)ds−

∫ τ∗

s

ZrdBr, ∀s ∈ [t, τ∗].

Note that Yτ∗ = ξ1τ∗=T + Lτ∗1τ∗<T by the definition of τ∗. It follows that

Yt = Egt,τ∗ [η1τ∗=T + Lτ∗1τ∗<T],

which completes the proof.

Remark 2.3 It is obvious that the comparison principle and the nonlinear Snell envelope represen-tation hold in the Lipschitz case. We refer to [2, 30] for some sufficient conditions under which theresults hold for the quadratic case.

Remark 2.4 It follows from Lemma 2.2 that any solution Y to the mean-field reflected BSDE (1) isa fixed point of the following map Γ:

Γ(U)t := ess supτ∈Tt

EfU

t,τ [ξ1τ=T + h (τ, Uτ , (PUs)s=τ )1τ<T], ∀t ∈ [0, T ],

where the driver fU is given by fU (t, z) := f(t, Ut,PUt, z).

The representation given by Lemma 2.2 is an important tool for our main results in the followingsections. With the help of the representation, we will combine a linearization technique, a fixedpoint argument and the θ-method to study quadratic mean-field reflected BSDEs. The authors of[17] applied the representation result and a fixed point argument to prove existence and uniquenessof a solution for mean-field reflected BSDEs with jumps when the driver is Lipschitz. In order toillustrate our main idea and present some preliminaries involved, we first deal with the Lipschitz casevia a linearization technique and a fixed point method. As a byproduct, our argument removes adomination condition [17, Assumption 2.1 (ii)(b)].

2.2 Revisit to the Lipschitz case

In what follows, we make use of the following conditions on the terminal condition ξ, the driver f andthe constraint h.

(B1) There exists a constant p > 1 such that ξ ∈ Lp with ξ ≥ h(T, ξ,Pξ).

(B2) The process f(t, 0, δ0, 0) belongs to Hp,1 and there exists a constant λ > 0 such that for anyt ∈ [0, T ], y1, y2 ∈ R, v1, v2 ∈ P1(R) and z1, z2 ∈ R

d

|f(t, y1, v1, z1)− f(t, y2, v2, z2)| ≤ λ (|y1 − y2|+W1(v1, v2) + |z1 − z2|) .

(B3) The process h(t, y, v) belongs to Sp for any y ∈ R, v ∈ P1(R) and there exist two constantsγ1, γ2 > 0 such that for any t ∈ [0, T ], y1, y2 ∈ R, v1, v2 ∈ P1(R)

|h(t, y1, v1)− h(t, y2, v2)| ≤ γ1|y1 − y2|+ γ2W1(v1, v2).

6

We are now ready to state the main result of this section.

Theorem 2.5 Assume that (B1)-(B3) are satisfied. If γ1 and γ2 satisfy

(γ1 + γ2)p−1p

((p

p− 1

)p

γ1 + γ2

) 1p

< 1, (9)

then the mean-field reflected BSDE (1) admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ Sp ×Hp,d ×Ap.

Remark 2.6 We remove the additional domination condition from [17, Assumption 2.1 (ii)(b)], thatrequires:

The process sup(y,v)∈R×P1(R)

|h(t, y, v)| belongs to Sp.

Remark 2.7 Note that the enhanced sufficient condition (9) is the same as in [15, Theorem 3.1]. Theauthors of [17] proved that mean-field reflected BSDEs with jumps admit a unique solution under thefollowing enhanced sufficient condition

2p−1(γp1 + γ

p2 ) ≤ 1.

When γ1 = 0, it reduces to the condition γ2 ≤ 21p−1, whereas (9) reduces to the condition γ2 ≤ 1. On

the other hand, it is easy to check that

(γ1 + γ2)p−1

((p

p− 1

)p

γ1 + γ2

)≥ 2p−1(γp

1 + γp2 )

when γ1 = γ2.

We are now ready to prove Theorem 2.5. More precisely, we first state the existence and uniquenessof the solution on a small time interval [T − h, T ], in which h is to be determined later. Then, westitch the local solutions to build the global solution.

According to Assumption (B3), it is obvious that (h(s, Us,PUs))s∈[T−h,T ] ∈ Sp

[T−h,T ] for any U ∈

Sp

[T−h,T ]. It follows from Lemma 2.2 and [23, Theorem 3] that Γ(U) is the Sp-solution to the reflected

BSDE (8) with data (η, g, L) = (ξ, fU , h(·, U·,PU·)). Thus for any h ∈ (0, T ], we have

Γ(Sp

[T−h,T ]

)⊂ Sp

[T−h,T ].

Let us now show uniqueness and existence of the local solution for the mean-field reflected BSDE (1).

Lemma 2.8 Assume that (B1)-(B3) hold. If γ1 and γ2 satisfy (9), then there exists a constant δ > 0depending only on p, λ, γ1 and γ2 such that for any h ∈ (0, δ], the mean-field reflected BSDE (1)

admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ Sp

[T−h,T ] ×Hp,d

[T−h,T ] ×Ap

[T−h,T ] on the time interval [T − h, T ].

Proof. The proof will be divided into three steps.

Step 1 (A priori estimate). Let U i ∈ Sp, i = 1, 2. It follows from Lemma 2.2 that

Γ(U i)t := ess supτ∈Tt

yi,τt , ∀t ∈ [0, T ], (10)

in which yi,τt is the solution of the following BSDE

yi,τt = ξ1τ=T + h(τ, U i

τ , (PUis)s=τ )1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, U is,PUi

s, zi,τs )ds−

∫ τ

t

zi,τs dBs. (11)

7

For each t ∈ [0, T ], denote by

βt =fU1

(t, z1,τt )− fU1

(t, z2,τt )

|z1,τt − z2,τt |2

(z1,τt − z2,τt )1|z1,τ

t −z2,τt |6=0.

Then, the pair of processes (y1,τ − y2,τ , z1,τ − z2,τ ) solves the following BSDE:

y1,τt − y

2,τt = h(τ, U1

τ , (PU1s)s=τ )1τ<T − h(τ, U2

τ , (PU2s)s=τ )1τ<T −

∫ T

t

1[0,τ ](s)(z1,τs − z2,τs )dBs

+

∫ T

t

(βs(z

1,τs − z2,τs )⊤ + fU1

(s, z2,τs )− fU2

(s, z2,τs ))1[0,τ ](s)ds.

Note that Bt := Bt −∫ t

0 β⊤s 1[0,τ ](s)ds, defines a Brownian motion under the equivalent probability

measure P given by dP := E (β1[0,τ ] ·B)T0 dP. It follows that for every t ∈ [0, T ]

y1,τt − y

2,τt = EP

t

[h(τ, U1

τ , (PU1s)s=τ )1τ<T − h(τ, U2

τ , (PU2s)s=τ )1τ<T

+

∫ τ

t

(fU1

(s, z2,τs )− fU2

(s, z2,τs ))ds

]

= Et

[E (β1[0,τ ] ·B)Tt

(h(τ, U1

τ , (PU1s)s=τ )1τ<T − h(τ, U2

τ , (PU2s)s=τ )1τ<T

+

∫ τ

t

(fU1

(s, z2,τs )− fU2

(s, z2,τs ))ds

)].

Noting that |βt| ≤ λ and by a standard computation, we have that for any q ≥ 1,

Et

[∣∣E (β1[0,τ ] ·B)Tt∣∣q] ≤ exp

(λ2

2(q2 − q)(T − t)

).

In view of Holder’s inequality, we have for any µ ∈ (1, p) and any t ∈ [T − h, T ],

|y1,τt − y2,τt |

≤ exp

(λ2h

2(µ− 1)

)Et

[((γ1 + λh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |+ (γ2 + λh) sups∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]

)µ] 1µ

,

which together with (10) implies the following, for any t ∈ [T − h, T ]

|Γ(U1)t − Γ(U2)t|p

≤ exp

(pλ2h

2(µ− 1)

)Et

[((γ1 + λh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |+ (γ2 + λh) sups∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]

)µ] pµ

.(12)

Step 2 (The contraction). The convexity inequality (ax + by)ρ ≤ (a+ b)ρ−1(axρ + byρ) holds forany non-negative constants a, b, x, y and ρ ≥ 1. It follows that

Et

[((γ1 + λh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |+ (γ2 + λh) sups∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]

)µ] pµ

≤ (γ1 + γ2 + 2λh)p(µ−1)

µ

((γ1 + λh)Et

[sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |µ

]+ (γ2 + λh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]µ

) pµ

≤ (γ1 + γ2 + 2λh)p−1

((γ1 + λh)Et

[sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |µ

] pµ

+ (γ2 + λh) sups∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]p

).

8

Recalling (12) and applying Doob’s maximal inequality, we derive

E

[sup

t∈[T−h,T ]

|Γ(U1)t − Γ(U2)t|p

]≤ exp

(pλ2h

2(µ− 1)

)(γ1 + γ2 + 2λh)p−1

×

((γ1 + λh)

(p

p− µ

) pµ

E

[sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |p

]+ (γ2 + λh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |]p

).

Consequently, for any µ ∈ (1, p) and h ∈ (0, (µ− 1)2], we have

E

[sup

t∈[T−h,T ]

|Γ(U1)t − Γ(U2)t|p

] 1p

≤ Λ(µ)E

[sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|U1s − U2

s |p

] 1p

with

Λ(µ) = exp

(λ2(µ− 1)

2

)(γ1 + γ2+2λ(µ− 1)2)

p−1p

((γ1 +λ(µ− 1)2)

(p

p− µ

) pµ

+(γ2 +λ(µ− 1)2)

) 1p

.

Under Assumption (9), we can then find a small enough constant µ∗ ∈ (1, p) depending only on p, λ, γ1and γ2 such that Λ(µ∗) < 1. Let us define

δ := (µ∗ − 1)2. (13)

It is now obvious that Γ is a contraction map on the time interval [T − h, T ] for any h ∈ (0, δ].

Step 3 (Uniqueness and existence). Note that any solution Y to the mean-field reflected BSDE (1)is a fixed point of the map Γ. For any h ∈ (0, δ], Γ has a unique fixed point Y ∈ Sp

[T−h,T ], so that

Yt = ess supτ∈Tt

EfY

t,τ [ξ1τ=T + h(τ, Yτ , (PYs)s=τ )1τ<T], ∀t ∈ [T − h, T ].

On the other hand, the reflected BSDE (8) with data (η, g, L) = (ξ, fY , h(·, Y·,PY·)) admits a unique

solution(Y , Z,K) ∈ Sp

[T−h,T ] ×Hp,d

[T−h,T ] ×Ap

[T−h,T ].

It follows from Lemma 2.2 that Y = Γ(Y ) = Y , which implies that (Y, Z,K) is a solution to themean-field reflected BSDE (1) on the time interval [T − h, T ].

Let us now turn to the proof of uniqueness. Suppose (Y ′, Z ′,K ′) is also a solution to the mean-fieldreflected BSDE (1) on the time interval [T − h, T ]. In the spirit of Lemma 2.2, Y ′ is the fixed point

of the map Γ, which indicates that Y = Y ′. Applying Ito’s formula to |Y − Y ′|2yields that Z = Z ′

and then K = K ′. This completes the proof.

Now we are in a position to complete the proof of the main result.

Proof of Theorem 2.5. The uniqueness of the global solution on [0, T ] is inherited from theuniqueness of the local solution on each small time interval. It suffices to prove the existence.

By Lemma 2.8, there exists a constant δ > 0 depending only on p, λ, γ1 and γ2, such that themean-field reflected BSDE (1) admits a unique solution

(Y 1, Z1,K1) ∈ Sp

[T−δ,T ] ×Hp,d

[T−δ,T ] ×Ap

[T−δ,T ]

9

on the time interval [T − δ, T ]. Next, taking T − δ as the terminal time and applying Lemma 2.8again, the mean-field reflected BSDE (1) admits a unique solution

(Y 2, Z2,K2) ∈ Sp

[T−2δ,T−δ] ×Hp,d

[T−2δ,T−δ] ×Ap

[T−2δ,T−δ]

on the time interval [T − 2δ, T − δ]. Denote by

Yt =

2∑

i=1

Y it 1[T−iδ,T−(i−1)δ) + Y 1

T 1T, Zt =

2∑

i=1

Zit1[T−iδ,T−(i−1)δ) + Z1

T1T,

Kt = K2t 1[T−iδ,T−(i−1)δ) +

(K2

T−δ +K1t

)1[T−δ,T ].

It is easy to check that (Y, Z,K) ∈ Sp

[T−2δ,T ] × Hp,d

[T−2δ,T ] × Ap

[T−2δ,T ] is a solution to the mean-field

reflected BSDE (1). Repeating this procedure, we get a global solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ Sp ×Hp,d ×Ap.The proof of the theorem is complete.

3 Bounded terminal condition and obstacle

In this section, we will use a linearization technique and a fixed point argument to investigate thequadratic case for the mean-field reflected BSDE (1) with bounded terminal condition and obstacle.In comparison to the Lipschitz case, the BMO martingale theory plays a key role here.

In what follows, we make use of the following conditions on the terminal condition ξ, the driver f andthe constraint h.

(H1) The terminal condition ξ ∈ L∞ with ξ ≥ h(T, ξ,Pξ).

(H2) There exist three positive constants α, β and γ such that for any t ∈ [0, T ], y ∈ R, v ∈ P1(R)and z ∈ R

d

|f(t, y, v, z)| ≤ α+ β(|y|+W1(v, δ0)) +γ

2|z|2.

(H3) The process h(·, y, v) ∈ S∞ is uniformly bounded with respect to (t, ω, y, v).

(H4) There exist two constants γ1, γ2 > 0 such that for any t ∈ [0, T ], y1, y2 ∈ R, v1, v2 ∈ P1(R)

|h(t, y1, v1)− h(t, y2, v2)| ≤ γ1|y1 − y2|+ γ2W1(v1, v2).

(H5) There exists a constant κ such that for each t ∈ [0, T ], y1, y2 ∈ R, v1, v2 ∈ P1(R) and z1, z2 ∈ Rd

|f(t, y1, v1, z1)− f(t, y2, v2, z2)| ≤ β (|y1 − y2|+W1(v1, v2)) + κ(1 + |z1|+ |z2))|z1 − z2|.


Theorem 3.1 Assume that (H1)-(H5) are satisfied. If γ1 and γ2 satisfy

γ1 + γ2 < 1, (14)

then the quadratic mean-field reflected BSDE (1) admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S∞×BMO×A.

In order to prove Theorem 3.1, we need to analyze the quadratic solution map Γ.

10

Lemma 3.2 Assume that (H2) and (H5) are satisfied and that η ∈ L∞, U ∈ S∞. Then, the followingquadratic BSDE:

yτt = η +

∫ τ

t

f(s, Us,PUs , zτs )ds−

∫ τ

t

zτs dBs,

admits a unique solution (yτ , zτ ) ∈ S∞ ×BMO.

Proof. The result is an immediate consequence of [38, Theorem 7.3.3].

Lemma 3.3 Assume that (H1)-(H5) are satisfied and U ∈ S∞ with UT = ξ. Then, the followingquadratic reflected BSDE:

Yt = ξ +

∫ T

tf(s, Us,PUs

, Zs)ds−∫ T


Yt ≥ h(t, Ut,PUt), ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and

∫ T

0 (Yt − h(t, Ut,PUt))dKt = 0,

(15)

admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S∞ ×BMO ×A.

Proof. It follows from [38, Theorem 7.3.1] that the comparison principle holds for the driver (t, z) 7→f(t, Ut, PUt

, z) under Assumptions (H2) and (H5). This, together with Lemma 2.2, implies thatY = Γ(U) for any solution Y to the quadratic reflected BSDE (15). Thus, it suffices to prove theexistence. From Assumptions (H1)-(H4), it is easy to check that the driver (t, z) 7→ f(t, Ut, PUt

, z)and the obstacle t 7→ h(t, Ut,PUt

) satisfy [30, Conditions (H1)-(H3)]. Applying [30, Theorem 1], thereflected BSDE (15) has a solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S∞ ×Hd,2 ×A2. Using Lemma A.1 in Appendix, wederive that (Z,K) ∈ BMO ×A. This completes the proof.

We are now ready to complete the proof of the main result of this section.

Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let U i ∈ S∞, i = 1, 2. It follows from Lemma 3.3 that

Γ(U i)t := ess supτ∈Tt

yi,τt , ∀t ∈ [0, T ], (16)

in which yi,τt is the solution to the BSDE (11). Following the proof of Lemma 2.8 step by step (noting

that (βt) ∈ BMO in this case), we have for every t ∈ [0, T ]

y1,τt − y

2,τt

= EP

t

[h(τ, U1

τ , (PU1s)s=τ )1τ<T − h(τ, U2

τ , (PU2s)s=τ )1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

(fU1

(s, z2,τs )− fU2

(s, z2,τs ))ds

],

which together with assumptions (H4) and (H5) implies that for any t ∈ [T − h, T ],

|y1,τt − y2,τt | ≤ (γ1 + βh)‖U1 − U2‖S∞

[T−h,T ]+ (γ2 + βh) sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

E[|U1s − U2

s |].

The above inequality combined with (16) implies the following,

‖Γ(U1)− Γ(U2)‖S∞

[T−h,T ]≤ (γ1 + γ2 + 2βh)‖U1 − U2‖S∞

[T−h,T ].

Under assumption (14), we can then find a small enough constant h depending only on β, γ1 and γ2such that γ1 + γ2 + 2βh < 1. It is now obvious that Γ defines a contraction map on the time interval[T − h, T ]. Finally, proceeding exactly as in Theorem 2.5 and Lemma 2.8, we complete the proof.

Remark 3.4 When the terminal condition is unbounded, the process (βt) may be unbounded in the

BMO space, so that P is not well-defined. Thus, the conventional fixed point argument fails to workin the unbounded terminal condition case.

11

4 Unbounded terminal condition and obstacle

In this section, we will use the θ-method to deal with quadratic mean-field reflected BSDEs takingthe form (1) with unbounded terminal condition and obstacle. For this purpose, we need to assumethe driver is concave or convex with respect to the second unknown z. In what follows, we make useof the following conditions on the terminal condition ξ, the driver f and the constraint h.

(H1’) The terminal condition ξ ∈ L with ξ ≥ h(T, ξ,Pξ).

(H3’) For any y ∈ R, v ∈ P1(R), the process h(t, y, v) belongs to S .

(H5’) For each t ∈ [0, T ], y1, y2 ∈ R, v1, v2 ∈ P1(R) and z ∈ Rd

|f(t, y1, v1, z)− f(t, y2, v2, z)| ≤ β (|y1 − y2|+W1(v1, v2)) .

(H6) For each (t, ω, y, v) ∈ [0, T ]× Ω× R× P1(R), f(t, y, v, ·) is concave or convex.


Theorem 4.1 Assume that (H1’), (H2), (H3’), (H4), (H5’) and (H6) hold. If γ1 and γ2 satisfy

4(γ1 + γ2) < 1, (17)

then the quadratic mean-field reflected BSDE (1) admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S×Hd ×A.

In order to prove Theorem 4.1, we need to recall some technical results on the representation ofsolutions of quadratic BSDEs. First, we introduce some general conditions on the generator.

(H7) There exists a positive progressively measurable process (αt)0≤t≤T with∫ T

0αtdt ∈ L such that

for each (t, ω, z) ∈ [0, T ]× Ω× R× Rd, |g(t, y, z)| ≤ αt + β|y|+ γ

2 |z|2.

(H8) For each (t, ω, z) ∈ [0, T ]× Ω× Rd, g(t, y, z) ≤ αt + β|y|+ γ

2 |z|2.

Remark 4.2 Suppose that g satisfies assumptions (H5’), (H6) and (H7). It follows from [10, Corollary6] that the quadratic BSDE (7) with η ∈ L admits a unique solution (yτ , zτ ) ∈ S×Hd. In particular, thecomparison principle also holds by [2, Proposition 5.1] or [10, Theorem 5] (up to a slight modification).Under assumptions (H2), (H5’) and (H6), the quadratic reflected BSDE (8) with L ∈ S admits a uniquesolution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S×Hd ×A by [2, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1].

The following result plays a key role in our subsequent calculus, and can be derived from [20, Propo-sition 1].

Lemma 4.3 Assume that (yτ , zτ ) ∈ S2 ×H2,d is a solution to (7). Suppose that there is a constantp ≥ 1 such that

E

[exp

2pγeβT sup

t∈[0,T ]

|yτt |+ 2pγ

∫ T

0

αteβtdt

]< ∞.

Then, we have

(i) Let Assumption (H7) hold. Then, for each t ∈ [0, T ], Then for each t ∈ [0, T ] and p ≥ 1,

exp pγ|yτt | ≤ Et

[exp

pγeβ(T−t)|η|+ pγ

∫ T

t

αseβ(s−t)ds

].

12

(ii) Let Assumption (H8) hold. Then, for each t ∈ [0, T ],

exppγ(yτt )

+≤ Et

[exp

pγeβ(T−t)η+ + pγ

∫ T

t

αseβ(s−t)ds

].

We are now ready to prove Theorem 4.1. Indeed, we will make use of the θ-method to prove existenceand uniqueness of the solution of the quadratic mean-field reflected BSDE (1).

Lemma 4.4 Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 hold. Then, the quadratic mean-fieldreflected BSDE (1) has at most one solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S×Hd ×A.

Proof. For i = 1, 2, let (Y i, Zi,Ki) be a S × Hd × A-solution to the quadratic mean-field reflectedBSDE (1). From Lemma 2.2 and Remark 4.2, we have

Y it := ess sup

τ∈Tt

yi,τt , ∀t ∈ [0, T ],

in which yi,τt is the solution of the following quadratic BSDE

yi,τt = ξ1τ=T + h(τ, Y i

τ , (PY is)s=τ )1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, Y is ,PY i

s, z

i,τs )ds−

∫ τ

t

zi,τs dBs.

Assume without loss of generality that f(t, y, v, ·) is concave (see Remark 4.5), for each θ ∈ (0, 1),denote by

δθℓ =θℓ1 − ℓ2

1− θ, δθ ℓ =

θℓ2 − ℓ1

1− θand δθY := |δθY |+ |δθY |

for ℓ = Y, yτ and zτ . Then, the pair of processes (δθyτ , δθz

τ ) satisfies the following BSDE:

δθyτt =δθη +

∫ τ

t

(δθf(s, δθzτs ) + δθf0(s)) ds−

∫ τ

t

δθzτs dBs, (18)

where the terminal condition and generator are given by

δθη = −ξ1τ=T +θh(τ, Y 1

τ , (PY 1s)s=τ )− h(τ, Y 2

τ , (PY 2s)s=τ )

1− θ1τ<T,

δθf0(t) =1

1− θ

(f(t, Y 1

t ,PY 1t, z

2,τt )− f(t, Y 2

t ,PY 2t, z

2,τt )),

δθf(t, z) =1

1− θ

(θf(t, Y 1

t ,PY 1t, z

1,τt )− f(t, Y 1

t ,PY 1t,−(1− θ)z + θz

1,τt )

).

Recalling assumptions (H2), (H4), (H5’) and (H6), we have that

δθη ≤ |ξ|+ |h(τ, 0, δ0)|+ γ1(2|Y1τ |+ |δθYτ |) + γ2(2E[|Y 1

s |]s=τ +E[|δθYs|]s=τ )),

δθf0(t) ≤ β(|Y 1t |+ |δθYt|+E[|Y 1

t |] +E[|δθYt|]),

δθf(t, z) ≤ −f(t, Y 1t ,PY 1

t,−z) ≤ α+ β(|Y 1

t |+E[|Y 1t |]) +

γ

2|z|2.

Set C1 := supi∈1,2

E[

sups∈[0,T ]

|Y is |]and

χ = αT + sups∈[0,T ]

|h(s, 0, δ0)|+ 2(γ1 + βT )

(sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y 1s |+ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y 2s |

)+ 2(γ2 + βT )C1,

χ = αT + sups∈[0,T ]

|h(s, 0, δ0)|+ 2(1 + γ1 + βT )

(sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y 1s |+ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y 2s |

)+ 2(γ2 + βT )C1.

13

In the spirit of Holder’s inequality, we derive that for any p ≥ 1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

δθY s

]

≤ 4E

[exp

4νpγ

ν − 1(|ξ|+ χ)

] ν−1ν

E

[exp

4νpγ(γ1 + βh) sup

s∈[t,T ]

δθY s

] 1ν

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[t,T ]

δθY s

]4(γ2+βh)

≤ 4E

[exp

4νpγ

ν − 1(|ξ|+ χ)

] ν−1ν

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

δθY s

]4(γ1+γ2+2βh)

,

which together with the fact that 4(γ1 + γ2 + 2βh) < 1 implies that for any p ≥ 1 and θ ∈ (0, 1)

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

δθY s

]≤ 4

11−4(γ1+γ2+2βh)E

[exp

4νpγ

ν − 1(|ξ|+ χ)

] ν−1ν(1−4(γ1+γ2+2βh))

< ∞.

Note that Y 1 − Y 2 = (1− θ)(δθY + Y 1). It follows that

E

[sup

t∈[T−h,T ]

∣∣Y 1t − Y 2

t

∣∣]≤ (1− θ)

(1

γE

[4

νν−1 exp

4νγ

ν − 1(|ξ|+ χ)

] ν−1ν(1−4(γ1+γ2+2βh))

+E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y 1t

∣∣])

.

Letting θ → 1 yields that Y 1 = Y 2 and then (Z1,K1) = (Z2,K2) on [T −h, T ]. Repeating iterativelythis procedure a finite number of times, we get the uniqueness on the given interval [0, T ]. The proofis complete.

Remark 4.5 In the convex case, one should use ℓ1 − θℓ2 and ℓ2− θℓ1 instead of θℓ1− ℓ2 and θℓ2 − ℓ1

in the definition of δθℓ and δθ ℓ, respectively. Then the terminal condition and generator of BSDE (18)satisfies

δθη ≤ |ξ|+ |h(τ, 0, δ0)|+ γ1(2|Y2τ |+ |δθYτ |) + γ2(2E[|Y 2

s |]s=τ +E[|δθYs|]s=τ )),

δθf0(t) ≤ β(|Y 2t |+ |δθYt|+E[|Y 2

t |] +E[|δθYt|]),

δθf(t, z) ≤ f(t, Y 2t ,PY 2

t, z) ≤ α+ β(|Y 2

t |+E[|Y 2t |]) +

γ

2|z|2.

By a similar analysis, one can check that (19), (20) and (21) still hold.

Remark 4.6 Note that we do not obtain directly a uniform estimate for (δθYt)+ in (19), which

involves the term |δθYt|. Otherwise, the condition (17) could reduce to the condition (14).

Let us now turn to the proof of existence.

Lemma 4.7 Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 hold and U ∈ S with UT = ξ. Then, thefollowing quadratic reflected BSDE:

Yt = ξ +

∫ T

tf(s, Ys,PUs

, Zs)ds−∫ T


Yt ≥ h(t, Ut,PUt), ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and

∫ T

0 (Yt − h(t, Ut,PUt))dKt = 0,

admits a unique solution (Y, Z,K) ∈ S×Hd ×A.

Proof. From Assumptions (H2), (H4) and (H6), we have

|f(t, y, PUt , z)| ≤ α+ β(y +E[|Ut|]) +γ

2|z|2, |h(t, Ut,PUt)| ≤ |h(t, 0, δ0)|+ γ1|Ut|+ γ2E[|Ut|]. (22)

It follows from [2, Proposition 5.1] or [10, Theorem 5] that the driver (t, y, z) 7→ f(t, y, PUt, z) satisfies

the comparison principle. Then, the above quadratic reflected BSDE has at most one S × Hd × A-solution by Lemma 2.2. In particular, (t, y, z) 7→ f(t, y, PUt

, z) satisfies [2, Conditions (H1)] andh(·, U·,PU·

) ∈ S. Consequently, applying [2, Theorem 3.2], we get the desired result.

15

Remark 4.8 For a process U ∈ S, the driver (t, z) 7→ f(t, Ut, PUt, z) may not satisfy [2, Condition

(H1))]. We use the driver (t, y, z) 7→ f(t, y, PUt, z) instead in Lemma 4.7.

Lemma 4.9 Assume that ξ ∈ L. Then, the process (Et[ξ])0≤t≤T ∈ S.

Proof. Using Jensen’s inequality yields that

exp|Et[ξ]|

≤ Et

[exp

|ξ|],

which together with Doob’s maximal inequality indicates that

E

[exp

p supt∈[0,T ]

|Et[ξ]|]

≤

(p

p− 1

)p

E[exp

p|ξ|]

< ∞, ∀p > 1.

The proof is complete.

Then, based on Lemmas 4.7 and 4.9, we could define recursively a sequence of stochastic processes(Y (m))∞m=1 through the following quadratic reflected BSDE:

Y

(m)t = ξ +

∫ T

tf(s, Y

(m)s ,P

Y(m−1)s

, Z(m)s )ds−

∫ T

tZ

(m)s dBs +K

(m)T −K

(m)t , 0 ≤ t ≤ T,

Y(m)t ≥ h(t, Y

(m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

), ∀t ∈ [0, T ] and∫ T

0(Y

(m)t − h(t, Y

(m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

))dK(m)t = 0,

(23)

where Y(0)t = Et[ξ] for t ∈ [0, T ]. In particular, we have that (Y (m), Z(m),K(m)) ∈ S × Hd × A.

Next, we use a θ-method to prove that the limit of Y (m) is a desired solution. The following uniformestimates are crucial for our main result.

Lemma 4.10 Assume that the conditions of Theorem 4.1 are fulfilled. Then, for any p ≥ 1, we have

supm≥0

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (m)s |

+

(∫ T

0

|Z(m)t |2dt

)p

+ |K(m)T |p

]< ∞.

Proof. The proof will be given in Appendix.

Lemma 4.11 Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 hold. Then, for any p ≥ 1, we have

Π(p) := supθ∈(0,1)

limm→∞

supq≥1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(m,q)

s

]< ∞,

where we use the following notations

δθY(m,q) =

θY (m+q) − Y m

1− θ, δθY

(m,q) =θY (m) − Y (m+q)

1− θand δθY := |δθY

(m,q)|+ |δθY(m,q)|.

Proof. The proof will be given in Appendix.

We are now in a position to complete the proof of the main result.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. It is enough to prove the existence, the uniqueness was dealt with inLemma 4.4. Note that for any integer p ≥ 1 and θ ∈ (0, 1),

lim supm→∞

supq≥1

E[

supt∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m+q)t − Y

(m)t

∣∣p] ≤ 2p−1(1− θ)p(Π(1)p!

γp+ sup

m≥1E[

supt∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m)t

∣∣p]).

16

Sending θ → 1 and recalling Lemmas 4.10 and 4.11, we could find a continuous process Y ∈ S suchthat

limm→∞

E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m)t − Yt

∣∣p]= 0, ∀p ≥ 1. (24)

Applying Ito’s formula to∣∣Y (m+q)

t − Y(m)t

∣∣2 and by a standard calculus, we have

E

[∫ T

0

∣∣Z(m+q)t − Z

(m)t

∣∣2dt]≤ E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m+q)t − Y

(m)t

∣∣2 + supt∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m+q)t − Y

(m)t

∣∣∆(m,q)

]

≤ E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m+q)t − Y

(m)t

∣∣2]+E

[|∆(m,q)|2

] 12

E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m+q)t − Y

(m)t

∣∣2] 1

2

with

∆(m,q) :=

∫ T

0

∣∣f(t, Y (m+q)t ,P

Y(m+q−1)t

, Z(m+q)t )− f(t, Y

(m)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

, Z(m)t )

∣∣dt+ |K(m+q)T |+ |K

(m)T |.

which together with Lemma 4.10, (24) and dominated convergence theorem indicates that there existsa process Z ∈ Hd so that

limm→∞

E

[(∫ T

0

∣∣Z(m)t − Zt

∣∣2dt)p]

= 0, ∀p ≥ 1. (25)

Set

Kt = Yt − Y0 +

∫ t

0

f(s, Ys,PYs, Zs) ds−

∫ t

0

Zs dBs.

Applying dominated convergence theorem again yields that for each p ≥ 1,

limm→∞

E

[(∫ T

0

|f(t, Y(m)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

, Z(m)t )− f(t, Yt,PYt

, Zt)|dt

)p]= 0,

which implies that E[

supt∈[0,T ]

∣∣Kt − K(m)t

∣∣p] → 0 as m → ∞ for each p ≥ 1 and that K is a non-

decreasing process. Note that

limm→∞

E

[sup

t∈[0,T ]

∣∣h(t, Y (m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

)− h(t, Yt,PYt)∣∣]≤ (γ1 + γ2) lim

m→∞E[

supt∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m−1)t − Yt

∣∣] = 0.

Then it is obvious that Yt ≥ h(t, Yt,PYt). Moreover, recalling [8, Lemma 13], we have

∫ T

0

(Yt − h(t, Yt,PYt))dKt = lim

m→∞

∫ T

0

(Y(m)t − h(t, Y

(m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

))dK(m)t = 0,

which implies that (Y, Z,K) ∈ S × Hd × A is a solution to quadratic mean-field reflected (1). Theproof is complete.

Appendix

A.1

Lemma A.1 Let (Y, Z,K) be a S∞×H2×A2-solution to the reflected BSDEs (8). Assume the driverg satisfies Assumption (H2). Then, (Z,K) ∈ BMO ×A.

17

Proof. Applying Ito’s formula to e−2γYt yields that for any τ ∈ T0

2γ2

∫ T

τ

e−2γYs |Zs|2ds ≤ e−2γη − 2γ

∫ T

τ

e−2γYsg(s, Ys, Zs)ds+ 2γ

∫ T

τ

e−2γYs(ZsdBs − dKs)

≤ e−2γη + 2γ

∫ T

τ

e−2γYs

(α+ β|Ys|+

γ

2|Zs|

2

)ds+ 2γ

∫ T

τ

e−2γYsZsdBs,

where we used the fact that K is a non-decreasing process in the last inequality. Thus, we could derivethat

γ2e−2γ‖Y ‖S∞

∫ T

τ

|Zs|2ds ≤ γ2

∫ T

τ

e−2γYs |Zs|2ds

≤ (1 + 2γT (α+ β‖Y ‖S∞))e2γ‖Y ‖S∞ + γ

∫ T

τ

e−2γYsZsdBs,

which implies that Z ∈ BMO. In particular Z ∈ Hd. Then, by a standard calculus, we could get thatK ∈ A, which ends the proof.

Let us now turn to the proofs of Lemma 4.10 and Lemma 4.11. The main idea is the same as inLemma 4.4 (see also that of [21, Theorem 2.8]). For the reader’s convenience, we shall give the sketchof these proofs.

A.2 Proof of Lemma 4.10

It follows from Lemma 2.2 and Remark 4.2 that for any m ≥ 1

Y(m)t := ess sup

τ∈Tt

y(m),τt , ∀t ∈ [0, T ], (26)

in which y(m),τt is the solution of the following quadratic BSDE

y(m),τt = ξ1τ=T + h(τ, Y (m−1)

τ , (PY

(m−1)s

)s=τ )1τ<T +

∫ τ

t

f(s, y(m),τs ,P

Y(m−1)s

, z(m),τs )ds−

∫ τ

t

z(m),τs dBs.

Thanks to assertion (i) of Lemma 4.3 (taking αt = α+ βE[|Y(m−1)t |]) and in view of (22), we get for

any t ∈ [0, T ],

expγ∣∣y(m),τ

t

∣∣

≤ Et

[exp

γeβ(T−t)

(|ξ|+ η + γ1 sup

s∈[t,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |+ (γ2 + β(T − t)) sup

s∈[t,T ]

E[|Y (m−1)s |]

)],

(27)

in which η = αT + sups∈[0,T ]

|h(s, 0, δ0)|. Recalling (26) and applying Doob’s maximal inequality and

Jensen’s inequality, we get that for each m ≥ 1, p ≥ 2 and t ∈ [0, T ]

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[t,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]≤ 4E

[exp

pγeβ(T−t)

(|ξ|+ η + γ1 sup

s∈[t,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |

)]

×E

[exp

pγeβ(T−t)(γ2 + β(T − t)) sup

s∈[t,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |

].

18

Under assumption (17), we can then find three constants h ∈ (0, T ] and ν, ν > 1 depending only onβ, γ1 and γ2 such that

4eβhν(γ1 + γ2 + βh) < 1 and 4eβhννγ1 < 1. (28)

In the spirit of Holder’s inequality, we derive that for any p ≥ 2

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ 4E

[exp

νpγ

ν − 1eβh(|ξ|+ η)

] ν−1ν

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |

]eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

≤ 4E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ν−12ν

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

η

] ν−12ν

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |

]eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

.

Define ρ = 11−eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

and

µ :=

Th, if T

his an integer;

[Th] + 1, otherwise.

If µ = 1, it follows from the previous inequality that for each p ≥ 2 and m ≥ 1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ 4E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] 12

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβhη

] 12

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (m−1)s |

]eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

.

Iterating the above procedure m times, we get,

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ 4ρE

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ρ2

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

η

] ρ2

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |

]emβh(γ1+γ2+βh)m

,

(29)

which is uniformly bounded with respect to m. If µ = 2, proceeding identically as in the above, wehave for any p ≥ 2,

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ 4ρE

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ρ2

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

η

] ρ2

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |


.

(30)

Then, consider the following quadratic reflected BSDEs on time interval [0, T − h]:

Y

(m)t = Y

(m)T−h +

∫ T−h

tf(s, Y

(m−1)s ,P

Y(m−1)s

, Z(m)s )ds−

∫ T−h

tZ

(m)s dBs +K

(m)T −K

(m)t , 0 ≤ t ≤ T − h,

Y(m)t ≥ h(t, Y

(m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

), ∀t ∈ [0, T − h] and∫ T−h

0(Y

(m)t − h(t, Y

(m−1)t ,P

Y(m−1)t

))dK(m)t = 0.

19

In view of the derivation of (29), we deduce that

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T−h]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ 4ρE

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

∣∣Y (m)T−h

∣∣] ρ

2

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

η

] ρ2

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |


≤ 4ρ+ρ2

2 E

[exp

(2νeβh

ν − 1

)2

pγ|ξ|

] ρ2

4

E

[exp

(2νeβh

ν − 1

)2

pγη

] ρ2

4

E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh

η

] ρ2

×E

[exp

2νpγ

ν − 1eβh sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |

] ρ2emβh(γ1+γ2+βh)m

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |


,

where we used (30) in the last inequality. Putting the above inequalities together and applying Holder’sinequality again yields that for any p ≥ 2

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

∣∣Y (m)s

∣∣]

≤ E

[exp

2pγ sup

s∈[0,T−h]

|Y (m)s |

] 12

E

[exp

2pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

|Y (m)s |

] 12

≤ 4ρ+ρ2

4 E

[exp

(2νeβh

ν − 1

)2

2pγ|ξ|

] ρ4+ ρ2

8

E

[exp

(2νeβh

ν − 1

)2

2pγη

] ρ2+ ρ2

8

×E

[exp

4ν

ν − 1pγe

βh sups∈[0,T ]

|Y (0)s |

](1+ ρ4)emβh(γ1+γ2+βh)m

,

(31)

which is uniformly bounded with respect to m. Iterating the above procedure µ times in the generalcase and recalling [2, Theorem 3.2], we eventually get

supm≥0

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|Y (m)s |

+

(∫ T

0

|Z(m)t |2dt

)p

+ |K(m)T |p

]< ∞, ∀p ≥ 1,

which concludes the proof.

A.3 Proof of Lemma 4.11

Without loss of generality, assume f(t, y, v, ·) is concave, since the other case can be proved in a similarway, see Remark 4.5. For each fixed m, q ≥ 1 and θ ∈ (0, 1), we can define similarly δθℓ

(m,q) and

δθ ℓ(m,q) for yτ , zτ . Then, the pair of processes (δθy

(m,q),τ , δθz(m,q),τ ) satisfies the following BSDE:

δθy(m,q),τt =δθη

(m,q),τ +

∫ τ

t

(δθf

(m,q)(s, δθy(m,q),τs , δθz

(m,q),τs ) + δθf

(m,q)0 (s)

)ds−

∫ τ

t

δθz(m,q),τs dBs, (32)

where the terminal condition and generator are given by

δθη(m,q) = −ξ1τ=T +

θh(τ, Y(m+q−1)τ , (P

Y(m+q−1)s

)s=τ )− h(τ, Y(m−1)τ , (P

Y(m−1)s

)s=τ )

1− θ1τ<T,

δθf(m,q)0 (t) =

1

1− θ

(f(t, y

(m),τt ,P

Y(m+q−1)t

, z(m),τt )− f(t, y

(m),τt ,P

Y(m−1)t

, z(m),τt )

),

δθf(m,q)(t, y, z) =

1

1− θ

(θf(t, y

(m+q),τt ,P

Y(m+q−1)t

, z(m+q),τt )

− f(t,−(1− θ)y + θy(m+q),τt ,P

Y(m+q−1)t

,−(1− θ)z + θz(m+q),τt )

).

20

Using a similar method, we derive that

exppγ

(δθY

(m,q)t

)+

≤ 4Et

[exp

2pγeβ(T−t)

(|ξ|+ χ


|δθY(m−1,q)s |+ (γ2 + β(T − t)) sup

s∈[t,T ]


)] 12

×Et

[exp

4pγe2βT

ζ(m,q)

] 12

.

According to the fact that

(δθY

(m,q))−

≤(δθY

(m,q))+

+ 2|Y (m)| and(δθY

(m,q))−

≤(δθY

(m,q))+

+ 2|Y (m+q)|,

we deduce that

exppγ

∣∣δθY (m,q)t

∣∣∨ exp

pγ

∣∣δθY (m,q)t

∣∣≤ exp

pγ

((δθY

(m,q)t

)++

(δθY

(m,q)t

)++ 2|Y

(m)t |+ 2|Y

(m+q)t |

)

≤ 42Et

[exp

2pγeβ(T−t)

(|ξ|+ χ


δθY(m−1,q)s + (γ2 + β(T − t)) sup

s∈[t,T ]

E[δθY(m−1,q)s ]

)]

×Et

[exp

4pγe2βT

ζ(m,q)

].

Applying Doob’s maximal inequality and Holder’s inequality, we get that for each p > 1 and t ∈ [0, T ]

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[t,T ]

δθY(m,q)s

]

≤ 45E

[exp

4pγeβ(T−t)

ν

(|ξ|+ χ


δθY(m−1,q)s + (γ2 + β(T − t)) sup

s∈[t,T ]

E[δθY(m−1,q)s ]

)] 1ν

×E

[exp

4ν

ν − 1pγe

2βTζ(m,q)

] ν−1ν

.

Recalling the definitions of h, ν and ν in (28), we have

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

δθY(m,q)s

]

≤ 45E

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ν−12νν

E

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβh

χ(m,q)

] ν−12νν

E

[exp

4ν

ν − 1pγe

2βTζ(m,q)

] ν−1ν

×E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[T−h,T ]

δθY(m−1,q)s

]4eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

.

(33)

Set ρ = 11−4eβh(γ1+γ2+βh)

. If µ = 1, it follows from (33) that for each p ≥ 1 and m, q ≥ 1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(m,q)s

]

≤ 45ρE

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ρ2

supm,q≥1

E

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβh

χ(m,q)

] ρ2

supm,q≥1

E

[exp

4ν

ν − 1pγe

2βTζ(m,q)

]ρ

×E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(1,q)s

]e(m−1)βh(4γ1+4γ2+4βh)m−1

.

22

Applying Lemma 4.10, we have for any θ ∈ (0, 1)

limm→∞

supq≥1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(1,q)

s

]e(m−1)βh(4γ1+4γ2+4βh)m−1

= 1.

It follows that

supθ∈(0,1)

limm→∞

supq≥1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(m,q)

s

]

≤ 45ρE

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβh|ξ|

] ρ2

supm,q≥1

E

[exp

8ννpγ

ν − 1eβhχ(m,q)

] ρ2

× supm,q≥1

E

[exp

4ν

ν − 1pγe2βT ζ(m,q)

]ρ< ∞.

If µ = 2, proceeding identically as to derive (31), we have for any p ≥ 1

E

[exp

pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

δθY(m,q)

s

]

≤ 45ρ+5ρ2

4 E

[exp

(8ννeβh

ν − 1

)2

2pγ|ξ|

] ρ4+

ρ2

8

supm,q≥1

E

[exp

(8ννeβh

ν − 1

)2

2pγχ(m,q)

] ρ2+

ρ2

8

× supm,q≥1

E

[exp

32νν2eβh

(ν − 1)(ν − 1)pγe2βT ζ(m,q)

]ρ+ ρ2

4

×E

[exp

8ννeβh

ν − 1pγ sup

s∈[0,T ]

|δθY(1,q)

s |

](1+ ρ4 )e

(m−1)βh(4γ1+4γ2+4βh)m−1

,

which also implies the desired assertion in this case. Iterating the above procedure µ times in thegeneral case, we get the desired result.

References

[1] Barrieu, P. and El Karoui, N. (2013) Monotone stability of quadratic semimartingales with ap-plications to unbounded general quadratic BSDEs. Ann. Probab., 41(3B), 1831-1863.

[2] Bayraktar, E. and Yao, S. (2012) Quadratic reflected BSDEs with unbounded obstacles. Stochas-tic Processes and their Applications, 122(4), 1155-1203.

[3] Benezet, C., Chassagneux, J.-F. and Richou, A. (2022) Switching problems with controlled ran-domisation and associated obliquely reflected BSDEs. Stochastic Processes and their Applica-tions, 144, 23-71.

[4] Bouchard, B., Elie, R. and Reveillac, A. (2015) BSDEs with weak terminal condition. Ann.Probab., 43(2), 572-604, 2015.

[5] Briand, P., Cardaliaguet, P., Chaudru de Raynal, P.E. and Hu, Y. (2020) Forward and back-ward stochastic differential equations with normal constraints in law. Stochastic Process. Appl.,130(12), 7021-7097.

23

[6] Briand, P., Chaudru de Raynal, P.E., Guillin, A. and Labart, C. (2020) Particles Systems andNumerical Schemes for Mean Reflected Stochastic Differential Equations. Ann. Appl. Probab.,30(4), 1884-1909.

[7] Briand, P. and Elie, R. (2013) A simple constructive approach to quadratic BSDEs with orwithout delay. Stochastic Process. Appl., 123(8), 2921-2939.

[8] Briand, P., Elie, R. and Hu, Y. (2018) BSDEs with mean reflection. Ann. Appl. Probab., 28(1),482-510.

[9] Briand, P. and Hu, Y. (2006) BSDE with Quadratic Growth and Unbounded Terminal Value.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 136, 604-618.

[10] Briand, P. and Hu, Y. (2008) Quadratic BSDEs with convex generators and unbounded terminalconditions. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 141, 543-567.

[11] Buckdahn, R., Li, J. and Peng, S. (2009) Mean-field backward stochastic differential equationsand related partial differential equations. Stochastic Process. Appl., 119, 3133-3154.

[12] Chen, Y., Hamadene, S. and Mu, T. (2020) Mean-Field Doubly Reflected Backward StochasticDifferential Equations, in arXiv:2007.04598.

[13] Cheridito, P. and Nam, K. (2015) Multidimensional quadratic and subquadratic BSDEs withspecial structure. Stochastics, 87(5), 871-884.

[14] Cvitanic, J. and Karatzas, I. (1996) Backward stochastic differential equations with reflectionand Dynkin games. Ann. Probab., 24(4), 2024-2056.

[15] Djehiche, B., Elie, R. and Hamadene, S. (2021) Mean-field reflected backward stochastic differ-ential equations. Ann. Appl. Probab., in press.

[16] Djehiche, B. and Dumitrescu, R. Zero-sum mean-field Dynkin games: characterization and con-vergence, in arXiv:2202.02126.

[17] Djehiche, B., Dumitrescu,R. and Zeng, J. A propagation of chaos result for weakly interactingnonlinear Snell envelopes, in arXiv:2111.14315.

[18] El Karoui, N., Kapoudjian, C., Pardoux, E., Peng, S. and Quenez, M.C. (1997) Reflected solutionsof backward SDE’s, and related obstacle problems for PDE’s. Ann. Probab., 25(2), 702-737.

[19] El Karoui, N., Pardoux, E. and Quenez, M.C. Reflected backward SDEs and American options. InNumerical methods in finance, vol. 13 of Publ. Newton Inst. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,1997, 215-231.

[20] Fan, S., Hu, Y. and Tang, S. (2020) On the uniqueness of solutions to quadratic BSDEs withnon-convex generators and unbounded terminal conditions. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 358(2),227-235.

[21] Fan, S., Hu, Y. and Tang, S. (2020) Multi-dimensional backward stochastic differential equationsof diagonally quadratic generators: the general result, in arXiv:2007.04481.

[22] Hamadene, S., and Jeanblanc, M. (2007) On the starting and stopping problem: Application inreversible investments. Mathematics of Operations Research, 32(1), 182-192.

[23] Hamadene, S. and Popier, A. (2012) Lp-solutions for reflected backward stochastic differentialequations. Stoch. Dyn., 12(2), 1150016, 35pp.

24

http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04598




[24] Hamadene, S. and Zhang, J. (2010) Switching problem and related system of reflected backwardSDEs. Stochastic Process. Appl., 120(4), 403-426.

[25] Harter, J. and Richou, A. (2019) A stability approach for solving multidimensional quadraticBSDEs. Electronic Journal of Probability, 24, No. 4, 51pp.

[26] Hu, Y. and Tang, S. (2010) Multi-dimensional BSDE with oblique reflection and optimal switch-ing. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 147(1-2), 89-121.

[27] Hu, Y. and Tang, S. (2016) Multi-dimensional backward stochastic differential equations of di-agonally quadratic generators. Stochastic Process. Appl., 126(4), 1066-1086.

[28] Kazamaki, N. Continuous exponential martingales and BMO. Lecture Notes in Mathematics,1579. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.

[29] Kobylanski, M. (2000) Backward stochastic differential equations and partial differential equa-tions with quadratic growth. Ann. Probab., 28(2), 558-602.

[30] Kobylanski, M., Lepeltier, J.P., Quenez, M.C. and Torres, S. (2002) Reflected BSDE with super-linear quadratic coefficient Probab. Math. Statist., 22, 51-83.

[31] Lepeltier, J.-P. and Xu, M. Reflected BSDE with quadratic growth and unbounded terminalvalue, in arXiv:0711.0619.

[32] Li, J. (2014). Reflected mean-field backward stochastic differential equations. Approximation andassociated nonlinear PDEs. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 413(1), 47-68.

[33] Luo, P. (2020) A type of globally solvable BSDEs with triangularly quadratic generators. Elec-tronic Journal of Probability, 25, No. 112, 23pp.

[34] Pardoux, E. and Peng, S. (1990) Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation.Systems Control Lett., 14(1), 55-61.

[35] Peng, S. Nonlinear expectations, nonlinear evaluations and risk measures. In Stochastic methodsin finance (pp.165-253). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004.

[36] Tevzadze, R. (2008) Solvability of backward stochastic differential equations with quadraticgrowth. Stochastic Process. Appl., 118(3), 503-515.

[37] Xing, H. and Zitkovic, G. (2018) A class of globally solvable Markovian quadratic BSDE systemsand applications. Ann. Probab., 46(1), 491-550.

[38] Zhang, J. Backward stochastic differential equations. From linear to fully nonlinear theory, vol. 86of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer, New York, 2017.

25


Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs - arXiv

Documents

Transcript of Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs - arXiv