Viscosity Solutions of Fully second-order HJB Equations in the Wasserstein Space

Recalling the function v_0 defined in (?) with \varepsilon=0, we shall prove that u_1\leq v_{0} and v_{0} \leq u_2 on [0,T]\times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d). We prove the cases for subsolution and supersolution separately.

Part 1. Proof of u_1\leq v_{0}: Let u_1 be a bounded viscosity subsolution of the equation (?). To prove u_1\leq v_{0} by contradiction, we assume that there exists (t_0,\widetilde{\mu}_0)\in [0,T] \times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d) such that

Let \xi\in L^2(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P};\mathbb{R}^d) such that \mathcal{L}(\xi)=\widetilde{\mu}_0. For any k\in \mathbb{N}, we let \mu_0^k \in \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d) be the law of \xi\mathds{1}_{\{|\xi|\leq k\}}. We see that \mu_0^k \in \mathcal{P}_q(\mathbb{R}^d) for any q\geq1 and

as k \to \infty. Therefore, as both u_1 and v_{0} are continuous on [0,T] \times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d), we can find a k \in \mathbb{N} large enough such that \mu_0 := \mu_0^k\in \mathcal{P}_q(\mathbb{R}^d) for any q\geq1 and

Step 1A: Construction of the comparison function: Recalling the approximations defined in (?), (?), (?), (?), (?) and (?), (?), (?), (?), (?), we define \widecheck{u}_1(t,x):=e^{t-t_0}u_1(t,x) and similarly for \widecheck{\overline{v}}_{\varepsilon,n,m}, \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}, \widecheck{f}^i_{n,m}, \widecheck{f} from \overline{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}, v_{\varepsilon,n,m}, f^i_{n,m}, f respectively. We also define \widecheck{g}:=e^{T-t_0}g and \widecheck{g}^i_{n,m}:=e^{T-t_0}g^i_{n,m}. By direct computation, we see that \widecheck{u}_1 is a viscosity subsolution of the equation

in the sense of Definition 2.5. By Theorem ?, ?, ?, we obtain that \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m} solves the following equation in the classical sense:

where we write \displaystyle\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.25ex}{\scalebox{0.75}{}}}}_{k=1}^n\mu(dx^k):=\mu(dx^1)\otimes\ldots\otimes\mu(dx^n) and \overline{a}=(a^1,\ldots,a^n) for each a^i \in A with i=1,2,\ldots,n.

Let l_0:=(u_1-v_{0})(t_0, \mu_0)>0. Referring to (?) for the definition of M_{2}(\mu_0), we choose a sufficiently small \delta>0, depending on M_{2}(\mu_0) and l_0 only, such that u_1(t_0,\mu_0)- v_0(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\mu_0)\geq l_0/2 and thus u_1(t_0,\mu_0)- v_{\varepsilon, n,m}(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\mu_0)\geq l_0/3, for small enough \varepsilon>0 and large enough n, m\in \mathbb{N} depending on l_0, by Lemmas 3.1 and ?, ?, ?. Thus, it holds that

for small enough \varepsilon>0 and large enough n, m\in \mathbb{N} depending on l_0. Define the set

which is non-empty as u_1(t_0,\mu_0)- v_{\varepsilon, n,m}(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\mu_0)\geq l_0/3. It is obvious that

Since \widecheck{u}_1 and \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m} are bounded independent of \varepsilon,n,m by Theorem ?, ?, ?, it yields that for any \mu \in U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m},

where \ell_2 is the constant given in Theorem ?, ?, ?. Then we see that

The set U^2_\delta is compact in \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1) due to Lemma 2.1. Note that \widecheck{u}_1(t,\mu) is \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1)-continuous by our definition of viscosity solution, \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon, n,m}(t,\mu) is \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1)-continuous by Lemma 4.1, and -\delta M_2(\mu) is \mathcal{W}_1-upper semicontinuous from Remark 2.1, therefore \widecheck{u}_1-\widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}-\delta M_2 is upper semicontinuous in \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1). It implies that the set U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} is a closed subset of U^2_\delta under \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1). Therefore, U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} is compact in \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1). The same arguments imply that U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} is compact in \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1) as well. Let \{(t_k,\mu_k)\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence in U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} such that

By the compactness of U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} and the upper semicontinuity of \widecheck{u}_1-\widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}-\delta M_2, there exists (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}) \in [0,T] \times U^2_{\delta,\varepsilon, n,m} such that (t_k,\mu_k)\to(\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}) in \big([0,T],|\cdot|\big) \times (\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^d),\mathcal{W}_1). From (?), we conclude that

and the maximum is attained at (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}). We note that this maximum point depends on \delta,\varepsilon, n,m.

Step 1B. Proof of \widetilde{t}<T: In this step, we aim to prove that \widetilde{t}<T. Suppose, on the contrary, that \widetilde{t}=T. The definition of the point (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu})=(T,\widetilde{\mu}) implies that u_1(t_0,\mu_0) - v_{\varepsilon,n,m}(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\mu_0)\leq \widecheck{u}_1(T,\widetilde{\mu}) - \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}(T,\widetilde{\mu})-\delta M_{2}(\widetilde{\mu})\leq \widecheck{u}_1(T,\widetilde{\mu}) - \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}(T,\widetilde{\mu}). Thus, for \widehat{\mu}^{n,\overline{x}}:=\dfrac{1}{n}\displaystyle\sum^n_{j=1} \delta_{x^j}, we can use the terminal conditions in equations (?) and (?), (?), (?) to obtain that

Using the Lipschitz property of g in Assumption A and (2) of Lemma ?, ?, we further have

From [FG15, Theorem 1], there is a constant C_d>0 depending on d only and a sequence \{h_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \subset \mathbb{R} such that

The sequence \{h_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} and the number q_0 are given by

where h_n satisfies \lim_{n\to \infty}h_n=0. Inequalities (?) and (?) further imply

Hence, from (?) and (?), (?), we have,

Passing m \to \infty and then n \to \infty subsequently, we use the fact that h_n \to 0 to yield that

Finally, using Lemmas 3.1 and ?, ?, ?, we pass \varepsilon \to 0^+ then \delta\to 0^+ to conclude that u_1(t_0,\mu_0)-v_0(t_0,\mu_0)\leq 0, which contradicts (?), (?) and thus \widetilde{t}<T.

Step 1C. Estimate of u_1-v_{\varepsilon,n,m}: We assume the maximum value of \widecheck{u}_1(t,\mu)- \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon, n,m}(t,\mu)-\delta M_{2}(\mu) attained at (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}) over [0,T]\times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d) is M^* \in \mathbb{R}. As \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon, n,m}(t,\mu)+\delta M_{2}(\mu) \in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d)), we use the fact that \widecheck{u}_1 is the viscosity subsolution of (?) to see that

Therefore, as \widecheck{u}_1(\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}) - \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}(\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu})-\delta M_2(\widetilde{\mu})\leq M^* and \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m} solves (?), (?), (?), we further have

We divide the estimate into three parts: the part involving M_2, the part involving \widecheck{\overline{v}}_{\varepsilon,n,m} and the term (\widecheck{u}_1-\widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m})(\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}). First, by direct computation, we obtain \partial_\mu M_2(\mu)(x) = 2x, \partial_\mu^2 M_2(\mu)(x,y) = 0 and \nabla_x\partial_\mu M_2(\mu)(x) = 2I_d. Assumption A and (?), (?) tell us that

for some fixed constant C_K depending only on K. Second, we recall the representation of \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}(t,\mu) =e^{t-t_0}v_{\varepsilon,n,m}(t,\mu) from (?), (?), (?), (?), (?), as well as (1) and (2) of Theorem ?, ?, ?. Using inequalities (?), (?), (?) and (?), (?), (?), we can directly compute that

and use (2) in Theorem ?, ?, ? to yield that

Hence, we estimate the term

Third, as \widecheck{u}_1- \widecheck{v}_{\varepsilon,n,m}-\delta M_2 attains its maximum over the space [0,T] \times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d) at (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\mu}), it holds that

After substituting (?), (?) and (?), (?), (?) into (?), (?), (?), we make use of (?), (?), (?) and (?), (?), (?) to deduce that

We use Assumption A and (2) of Lemma ?, ? to estimate the following term:

Putting (?) and (?), (?) into (?), we see that

Using Lemmas ? and ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, we first take \varepsilon \to 0^+ and then m \to \infty to obtain that

By (?), (?), (?), Lemmas 3.1 and ?, ?, ?, we take n \to \infty and then \delta \to 0^+ to obtain that

which contradicts (?), (?).

Part 2. Proof of u_2\geq v_{0}: Following the arguments of the first part of Step II of the proof of [cosso_master_2022, Theorem 5.1], we can assume without loss of generality that u_2(s,\cdot) is \mathcal{W}_1-Lipschitz continuous for every s\in [0,T]; and showing u_2 \geq v_0 is equivalent to showing

for every (t, \mu) \in [0, T] \times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d), s \in (t, T], \xi \in L^2(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_t, \mathbb{P}; \mathbb{R}^d) with \mathcal{L}(\xi) = \mu, and \mathfrak{a} \in \mathcal{M}_t, where \mathcal{M}_t denotes the set of \mathcal{F}_t^t-measurable random variables \alpha: \Omega \to A and \nu:=\mathcal{L}(\xi,\mathfrak{a}). Suppose, for contradiction, that (?) does not hold. Then, there exist t_0 \in [0, T), s_0 \in (t_0, T], \mu_0 \in \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d) and \nu_0 \in \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d \times A), with \mu_0 being the marginal of \nu_0 on \mathbb{R}^d, such that

Following the approach outlined at the beginning of Part 1 of this proof, we assume that there exists q > 2 such that \nu_0 \in \mathcal{P}_q(\mathbb{R}^d\times A). The function \widecheck{u}_2(t, \mu) := e^{t-t_0} u_2(t, \mu) is a viscosity supersolution of the following equation:

where \widecheck{f}(t,x,\mu,a):=e^{t-t_0}f(t,x,\mu,a) and \widecheck{g}(x,\mu):=e^{T-t_0}g(x,\mu). That is, for any s_1\in (0,T] and \varphi \in C^{1,2}([0,s_1]\times\mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d\times A)) such that \widecheck{u}_2-\varphi attains a minimum with a value of 0 at (t^*,\nu^*) \in [0,s_1)\times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d\times A), then the following inequality holds:

where \mu^* is the marginal of \nu^* on \mathbb{R}^d, and the operators \partial_\mu, \partial_\mu^2 are defined as in Definition 2.5, through the projection.

We regularize the coefficients with respect to the control variable. Let \Psi:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}^+ be a compactly supported smooth function satisfying \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\Psi(y)dy=1. We extend b and f to the space [0, T] \times \mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d)\times \mathbb{R}^d by setting b(t,x,\mu,a)=0 and f(t,x,\mu,a)=0 when a\in\mathbb{R}^d is not in A. For simplicity, we continue to denote these extensions by b and f. We further define the functions \widetilde{b}^{\hspace{.7pt}i}_{n,m} and \widetilde{f}^{\hspace{.7pt}i}_{n,m} by

for any n, m \in \mathbb{N}, i = 1,2, \ldots, n, \overline{x} = (x^1,x^2, \ldots, x^n) \in \mathbb{R}^{dn} and (t, a) \in [0, T] \times A. Here b_{n,m}^i and f_{n,m}^i are as defined in (?) and (?). Recalling the compactly supported smooth function \Phi defined in Section ?, we also define

We now introduce

for any t \in [0,s_0] and \nu \in \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d \times A), where \overline{\xi}=(\xi^1,\xi^2,\ldots,\xi^n) \in L^2(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_t, \mathbb{P}; \mathbb{R}^{dn}), \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0=(\mathfrak{a}_0^1,\mathfrak{a}_0^2,\ldots,\mathfrak{a}_0^n) \in (\mathcal{M}_t)^n such that \mathcal{L}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)=\nu \otimes \cdots \otimes \nu and \overline{\widetilde{X}}^{m,t,\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0}_s=\Big(\overline{\widetilde{X}}^{1,m,t,\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0}_s,\ldots,\overline{\widetilde{X}}^{n,m,t,\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0}_s\Big) is the solution to (?) on [t,s_0] with \overline{\alpha}=\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0, \varepsilon=0 and b replaced by \widetilde{b}^{\hspace{.7pt}i}_{n,m}. For every n, m \in \mathbb{N}, (t, \nu) \in [0, s_0] \times \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d\times A), we define \widecheck{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}:=e^{t-t_0} v_{n,m}^{s_0} and also similarly define \widecheck{\widetilde{f}^{\hspace{.7pt}i}}_{n,m} and \widecheck{u}_{n,m} from \widetilde{f}_{n,m}^i and u_{n,m}, respectively. Let

for any \overline{x}=\left(x^1, \ldots, x^n\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{dn} and \overline{a}=\left(a^1, \ldots, a^n\right) \in A^n, where

for any t\in[0,s_0] and \overline{\nu} \in \mathcal{P}_2\left(\mathbb{R}^{dn} \times A^n\right), where \overline{\xi} and \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0 satisfy \mathcal{L}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)=\overline{\nu}. Moreover, by [cosso_master_2022, Theorem A.8], we deduce that \widecheck{v}_{n,m}^{s_0} can be represented by

and it could be shown by following the proofs of Lemma ?, Theorem ?, ?, ? and [cosso_master_2022, Theorem A.8] that

1. \overline{v}_{n, m}^{s_0} \in C^{1,2}\left(\left[0, s_0\right] \times (\mathbb{R}^{dn} \times A^n) \right) and v_{n, m}^{s_0} \in C^{1,2}\left(\left[0, s_0\right] \times \mathcal{P}_2\left(\mathbb{R}^d \times A\right)\right);

2. for any i=1, \ldots, n and (t,\overline{x},\overline{a}) \in\left[0, s_0\right] \times\mathbb{R}^{dn} \times A^n, it holds that

   \left|\nabla_{x^i} \overline{v}_{n, m}^{s_0}(t,\overline{x},\overline{a})\right| \leq \frac{C_K}{n},

   where the constant C_K \geq 0 depends on d, K, T, but independent of n, m;

3. if t \in [0,s_0] and \nu \in \mathcal{P}_q\left(\mathbb{R}^d \times A\right) for some q>2, then

   \begin{aligned} \lim _{n \rightarrow+\infty} \lim _{m \rightarrow+\infty} v_{n, m}^{s_0}(t, \nu)=v^{s_0}(t, \nu); \end{aligned}

4. the function v_{n,m}^{s_0}(t,\nu) solves the following equation classically:

   \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\partial_t u(t, \nu) + \overline{\mathbb{E}} \Bigg[ \sum_{i=1}^n \bigg\{ \frac{1}{n} \widetilde{f}^{\hspace{.7pt}i}_{n,m}(t, \overline{\xi}, \mathfrak{a}_0^i) + \Big\langle\widetilde{b}_{n,m}^i (t, \overline{\xi}, \mathfrak{a}_0^i), \nabla_{x^i} \overline{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}(t, \overline{\xi}, \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)\Big\rangle \\ &\hspace{90pt} + \frac{1}{2} \text{tr} \left(\left[ (\sigma \sigma^\top) (t, \xi^i, \mathfrak{a}_0^i)+(\sigma^0\sigma^{0;\top})(t,\xi^i)\right] \nabla_{x^ix^i}^2 \overline{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}(t, \overline{\xi}, \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)\right) \bigg\}\\ &\hspace{60pt}+\dfrac{1}{2} \sum^n_{i,j=1,i\neq j}\textup{tr}\Big[\sigma^0(t,\xi^i)\sigma^{0;\top}(t,\xi^j)\nabla_{x^ix^j}^2 \overline{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}(t, \overline{\xi}, \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)\Big]\Bigg] =0; \\ &u(s_0, \nu) = \overline{\mathbb{E}} [u_{n,m}(s_0, \overline{\xi})], \end{aligned} \right.

   for any t \in [0,s_0) and \nu \in \mathcal{P}_2(\mathbb{R}^d \times A), where \overline{\xi}=(\xi^1,\xi^2,\ldots,\xi^n) \in L^2(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_t, \mathbb{P}; \mathbb{R}^{dn}), \overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0=(\mathfrak{a}_0^1,\mathfrak{a}_0^2,\ldots,\mathfrak{a}_0^n) \in (\mathcal{M}_t)^n such that \mathcal{L}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\mathfrak{a}}_0)=\nu \otimes \ldots \otimes \nu.

We now return to the hypothesis (?), with \mu_0 and \nu_0 mentioned therein. Let l_0:=v^{s_0}(t_0,\nu_0)-u_2(t_0,\mu_0)>0. For small enough \delta>0 depending on M_{2}(\nu_0) and l_0 only, we have v^{s_0}(t_0,\nu_0)-u_2(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\nu_0)\geq l_0/2 and thus v^{s_0}_{n,m}(t_0,\nu_0)-u_2(t_0,\mu_0)-\delta M_{2}(\nu_0)\geq l_0/3, where v^{s_0}_{n,m} is defined in (?), (?), and this holds for large enough n, m\in \mathbb{N} depending on \delta, M_{2}(\nu_0) and l_0 only, by (?), (?). Thus, it holds that

where \mu is the marginal of \nu on \mathbb{R}^d, for large enough n, m\in \mathbb{N} depending on \delta, M_{2}(\nu_0) and l_0 only. By the compactness of

and the upper semicontinuity of \widecheck{v}^{s_0}_{n,m}-\widecheck{u}_2-\delta M_{2}, we argue as in Part 1A to deduce that there exists (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\nu}) \in [0,T] \times \widetilde{U}^2_{\delta, n,m} such that the maximum of \widecheck{v}^{s_0}_{n,m}-\widecheck{u}_2-\delta M_{2} is attained at (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\nu}). We note that this maximum point depends on \delta, n,m. If \widetilde{t} = s_0=T, then we proceed as in Step 1B to get a contradiction. If \widetilde{t} = s_0<T, then

as m \to \infty then n\to \infty, by using the definition of \widecheck{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}:=e^{t-t_0} v_{n,m}^{s_0} and that of v_{n,m}^{s_0} in (?), (?). If \widetilde{t}<s_0, we apply Definition 2.5 of supersolution and put \varphi=\widecheck{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}-\delta M_2-M_* in (?), with M_* \in \mathbb{R} such that \widecheck{v}_{n,m}^{s_0}-\widecheck{u}_2 -\delta M_2-M_* attains the maximum with a value of 0 at (\widetilde{t},\widetilde{\nu}). Then we proceed as in Step 1C and utilize items (1)-(4) in the above to draw a contradiction and conclude the proof.

The bounds of f^i_{n,m} and g^i_{n,m} in assertion (1) are obvious by the definitions in (?)-(?) and Assumption A. For the bound of b^i_{n,m} in assertion (1), we have

We prove assertion (2) for g by considering

Using the Lipschitz continuity of g in Assumption A and the fact that

we obtain that

We prove assertion (2) for b by considering (the proof for f is exactly the same)

The inequality in (?) and Assumption A imply that

For the proof of assertion (3) for g (the proofs for f and b are exactly the same), we let \overline{x}, \overline{z} \in \mathbb{R}^{dn} and estimate

Then the inequality in (?) yields that

Finally, assertion (4) follows immediately from assertion (2).