Time-changed Markov processes and space-time coupled non-local equations

It is sufficient to split the integral defining -\phi(\partial_t-G)f(t,x) as follows:

where the two integrals are absolutely convergent by (i) and (ii).

We just prove (i), since the proof of (ii) is analogous. For t \in [0,t_\star] and x \in E define \overline{f}(t,x)=f(t_\star,x_\star)-f(t,x) \ge 0. Since P_t is positivity preserving, we have P_s\overline{f}(t_\star-s,x) \ge 0 for all s \in [0,t_\star] and x \in E, that in turn implies P_s f(t_\star-s,x) \le (P_s f(t_\star,x_\star))(x) for all s \in [0,t_\star] and x \in E. Furthermore, since P_s is sub-Markov and linear, we have

Hence, it is sufficient to observe that

We already know that (M^\phi,S) is a Feller process with respect to \operatorname{\mathcal{G}}, hence we just need to show (4.1). Let s < t, A \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}} and B \in \operatorname{\mathcal{B}}(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}), let M^\phi (t) play the role of X(t) and S(t) play the role of Y(t) and observe that, setting \Delta S=S(t)-S(s),

Now recall that M^\phi(t)=M(S(t)-v)=M(\Delta S+S(s)-v) and M^\phi(s)=M(S(s)-v), where S(s)<S(t). Now consider three Borel sets B_1 \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}, B_2,B_3 \subset \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} and the event

It holds

Once we notice that \{M(t), \ t \ge 0\} and S(s) are independent of \Delta S, if we set

it holds

However, we can also write

Let us focus on the inner conditional expectation. Consider again two sets B_4 \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}} and B_5 \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}} and the event

Then

Since M and {S} are independent, if we set, for z \ge v,

it holds

However, since \{M(z-v) \in B_4\} \in \sigma(M(z-v)), we have

Hence

Since the events of the form B_{\star\star} constitute a \pi-system generating \sigma(M^\phi(s),S(s)), this shows that

Define

so that going back to (Proof) we get

and then

i.e., since the events of the form B^\star constitute a \pi-system generating \sigma(M^\phi(s),S(s),\Delta S),

Since \Delta S is independent of both M^\phi(s) and S(s), we get (see Lemma A.1)

Use now (Proof) to see that

Consider the Feller semigroup (\widetilde{P}_t)_{t \ge 0} acting on any function w \in C_0(E \times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}) as

Let \widetilde{A} be the generator of (\widetilde{P}_t)_{t \ge 0}. By Phillips theorem (see [schilling2009bernstein, Theorem 12.6]), we obtain that the generator of (M^\phi,S) (which is obtained by subordinating \widetilde{P} by means of the subordinator S_0) is given, on functions w \in {\sf Dom}(\widetilde{A}), by

where the integral is meant in the sense of Bochner. Now let u \in {\sf Dom}(G) and consider, for any N \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}, a cut-off function of [-N,N], i.e. \eta_N \in C^\infty_c(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}) such that \eta_N(t)=1 for t \in [-N,N], \eta_N(t)=0 for t \in [-N-1,N+1] and \eta_N(t) \in [0,1] for all t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}. Without loss of generality, we can assume that \left\Vert \frac{d}{dt}\eta_N \right\Vert_{L^\infty(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}})} \le C_\eta, where C_\eta is independent of N. We define u_N(x,t)=u(x)\eta_N(t). Let us show that u_N \in {\sf Dom}(\widetilde{A}). Indeed,

Since the pointwise generator coincides with the classical one (see [bottcher2013levy, Theorem 1.33]), then this proves that u_N \in {\sf Dom}(\widetilde{A}) and

By Phillips theorem, we know that u_N \in {\sf Dom}(\widetilde{A}^\phi) and in particular

By Bochner theorem, see [arendt2011vector, Theorem 1.1.4], we have

where \mathcal{J}_\phi(1) = \int_0^1 s \nu_\phi (ds). Using (Proof)

and recalling that \left\Vert \eta_N \right\Vert_{L^\infty(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}})}=1, we have

for some suitable constant C that is independent of N. Now let

observe that L(t) is a stopping time with respect to the natural filtration of (M^\phi(\cdot-),S(\cdot-)) and use Dynkin’s formula [bottcher2013levy, Equation (1.55)] to write

where we also used the fact that S is stochastically continuous. Now fix T>0 and consider t \in \left[0,\frac{3}{2}T\right]. We extend q_N(t,x,s) to t \in \left[-\frac{T}{2},0\right] by setting q_N(t,x,s)={u_N}(x,s). Let h \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} with 0<|h|<\frac{T}{2} and define for any \varphi:\left[-\frac{T}{2},\frac{3}{2}T\right] \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} the quantity

We argue first for h>0. Observe that, by (?), for almost all t \in \left[0,T\right].

If h<0 instead, let us distinguish among two cases. If |h|\le\frac{t}{2} then we have

If, instead, |h| \in \left[\frac{t}{2},t\right), then

Finally, if |h|>t, we get

Hence, we have in general (for any h \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}})

Now, since u \in C_0(E) and \left\Vert \eta_N \right\Vert_{L^\infty(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}})}=1, we can use the dominated convergence theorem to take the limit as N \to \infty and get

We now use a suitable modification of [evans2010partial, Theorem 5.8.3] in the case of L^1 functions. For completeness we give here all the details of the proof. Consider any sequence h_n \to 0, fix x \in {E} and set, for simplicity, g_n(t)=D^{h_n}q(t,x) for t \in [0,T]. Before proceeding, notice that for any T>0 it holds

where the last inequality follows by assumption. Set then g^\phi(t)=u^\phi(t)+u^\phi\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)+\frac{U^\phi(t)}{t} and notice that g^\phi \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+) and g_n(t) \le C(\left\Vert Gu \right\Vert_{C(E)}+\left\Vert u \right\Vert_{C(E)})g^\phi(t) for all t \ge 0. We have then

Furthermore, since g^\phi \in L^1[0,T], we know that for any \varepsilon>0 there exists \delta>0 such that for all measurable A \subset [0,T] such that |A|<\delta it holds

that implies that the sequence \{g_n\}_{n \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}} is uniformly integrable in [0,T]. Hence, by Dunford-Pettis theorem [brezis2011functional, Theorem 4.30] we know that there exists a function q \in L^1(0,T) such that g_n \upharpoonright g. Next, let \varphi \in C^\infty_c(0,T) and observe that

and, in particular,

Taking the limit as n \to +\infty we have

It follows that q(\cdot,x) \in W^{1,1}[0,T], where W^{1,1}[0,T] is the usual Sobolev space, with weak derivative \partial_tq(t,x)=g(t). In particular, we recall that any function W^{1,1}[0,T] admits an absolutely continuous version. Since q(\cdot,x) is continuous, then it is absolutely continuous with a.e. derivative \partial_t q(\cdot,x). Finally, notice that for h>0 we actually have

and taking the limit as h \to 0^+ we get the statement.

Let us fix x \in E and observe that by (5.4) we have

Since P_s is non-expansive, positive preserving and sub-Markov we have for all x \in E

hence, taking the supremum, then integrating and using Fubini,

where the first equality is due to the fact that (\tau,s) \in [0,s] \times [0,t] is equivalent to (\tau,s) \in [0,t] \times [\tau,t]. Furthermore, we have

for all \lambda>0.

Observe that, since H(t) defined in equation (?) is independent of M, we have

where we used the fact that H(t) admits density \bar{\nu}_\phi(t-\tau)u^\phi(\tau) for \tau \in (0,t), see [bertoin1999subordinators, Lemma 1.10]. Let us stress that

hence, a simple application of the dominated convergence theorem shows that q(t,\cdot) \in C(E). Next, we prove that

which in turn implies that q(t,\cdot) \in C_0(E). To do this, fix T>0 and observe that P_tu \in C_0(E) for all t \ge 0 and (P_t)_{t \ge 0} is strongly continuous. Let us extend the semigroup by setting P_t=I for all t \le 0, in such a way that (P_t)_{t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}} is still a strongly continuous family of operators such that P_tu \in C_0(E) for all t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}. Fix \varepsilon>0. For all t \in [0,T] let K(t) be a compact set such that \sup_{x \not \in K(t)}|P_tu(x)|<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}. Since P_{t+h}u uniformly converges towards P_tu as h \to 0, we know that there exists \delta(t)>0 such that for any s \in (t-\delta(t),t+\delta(t))=:I(t) it holds \sup_{x \not \in K(t)}|P_{s}u(x)-P_tu(x)|<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}. As a consequence, in particular, \sup_{x \not \in K(t)}|P_su(x)|<\varepsilon. Now notice that \bigcup_{t \in [0,T]}I(t) \supset [0,T], where the latter is a compact subset of \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}, thus \{I(t)\}_{t \in [0,T]} is an open covering of [0,T]. Hence, we can extract a finite number of such open sets I(t_1),\dots,I(t_N) such that [0,T] \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{N}I(t_i). Let K=\bigcup_{i=1}^{N}K(t_i), which is a compact set since it is a finite union of compact sets. Let s \in [0,T]. Then there exists i=1,\dots,N such that s \in I(t_i) and then

We have shown that, for all s \in [0,T],

Hence, by (?) we get

Since \varepsilon>0 and T>0 are arbitrary, we proved that \lim_{x \to \infty}q(t,x)=0 locally uniformly with respect to t \ge 0. Now we need to prove that q(t,\cdot) \in {\sf Dom}(G) and that (5.6) holds. Define

where \mathds{I} is the identity operator on C_0(E). Setting Q:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ \to C_0(E) as Q(t)=q(t,\cdot) for t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+, we have

Thus,

where we used [arendt2011vector, Proposition 1.1.6] and the fact that G_s and P_\tau commute on {\sf Dom}(G). Now, since u \in {\sf Dom}(G), we have (see definition 2.8)

and in particular \left\Vert G_su \right\Vert_{C(E)} \le \left\Vert Gu \right\Vert_{C(E)}. Furthermore, since P_\tau is contractive, we have

where the right-hand side is integrable in [0,t] and independent of s. Hence, taking the limit as s \to 0 in (Proof), using the dominated convergence theorem for Bochner integrals [arendt2011vector, Theorem 1.1.8] and the fact that P_\tau is continuous, we get

i.e. q(t,\cdot) \in {\sf Dom}(G) for all t \ge 0 and

Finally, again by Bochner theorem, the contractivity of P_\tau and the fact that (\bar{\nu}_\phi,u^\phi) is a Sonine pair, we have

Since q(t,\cdot) \in {\sf Dom}(G) \subset C_0(E), we have

Taking the absolute value, using again the fact that P_\tau is non-expansive, positivity preserving and sub-Markov,

Hence, taking the supremum and then integrating,

and it follows by (?), that \int_0^{+\infty}e^{-\lambda t}\mathcal{J}_\phi(t)\, dt<\infty for all \lambda>0.

Since q(0,\cdot) \in {\sf Dom(G)}, arguing as in the proof of Theorem 5.2, we know that the function q_\star(t,x)=\operatorname{\mathds{E}}^{(x,0)}[q(0,X(t))] satisfies all the assumptions in the statement. As a consequence, also the function q-q_\star satisfies all the assumptions in the statement. Hence, without loss of generality, we can assume that q(0,\cdot) \equiv 0. Integrating (5.9) against e^{-\lambda t} for \lambda>\lambda_\star and using (5.9) we get

Next, notice that

Now observe that

Observing that, for fixed s>0, also t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ \mapsto e^{-\lambda (t-s)}q(t-s,\cdot) \mathds{1}_{(0,t]}(s) \in C_0(E) is measurable, we know by (Proof) and Bochner’s theorem (see [arendt2011vector, Theorem 1.1.4]) that the latter is Bochner-integrable and then, by [arendt2011vector, Proposition 1.1.6] and (Proof), we have

and then (Proof) becomes

Now let \widetilde{P}_s=e^{-\lambda s}P_s and notice that this is still a Feller semigroup with generator G-\lambda I, where I is the identity operator. In particular, by [arendt2011vector, Proposition 1.1.7], \widetilde{q} \in {\sf Dom}(G) \subset {\sf Dom}(G-\lambda I). In particular, this implies that

Taking the norm we get

Integrating the right-hand side against \nu_\phi(ds) we get

Thus, we can rewrite (Proof) in terms of Bochner integrals as

Now consider the Feller semigroup (P_s^\phi)_{s \ge 0} acting on f \in C_0(E) as

and denote by \left(-\phi(-(G-\lambda I)), {\sf Dom}(\phi(-(G-\lambda I)))\right) its generator. By Phillips formula (see [schilling2009bernstein, Theorem blue12.6]) we know that {\sf Dom}(G-\lambda I) \subset {\sf Dom}(\phi(-(G-\lambda I))) and on f \in {\sf Dom}(G-\lambda I) it holds

Since \widetilde{q} \in {\sf Dom}(G-\lambda I), we get by (Proof)

Finally, notice that for all f \in {\sf Dom}(G-\lambda I) it holds

where \phi(\lambda)>0. Hence, by the Hille-Yosida Theorem (see [arendt2011vector, Theorems 3.3.2 and 3.3.4]) we know that 0 belongs to the resolvent set of -\phi(\lambda I-G) and thus the operator is invertible. As a consequence, (Proof) implies

By injectivity of the Laplace transform (see [arendt2011vector, Theorem 1.7.3]), this ends the proof.

The proof is exactly the same of the ones of [meerschaert2014semi, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1], with the only exception that since (B^\phi,{S}) is not a canonical Feller process in our setting, one has to modify the translation operator accordingly. Precisely, in our case we just need to set \theta_t \omega(s)=(\omega_1(s),\omega_2(s+t)) for all t,s \ge 0. Indeed, for s,t \ge 0 and \omega \in \Omega

Z^m is \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}-adapted by definition. To show that Z^m(t) \in L^1(\Omega;\mathds{P}^{(x,v)}) for all t \ge 0, just notice that

where

is the Doleans-Dade exponential of mB. Since B and H are independent, we have

where

Hence

To show the martingale property, fix 0 \le s \le t and consider two Borel sets A_1,A_2 \subset D_-[0,s]. Consider the event

Since B and H are independent and \gamma(t)=t-v-H(t) for all t \ge 0, it holds

where, for all g \in \Lambda_-[0,t], we set

and we notice that

Notice in particular that \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}(mB) is the Doleans-Dade exponential of mB. Since A_1 \subset D_-[0,s], the event \{{ \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace B(g(\cdot)) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,s]} } \in A_1\} belongs to \sigma(B(w), \ w \le g(s)). Furthermore, once we recall that \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}(mB) is a martingale and g(s) \le g(t), we have

However, we have that, still by independence between B and H

Substituting it back into (Proof), we get

Since the events of the form A_\star constitute a \pi-system generating \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}_s, this ends the proof.

By definition X is \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}-adapted. Now we show that for all t \in [0,T] it is true that X(t) \in L^1(\Omega;\widetilde{\mathds{P}}^{(x,v)}). To do this, first notice that

Since H(t) \le H(T) are independent of the Brownian motion B, if we set, for s_1 \le s_2,

we get

However, by Girsanov’s theorem (see [karatzas2014brownian, Theorem 5.1]), we know that \{B(s)+\frac{s}{2}, \ s \in [0,s_2]\} is a Brownian motion under the measure

hence in particular e^{B(s)}=e^{B(s)+\frac{s}{2}-\frac{s}{2}} is the Doleans-Dade exponential of B(s)+\frac{s}{2} and thus a martingale under the same measure. As a consequence, we have that

and then

Now we need to prove the martingale property. To do this, fix s and t such that 0 \le s \le t and let A_1,A_2 \in D_-[0,s] be Borel sets. Define the event

Then we have, for any T>t,

where for any g \in \Lambda_-[0,T] we set

and we notice that

Since A_1 \subset D_-[0,s], the event \{{ \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace B(g(\cdot)) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,s]} } \in A_1\} belongs to \sigma(B(w), \ w \le g(s)). Therefore we use again Girsanov’s theorem and use the martingale property of Brownian (conditionally on the independent H|_{[0,T]}) to get now

In particular, we have that

When we replace the latter equality back into (?), we obtain

Given that events of the form of A_\star are a \pi-system generating \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}_s, this completes the proof.

Consider any function f \in L^\infty(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2) and let 0 \le s \le t. We have, for any T>t,

where we used the fact that H(T)=T-v-\gamma(T) and X_{\rm e}(T)=\log(X(T)) under \operatorname{\mathds{E}}^{(x,v)} and the \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}-Markov property of (X,\gamma) with respect to \mathds{P}^{(x,v)}.

Let (Q_{t})_{t \ge 0} be the transition semigroup under \mathds{P}^{(x,v)} of the time-homogeneous process (X,\gamma), i.e. for all bounded measurable functions f:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} and for all t \ge 0, Q_tf:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} is the bounded measurable function such that for any s \ge 0, x \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ and v \in [0,s]

The independence on (x,v) is justified by observing that the transition semigroup of (X_{\rm e},\gamma) is already independent of (x,v) by [meerschaert2014semi, Theorems 3.2 and 4.1].

Notice that (Proof) holds whenever f:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}} is a measurable function such that

for all t \ge 0 and x,v \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}. Now fix 0 \le s \le t, x,x^\prime \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ and v,v^\prime \le s. Then, as a consequence of Proposition 6.4, for any T>t, we have

To deal with the numerator note that, by Lemma 6.2, we can use the martingale property to get, for any y, w and T>t, that for the Markov semigroup Q_t, t \geq 0, it is true that

Hence, for the numerator in (?), we have

where

Next, let

Given that f is bounded, we can write

Hence (?) can be rewritten as

For the denominator of (?), we have

Hence, (?) can be rewritten as

The right-hand side is independent of the choice of (x,v), therefore we get (6.5). Now, let us select T=t+1, so that h(y,w)=f(y,w)Q_{1}g(t,w), and let us set

Then we see that \widetilde{Q}_{s,t} only depends on t-s and (6.5) holds by virtue of (?).

Fix T>0 and consider a bounded and measurable function f:D_-[0,T] \times \Lambda_-[0,T] \to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}. Then we have

where we set, for any g \in \Lambda_-[0,T],

and we notice that

By Girsanov theorem, however, we know that under the measure

the process t \in [0,g(T)] \mapsto B(t)+\frac{t}{2} is a Brownian motion. Hence, the distribution of { \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace \left(B(g(\cdot))+\frac{g(\cdot)}{2}\right) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,T]} } under the aforementioned measure coincides with the distribution of { \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace B(g(\cdot)) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,T]} } under \mathds{P}^{(x,v)} and then

In particular, we notice that, by independence of B and H,

Substituting this into (Proof) we have

Since f is arbitrary, we have the equality in distribution.

Next, notice that with the same argument as in Proposition 6.4, one can prove that \left(X_{\rm e}+\frac{H}{2},\gamma\right) is a \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}-Markov process under \widetilde{\mathds{P}}^{(x,v)}. Recalling also that (X_{\rm e},\gamma) is \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}-Markov with respect to the measure \operatorname{\mathds{E}}^{(x,v)}, we have that since the distribution of { \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace \left(X_{\rm e}+\frac{H}{2},\gamma\right) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,T]} } under \widetilde{\mathds{P}}^{(x,v)} and { \left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace (X_{\rm e},\gamma) \vphantom{\big|} \right|_{[0,T]} } under \mathds{P}^{(x,v)} coincide for all T>0, then the distribution of the whole trajectories must coincide. Finally, the distribution of (X,\gamma) under \widetilde{\mathds{P}}^{(x,v)} coincides with the one of \left(Xe^{-\frac{H}{2}},\gamma\right) under \mathds{P}^{(x,v)} since both of them are expressed as deterministic functions of \left(X_{\rm e}+\frac{H}{2},\gamma\right) and \left(X_{\rm e},\gamma\right).

We already know by (?) that q_\star(T-t,x,0)=q(t,x). Furthermore, by Proposition 6.19 we know that the function q solves (6.11) and by Proposition 6.28 that it is actually the unique solution. We only need to prove (6.11). To do this, denote by (\mathcal{Q}_t)_{t \ge 0} the transition semigroup of (X_{\rm e}(t),\gamma(t)) and observe that

where

By Proposition 6.29 and [meerschaert2014semi, Theorem 4.1], we have, for w>0

In our case, this becomes

Now, we just have to evaluate the inner term. We have, setting for brevity \widetilde{x}=\log(x)+y+t-w+\tau-v and \widetilde{t}=T-t+w-\tau,

Substituting the latter expression into (Proof) we get (6.11).

For any t > 0, let h \in \left(-\frac{t}{2},1\right) and consider D^hq(t,x)=\frac{q(t+h,x)-q(t,x)}{h}. Then we have, by (?),

By Lagrange theorem, we know that there exists \xi \in [\min\{ts,ts+hs\},\max\{ts,ts+hs\}] such that

where we also used (6.10). Hence

The right-hand side is independent of h and belongs to L^1(0,T) for all T>0, thus we can argue as in Proposition 5.4 and get the result.

Fix x>0, and note that for 0 <s<t,

This proves that \left| q (t-s,\cdot) - q (t,\cdot) \right| \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2). We get, by also employing Items (1) and (5) of Lemma 6.9,

where we also used [ascione2023fractional, Lemma 1.11]. Furthermore, for any \lambda>\frac{3}{8} it holds

By (?) and (6.10) we already know that q \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1) with [q]_1 \le 1. Moreover, by (6.10), we know that we can apply the dominated convergence theorem to take the derivative inside the integral sign in (?) and then using (?), getting (6.15). Furthermore, (6.10) also implies that \partial_x q(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(0) with [\partial_x q(t,\cdot)]_0 \le 1.

To argue with the second derivative, fix a > 0 and notice that for all x \ge a it holds, by (6.10),

since \alpha>\frac{1}{2}. Hence, by dominated convergence, we get (6.15) and finally, multiplying both sides of (6.15) by \frac{x^2}{2}, we also get (6.15). Finally, notice that (6.15) and (6.10) imply that Gq(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) for all t>0 and in particular

By Proposition 6.15 we know that q(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0 hence we can write

Recalling that, still by Proposition 6.15, \partial_x q(t,\cdot), Gq(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0, by Item (3) of Lemma 6.9 we have

In particular, Gq(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) and, by (6.15)

Hence, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9 we get that P_\tau Gq(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) with

Using this into (Proof) we have

Integrating the latter against \nu_\phi, we have

Finally, integrating the latter against e^{-\lambda t} for \lambda>\frac{3}{8} we get

Since \overline{\nu}_\phi(t)=\frac{t^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}, we just use the inequality (6.15) to get

black

In view of the results in Subsection ?, we know by Theorem 3.2 that (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q(t,x) is well-defined for all x,t>0. Moreover, for any x>0 we know by Theorem 3.3 that (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q(\cdot,x) admits Laplace transform for any \lambda>\frac{3}{8}. We divide the proof into two parts. First we check that for all x>0 and \lambda>\frac{3}{8} we have

which is the first equation in (6.11) after taking the Laplace transform in the t variable on both sides. Then we use this to prove that

We begin with (Proof). Consider x>0, \lambda>\frac{3}{8} and denote

Let us first evaluate an alternative formula for \widetilde{q}. Set u_K(x)=(x-K)_+ and notice that, by (?), we get

where, in the first step, we used the convolution Theorem for Laplace transform (e.g., [arendt2011vector, Proposition 1.6.4]) and then we applied Tonelli’s theorem since q_{\rm BS} is non-negative. As a consequence of (3.3), we have that

where in the third equality we used again Tonelli’s theorem to exchange the order of the integrals (since q and p_{\rm GBM} are non-negative) after having made explicit the action of the operator P_s in the second step. Now we can replace \widetilde{q} in the previous identity by making use of (Proof). To do this, we first observe that

and then we have

where we used the fact that P_\tau is a semigroup action and the explicit form of \nu_\alpha(\cdot) given in (6.17). However, if we observe that

and we explicitly write the integral in P_\tau, we get

We want to use Fubini’s theorem to change the order of the integrals. To do this, we notice that (6.10) implies G q_{BS} \ge 0 and then

Since q_{\rm BS}(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0, \partial_x q_{\rm BS} \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0 and Gq_{\rm BS} \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0, we can exchange the operator (G+\lambda) with P_\tau, getting

where we also used the fact that P_\tau q_{\rm BS}(w,x)=P_\tau P_w u_K(x)=P_{\tau+w}u_K(x)=q_{\rm BS}(w+\tau,x). By (6.10) we have

Consider the function r \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \mapsto \sqrt{r}\exp\left(-r\frac{\log^2\left(\frac{x}{K}\right)}{2}\right) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}. It is possible to check that such a function has a maximum at r_\star=\log^{-2}\left(\frac{x}{K}\right) and then

Plugging the latter into (?), adding \lambda q_{\rm BS}(\tau+w,x) and also using (6.10) we get

Plugging this inequality into (?) we obtain

where, in the last step, we used the integral representation of the Gamma function that

We can now safely use Fubini’s theorem in (Proof), obtaining

where in the third equality we used that P_\tau q_{\rm BS} (w,y) = P_\tau P_w u_K(x) = P_{\tau+w}u_K(x) = q_{\rm BS} (\tau+w,x), in the fourth equality we used the change of variables \tau=z-w, in the fifth equality we used again Fubini’s theorem and in the last equality we used the integral representation of the Beta function. Now notice that (6.10), (6.10) and (6.10) guarantee that we can take the Laplace transform in the variable t on both sides of the first equation of (6.9), leading to

This equality can be rearranged to obtain

which, replaced into (?) gives (Proof).

By injectivity of the Laplace transform, we know that for all x>0 there exists a measurable set \mathcal{I}_x \subset \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ such that |\mathcal{I}_x|=0 and for all t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \setminus \mathcal{I}_x one has

We want to prove that \mathcal{I}_x=\varnothing for all x>0. To do this, we first show that q is continuous. Indeed, let t,x>0 and consider a sequence (t_n,x_n) \to (t,x). By (?) and (?) we have

Since x_n \to x, there exist 0<a<b such that x_n \in [a,b] for all n \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}} and then |q_{\rm BS}(t_ns,x_n)| \le e^{\max\{|\log(a)|, |\log(b)|\}}. Hence, we can use the dominated convergence theorem to get

Now we prove that for fixed x>0 the function (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q(\cdot,x) is right-continuous. Indeed, let t_n \downarrow t for some t>0 and observe that

Let us first consider I_n(x). We have

Arguing as in the proof of Corollary 6.14, we have that |q(t-s,\cdot)-q(t_n-s,\cdot)| \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) with t_n-s-(t_n-t)

Hence, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9 we have

Combining this inequality with the fact that q is continuous, for fixed s \in [0,t), we find

Hence, it is sufficient to show that we can use the dominated convergence theorem to take the limit inside the integral sign in I_n(x). To do this, observe that

Again recall that |q(t-s,\cdot)-q(t,\cdot)| \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) with

hence, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9,

Furthermore, notice that

where we used Item (3) of Lemma 6.9 since q(t,\cdot), \partial_x q(t,\cdot) and Gq(t,\cdot) belong to \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0. In particular, recall that, by (6.15), that Gq(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(1/2) and

Hence, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9 we get, since \tau \le s \le t

and then

Analogously,

Combining (?), (?), (?) and (?) with (?) we have

Integrating the latter against s^{-1-\alpha} we get

where we also used [ascione2023fractional, Lemma 1.11]. Hence, we can use the dominated convergence theorem to guarantee that

Next, we move to J_n(x). We have, arguing as before and recalling that this time s \in [t_n,t],

Hence,

Hence, taking the limit as n \to \infty, we get

Combined with the fact that also the remaining terms converge to 0 as n \to \infty, this finally shows that

Now we prove that \mathcal{I}_x = \varnothing for all x>0. Indeed, fix x>0 and assume that \mathcal{I}_x \not = \varnothing. Let t \in \mathcal{I}_x and consider an interval of the form [t,t+\delta] for some \delta>0. Since |\mathcal{I}_x \cap [t,t+\delta]|=0, we know that there exists a sequence t_n \downarrow t such that t_n \not \in \mathcal{I}_x for all n \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}. For such a sequence, we know that

Taking the limit as n \to \infty we get

that is absurd. Hence \mathcal{I}_x=\varnothing and thus we get that

Finally, we notice that q \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_{0,{\rm loc}}(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+) by Proposition 6.15.

Arguing as in Proposition 6.13, let t>0 and h \in \left(-\frac{t}{2},1\right). We have

By Lagrange’s theorem we know that there exists \xi \in [\min\{ts,ts+hs\}, \max\{ts,ts+hs\}] \subseteq \left[\frac{ts}{2},(t+1)s\right] such that

where we used (6.21). Using this bound into (Proof) we get

Arguing as in Proposition 5.4, this implies that q_\beta(\cdot,x) belongs to {\rm AC}(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+) and that its a.e. derivative \partial_t q_\beta(t,x) satisfies (6.22).

Next, observe that

Setting \widetilde{\beta}=\max\left\{\frac{1}{2},\beta\right\}, we have that |q_\beta(t-s,\cdot)-q_\beta(t,\cdot)| \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0(\widetilde{\beta}) with

and then, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9

Thus we have

that also implies (6.22) with \lambda>\widetilde{\beta}(\widetilde{\beta}+1).

The identity (6.23) follows by (?) by a simple application of the dominated convergence theorem, which is justified by (6.21). Furthermore, (6.21) and (6.21) imply respectively (6.23) and (6.23).

Fix x,t>0 and let 0<a<x<b. For y \in [a,b] and \tau \in [0,1], by (6.21), we have

where M=\max\{|\log(a)|, |\log(b)|\}. Notice that the right-hand side is integrable against g_H(\tau,1). Indeed,

Hence, an application of the dominated convergence theorem to (6.23) leads to (6.24). Furthermore, multiplying both sides of (6.24) by \frac{x^2}{2} we get (6.24) and (6.24) follows by (6.24) and (6.21).

Now observe that by Proposition 6.24 we know that q_\beta(t,\cdot), \partial_x q_\beta(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0, while we also proved that G q_\beta(t,\cdot) \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_0. Hence we can write

Furthermore, by (6.24) and Item (5) of Lemma 6.9 we get for \tau \in [0,s] \subseteq [0,t]

Thus, we have

and then

Eventually, the latter inequality implies (6.24) for \lambda>\widetilde{\beta}(\widetilde{\beta}+1).

By (6.23) we have

First notice that q_\beta(0,x)=u_\beta(0,x)=e^{\beta|\log(x)|}. By Propositions 6.22, 6.24 and 6.25 we know that (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q_\beta(t,x) is well-defined for all t,x>0 and for fixed x>0 the function (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q_\beta(\cdot,x) is Laplace transformable for \lambda>\widetilde{\beta}(\widetilde{\beta}+1), where \widetilde{\beta}=\max\left\{\beta,\frac{1}{2}\right\}. Now we show that

for \lambda>\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{1}{4}+\widetilde{\beta}(\widetilde{\beta}+1)\right). This is done exactly as in Proposition 6.19, the only difference being the bound we prove to use Fubini’s theorem in (Proof). Precisely, recall that f_\beta(x)=e^{\beta|\log(x)|} and set

and notice that, by (6.21) and (6.21)

Hence, we have

Concerning I_1, we have, by Item (5) of Lemma 6.9

For I_2, we first need to evaluate P_\tau \overline{u}(w,x). We have

Now let z=\log(y) to achieve

Define

so that

where

and we used Lemma 6.8. Furthermore, we have

where we used B_1>A_1 and \frac{w}{\tau+w} \le 1. Now recall that the function r \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \mapsto \sqrt{r}e^{-\frac{\log^2(x)}{2r}} \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ admits as maximum point r_\star=\log^{-2}(x), so that

Next, we observe that 2\mathcal{H}(\tau,w) is the harmonic mean of \tau and w, hence, we can use the fact that the harmonic mean is smaller than or equal to the arithmetic mean to write

and thus we get

Now we can go back to I_2 to get

Once we have (Proof), we know that for all x>0 there exists \mathcal{I}_x \subset \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ such that |\mathcal{I}_x|=0 and for all t \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ \setminus \mathcal{I}_x we have

Analogously to what we did in Proposition 6.19, we need to prove that \mathcal{I}_x=\varnothing. First, notice that a simple application of the dominated convergence theorem to (?), justified by (6.21), shows that q_\beta is continuous. Furthermore, arguing exactly as in Proposition 6.19, by means of the estimates (?) and (?), one can show that if t_n \downarrow t, then (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q_\beta(t_n,x) \to (\partial_t-G)^\alpha q_\beta(t,x). This shows, with the same argument as in Proposition 6.19, that \mathcal{I}_x=\varnothing for all x>0 and then q_\beta is solution of (6.26).

First of all, let us observe that if x \ge 1 then \log(x) \ge 0 and we have

If instead x \in (0,1], then \log(x) \le 0 and

Hence, in general, we have

Next, by (?), we get

that ends the proof.

Since the equation is linear, it is sufficient to verify that if f \equiv 0 then the solution q_f \equiv 0. Fix T>0 and recall that since q_f \in \operatorname{\mathcal{C}}_{0,{\rm loc}}(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_0^+) then

For simplicity, set C_T=C and \beta_T:=\beta_0. Now, for any A \ge 1 and \beta>\beta_0, consider the function

Notice that w_\beta(0,x;A)>0=q_f(0,x) for all x>0. Next, by Proposition 6.27 we have that, for t \in (0,T],

If x \not \in \left[A^{-1},A\right] then |\log(x)| \ge |\log(A)| and we have

This shows that for all x \not \in \left[A^{-1},A\right] and t \in [0,T]

We want to show that this inequality holds for all x>0. To do this, assume by contradiction that there exists a point (t_\star,x_\star) \in [0,T] \times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+ such that

It must hold x_\star \in [A^{-1},A]. Furthermore, since all the involved functions are continuous, we can assume without loss of generality that

First of all, notice that for all x \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+

Moreover, using (Proof) for x \not \in [A^{-1},A] and the definition of (t_\star,x_\star), if x \in [A^{-1},A], we get

for all t \in [0,T] and x>0. By Proposition 3.5 we must have

However, by Proposition 6.26 we know that, up to a multiplicative constant, w_\beta(\cdot,\cdot;A) solves (6.26), while q_f solves (6.28), hence

which is a contradiction. Thus, we find

With a similar argument one can prove that

and then, since (Proof) holds for all x>0 and t \in [0,T], we have

taking the limit as A \to \infty we get that |q_f(t,x)|=0 for all x>0 and t \in [0,T]. Since T>0 is arbitrary, we end the proof.

First consider two sets B_X \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_X and B_Z \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_Z. Then

Now fix F \in \sigma(X,Y) and define for any B \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_X \otimes \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_Z

and

Notice that on B=B_X \times B_Z for some B_X \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_X and B_Z \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_Z it holds \mu_F(B_X \times B_Z)=\nu_F(B_X \times B_Z). Since the sets of the form B_X \times B_Z constitute a \pi-system generating \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_X \otimes \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_Z, this is enough to guarantee that \mu_F=\nu_F. Furthermore, since F \in \sigma(X,Y) is arbitrary, this leads to

for all B \in \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_X \times \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_Z. Once this has been shown for indicator functions, a standard argument leads to the statement.