Maximum Principle for Quasi-linear Backward Stochastic Partial Differential Equations

By the well known Gagliard-Nirenberg inequality (c.f. [FriedmanPDEs], [Ladyzhenskaia_68] or [Nirenberg1959]), we have

where \alpha=n/(n+2) and q=2(n+2)/n. Integrating on [\tau,T] for \tau\in [t,T) and taking conditional expectation, we obtain almost surely

Therefore, u\in \mathcal{M}^{\frac{2(n+2)}{n}}(\Pi_t ) and

with C only depending on n.

It can be checked that (u-r)^+\in\mathcal{V}_{2}(\Pi_t ). Since

Then we have

Hence, the continuity of u implies that of (u-r)^+. The other assertions follow in a similar way. We complete our proof.

All the integrals in (3.3) are well defined. In particular, the stochastic integral

is a martingale since

We extend the random fields u,h^0,h^1,\cdots,h^n and z from their domain \Omega\times [0,T]\times \mathcal{O} to \Omega\times [0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^n by setting them all to be zero outside \mathcal{O}, and we still use themselves to denote their respective extensions. Since u satisfies the null Dirichlet condition on the lateral boundary and \partial\mathcal{O}\in C^1, we have u\in W^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}([0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^n). It is obvious that all the extensions h^0,h^1,\cdots,h^n and z lie in W^2_{\mathscr{F}}([0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^n).

Step 1. Consider h^i\in \dot{W}^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(\mathcal{O}), i=1,2,\cdots,n. Choose a sufficiently large positive integer N_0 so that \{x\in\mathcal{O}:dis(x,\partial\mathcal{O})>1/N_0\} is a nonempty sub-domain of \mathcal{O}. For integer N>N_0, define

Let \rho\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n) be a nonnegative function such that

Define for each positive integer k,

In a similar way, we write

Then for each x\in \mathcal{O}^N, we have almost surely

By using Itô formula for each x\in\mathcal{O}^N and then integrating over \mathcal{O}^N with respect to x , we obtain

For the sake of convenience, we define

and in a similar way, we define \delta \phi_k',\delta\phi_k'',\delta h_k^i and \delta z_k^r i=0,1,\cdots,n;r=1,\cdots,m.

Since for almost all (\omega,s)\in\Omega\times[0,T]

by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have as k\rightarrow \infty

and

Since the convergence

implies that u_k(\omega,t,x) converges to u(\omega,t,x) in measure dP\otimes dt \otimes dx, from the dominated convergence theorem we conclude that

In a similar way, we obtain

and

Hence taking limits in L^1(\Omega\times[0,T],\mathscr{P}) as k\rightarrow \infty on both sides of (Proof) and noting the path-wise continuity of u, we have almost surely

Passing to the limit in L^1(\Omega\times[0,T],\mathscr{P}) by letting N\rightarrow \infty on both sides of (Proof), in view of the path-wise continuity of u and the integration-by-parts formula, we conclude (3.3).

Step 2. For the general h^i\in W_{\mathscr{F}}^2(Q), we choose sequences \{h^i_k\}, \{z^r_k\} and \{u_k\} from S^2(\mathbb{R})\otimes C_c^{\infty}(\mathcal{O}) such that

Consider

with

From Remark 2.1 and [Denis2004, Theorem 2.1], there are unique weak solutions u\in \dot{W}^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q)\cap S^2(L^2(\mathcal{O})) to SPDE (Proof) in the sense of [Denis2004, Definition 1] or equivalently [DenisMatoussiStoica2005, Definition 4]), and u^k\in \dot{W}^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q)\cap S^2(L^2(\mathcal{O})) to SPDE (Proof) with u(0,x), z(s,x) and \tilde{h}^i(s,x) being replaced by u_k(0,x), z_k(s,x) and

Then we deduce from [Denis2004, Propositions 6 and 7, and Theorem 9] that u^k\in W^{2,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q)\cap \dot{W}^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q)\cap S^2(L^2(\mathcal{O})) and

with the constant C being independent of k. For each k, by Step 1 we have

for all t\in [0,T], P-a.s.. By taking limits as k\rightarrow \infty, we complete our proof.

Step 1. Let ({\mathcal A}3)_0 be satisfied. From [QiuTangBDSDES2010, Theorem 2.1], there is a unique weak solution (u,v) in the space (\dot{W}^{1,2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q)\cap S^2(L^{2}(\mathcal{O})))\times W^{2}_{\mathscr{F}}(Q).

Claim~(*):~(u,v)\in \dot{\mathscr{U}}\times\dot{\mathscr{V}}(G,f+h,g+h^0).

We shall prove Claim~(*) in Step 2. By Lemma 3.3, we have almost surely

for all t\in [0,T]. Therefore, we obtain that almost surely

Using the Lipschitz condition and Hölder inequality, we get the following estimates

and

with \alpha:=\frac{n+2}{2q}\in (0,1) and the three positive small parameters \varepsilon, \varepsilon_1 and \delta waiting to be determined later. Also, there exists a constant \theta>\varrho'=\frac{\varrho}{\varrho-1} such that \lambda-\kappa-\beta\theta>0 and

Choosing \varepsilon and \varepsilon_1 to be small enough, we get

with the constant C_1 being independent of \delta. Then by choosing \delta to be so small that C_1\delta<1/2, we obtain

Thus, it follows from Gronwall inequality that

with the constant C depending on T,L,\Lambda_0,\lambda,\beta,\kappa,\varrho,n,p,q and |Q|.

Step 2. We prove Claim~(*). It is sufficient to prove (u,v)\in\dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times\mathcal{M}^2(Q). Making estimates like (Proof) and (Proof), we obtain

with the positive constant \varepsilon waiting to be determined later. Letting \varepsilon be small enough, we have almost surely

for all t\in[0,T]. Then, by Lemma 4.1 we obtain

with the constant C depending on \lambda,\beta,\kappa,\varrho,L,T,\||b|\|_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}(Q)}, \|c\|_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}(Q)},\||\varsigma|\|_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}(Q)}. Hence, (u,v)\in\dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times\mathcal{M}^2(Q). We complete the proof of Claim~(*).

Step 3. Now we consider the general case of assumption ({\mathcal A}3). The existence of the solution can be shown by approximation. As p>n+2 and \mathcal{M}^p(Q)\subset\mathcal{M}^2(Q), f_0\in \mathcal{M}^2(Q). We approximate the functions b, c, \varsigma and g by

with g^k_0=g_0 1_{\{|g_0|\leq k\}}. Then we have

Let (u_k,v_k)\in \dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times \mathcal{M}^2(Q) be the unique weak solution to (?) with (b,c,\varsigma,f,g) being replaced by (b_k,c_k,\varsigma_k,f+h,g^k+h^0). Then by estimate (Proof), there exists a positive constant C_0 such that

For k,l\in\mathbb{N}, the pair of random fields (u_{kl},v_{kl}):=(u_k-u_l,v_k-v_l)\in \dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times \mathcal{M}^2(Q) is the weak solution to the following BSPDE:

with

Since

in a similar way to the derivation of (Proof), we obtain

which, by Gronwall inequality, implies

with the constant C being independent of k, l and \bar{\varepsilon}. By choosing \bar{\varepsilon} to be small and then k and l to be sufficiently large, we conclude that (u_k,v_k) is a Cauchy sequence in \dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times\mathcal{M}^2(Q). Passing to the limit, we check that the limit (u,v)\in \dot{\mathscr{U}}\times\dot{\mathscr{V}}(G,f+h,g+h^0). In view of estimate (Proof) we prove estimate (4.2).

Step 4. It remains to prove the uniqueness. Assume that (u',v') and (u,v) are two weak solutions in \dot{\mathcal{V}}_{2,0}(Q)\times\mathcal{M}^2(Q). Then their difference (\bar{u},\bar{v}):=(u-u',v-v')\in\dot{\mathscr{U}}\times\dot{\mathscr{V}}(0,\bar{f},\bar{g}) with

Since \bar{f}_0=0,\ \bar{g}_0=0 and \bar{u}(T)=0, we deduce from (Proof) that \bar{u}=0 and \bar{v}=0. The proof is complete.

Assume that L_0=0, or else we consider \tilde{u}(t,x):=e^{L_0 t}u(t,x) instead of u. It is sufficient to prove our theorem for the case

Then for k\geq \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{(\omega,t,x)\in\Omega\times \partial_{\rm p}Q}u^+(\omega,t,x), we have (u-k,v)\in \mathscr{U}\times\mathscr{V}(G-k, f^k , g^k ) with

for (\omega,t,x,R,Y,Z)\in \Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal{O}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m. From Proposition 4.4, we have almost surely

with v_k:=v 1_{u>k}. Therefore, we have

Note that

and

where \varepsilon and \delta are two positive parameters waiting to be determined later and

In a similar way to (Proof) and (Proof) in the proof of Theorem 4.2, we obtain from (Proof) and (Proof) that with probability 1, for all t\in[0,T]

and

where \theta, \varepsilon, \varepsilon_1 and \delta are four positive parameters such that

Combining (Proof), (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof), we have

where C is a constant independent of t and \delta.

By Lemma 3.1, \mathcal{V}_{2,0}(\mathcal{O}_t) is continuously embedded into \mathcal{M}^{\frac{2(n+2)}{n}}(\mathcal{O}_t). That is

Therefore, choosing \delta to be small enough, we obtain

Choosing t_1\in[0,T) such that C(|T-t_1||\mathcal{O}|)^{\frac{2}{n+2}} \leq \frac{1}{2}, we get

where the constant C does not depend on t_1.

Define

Since for any h>k,

taking k\geq A_p(f_0,g_0^+) we have

which implies

where \alpha=\frac{2(n+2)}{n} and \bar{\varepsilon}=\frac{2(p-n-2)}{pn}>0. Take k_l=k(2-2^{-l}), l=0,1,2,\cdots. Then from

it follows that

By Lemma 5.2, there exists a constant \theta_0=\theta_0(\hat{C},\bar{\varepsilon})>0, such that if \psi(k_0)\leq \theta_0, \lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}\psi(k_l)=0. Note that k_0=k and \psi(k_0)=\left|\{u>k\}\right|_{\infty;\mathcal{O}_{t_1} }.

Taking

we have

which implies

Hence, \psi(k_{\infty})=0. Since k_{\infty}=2k, we obtain

As T-t_1 only depends on the structure terms like n,\lambda,\kappa,\beta,\varrho,p,q,L,\Lambda_0,|\mathcal{O}| and T, by induction, we get estimate (5.1).

We use the induction principle. It is sufficient to prove the following assertion:

with the parameter \nu>1 waiting to be determined later. It is obvious for k=0 that (Proof) holds. Assume that (Proof) holds for k=r. Then we have

Taking \nu=b^{\frac{1}{\delta}}>1, we obtain

Define

Then

In view of our assumption on d, since

we deduce from Lemma 5.2 that \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\phi(r_{k+1})=0.

We use De Giorgi iteration and the same notations in the proof of Theorem 5.1. Similar to the proof of (Proof) and (Proof), under condition (5.4), we have for each t\in [0,T],

and almost surely

Hence instead of (Proof), we obtain

By Corollary 5.3, for any \bar{\theta}_0\geq C A_p(f_0,g_0^+)|\mathcal{O}_{t_1}|^{\frac{1}{n+2}-\frac{1}{p}}, we have

which implies

where the constant C depends only on n,\lambda,p,q,\beta,\kappa,\varrho,\Lambda_0 and L. As T-t_1 only depends on the structure terms, by induction, we get estimate (5.4) where the constant C also depends on T. We complete the proof.

(u_1-u_2,v_1-v_2) belongs to \mathscr{U}\times\mathscr{V}(\tilde{G},\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) with

and \tilde{G}:=G^1-G^2. Since \tilde{G}\leq 0, \tilde{g}_0\leq 0 and f_0=0, the assertion follows from Theorem 5.4.

Consider the cylinder

For simplicity, we denote Q_{\rho,\tau}(X) and B_{\rho}(x_0) by Q_{\rho,\tau} and B_{\rho} respectively. Let \zeta be a cut-off function on Q_{\rho,\tau}. Denote \bar{u}:=(u-k)^+. From Lemma 5.7, it follows that

holds almost surely for all t\in[t_0-\tau,t_0) where v_k:=v1_{u>k} and for (\omega,t,x,R,Y,Z)\in \Omega\times [t_0-\tau,t_0)\times\mathcal{O}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m

In view of (Proof)-(Proof) and (Proof)-(Proof), we have almost surely for all t\in [t_0-\tau,t_0)

and

with C:=C(\varepsilon,p,\lambda,\beta,\varrho,\kappa,\Lambda,L), where \alpha_0\in (0,1) and \lambda_0 are two positive constants depending only on structure terms such as \kappa,p,\lambda,\varrho,\beta,\Lambda and L, and the three parameters \varepsilon,\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2 are waiting to be determined later. On the other hand, it is obvious that almost surely

Therefore, combining the above estimates and (Proof) and choosing the parameters \varepsilon,\varepsilon_1 and \varepsilon_2 to be small enough, we obtain

where \gamma is a positive constant depending on the structure terms such as n,p,q,\kappa,\lambda,\varrho,\beta, L,\Lambda and \Lambda_0. Hence u\in BSPDG^+(a_0, \mu, \gamma;Q).

In a similar way, we show u\in BSPDG^-(a_0, \mu, \gamma;Q). The proof is complete.

Consider u\in BSPDG^+(a_0, \mu, \gamma;Q). Take

where k is a parameter waiting to be determined later. Denote Q^l:=Q_{R_l}=[t_0,t_0+R_l^2)\times B_{R_l}(x_0). Choose \zeta_l to be a cut-off function on Q^l such that

and

From (\mathfrak{D}^+), it follows that

For k\geq a_0\rho^{1-\frac{n+2}{\mu}}, we obtain from Lemma 3.1 that

Setting

we have

Note that

Hence,

For k\geq a_0\rho^{1-\frac{n+2}{\mu}}+ {\rho^{-\frac{n+2}{2}}}\|u^+\|_{2;Q_{\rho}}, we have {k^{-2}\rho^{-n-2}}{\phi_l} \leq 1 and therefore

Setting

we have

From Lemma 5.2, we see that the following

with \alpha:=\frac{2}{n+2}-\frac{2}{\mu}, implies

In conclusion, the two inequalities

imply the following one:

Hence, (Proof) holds for the following choice

which implies our desired estimate.

For u\in BSPDG^-(a_0, \mu, \gamma;Q), the desired assertion follows in a similar way. We complete our proof.