Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

2BSDE with uncertain horizon and application to stochastic control in erratic environments

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a second-order backward stochastic differential equation with an exogenous random default time has a unique solution, built explicitly from a fixed-horizon auxiliary equation.

desk verdict A genuinely new erratic-horizon 2BSDE theory, but the paper's main non-vacuity example for its key P0-density hypothesis is flawed, leaving the hypothesis narrower than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15037 v2 pith:AI23YXGZ submitted 2025-06-18 math.PR math.OC

Alberto Gennaro , Thibaut Mastrolia This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.OC MSC 60H1060H3093E2035K55
keywords second-orderBSDEerratichorizonenlargementoffiltrationnon-dominatedprobabilitymeasuresvolatilityuncertaintystochasticcontrolcomparisonprinciplefullynonlinearPDE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces and solves a class of second-order backward stochastic differential equations (2BSDEs) in which the terminal time is an exogenous random default time, possibly invisible to the Brownian filtration. The central result is existence, uniqueness, and comparison for such equations, provided a single conditional density kernel for the default time is shared by every probability measure in the non-dominated family. The solution takes an explicit before/after-default form: before default it follows a fixed-horizon auxiliary 2BSDE, and after default it freezes at a pre-specified post-default payoff. In the Markovian case the same solution is represented through a fully nonlinear PDE, with the random horizon absorbed into a piecewise diffusion-expectation representation. The framework is applied to erratic stochastic control, covering both an agent who controls drift and volatility and an agent facing worst-case volatility chosen by an adversarial Nature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $P_0$-density hypothesis: a single $F$-adapted kernel $\gamma(t,u)$ must represent the conditional survival probability $P(\tau > x \mid F_t) = \int_x^\infty \gamma(t,u)\,du$ simultaneously under every probability measure in the non-dominated family $P_0$. This makes the intensity $\lambda_t = \gamma(t,t)/P(\tau>t\mid F_t)$ and the jump-size process $U$ well-defined across all $P$, so the random-horizon 2BSDE can be reduced to a Brownian-driven auxiliary 2BSDE on the fixed interval $[0,T]$; the jump is then reintroduced through the before/after-default decomposition of the terminal data.

What would settle it

Find a non-dominated family $P_0$ and an exogenous default time $\tau$ such that under two measures the conditional survival probabilities $P(\tau > x\mid F_t)$ are different and no single kernel $\gamma$ represents both simultaneously. Then the intensity is measure-dependent, the jump-size process $U$ cannot be aggregated, and Theorem 1 has no object to attach to, showing that the binding restriction is the hypothesis rather than the equation itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under a Lipschitz driver and a $P_0$-density hypothesis, the 2BSDE with erratic horizon (4) has a unique solution in the sense of Definition 2.9, and that solution has the explicit before/after-default form $Y_t = Y^b_t \mathbf{1}_{t<\tau} + \xi^a_\tau \mathbf{1}_{t\ge\tau}$, $Z_t = Z^b_t \mathbf{1}_{t<\tau}$, $U_t = (\xi^a_t - Y^b_t)\mathbf{1}_{t<\tau}$, where $(Y^b,Z^b,K^b)$ is the unique solution of the fixed-horizon auxiliary 2BSDE (6). The same construction yields a comparison principle: if terminal payoffs are ordered and post-default payoffs coincide, the corresponding solutions are ordered. In the Markovian case the solution is $Y_t = v(t,X_t)\mathbf{1}_{t<\tau} + g(\tau,X_\tau)\mathbf{1}_{t\ge\tau}$, with $v$ solving a fully nonlinear PDE that does not itself contain the random horizon; the default time enters only through the piecewise representation and the boundary value.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the $P_0$-density hypothesis: one conditional density kernel for the default time must be valid simultaneously under every probability measure in $P_0$; if the kernel depends on the measure, the intensity and jump process cannot be aggregated and the reduction to the auxiliary 2BSDE collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any Lipschitz erratic-horizon 2BSDE satisfying the $P_0$-density hypothesis can be solved by solving a fixed-horizon auxiliary 2BSDE on $[0,T]$ and freezing the value at the post-default payoff after $\tau$.
  • The comparison principle turns the solution into an ordering-preserving nonlinear expectation under the non-dominated family, so monotone inputs yield monotone values.
  • In the Markovian setting the random horizon drops out of the PDE itself: the value function solves a fully nonlinear PDE independent of $\tau$, with the default time entering only through the piecewise representation and the boundary term $g(\tau,X_\tau)$.
  • Both erratic control problems, full volatility control and adversarial Nature ambiguity, have their value functions represented by the initial value of the corresponding 2BSDE, and optimality is characterized by pointwise attainment of the Hamiltonian together with $K_{T\wedge\tau}=0$ under the optimal measure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test this, but if the $P_0$-density hypothesis holds, numerical methods developed for fixed-horizon 2BSDEs transfer directly to erratic-horizon problems: solve the auxiliary equation, then freeze at the sampled default time.
  • The structure suggests that uncertainty about timing and uncertainty about volatility separate cleanly, one entering through the boundary piece and the other through the PDE Hamiltonian, so in applications the default kernel and the volatility ambiguity could be estimated separately.
  • Beyond the paper, the $P_0$-density hypothesis could be relaxed by allowing measure-dependent intensities if one is willing to keep a family of jump-size processes indexed by probability; the aggregation of $U$ across $P_0$ is the real novelty of the construction, not the jump itself.
  • A testable implication for finance or cyber-risk settings is that if sudden exits are modeled with one shared conditional density across models, robust optimal strategies are determined by the fixed-horizon solution up to default; comparing this against a model with measure-dependent default intensity would quantify the cost of the hypothesis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a second-order BSDE with an exogenous random horizon T∧τ, where τ is a random time enlarging the Brownian filtration. Under a P0-density hypothesis that a single conditional density kernel for τ works simultaneously for every measure in a non-dominated family P0, it states existence and uniqueness of a solution (Theorem 1 and Corollary 3.7), a comparison theorem (Theorem 2), and a piecewise Feynman-Kac connection to a fully nonlinear PDE in the Markovian case (Theorem 3). It then applies these results to erratic stochastic control problems with controlled volatility and with adversarial volatility (Theorems 4 and 5), and includes an appendix on CARA utility. The main strategy is to reduce the random-horizon 2BSDE to a fixed-horizon auxiliary 2BSDE and to give the explicit decomposition Y_t=Y^b_t 1_{t<τ}+ξ^a_τ 1_{t≥τ}, Z_t=Z^b_t 1_{t<τ}, U_t=(ξ^a_t-Y^b_t)1_{t<τ}.

Significance. If the auxiliary results from the cited preprint [62] are valid, the paper proposes a genuine extension of 2BSDE theory to exogenous random horizons, and the explicit decomposition (7) is a clean and potentially useful structural result. The aggregation of the jump-size process U across a non-dominated family, highlighted in Remark 3.10, is also a noteworthy contribution. However, the central existence engine is imported from an unreviewed preprint, one of the two advertised examples of the key hypothesis is incorrect, a main proof is omitted, and there are sign inconsistencies in the central verification. The theoretical framework is original but the manuscript, in its present form, is not sufficiently self-contained or rigorous for publication.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, Theorem 1, Step 2] The displayed verification of the primal equation (4) on the events {τ>T} and {τ∈(t,T]} uses the wrong sign for the driver integral. Subtracting equation (6) at time τ from equation (6) at time t gives Y^b_t = Y^b_τ − ∫_t^τ F^{P,b}_s(...)ds − (∫_t^τ Z^b_s·dX^{c,P}_s)^P − (M^{b,P}_τ − M^{b,P}_t) + (K^{b,P}_τ − K^{b,P}_t), but the proof writes a plus sign before the F-integral. The subsequent replacement of Y^b_τ by ξ^a_τ and the intermediate term −(ξ^a_τ−Y_τ) do not follow from the displayed equalities. Because (4) also carries a minus sign before F, the computation as written does not establish that (7) solves (4). This is a load-bearing point in the proof of Theorem 1 and must be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.1] Lemma 3.1 is the central existence result for the auxiliary 2BSDE (6), upon which Theorem 1 rests, but its proof consists of verifying a few conditions and then citing the unreviewed preprint [62, Theorem 3.6 and Corollary 3.7]. The verification of the hypotheses of the cited theorem is not complete: the text says that Assumption 1 directly gives [62, Assumption 2.20 (ii)] and defines r^2_t:=C(1+λ_t)^2 for (iv), but does not check the remaining structural conditions such as the concatenation and universal measurability properties required by [62]. Please give a full proof of the auxiliary existence result, or state the cited theorem completely and verify every hypothesis, or ensure that [62] is available in published form before this result is used.
  3. [Section 2.2, Example (1)] The Girsanov example under Hypothesis 2.5 is invalid. The equality P^α(τ≥x|F_t)=E^0[Z^α_T/Z^α_t 1_{τ≥x}|F_t] is correct, but the next equality E^0[Z^α_T/Z^α_t 1_{τ≥x}|F_t]=P^0(τ≥x|F_t) does not follow from the stated assumption that Z^α_T/Z^α_t is independent of F_t. One would need conditional independence of the density ratio from τ given F_t, which is a much stronger requirement. If τ is a nontrivial functional of the Brownian path, the F_t-conditional law of τ changes under the Girsanov change of measure and the P0-density Hypothesis fails. Thus the paper's claim that the hypothesis admits 'two structurally different families' is not supported by the displayed example; the independent-τ example (2) is the only one rigorously established.
  4. [Section 3.1, Theorem 1, Step 4] The minimality condition in Definition 2.9(2) is only verified on the event A^+={τ>T}: the final displayed equality in Step 4 is stated for ω∈A^+. On the event {τ∈(t,T]}, which has positive probability in general, one has K^{P'}_{T∧τ}−K^{P'}_{t∧τ}=K^{b,P'}_τ−K^{b,P'}_t, and the argument given does not apply. Since the minimality condition is required P-a.s. for every deterministic t, this leaves a gap in the existence proof. Please supply an argument showing that the minimality of K^b passes to the stopped differences, for example through optional stopping or through an explicit use of the conditional density of τ given F_t.
  5. [Section 4.3, Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 is explicitly omitted ('We omit the proof regarding the optimizers...'), yet this is one of the two main applications of the paper. The value-function identity V0(ξ)=sup_α sup_{(P,β)∈N^α} E^P[Y_0] and the characterization of optimal controls are not derived in the text. The references to the proof of Theorem 5 and to [19, Proposition 5.4] are not a substitute, since the erratic-horizon setting changes the admissible set and the form of the 2BSDE. Please provide a complete proof or state Theorem 4 as a corollary with all missing steps supplied.
  6. [Section 4, equations (16)-(17)] There is an unannounced sign change between the theory of Section 3 and the control applications. The existence theory of Section 3 is developed for equations of the form (4), where the driver appears with a minus sign and an orthogonal martingale term dM^P is present. The control 2BSDEs (16)-(17), in contrast, are written with a plus sign before the driver, without the M term. As written, Theorem 1 and Corollary 3.7 do not apply verbatim to (16)-(17). The paper should explicitly state the transformation F↦−F (and the reduction M=0) that brings (16)-(17) into the form (4), or prove the existence result directly for the sign convention used in the control section.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The first abstract states that the driver is 'Lipschitz continuous', while the full-text abstract says 'Lipschitz continuous in y,z and stochastic Lipschitz in the jump u'. Please harmonize the two statements.
  2. [Section 2.2, Example (1)] The reference measure P^0 and the family P0 share a similar notation, which makes statements such as 'P0 is composed by all the probability P^α' confusing. Please use a distinct notation for the reference measure.
  3. [Section 3.1, Remark 3.2] The brief reference to [62, Section 3.1] for universal measurability is terse. Since the aggregation of U in Remark 3.10 depends on measurability, one or two sentences explaining the measurability argument would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3.2, Lemma 3.5] In part (i) of the proof, the existence statement 'follows the same lines as the proof of Theorem 1 above' is vague. For a fixed P this is standard in the BSDE-with-jumps literature, but a precise citation or a short outline of the existence argument would be helpful.
  5. [Appendix A, Proposition A.3, Step 3] The assertion that 'Doob's maximal inequality together with (27) gives ∥Z^n_t∥<n0 P⊗dt-a.e.' is not justified: an L^2 bound on the integral of ∥Z^n∥^2 does not imply a pointwise a.e. bound. The truncation argument in Step 3 therefore needs to be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; minor self-citations appear but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The central existence result (Theorem 1) is not circular: the auxiliary 2BSDE (6) is independently well-posed via Lemma 3.1, which invokes the external general 2BSDE machinery of [62], and the candidate (7) is then verified path-by-path against the primal equation (4). The relation U_t = (xi^a_t - Y^b_t)1_{t<tau} is the standard single-jump decomposition inherited from [41, Theorem 4.1] and [35, Proposition 4.4]; it is the jump size forced by the ansatz, not a fitted input, and it does not presuppose the conclusion it is used to prove. Uniqueness (Corollary 3.7) comes from classical linearization and the dynamic programming principle, while the control theorems (4)-(6) are standard verification results connecting an already-solved 2BSDE to a value function. The paper does contain self-citations ([34], [27], [50], among others), but they are not load-bearing: the decomposition is elementary and also cited to non-overlapping works, and the use of [27] for Isaacs-condition examples is illustrative rather than foundational. The P0-Density Hypothesis 2.5 is an assumption, not a derived prediction, and its role is to make aggregation possible rather than to smuggle in the conclusion. I also flag that the Girsanov example (Example 1) is mathematically suspect as evidence of non-vacuity, since independence of Z^alpha_T/Z^alpha_t from F_t alone does not justify the displayed equality; however, that is a correctness or non-vacuity concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the new P0-density hypothesis, the standing Lipschitz/integrability assumptions inherited from the 2BSDE literature, and the regularity of the family P(t,ω). The paper introduces no new physical or probabilistic entities beyond the 'erratic horizon' terminology; the invented-entity ledger is empty. The free-parameter ledger is empty because the paper is purely theoretical and no data are fitted.

assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper P0-density Hypothesis: a single kernel γ(t,u) represents the F_t-conditional law of τ under every P ∈ P0 simultaneously
    Introduced as Hypothesis 2.5. This is the load-bearing premise that permits aggregation of λ and U across the non-dominated family P0; it is strictly stronger than Jacod's classical density hypothesis and its examples are restrictive.
  • domain assumption The family P(t,ω) satisfies conditions (iii)-(v) in Possamaï-Tan-Zhou [64, Assumption 1.1] (analyticity, stability under conditioning and concatenation)
    Invoked at the start of Section 2.1 as the standing framework for 2BSDE; required for the whole construction, including the dynamic programming principle.
  • domain assumption Existence of p̂>1 such that ess sup_{ρ∈T(G)} E^P[∫_ρ^T |λ_s|^{p̂} ds | G_ρ] < ∞, giving P(τ∈[0,T])<1
    Assumed after Eq. (2); used to guarantee integrability of the jump term and to force τ to have support outside [0,T].
  • domain assumption Lipschitz driver: |f(s,y,z,u,·)-f(s,y',z',u',·)| ≤ C(|y-y'| + ||σ^{1/2}(z-z')|| + λ|u-u'|) plus integrability of f(·,0,0,0)
    Assumption 1; this is the standing regularity hypothesis under which existence, uniqueness and comparison are proved.
  • standard math Immersion/H-hypothesis: under the density hypothesis, (P,F)-martingales remain (P,G)-martingales
    Used throughout (e.g., Theorem 1 Step 4, Section 2.2) and follows from classical enlargement-of-filtration theory [11,23,36].
  • domain assumption Isaacs condition: inf_b sup_a f = sup_a inf_b f for the ambiguity Hamiltonian
    Assumption 3, Section 4.4; required for the sup-inf control problem to have a saddle point and to identify V0 with the 2BSDE solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2BSDE with uncertain horizon and application to stochastic control in erratic environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AI23YXGZ

@misc{pith2026250615037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2BSDE with uncertain horizon and application to stochastic control in erratic environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AI23YXGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15037}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the existence and uniqueness of non-Markovian second-order backward stochastic differential equations with an uncertain terminal horizon and establish comparison principles under the assumption that the driver is Lipschitz continuous. The terminal time is both random and exogenous, and it may not be adapted to the Brownian filtration, leading to a singular jump in the 2BSDE decomposition. We also provide a connection between this new class of 2BSDE and a fully nonlinear PDE in a Markovian setting. Our theoretical results are applied to non-Markovian stochastic control problems in two settings: (1) when an agent seeks to maximize utility from a payoff received at an uncertain terminal time by controlling both the drift and volatility of a diffusion process; and (2) when the agent contends with volatility uncertainty stemming from an external source, referred to as Nature, and optimizes the drift in a worst-case scenario for the ambiguous volatility. We term this class of problems erratic stochastic control, reflecting the dual uncertainty in both model parameters and the timing of the terminal horizon.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mind the jumps: when 2BSDEs meet semi-martingales

    math.PR 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Semi-martingale second-order BSDEs with jumps are proved well-posed over a unified class of diffusions, pure-jump processes, and discrete-time processes, while the jump-measure integrands resist model-independent aggregation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [62]

    Mind the jumps: when 2BSDEs meet semi-martingales

    Dylan Possama¨ ı, Marco Rodrigues, and Alexandros Saplaouras. Mind the jumps: when 2BSDEs meet semi-martingales.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01767, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Arbitrage of the first kind and fil- tration enlargements in semimartingale financial models.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 126(6):1761–1784, 2016

    Beatrice Acciaio, Claudio Fontana, and Constantinos Kardaras. Arbitrage of the first kind and fil- tration enlargements in semimartingale financial models.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 126(6):1761–1784, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Enlargement of filtration with finance in view

    Anna Aksamit and Monique Jeanblanc. Enlargement of filtration with finance in view. 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Projections, pseudo-stopping times and the immersion property

    Anna Aksamit and Libo Li. Projections, pseudo-stopping times and the immersion property. In S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es XLVIII, pages 459–467. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Uncertainty and risk in the cryp- tocurrency market.Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(11):532, 2022

    Dora Almeida, Andreia Dion´ ısio, Isabel Vieira, and Paulo Ferreira. Uncertainty and risk in the cryp- tocurrency market.Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(11):532, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Epstein-Zin utility maximization on a random horizon.Mathematical Finance, 33(4):1370–1411, 2023

    Joshua Aurand and Yu-Jui Huang. Epstein-Zin utility maximization on a random horizon.Mathematical Finance, 33(4):1370–1411, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Backward stochastic differential equations with locally Lipschitz coefficient.Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences-Series I-Mathematics, 333(5):481–486, 2001

    Khaled Bahlali. Backward stochastic differential equations with locally Lipschitz coefficient.Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences-Series I-Mathematics, 333(5):481–486, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Adaptive robust control under model uncertainty.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(2):925–946, 2019

    Tomasz R Bielecki, Tao Chen, Igor Cialenco, Areski Cousin, and Monique Jeanblanc. Adaptive robust control under model uncertainty.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(2):925–946, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Tomasz R Bielecki and Marek Rutkowski.Credit risk: modeling, valuation and hedging. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    Conjugate convex functions in optimal stochastic control.Journal of mathematical analysis and applications, 44(2):384–404, 1973

    Jean-Michel Bismut. Conjugate convex functions in optimal stochastic control.Journal of mathematical analysis and applications, 44(2):384–404, 1973

    1973

  3. [10]

    A stochastic control approach to a robust utility maximization problem

    Giuliana Bordigoni, Anis Matoussi, and Martin Schweizer. A stochastic control approach to a robust utility maximization problem. InStochastic Analysis and Applications: The Abel Symposium 2005, pages 125–151. Springer, 2007

    2005

  4. [11]

    Changes of filtrations and of probability measures.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 45(4):269–295, 1978

    Pierre Br´ emaud and Marc Yor. Changes of filtrations and of probability measures.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 45(4):269–295, 1978

    1978

  5. [12]

    BSDEs with stochastic Lipschitz condition and quadratic PDEs in Hilbert spaces.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 118(5):818–838, 2008

    Philippe Briand and Fulvia Confortola. BSDEs with stochastic Lipschitz condition and quadratic PDEs in Hilbert spaces.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 118(5):818–838, 2008

    2008

  6. [13]

    Quadratic BSDEs with convex generators and unbounded terminal conditions.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 141:543–567, 2008

    Philippe Briand and Ying Hu. Quadratic BSDEs with convex generators and unbounded terminal conditions.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 141:543–567, 2008

    2008

  7. [14]

    Anatomy of a stablecoin’s failure: The terra-luna case.Finance Research Letters, 51:103358, 2023

    Antonio Briola, David Vidal-Tom´ as, Yuanrong Wang, and Tomaso Aste. Anatomy of a stablecoin’s failure: The terra-luna case.Finance Research Letters, 51:103358, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    BSDEs with jumps and associated integro-partial differential equations.preprint, 79, 1994

    Rainer Buckdahn and Etienne Pardoux. BSDEs with jumps and associated integro-partial differential equations.preprint, 79, 1994

    1994

  9. [16]

    BSDEs under partial information and finan- cial applications.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 124(8):2628–2653, 2014

    Claudia Ceci, Alessandra Cretarola, and Francesco Russo. BSDEs under partial information and finan- cial applications.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 124(8):2628–2653, 2014

    2014

  10. [17]

    Hamid Cheraghali, Peter Moln´ ar, Mattis Storsveen, and Florent Veliqi. The impact of cryptocurrency- related cyberattacks on return, volatility, and trading volume of cryptocurrencies and traditional finan- cial assets.International Review of Financial Analysis, 95:103439, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Patrick Cheridito, H Mete Soner, Nizar Touzi, and Nicolas Victoir. Second-order backward stochas- tic differential equations and fully nonlinear parabolic pdes.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Journal Issued by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, 6...

    2007

  12. [19]

    Dynamic programming approach to principal–agent problems.Finance and Stochastics, 22:1–37, 2018

    Jakˇ sa Cvitani´ c, Dylan Possama¨ ı, and Nizar Touzi. Dynamic programming approach to principal–agent problems.Finance and Stochastics, 22:1–37, 2018. 26

    2018

  13. [20]

    Second order BSDEs with jumps by measurable selection argument

    Laurent Denis, Anis Matoussi, and Chao Zhou. Second order BSDEs with jumps by measurable selection argument. 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Paolo Di Tella. On the weak representation property in progressively enlarged filtrations with an application in exponential utility maximization.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 130(2):760– 784, 2020

    2020

  15. [22]

    A general result of existence and uniqueness of backward stochastic differential equations.Pitman research notes in mathematics series, pages 27–38, 1997

    Nicole El Karoui and Shaojuan Huang. A general result of existence and uniqueness of backward stochastic differential equations.Pitman research notes in mathematics series, pages 27–38, 1997

    1997

  16. [23]

    What happens after a default: the conditional density approach.Stochastic processes and their applications, 120(7):1011–1032, 2010

    Nicole El Karoui, Monique Jeanblanc, and Ying Jiao. What happens after a default: the conditional density approach.Stochastic processes and their applications, 120(7):1011–1032, 2010

    2010

  17. [24]

    Backward stochastic differential equations in finance.Mathematical finance, 7(1):1–71, 1997

    Nicole El Karoui, Shige Peng, and Marie Claire Quenez. Backward stochastic differential equations in finance.Mathematical finance, 7(1):1–71, 1997

    1997

  18. [25]

    Predicting cryptocurrency defaults.Applied Economics, 52(46):5060–5076, 2020

    Klaus Grobys and Niranjan Sapkota. Predicting cryptocurrency defaults.Applied Economics, 52(46):5060–5076, 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Intensity process and compensator: A new filtration expansion approach and the jeulin–yor theorem.The Annals of Applied Probability, 18(1), 2008

    Xin Guo and Yan Zeng. Intensity process and compensator: A new filtration expansion approach and the jeulin–yor theorem.The Annals of Applied Probability, 18(1), 2008

    2008

  20. [27]

    Contract theory in a vuca world.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(4):3072–3100, 2019

    Nicolas Hernandez-Santibanez and Thibaut Mastrolia. Contract theory in a vuca world.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 57(4):3072–3100, 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    Utility maximization in incomplete markets

    Ying Hu, Peter Imkeller, and Matthias M¨ uller. Utility maximization in incomplete markets. 2005

    2005

  22. [29]

    A kind of optimal investment problem under inflation and uncertain time horizon.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 375:125084, 2020

    Zongyuan Huang, Haiyang Wang, and Zhen Wu. A kind of optimal investment problem under inflation and uncertain time horizon.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 375:125084, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Wellposedness of second order reflected BSDEs: A new formulation.ESAIM: Probability and Statistics, 28:1–21, 2024

    O Hun, Mun-Chol Kim, and Kon-Gun Kim. Wellposedness of second order reflected BSDEs: A new formulation.ESAIM: Probability and Statistics, 28:1–21, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Courier Corporation, 1999

    Rufus Isaacs.Differential games: a mathematical theory with applications to warfare and pursuit, control and optimization. Courier Corporation, 1999

    1999

  25. [32]

    Grossissement initial, hypoth` ese (h ′) et th´ eor` eme de girsanov

    Jean Jacod. Grossissement initial, hypoth` ese (h ′) et th´ eor` eme de girsanov. InGrossissements de filtrations: exemples et applications: S´ eminaire de Calcul Stochastique 1982/83 Universit´ e Paris VI, pages 15–35. Springer, 2006

    1982

  26. [33]

    Progressive enlargement of filtrations with initial times.Stochas- tic Processes and their Applications, 119(8):2523–2543, 2009

    Monique Jeanblanc and Yann Le Cam. Progressive enlargement of filtrations with initial times.Stochas- tic Processes and their Applications, 119(8):2523–2543, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Utility maximization with random horizon: a BSDE approach.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 18(07):1550045, 2015

    Monique Jeanblanc, Thibaut Mastrolia, Dylan Possama¨ ı, and Anthony R´ eveillac. Utility maximization with random horizon: a BSDE approach.International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 18(07):1550045, 2015

    2015

  28. [35]

    A note on BSDEs with singular driver coefficients

    Monique Jeanblanc and Anthony R´ eveillac. A note on BSDEs with singular driver coefficients. In Arbitrage, credit and informational risks, pages 207–224. World Scientific, 2014

    2014

  29. [36]

    Springer, 2006

    Thierry Jeulin and Marc Yor.Grossissements de filtrations: exemples et applications: S´ eminaire de Calcul Stochastique 1982/83 Universit´ e Paris VI, volume 1118. Springer, 2006

    1982

  30. [37]

    Information uncertainty related to marked random times and optimal investment.Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk, 3:1–24, 2018

    Ying Jiao and Idris Kharroubi. Information uncertainty related to marked random times and optimal investment.Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk, 3:1–24, 2018

    2018

  31. [38]

    Enlargement of filtration and additional information in pricing models: Bayesian approach

    Yuri Kabanov, Robert Liptser, Jordan Stoyanov, Dario Gasbarra, Esko Valkeila, and Lioudmila Vostrikova. Enlargement of filtration and additional information in pricing models: Bayesian approach. From Stochastic Calculus to Mathematical Finance: The Shiryaev Festschrift, pages ...

    2006

  32. [39]

    On pathwise stochastic integration.Stochastic Processes and their applications, 57(1):11–18, 1995

    Rajeeva L Karandikar. On pathwise stochastic integration.Stochastic Processes and their applications, 57(1):11–18, 1995

    1995

  33. [40]

    Second-order BSDEs with jumps: formulation and uniqueness

    Nabil Kazi-Tani, Dylan Possama¨ ı, and Chao Zhou. Second-order BSDEs with jumps: formulation and uniqueness. 2015. 27

    2015

  34. [41]

    Mean-variance hedging on uncertain time horizon in a market with a jump.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 68:413–444, 2013

    Idris Kharroubi, Thomas Lim, and Armand Ngoupeyou. Mean-variance hedging on uncertain time horizon in a market with a jump.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 68:413–444, 2013

    2013

  35. [42]

    Representation of solutions to quadratic 2BSDEs with unbounded terminal values.Statistics & Probability Letters, 213:110191, 2024

    Kon-Gun Kim, Mun-Chol Kim, and Ho-Jin Hwang. Representation of solutions to quadratic 2BSDEs with unbounded terminal values.Statistics & Probability Letters, 213:110191, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    Thomas Kruse and Alexandre Popier. Minimal supersolutions for BSDEs with singular terminal con- dition and application to optimal position targeting.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 126(9):2554–2592, 2016

    2016

  37. [44]

    A new existence result for second-order BSDEs with quadratic growth and their applications

    Yiqing Lin. A new existence result for second-order BSDEs with quadratic growth and their applications. Stochastics, 88(1):128–146, 2016

    2016

  38. [45]

    Second order backward SDE with random terminal time.Electron

    Yiqing Lin, Zhenjie Ren, Nizar Touzi, and Junjian Yang. Second order backward SDE with random terminal time.Electron. J. Probab., 25:1–43, 2020

    2020

  39. [46]

    Random horizon principal-agent problems

    Yiqing Lin, Zhenjie Ren, Nizar Touzi, and Junjian Yang. Random horizon principal-agent problems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(1):355–384, 2022

    2022

  40. [47]

    Representation theorems for backward stochastic differential equations

    Jin Ma and Jianfeng Zhang. Representation theorems for backward stochastic differential equations. The annals of applied probability, 12(4):1390–1418, 2002

    2002

  41. [48]

    Density analysis of non-Markovian BSDEs and applications to biology and finance

    Thibaut Mastrolia. Density analysis of non-Markovian BSDEs and applications to biology and finance. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 128(3):897–938, 2018

    2018

  42. [49]

    Moral hazard under ambiguity.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 179:452–500, 2018

    Thibaut Mastrolia and Dylan Possama¨ ı. Moral hazard under ambiguity.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 179:452–500, 2018

    2018

  43. [50]

    Agency problems and adversarial bilevel optimization under uncertainty and cyber threats.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08989, 2025

    Thibaut Mastrolia and William Yan. Agency problems and adversarial bilevel optimization under uncertainty and cyber threats.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08989, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Second-order BSDEs with general reflection and game options under uncertainty.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 124(7):2281–2321, 2014

    Anis Matoussi, Lambert Piozin, and Dylan Possama¨ ı. Second-order BSDEs with general reflection and game options under uncertainty.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 124(7):2281–2321, 2014

    2014

  45. [52]

    Robust utility maximization in nondominated models with 2bsde: the uncertain volatility model.Mathematical Finance, 25(2):258–287, 2015

    Anis Matoussi, Dylan Possama¨ ı, and Chao Zhou. Robust utility maximization in nondominated models with 2bsde: the uncertain volatility model.Mathematical Finance, 25(2):258–287, 2015

    2015

  46. [53]

    Zaineb Mezdoud, Carsten Hartmann, Mohamed Riad Remita, and Omar Kebiri.α-Hypergeometric uncertain volatility models and their connection to 2BSDEs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06965, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Quadratic BSDEs driven by a continuous martingale and applications to the utility maximization problem.Finance and Stochastics, 13:121–150, 2009

    Marie-Am´ elie Morlais. Quadratic BSDEs driven by a continuous martingale and applications to the utility maximization problem.Finance and Stochastics, 13:121–150, 2009

    2009

  48. [55]

    Robust superhedging with jumps and diffusion.Stochastic Processes and their Applica- tions, 125(12):4543–4555, 2015

    Marcel Nutz. Robust superhedging with jumps and diffusion.Stochastic Processes and their Applica- tions, 125(12):4543–4555, 2015

    2015

  49. [56]

    Superhedging and dynamic risk measures under volatility uncertainty

    Marcel Nutz and H Mete Soner. Superhedging and dynamic risk measures under volatility uncertainty. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 50(4):2065–2089, 2012

    2012

  50. [57]

    Constructing sublinear expectations on path space.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(8):3100–3121, 2013

    Marcel Nutz and Ramon van Handel. Constructing sublinear expectations on path space.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(8):3100–3121, 2013

    2013

  51. [58]

    Maximum principles for optimal control of forward-backward stochas- tic differential equations with jumps.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(5):2945–2976, 2010

    Bernt Øksendal and Agnes Sulem. Maximum principles for optimal control of forward-backward stochas- tic differential equations with jumps.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(5):2945–2976, 2010

    2010

  52. [59]

    Existence and uniqueness results for BSDE with jumps: the whole nine yards.Electron

    Antonis Papapantoleon, Dylan Possama¨ ı, and Alexandros Saplaouras. Existence and uniqueness results for BSDE with jumps: the whole nine yards.Electron. J. Probab., 23:1–68, 2018

    2018

  53. [60]

    Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation

    Etienne Pardoux and Shige Peng. Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation. Systems & control letters, 14(1):55–61, 1990

    1990

  54. [61]

    Second-order BSDE under monotonicity condition and liquidation problem under uncertainty.Ann

    Alexandre Popier and Chao Zhou. Second-order BSDE under monotonicity condition and liquidation problem under uncertainty.Ann. Appl. Probab., 29(3):1685–1739, 2019. 28

    2019

  55. [63]

    Weak approximation of second-order BSDEs.Ann

    Dylan Possama¨ ı and Xiaolu Tan. Weak approximation of second-order BSDEs.Ann. Appl. Probab., 25(5):2535–2562, 2015

    2015

  56. [64]

    Stochastic control for a class of nonlinear kernels and applications.The Annals of Probability, 46(1):551–603, 2018

    Dylan Possama¨ ı, Xiaolu Tan, and Chao Zhou. Stochastic control for a class of nonlinear kernels and applications.The Annals of Probability, 46(1):551–603, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Zero-sum path-dependent stochastic differential games in weak formulation.The Annals of Applied Probability, 30(3):1415–1457, 2020

    Dylan Possama¨ ı, Nizar Touzi, and Jianfeng Zhang. Zero-sum path-dependent stochastic differential games in weak formulation.The Annals of Applied Probability, 30(3):1415–1457, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    BSDEs with jumps, optimization and applications to dynamic risk measures.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(8):3328–3357, 2013

    Marie-Claire Quenez and Agn` es Sulem. BSDEs with jumps, optimization and applications to dynamic risk measures.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(8):3328–3357, 2013

    2013

  59. [67]

    On solutions of backward stochastic differential equations with jumps and applications

    Situ Rong. On solutions of backward stochastic differential equations with jumps and applications. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 66(2):209–236, 1997

    1997

  60. [68]

    Pricing via utility maximization and entropy.Mathematical Finance, 10(2):259–276, 2000

    Richard Rouge and Nicole El Karoui. Pricing via utility maximization and entropy.Mathematical Finance, 10(2):259–276, 2000

    2000

  61. [69]

    Wellposedness of second order backward SDEs

    H Mete Soner, Nizar Touzi, and Jianfeng Zhang. Wellposedness of second order backward SDEs. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 153(1):149–190, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    Stroock and S

    Daniel W. Stroock and S. R. S. Varadhan.Multidimensional Diffusion Processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, reprint of the 1979 edition edition, 2006

    1979

  63. [71]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    Nizar Touzi.Optimal stochastic control, stochastic target problems, and backward SDE, volume 29. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    Backward stochastic differential equations.Stochastic Controls: Hamiltonian Systems and HJB Equations, pages 345–400, 1999

    Jiongmin Yong and Xun Yu Zhou. Backward stochastic differential equations.Stochastic Controls: Hamiltonian Systems and HJB Equations, pages 345–400, 1999

    1999

  65. [73]

    Stochastic calculus under weak formulation.Backward Stochastic Differential Equa- tions: From Linear to Fully Nonlinear Theory, pages 205–244, 2017

    Jianfeng Zhang. Stochastic calculus under weak formulation.Backward Stochastic Differential Equa- tions: From Linear to Fully Nonlinear Theory, pages 205–244, 2017. 29 A Quadratic 2BSDE for CARA utility maximization under am- biguity and erratic horizon We propose an extension...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.