It is a longstanding unsolved problem to characterize the optimal feedback controls for general linear quadratic optimal control problem of stochastic evolution equation with random coefficients. A solution to this problem is given in [21] under some assumptions which can be verified for interesting concrete models, such as controlled stochastic wave equations, controlled stochastic Schrödinger equations, etc. More precisely, the authors establish the equivalence between the existence of optimal feedback operator and the solvability of the corresponding operator-valued, backward stochastic Riccati equations. However, their result cannot cover some important stochastic partial differential equations, such as stochastic heat equations, stochastic stokes equations, etc. A key contribution of the current work is to relax the C_0-group assumption of unbounded linear operator A in [21] and using contraction semigroup assumption instead. Therefore, our result can be well applicable in the linear quadratic problem of stochastic parabolic partial differential equations. To this end, we introduce a suitable notion to the aforementioned Riccati equation, and some delicate techniques which are even new in the finite dimensional case.
Assume that {\cal X} and {\cal Y} are separable Hilbert spaces. For any L\in \Upsilon_p({\cal X};{\cal Y}), there exist a sequence \{L_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\subset L_{{\mathbb{F}}}^\infty\big(\Omega;L^p(0,T;{\cal L}({\cal X};{\cal Y}))\big) such that
One can show that L^\infty_{{\mathbb{F}}}\big(\Omega;L^p(0,T;{\cal L}({\cal X};{\cal Y}))\big)\!\subset\! \Upsilon_p({\cal X};{\cal Y}). For any L(\cdot,\cdot)\!\in \Upsilon_p({\cal X};{\cal Y}), one does not need to have L(\cdot,\cdot)\in L^\infty_{{\mathbb{F}}}\big(\Omega;L^p(0,T;{\cal L}({\cal X};{\cal Y}))\big). The reason for introducing such set is the lack of measurability for operator-valued functions and processes appeared in concrete problems. For example, generally speaking, a C_0-semigroup is not measurable with respect to the time variable (e.g.,[Hytonen-et-al-2016, Subsection 1.1.c]). In such case, one has to relax the condition on the measurability of such functions and processes. Nevertheless, as we shall see later, in some sense \Upsilon_p({\cal X}; {\cal Y}) is a nice “replacement" of the space L^\infty_{{\mathbb{F}}}\big(\Omega;L^p(0,T;{\cal L}({\cal X};{\cal Y}))\big) in the study of stochastic LQ problems.
(AS0) is not restrictive in the sense that, as far as we know, all the linear SPDEs satisfies it.
(AS1) is not restrictive in the sense that, many important SPDEs, such as stochastic wave equations, stochastic heat equations and stochastic Schrödinger equations, involved on bounded domains fulfill it..
Note the set H'_\lambda depends on the parameter \lambda. Once a \lambda=\{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^\infty\in \ell^2_+ is given, we get an H_\lambda', namely, H_\lambda' depends on the choice of \lambda. Generally speaking, for two different \lambda,\hat \lambda\in \ell^2_+, the corresponding spaces H_\lambda' and H_{\hat\lambda}' are different.
In Assumption (AS3), we assume the existence of one \lambda\in \ell^2_+ so that (?) holds. Nevertheless, there may exist another \hat \lambda \in \ell^2_+ such that (?) does not hold when \lambda is replaced by \hat \lambda. Fortunately, this will not influence the main results of this paper. In other words, we only need the existence of one \lambda\in \ell^2_+ such that (?) holds to prove our main results.
For an LQ problem of a given SPDE, Assumption (AS3) means that some coefficients in the equation and the cost functional are smooth in some sense (See Section ? for example). This is not very restrictive for many controlled SPDEs.
An operator \Theta(\cdot)\in \Upsilon_2(H;U) is called an optimal feedback operator for Problem (SLQ) if
where \bar x(\cdot)=\bar x(\cdot\,;s,\eta, \Theta(\cdot)\bar x(\cdot)) solves the following equation:
We call \big(P(\cdot),\Lambda(\cdot)\big)\in C_{{\mathbb{F}},w}\big([0,T]; L^{\infty}(\Omega;{\cal S}(H))\big) \times L^2_{{\mathbb{F}},D,w}(0,T;{\cal S}(H)) a transposition solution to (?) if the following conditions hold:
1) K(t,\omega)\big(\equiv R(t,\omega) + D(t,\omega)^*P(t,\omega)D(t,\omega)\big)> 0 and its left inverse K(t,\omega)^{-1} is a densely defined closed operator for a.e. (t,\omega)\in [0,T]\times\Omega;
2) For any t\in [0,T], \xi_1,\xi_2\in L^4_{{\cal F}_t}(\Omega;H), u_1(\cdot), u_2(\cdot)\in L^4_{\mathbb{F}}(\Omega;L^2(t,T;H)) and v_1(\cdot), v_2(\cdot) \in L^4_{\mathbb{F}}(\Omega;L^2(t,T;H_\lambda)), with L\=D^* PC+B^*P+D^*\Lambda, it holds that
where x_1(\cdot) and x_2(\cdot) solve (?) and (?), respectively.
Similar to Assumption (AS3), for an LQ problem of a given SPDE, Assumption (AS4) means that some coefficients in the equation and the cost functional are smooth in some sense (See Section ? for example). This is not very restrictive for many controlled SPDEs.
Let (AS0)– (AS4) hold. Then, Problem (SLQ) admits a unique optimal feedback operator \Theta(\cdot)\in \Upsilon_2(H;U)\cap \Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U) if and only if the Riccati equation (?) admits a unique transposition solution \big(P(\cdot),\Lambda(\cdot)\big)\in C_{{\mathbb{F}},w}\big([0,T]; L^{\infty}(\Omega;{\cal S}(H))\big) \times L^2_{{\mathbb{F}},D,w}(0,T; {\cal S}(H)) such that
In this case, the optimal feedback operator \Theta(\cdot) is given by
Furthermore,
It is more natural to require the optimal feedback operator \Theta(\cdot)\in \Upsilon_2(H;U) other than \Theta(\cdot)\in \Upsilon_2(H;U)\cap \Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U). Nevertheless, we do not know how to prove Theorem 3.1 with such condition now.
Let (AS1)– (AS4) hold and A generates a C_0-semigroup on H. Then, Problem (SLQ) admits a unique optimal feedback operator \Theta(\cdot)\in \widetilde\Upsilon_2(H,U)\cap \widetilde\Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U) if and only if the Riccati equation (?) has a unique transposition solution \big(P(\cdot),\Lambda(\cdot)\big)\in C_{{\mathbb{F}},w}([0,T]; L^{\infty}(\Omega;{\cal S}(H))) \times L^2_{{\mathbb{F}},D,w}(0,T; {\cal S}(H)) such that
In this case, the optimal feedback operator \Theta(\cdot) is given by
Furthermore,
At a first glance, it seems that Theorem 3.2 is more general than Theorem 3.1. However, we believe that Theorem 3.1 is more interesting due to the following reasons: first, as we have explained in Remark 2.2, (AS0) is always fulfilled by controlled SPDEs; second, the space \Upsilon_2(H;U)\cap \Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U) is larger than the space \widetilde\Upsilon_2(H;U)\cap \widetilde\Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U).
We call (P(\cdot),\Lambda(\cdot))\in C_{{\mathbb{F}},w}\big([0,T];L^\infty(\Omega;{\cal L}(H))\big)\times L^2_{{\mathbb{F}}}\big(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{S}}_2(H;H_\lambda'))\big) an H_\lambda-transposition solution to the equation (?) if for any t\in[0,T], \tilde \xi_1,\tilde \xi_2\in L^4_{{\cal F}_t}(\Omega;H), \tilde u_1(\cdot), \tilde u_2(\cdot)\in L^4_{\mathbb{F}}(\Omega;L^2(t,T;H)) and \tilde v_1(\cdot), \tilde v_2(\cdot) \in L^4_{\mathbb{F}}(\Omega;L^2(t,T;H_\lambda)), it holds that
Here \tilde x_1(\cdot) and \tilde x_2(\cdot) solve (?) and (?), respectively.
The equation (?) admits a unique H_\lambda-transposition solution (P(\cdot),\Lambda(\cdot)). Moreover,
[Lu-Zhang-arxiv-2019, Lemma 3.5] If \{S(t)\}_{t\geq 0} is a contraction semigroup on H, then it is also a c semigroup on H_\lambda, and it can be uniquely extended to be a contraction semigroup on H_\lambda'.
For each t\in[0,T], if u_2=v_2=0 in the equation (?), then there exists an operator \Phi(\cdot,t)\in {\cal L}\big(L^{4}_{{\cal F}_t}(\Omega;H), L^{4}_{\mathbb{F}}(\Omega;C([t,T];H))\big) such that the solution to (?) can be represented as \tilde x_2(\cdot) = \Phi(\cdot,t)\tilde \xi_2. Further, for any t\in [0,T), \xi\in L^{4}_{{\cal F}_t}(\Omega;H) and \varepsilon>0, there is a \delta\in (0,T-t) such that for any s\in [t, t+\delta], it holds that
The set
is dense in L^2_{{\mathbb{F}}}(0,T;H).
[Lu-Zhang-book, Lemma 2.5]
Assume that p\in(1,\infty], q=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\frac{p}{p-1}&\hbox{if }\ p\in (1,\infty),\\[2mm] 1&\hbox{if }\ p=\infty,\end{array}\right. f_1\in L^p_{{\mathbb{F}}}(0,T; L^2(\Omega;H)) and f_2\in L^q_{{\mathbb{F}}}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;H)). Then there exists a monotonic sequence \{h_n\}_{n=1}^\infty of positive numbers such that \displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}h_n=0, and
Let L\in {\cal L}(H). Then L\in {\cal L}_2(H;H_\lambda').
Let (AS0)–(AS4) hold and \Theta\in \Upsilon_2(H;U)\cap \Upsilon_2(H_\lambda;\widetilde U), and (\overline P,\overline\Lambda) be the H_\lambda-transposition solution of (?) corresponding to \Theta. Let
Then \Theta is an optimal feedback operator for Problem (SLQ) if and only if
and
Suppose Y(\cdot)\in L^2_{{\mathbb{F}}}(0,T; H) is a given process satisfying that for a.e. t\in [0,T], there is a sequence of decreasing positive numbers \{\varepsilon_n\}_{n=1}^\infty such that
Then we have Y=0, for a.e. (t,\omega)\in[0,T)\times\Omega.
We point out one essential difference from the Markovian study in [Wang-COCV-2020, Theorem 3.3], [Lu-2020-COCV, Lemma 2.8] due to the appearance of random coefficients. To this end, let us take a closer look at (?). In the Markovian setting, the expectation {\mathbb{E}} can be omitted. Then by the separable property of Hilbert space H, U or the Euclidean space, and the classical Lebesgue’s differential theorem, one can obtain the pointwise limit of (?). This method does not work in our setting. To overcome this obstacle, we introduce a proper form of \xi in (?), and suitable Lebesgue’s differential theorem (Lemma 4.8). To the best of our knowledge, these two technologies are even new in the counterpart finite dimensional situation.
[Lu-Zhang-arxiv-2019, Lemma 3.9] The set
is dense in L^2_{{\mathbb{F}}}(0,T;H).
The text on this page is from arXiv:2202.10212v1 by Qi Lü and Tianxiao Wang, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2202/2202.10212.jsonl.