Strong solutions of mean-field FBSDEs and their applications to multi-population mean-field games

Abstract

We study the existence of strong solutions for mean-field forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDEs) with measurable coefficients and their implication on the Nash equilibrium of a multi-population mean-field game. More specifically, we allow the coefficients to be discontinuous in the forward process and non-Lipschitz continuous concerning their time-sectional distribution. Using the Pontryagin stochastic maximum principle and the martingale approach, we apply our existence result to a multi-population mean-field game (MPMFG) model where the interacting agents in the system are grouped into multiple populations. Each population shares the same objective function, and we take changes in population sizes into consideration.

Keywords: mean-field FBSDEs; multi-population mean-field game; strong solutions; irregular coefficients; Girsanov transformation
AMS subject classification: 60H30

1 Introduction

In our framework, we provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a strong solution for the following mean-field forward backward equations (FBSDEs):

$$dX^{i}_{t}=b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t}$$ (1.1)

$$dY^{i}_{t}=-f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}$$

$$X^{i}_{0}=x^{i};\ Y^{i}_{T}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{T})).$$

Here $\{W^{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\cdots,H\}}$ are independent multidimensional Brownian motions and $\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})=\left(\mathcal{L}(X^{i}_{t})\right)_{i\in\{1,\cdots,H\}}$ stands for marginals of $X^{i}_{t}$. By decoupling (1.1) using the Girsanov transform, we prove the strong existence of a solution when i) the coefficients are discontinuous with respect to the state variable and ii) $b$ is not necessarily uniformly bounded. The result was applied to a multi-population mean-field game (MPMFG). FBSDE (1.1) is a probabilistic representation of the non-linear MPMFG model. We are interested in the evolution of large groups of interacting agents who are trying to realize a specific goal from an individual point of view. However, when the number of agents is large, it is usually very hard to keep track of all the agent-to-agent interactions and study the global behavior. Therefore, instead of focusing on the impacts of each single agent’s behavior, we can replace the influences of all the other players on a given agent (representative) by their average influences. Such an idea is named the mean-field approach borrowed from statistical physics. The goal of the theory is to derive effective equations for the optimal behavior of any single player when the size of the population grows to infinity. Compared to the single population mean-field game models, where the agents are assumed to share a common characteristic, in an MPMFG model, the social networks can be divided into several populations such that each population shares a common characteristic. An environment that contains several populations is common in practice. For instance, in the study of Lee et al., (2022), the MPMFG framework was applied to analyze population relocation and vaccine distribution during the COVID pandemic. Casgrain and Jaimungal, (2020) utilized MPMFGs to examine the trading actions of agents with different beliefs. Aurell and Djehiche, (2018) investigated mean-field control problems involving multiple populations to model crowd motion. In a series of works Banez et al., (2020) and Gao et al., (2021), they explored MPMFGs derived from some specific models, focusing on the role of different beliefs. Huang et al., (2006) introduced stochastic dynamic games in large populations where multi-class agents are coupled via their dynamics and costs. Furthermore, Wang et al., (2020) took the idea of FBSDEs and applied it to study how to keep a system stable and balanced in a broader context of mean-field control problems. They looked at situations where different parts of a system affect each other’s behavior and costs. In a related study, Li et al., (2023) used a similar approach, mean-field linear FBSDEs, to investigate a specific type of game where shared random factors influence the players’ decisions. Moreover, they obtained a unique classical solution over an arbitrary time horizon for FBSDE without any monotonicity conditions. While the majority of previous literature assumes the coefficients in (1.1) to be continuous, (mean-field) FBSDE with discontinuous coefficients are also studied. For instance, Carmona et al., (2012) studied a model about pricing carbon emission allowances where the terminal condition is not continuous. In Carmona et al., (2013), the model was extended to a mean-field framework. Also Carmona and Lacker, (2015) studied discontinuous mean-field game under weak formulation. Recently, strong solutions of FBSDEs with discontinuous coefficients are studied in Luo et al., (2022) and Nam and Xu, (2022). This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the definitions and notations. In Section 3, we present the main result, Theorem 3.12, in the context of mean-field FBSDE. In Corollary 3.15 and Corollary 3.17, we provide uniqueness results, and later we offer a counterexample where the uniqueness does not hold. In Section 4, we formulate our mathematical model of MPMFG and apply the Pontryagin Stochastic Maximum Principle. Using the martingale approach, we prove an MPMFG has a closed loop Nash equilibrium.

2 Notations and definitions

We denote by $\mathcal{P}(E)$ the set of probability measures on $(E,\mathcal{E})$, and $\mathcal{C}([0,T];\mathcal{P}(E))$ the space of continuous functions from $[0,T]$ to $\mathcal{P}(E)$. In particular, we denote by $\mathcal{P}_{1}(E)$ the set of probability measures with a finite first-order moment, and $\mathcal{P}^{n}_{1}(E)$ the product space as

$$\mathcal{P}^{n}_{1}(E):=\underbrace{\mathcal{P}_{1}(E)\times\cdots\mathcal{P}_{1}(E)}_{\text{n times}}.$$

We use the notation $d$ for the distance of the metric space $E$. For $\mu$ and $\nu$ in $\mathcal{P}_{1}(E)$, the Wasserstein distance is defined by the formula

$$W_{1}(\mu,\nu) =\inf\left\{\int d(x,y)\pi(dx,dy);\pi\in\mathcal{P}(E\times E)\ \text{with marginals $\mu$ and $\nu$}\right\}$$

$$=\sup_{h\in Lip_{1}}\left\{\left|\int hd\mu-\int hd\nu\right|\right\}$$

where $Lip_{1}$ stands for the space of all real-valued functions that are $1$-Lipschitz continuous with respect to $d$. Note the second equation is also known as the definition of Kantorovich-Rubinstein norm, which coincides with the $1$-Wasserstein distance $W_{1}$; for more details, we refer Proposition $5.3$ and Corollary $5.4$ in Carmona and Delarue, (2018). For $m$ and $m^{\prime}$ in $\mathcal{P}^{n}_{1}(E)$, we define the distance

$$\mathcal{K}(m,m^{\prime})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}W_{1}(m_{i},m^{\prime}_{i}).$$

Throughout the paper, we consider a vector as a column matrix and, for a matrix $A$, we let $A^{\intercal}$ be the transpose of $A$ and $|A|:=\sqrt{\operatorname{Tr}(AA^{\intercal})}$ be the Euclidean norm. For a terminal time $T>0$, we define

$$\left\|X\right\|_{\mathbb{H}^{2}(k,l)} :=\max_{i\in\{1,\cdots,k\}}\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{0}^{T}|X^{i}_{s}|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\mathbb{H}^{2}(k,l) :=\left\{X:\left(X^{1},\cdots,X^{k}\right):X^{i}\text{ is $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable $\mathbb{R}^{l}$-valued processes and }\left\|X\right\|_{\mathbb{H}^{2}(k,l)}<\infty\right\}.$$

When the values for $k$ and $l$ are obvious, we use $\mathbb{H}^{2}$ to simplify the notation. We denote $\mathcal{L}(\xi)$ the distribution of a random variable $\xi$. For $X\in\mathbb{H}^{2}(H,m)$, we let $\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})$ be the marginals $\left(\mathcal{L}(X_{t}^{i})\right)_{i\in\{1,\cdots,H\}}$. The Doléans-Dade exponential of a local martingale $M$ is denoted by $\mathcal{E}(M)$. Notice that we will repeatedly use the notation $C$ for arbitrary constants, which may differ from line to line, and sometimes we will add a subscript to it, e.g., $C_{a}$, to emphasize the dependency on the coefficient $a$. Let $H$ be a natural number and $\mathcal{O}$ be the set $\{1,\cdots,H\}$. For each $i\in\mathcal{O}$, we consider measurable functions

$$h^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$b^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$f^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$$

$$\sigma^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$$

$$g^{i}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}.$$

We are interested in the following coupled mean-field FBSDE

$$\begin{split}&dX^{i}_{t}=\left(h^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})+b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t}\\ &dY^{i}_{t}=-f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}\\ &X^{i}_{0}=x^{i};\ Y^{i}_{T}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{T})),\end{split}$$ (2.1)

where, for each $i$, $x^{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, and $W^{i}$ is an independent $d$-dimensional Brownian motion. In addition, we assume $\left\{W^{i}:i=1,2,...,H\right\}$ to be independent Brownian motions.

3 Existence and uniqueness results of mean-field FBSDE

In this section, we assume the following conditions on the coefficients of (2.1).

Assumption 3.1.

There are nonnegative constants $C,r$, and a nondecreasing function $\rho_{r}:\mathbb{R}_{+}\to\mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\rho_{r}\equiv 0$ for $r>0$ which satisfy the following conditions:

• For all $i\in\mathcal{O}$ and $(t,x,y,z,m)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, we have

  $$|b^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)| \leq C(1+\rho_{r}(|y|))$$

  $$|g^{i}(x,m)| \leq C(1+|x|^{r})$$

  $$|f^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)| \leq C(1+|x|^{r}+|y|+|z|).$$

• There exists a constant $\varepsilon>0$ such that

  $$\varepsilon^{-1}|x^{\prime}|^{2}\leq(x^{\prime})^{\intercal}(\sigma\sigma^{\intercal})(t,x)x^{\prime}\leq\varepsilon|x^{\prime}|^{2}\\$$

  hold for all $t\in[0,T],x,x^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$.

• The functions $b(t,x,y,z,m)$ is continuous in $(y,z,m)$ for each $(t,x)$.

• Either of the following conditions hold:

  • $\sigma(t,x)$ is locally Lipschitz with respect to $x$ for each $t$ and $|h^{i}(t,x)|\leq C$ for all $(t,x)$.

  • $\sigma$ is a constant matrix and $|h^{i}(t,x)|\leq C(1+|x|)$ for all $x$.

• The function $g(x,m)$ is continuous in $m$ for all $x$.

• The function $f(t,x,y,z,m)$ is continuous in $(y,z,m)$ and either of the following conditions hold globally in $(t,x)$:

  • $f(t,x,y,z,m)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $(y,z)$.

  • $n=1$ and $f(t,x,y,z,m)$ is uniformly continuous with respect to $(y,z)$.

To find a the solution for (2.1), we will use a topological fixed point theorem on the mapping $\mu\mapsto(\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))_{t\in[0,T]}$ where $X$ is the solution of (2.1) with $\mathcal{L}(X_{t})$ is swapped to $\mu_{t}$. The first step is to find the unique solution $X$ for a given $\mu$.

Lemma 3.2.

For any given $\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$, the following FBSDE

$$dX^{i,\mu}_{t} =\left(h^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})+b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})dW^{i}_{t}$$ (3.1)

$$dY^{i,\mu}_{t} =-f^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})dt+Z^{i,\mu}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}$$

$$X_{0}^{i,\mu} =x^{i};\ Y^{i,\mu}_{T}=g^{i}(X^{i,\mu}_{T},\mu_{T}).$$

has a unique strong solution $(X,Y,Z)\in\mathbb{H}^{2}\times\mathbb{H}^{2}\times\mathbb{H}^{2}$

Proof.

When $f$ is Lipschitz with respect to $(y,z)$, this is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.3 in Nam and Xu, (2022). If $n=1$, we can apply the results of Fan et al., (2010) and Lemma A.1 to prove the claim. ∎

Let us define a mapping $\psi$ on $\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$ by

$$\psi_{t}(\mu):=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X^{\mu}_{t})$$

where $X^{\mu}_{t}$ is the solution of (3.1) for a given $\mu$.

Lemma 3.3.

For any $\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$, there exists a constant $C$ which does not depend on $\mu$ such that

$$\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{E}[|X^{i,\mu}_{t}|^{2}]\leq C\text{ and }\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{s}(\mu))\leq C|t-s|^{1/2}.$$

In particular, we have $\psi(\mu)\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$.

Proof.

First, let us show that $\psi_{t}(\mu)=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X^{\mu}_{t})\in\mathcal{P}_{1}^{H}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$. Note that, by Theorem IV.2.5 of Protter, (2005),

$$\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{E}[|X^{i,\mu}_{t}|^{2}] \leq\mathbb{E}[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|X^{i,\mu}_{t}|^{2}]$$

$$\lesssim\int_{0}^{T}{\rm tr}\left(\sigma^{i,\mu}(\sigma^{i,\mu})^{\intercal}\right)(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})dt+\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{0}^{T}|h^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})+b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})|dt\right|^{2}.$$

Our assumption on the uniform ellipticity of $\sigma^{i,\mu}(\sigma^{i,\mu})^{\intercal}$ tells us that ${\rm tr}\left(\sigma^{i,\mu}(\sigma^{i,\mu})^{\intercal}\right)(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})$ is bounded by $\varepsilon m$. Assume $r=0$. Then, since $Y^{i,\mu}$ is the unique solution of BSDE in (3.1), a similar argument to Proposition $4.7$ of Nam and Xu, (2022) tells us that $Y^{i,\mu}$ is uniformly bounded by a constant determined by $C$ and $T$. Therefore, $b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})$ is bounded by a constant does not depend on $\mu$. Otherwise ($r>0$), $\rho_{r}\equiv 0$ and therefore, $b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})$ is bounded by $C$. In sum, $b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})$ is always bounded. On the other hand, when $\sigma$ is a constant, the drift of $X^{i,\mu}$ has a linear growth with respect to $X^{i,\mu}$, and therefore, $\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\left\|X^{i,\mu}\right\|_{\mathbb{H}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{m})}$ is bounded by a constant that does not depend on $\mu$. Otherwise, $h^{i}$ is uniformly bounded by $C$. Either case, we have $\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{0}^{T}|h^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})|\right|^{2}$ is bounded by a constant that does not depend on $\mu$. Therefore, we proved our first claim. Now let us prove that $\psi(\mu)$ is continuous in time. We will use the symbol $a\lesssim b$ if there exists a constant $C>0$ which does not depend on $\mu$ such that $a\leq Cb$. Note that

$$\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{s}(\mu)) =\sum_{i=1}^{H}\sup_{\phi\in Lip_{1}}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m}}\phi(x)\>[\psi^{i}_{t}(\mu)-\psi^{i}_{s}(\mu)](dx)\right|$$

$$\lesssim\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\sup_{\phi\in Lip_{1}}\left|\mathbb{E}\phi(X^{i,\mu}_{t})-\mathbb{E}\phi(X^{i,\mu}_{s})\right|$$

$$\lesssim\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{E}\left|X^{i,\mu}_{t}-X^{i,\mu}_{s}\right|$$

$$\lesssim\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{s}^{t}\left(h^{i}(u,X^{i,\mu}_{u})+b^{i}(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu},Y_{u}^{i,\mu},Z_{u}^{i,\mu},\mu_{u})\right)du+\int_{s}^{t}\sigma^{i}(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu})dW^{i}_{u}\right|.$$

Note that, by the Hölder inequality and the Burkeholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, we have

$$\mathbb{E} \left|\int_{s}^{t}\left(h^{i}(u,X^{i,\mu}_{u})+b^{i}(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu},Y_{u}^{i,\mu},Z_{u}^{i,\mu},\mu_{u})\right)du\right|$$

$$\lesssim|t-s|^{1/2}\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{s}^{t}\left|h^{i}(u,X^{i,\mu}_{u})+b^{i}(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu},Y_{u}^{i,\mu},Z_{u}^{i,\mu},\mu_{u})\right|^{2}du\right)^{1/2}$$

$$\lesssim|t-s|^{1/2}\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{s}^{t}(1+|X^{i,\mu}_{u}|^{2})du\right)^{1/2}$$

$$\lesssim|t-s|^{1/2}$$

$$\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{s}^{t}\sigma^{i}(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu})dW^{i}_{u}\right| \lesssim\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{s}^{t}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})(u,X_{u}^{i,\mu})du\right)^{1/2}\lesssim|t-s|^{1/2}.$$

Therefore, there exists a constant $C$, which is independent of the choice of $\mu$, such that

$$\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{s}(\mu))\leq C|t-s|^{1/2}$$

and it proves our claim. ∎

Now we consider the space

$$E:=\left\{\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right):\mathcal{K}(\mu_{t},\mu_{s})\leq K|t-s|^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\},$$

for a large enough constant $K$ endow a distance

$$d(\mu,\nu):=\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathcal{K}(\mu_{t},\nu_{t}).$$

As mentioned in the introduction, we will show that $\psi$ has a fixed point on $E$ via the Schauder’s fixed point theorem, which is given in Lemma 3.11. This will show the FBSDE (2.1) has a solution. Let us first show that $E$ is complete metric space.

Remark 3.4.

Space $(E,d)$ is a complete metric space.

Proof.

First note that since $(\mathbb{R}^{m},|\cdot|)$ is a separable and complete metric space we have $\left(\mathcal{P}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m}),W_{1}\right)$ is separable and complete by Bolley, (2008). Therefore, $\left(\mathcal{P}_{1}^{H}(\mathbb{R}^{m}),\mathcal{K}\right)$ is a complete metric space. Now consider a Cauchy sequence $(y^{n})_{n}$ in $E=\left\{\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right):\mathcal{K}(\mu_{t},\mu_{s})\leq C|t-s|^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}$. Then,

$$\mathcal{K}(y^{n}_{t},y^{m}_{t})\leq\sup_{s\in[0,T]}\mathcal{K}(y^{n}_{s},y^{m}_{s})=d(y^{n},y^{m})$$

In addition, we know that for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists an $N$ such that when $m,n>N$

$$d\left(y^{n},y^{m}\right)\leq\varepsilon.$$

Thus, for any $t\in[0,T]$, the sequence $(y_{t}^{n})_{n}$ is Cauchy in a complete space $\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$. Therefore, we can define

$$y_{t}^{*}:=\lim_{n\rightarrow{\infty}}y^{n}_{t}$$

for each $t\in[0,T]$. Let us verify that $y^{*}\in E$. Note that, for $t,s\in[0,T]$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}$, we have

$$\mathcal{K}(y^{*}_{s},y^{*}_{t})\leq\mathcal{K}\left(y^{*}_{s},y^{k}_{s}\right)+\mathcal{K}\left(y^{k}_{s},y^{k}_{t}\right)+\mathcal{K}\left(y^{*}_{t},y^{k}_{t}\right)\leq C|t-s|^{1/2}+\mathcal{K}\left(y^{*}_{s},y^{k}_{s}\right)+\mathcal{K}\left(y^{*}_{t},y^{k}_{t}\right).$$

By taking $k\to\infty$, we deduce $\mathcal{K}(y^{*}_{t},y^{*}_{s})\leq C|t-s|^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and therefore, we conclude $(E,d)$ is a complete metric space. ∎

Let $\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)=(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(t,x)b^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)$ and consider the following decoupled FBSDE:

$$d\hat{X}^{i}_{t} =h^{i}(t,\hat{X}_{t}^{i})dt+\sigma^{i}(t,\hat{X}_{t}^{i})dW^{i}_{t}$$ (3.2)

$$d\hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{t} =-\left(f^{i}(t,\hat{X}^{i}_{t},\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})+\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{t}\tilde{b}^{i}(t,\hat{X}^{i}_{t},\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})\right)dt+\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}$$

$$\hat{X}_{0}^{i,\mu} =x^{i};\ \hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{T}=g^{i}\left(\hat{X}^{i}_{T},\mu_{T}\right).$$

Remark 3.5.

For simplicity let us denote the following from now on

$$\mathcal{E}^{i}(\mu) :=\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{\cdot}\left[(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s}){b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{s},\mu_{s})\right]^{\intercal}dW^{i}_{s}\right)$$

$$W^{i,\mu}_{t} :=W^{i}_{t}-\int_{0}^{t}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s})b^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{s},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{s},\mu_{s})ds$$

and we define the joint probability measure as the product measure of $d\mathbb{P}^{\mu}:=d\mathbb{P}^{1,\mu}\otimes\cdots\otimes d\mathbb{P}^{H,\mu}$, where $d\mathbb{P}^{i,\mu}:=\mathcal{E}^{i}_{T}(\mu)d\mathbb{P}$. Moreover, if FBSDE (3.2) has a solution, then by the non-degeneracy of $\sigma$ and uniformly boundedness of $b$, we know that Girsanov theorem can be applied. Thus $(\hat{X}^{i},\hat{Y}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu},W^{i,\mu},\mathbb{P}^{\mu})$ is a weak solution of FBSDE (3.1).

For future purpose, from Proposition 3.6 to Remark 3.10, we will share some important properties about FBSDE (3.2).

Proposition 3.6.

For any given $\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$, the decoupled FBSDE (3.2) has a unique solution.

Proof.

Let $(\hat{X}^{i,\mu},\hat{Y}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu})$ and $(\hat{X}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu},\hat{Y}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu})$ be two solutions of (3.2). First of all, Assumption 3.1 tells us that the forward SDE in (3.2) is uniquely solvable, and therefore, $\hat{X}^{i,\mu},\hat{X}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}$ are indistinguishable. On the other hand, Hamadene et al., (1997) tell us that there exist Borel measurable functions

$$\left(u^{i,\mu},u^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu},d^{i,\mu},d^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}\right):[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n+n+n\times d+n\times d}$$

satisfying

$$\left(\hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{t}\right)=\left(u^{i,\mu}(t,\hat{X}^{i,\mu}_{t}),d^{i,\mu}(t,\hat{X}^{i,\mu}_{t})\right),\left(\hat{Y}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t}\right)=\left(u^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}(t,\hat{X}^{i,\mu}_{t}),d^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}(t,\hat{X}^{i,\mu}_{t})\right)$$

are two weak solutions of FBSDE (3.1) under different measures. Note that the forward SDE of (3.1) after substituting $(\hat{Y}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu})$ using the functions $u^{i,\mu},u^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu},d^{i,\mu},d^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}$ has a unique strong solution by Assumption 3.1. This implies $\left(\hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{t}\right)$ and $\left(\hat{Y}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t}\right)$ are the strong solutions of (3.1) since they are the functions of $\hat{X}^{i,\mu}$, and therefore, adapted to the filtration generated by the driving martingale (measure-changed Brownian motion). By Lemma 3.2, we have

$$\left(\hat{Y}^{i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{t}\right)=\left(\hat{Y}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t},\hat{Z}^{{}^{\prime}i,\mu}_{t}\right).$$

∎

The $L^{2}$ domination condition was defined in Hamadene et al., (1997) and presented below for the reader’s convenience.

Definition 3.7.

Consider a class of SDEs

$$d\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}=h(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})ds+\sigma(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})dW_{s};\qquad\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{t}=x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$$ (3.3)

defined on $[t,T]$. We say that the coefficients $(h,\sigma)$ satisfy the $L^{2}$-domination condition if the following conditions are satisfied:

• For each $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}$, the SDE (3.3) has a unique strong solution $\hat{X}^{(t,x)}$. We denote $\mu^{(t,x)}_{s}$ as the law of $\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}$, that is, $\mu^{(t,x)}_{s}:=\mathbb{P}\circ(\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})^{-1}$.

• For any $t\in[0,T],a\in\mathbb{R}^{m},\mu^{(0,a)}_{t}$-almost every $x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, and $\delta\in(0,T-t]$, there exists a function $\phi_{t}:[t,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that

  • for all $k\geq 1$, $\phi_{t}\in L^{2}([t+\delta,T]\times[-k,k]^{m};\mu^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)ds)$

  • $\mu^{(t,x)}_{s}(d\xi)ds=\phi_{t}(s,\xi)\mu^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)ds$.

Proposition 3.8.

For each $i\in\mathcal{O}$, the coefficients $(h^{i},\sigma^{i})$ satisfy the $L^{2}$-domination condition and $\mathbb{E}|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}|^{2r}$ is bounded uniformly for $t\in[0,T]$.

Proof.

Proposition 4.5 in Nam and Xu, (2022) shows that the $L^{2}$ domination condition is satisfied. The uniform bound of $\mathbb{E}|X^{i}_{t}|^{2r}$ can be found using the Grönwall’s inequality similar to the same proposition. ∎

Lemma 3.9.

Let $(\mu^{n})_{n=1,2,...}$ be a sequence in $E$ converging to $\mu\in E$ with respect to the metric $d$. Then, the solutions $\left(\hat{X}^{i},\hat{Y}^{i,\mu^{n}},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu^{n}}\right)$ and $\left(\hat{X}^{i},\hat{Y}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}\right)$ of (3.2) for $\mu^{n}$ and $\mu$ respectively satisfy,

$$\mathbb{E}\left|\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\mu^{n}}-\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\mu}\right|^{2}\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0\text{ and }\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{T}\left|\hat{Z}^{i,\mu^{n}}_{s}-\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{s}\right|^{2}ds\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0$$

for each $t\in[0,T]$.

Proof.

For the sake of simplicity, let us omit the population indicator $i$ in our proof. By denoting $\bar{f}(t,x,y,z,m)=f(t,x,y,z,m)+z\tilde{b}(t,x,y,z,m)$, one can easily verify that $\bar{f}$ satisfies the growth condition $|\bar{f}(t,x,y,z,m)|\leq C(1+|x|^{r}+|y|+|z|)$ for all $(t,m)$. Thus from Assumption 3.1 and Lemma 26.2 of Hamadene et al., (1997), we know that there exists a constant $C^{\prime}$ that depends only on $C$ in Assumption 3.1 and the initial value of $X$ such that

$$\mathbb{E}\left|\hat{Y}^{\mu}_{t}\right|^{2}+\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|\hat{Z}^{\mu}_{t}\right|^{2}dt+\mathbb{E}\left|\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}\right|^{2}+\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}\right|^{2}dt\leq C^{\prime}$$ (3.4)

Moreover, from Proposition 3.6 we know that there exists a sequence $\left(u^{\mu^{n}},d^{\mu^{n}}\right)_{n}$ such that $\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}=u^{\mu^{n}}(t,X_{t}),\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}=d^{\mu^{n}}(t,X_{t})$ is the unique solution of decoupled FBSDE (3.2) with given $\mu^{n}\in E$, namely the BSDE is with coefficients $\left(g\left(x,\mu^{n}_{T}\right),\bar{f}(t,x,y,z,\mu^{n}_{t})\right)$. For notation simplicity, we denote $F^{\mu^{n}}(t,x)=\bar{f}\left(t,x,u^{\mu^{n}}(t,x),d^{\mu^{n}}(t,x),\mu^{n}_{t}\right)$. Notice that there is a constant $C_{a}$ such that, for any $n$, we have

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|F^{\mu^{n}}(t,\hat{X}_{t})\right|^{2}dt\leq C_{a},$$

for $a=\hat{X}_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$. Therefore, there exist a subsequence ${n_{j}}$ which we still denote by $n$, and $F(s,x)$ such that

$$F^{\mu^{n}}\rightharpoonup F\text{ weakly in }L^{2}\left([0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m};\mu^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)ds\right)$$ (3.5)

Observe that for each $t\in[0,T]$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, $\delta>0$, $n,m,k>0$,

$$\left|u^{\mu^{n}}(t,x)-u^{\mu^{m}}(t,x)\right| \leq\mathbb{E}\left|g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{n}_{T})-g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{m}_{T})\right|+\left|\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{T}F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right|ds$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}\left|g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{n}_{T})-g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{m}_{T})\right|+\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\delta}\left|F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right|ds$$

$$+\left|\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|\geq k}ds\right|$$

$$+\left|\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|<k}ds\right|.$$

Since $g(x,m)$ is continuous with respect to $m$ and $\mu^{n}\to\mu$, the terminal condition $g(\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{T},\mu^{n}_{T})$ is a Cauchy sequence in $n$, that is, $\mathbb{E}\left|g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{n}_{T})-g(\hat{X}_{T}^{(t,x)},\mu^{m}_{T})\right|\rightarrow 0$ as $n,m\rightarrow\infty$. Also we deduce that

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{t+\delta}\left|F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right|ds\leq\delta^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|{F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})}\right|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq 2\delta^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{C_{a}}.$$

On the other hand, there is a constant $C^{\prime\prime}$ which depends only on $\hat{X}^{(t,x)}$ such that

$$\left|\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|\geq k}ds\right|$$

$$\leq\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|\geq k}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left|F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq C^{\prime\prime}\sqrt{C_{a}}k^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$

by applying Markov’s inequality. At last, the $L^{2}$-domination condition implies

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|<k}ds =\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m}}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\xi)-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\xi)\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\xi\right|<k}\lambda^{(t,x)}_{s}(d\xi)ds$$

$$=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m}}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\xi)-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\xi)\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\xi\right|<k}\phi_{t}(s,\xi)\lambda^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)ds$$

where $\lambda^{(t,x)}_{s}$ represents the distribution of $X^{(t,x)}_{s}$. Thus from (3.5) we have for $\lambda^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)$-almost every $x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{t+\delta}^{T}\left(F^{\mu^{n}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})-F^{\mu^{m}}(s,\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s})\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\left|\hat{X}^{(t,x)}_{s}\right|<k}ds\rightarrow 0,\text{ as }n,m\rightarrow\infty.$$

Therefore, for any $\varepsilon>0$, one can select large enough $N\in\mathbb{N}$ so that

$$\left|u^{\mu^{n}}(t,x)-u^{\mu^{m}}(t,x)\right|<\varepsilon$$

for all $n,m,k,\delta^{-1}\geq N$, that is $\left(u^{\mu^{n}}(t,x)\right)_{n}$ is a Cauchy sequence such that for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\lambda^{(0,a)}_{s}(d\xi)$-almost every $x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$. Define $u^{\mu}(t,x):=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}u^{\mu^{n}}(t,x)$. Since (3.4) tells us that for any $n>0$, $\mathbb{E}\left|\hat{Y}_{t}^{\mu^{n}}\right|^{2}\leq C_{a}$, by the dominate convergence theorem we have

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}-U^{\mu}_{t}\right|^{2}dt=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\lim_{n\to\infty}\left|\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}-U^{\mu}_{t}\right|^{2}dt=0$$

where $U^{\mu}_{t}=u^{\mu}(t,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{t})$. On the other hand, by the application of Itô formula one can obtain

$$\mathbb{E} \left|\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}-\hat{Y}^{\mu^{m}}_{t}\right|^{2}+\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{T}\left|\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}-\hat{Z}^{\mu^{m}}_{s}\right|^{2}ds$$

$$=\mathbb{E}\left|g(\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{T},\mu^{n}_{T})-g(\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{T},\mu^{m}_{T})\right|^{2}+2\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{T}\left(\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}-\hat{Y}^{\mu^{m}}_{s}\right)\left(\bar{f}(s,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{s},\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{s},\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{s},\mu^{n}_{s})-\bar{f}(s,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{s},\hat{Y}^{\mu^{m}}_{s},\hat{Z}^{\mu^{m}}_{s},\mu^{m}_{s})\right)ds$$

Hence, by Hölder’s inequality and for any $n$, $\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}\left|F^{\mu^{n}}(t,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{t})\right|^{2}dt\leq C_{a}$, we have

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{t}^{T}\left|\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}-\hat{Z}^{\mu^{m}}_{s}\right|^{2}ds\leq\mathbb{E}\left|g(\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{T},\mu^{n}_{T})-g(\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{T},\mu^{m}_{T})\right|^{2}+C\mathbb{E}\left(\int_{t}^{T}\left|\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}-\hat{Y}^{\mu^{m}}_{s}\right|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Therefore, $\left(\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}\right)_{n}$ is also a Cauchy sequence in $L^{2}\left([0,T]\times\Omega\right)$ and we can denote $V^{\mu}$ as its limit. Now we are going to verify that $(U^{\mu},V^{\mu})$ is a solution of FBSDE (3.2) with given $\mu$. Since the solution of (3.2) has a unique solution by Proposition 3.6, this implies $(U^{\mu},V^{\mu})=(\hat{Y}^{\mu},\hat{Z}^{\mu})$ and proves the claim. Let us take $n\to\infty$ along the subsequence we chose previously to the following BSDE

$$\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}_{t}=g\left(\hat{X}_{T},\mu^{n}_{T}\right)+\int_{t}^{T}\bar{f}(s,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\mu^{n}},\hat{Z}_{s}^{\mu^{n}},\mu^{n}_{s})ds-\int_{t}^{T}\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}dW_{s}.$$

It is obvious that the left hand side converges to $U^{\mu}_{t}$ almost every $t$. In addition,

$$g\left(\hat{X}_{T},\mu^{n}_{T}\right) \to g\left(\hat{X}_{T},\mu_{T}\right)\text{ for all $\omega\in\Omega$}$$

$$\int_{t}^{T}\hat{Z}^{\mu^{n}}_{s}dW_{s} \to\int_{t}^{T}V^{\mu}_{s}dW_{s}\text{ in }L^{2}(\Omega)\text{ for all }t\in[0,T].$$

Lastly, the dominated convergence theorem tells us that

$$\int_{t}^{T}\bar{f}(s,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\mu^{n}},\hat{Z}_{s}^{\mu^{n}},\mu^{n}_{s})ds\to\int_{t}^{T}\bar{f}(s,\hat{X}^{(0,a)}_{s},U_{s}^{\mu},V_{s}^{\mu},\mu_{s})ds$$

in $L^{2}(\Omega)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Therefore, $(U^{\mu},V^{\mu})$ is a solution to the (3.2). We conclude the proof by mention that since FBSDE (3.2) is uniquely solvable, we have shown for any $\left(\mu^{n}\right)_{n}\in E$ converges to any $\mu\in E$, there exists a corresponding sequence $\left(\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}\right)_{n}$ such that every subsequence of $\left(\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}\right)_{n}$ there is a subsequence of the subsequence that converges to the same limit $\hat{Y}^{\mu}$. It implies $\left(\hat{Y}^{\mu^{n}}\right)_{n}$ converges to $\hat{Y}^{\mu}$ in $L^{2}\left([0,T]\times\Omega\right)$ for any $\left(\mu^{n}\right)_{n}$ converges to $\mu$ in $(E,d)$. ∎

Remark 3.10.

For the case the decoupled FBSDE (3.2) is one-dimensional $(n=1)$ and $f$ is uniformly continuous with respect to $(y,z)$, the results from Hamadene et al., (1997), Hamadène, (2003), and Fan et al., (2010) support Proposition 3.6 holds. Meanwhile, since the natural property of uniformly continuous function that it can always be bounded by a linear growth function, $\bar{f}$ still satisfies the linear growth condition in Lemma 3.9.

Let us prove $\psi$ has a fixed point. Recall Remark 3.5, we consider $\mathcal{L}^{H}(X^{\mu}_{t})=\left(\mathbb{P}^{\mu}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1}\right)_{i\in\mathcal{O}}$.

Lemma 3.11.

$\psi$ has a fixed point on $E$.

Proof.

To apply the Schauder’s fixed point theorem, we need to check the following conditions:

1. $E$ is a non-empty convex set and $\psi(E)\subset E$ is contained in a compact subset; and

2. $\psi$ is continuous on $E$.

Firstly, let us prove (i). It is trivial that $E$ is non-empty and convex. In addition, from Lemma 3.3, we have $\psi(\mu)$ is $\frac{1}{2}$-Hölder continuous. Note that, for $\mu\in E$ and $\delta:=(\delta_{1},\cdots,\delta_{H})\in\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$ with $\delta_{i}$ is the Dirac-measure in $0$,

$$\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\delta)\leq\sum_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{E}|X^{i,\mu}_{t}|<\infty,$$

and therefore, $\psi(E)\subset E$. Now we are going to show that $\psi(E)$ is contained in a compact subset of $E$. Let us define

$$\mathcal{M} :=\left\{\left(\mathbb{P}^{\mu}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1}\right)_{i\in\mathcal{O},t\in[0,T]}:\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)\right\}\subset\mathcal{C}([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m}))$$

$$\mathcal{M}_{t} :=\left\{\left(\mathbb{P}^{\mu}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1}\right)_{i\in\mathcal{O}}:\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)\right\}\subset\mathcal{C}([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m}))$$

To show that $\mathcal{M}$ is relatively compact in $\mathcal{C}([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m}))$ under $\mathcal{K}$, we need to use a type of Arzela-Ascoli theorem. Since $\mathcal{M}$ consists of equicontinuous measure-valued processes, we only need to verify the relative compactness of $\mathbb{P}^{\mu}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1}$ for any given $t\in[0,T]$, that is

$$\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{\nu\in\mathcal{M}_{t}}\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\int_{\left(B_{r}^{i}\right)^{c}}|x|\nu^{i}(dx)=0,$$ (3.6)

where $B_{r}^{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the unit ball of radius $r$ centered at origin. For arbitrary $\mu\in\mathcal{C}\left([0,T];\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\right)$ and $t\in[0,T]$, by Markov’s inequality and Hölder’s inequality, we know that

$$\int_{\left(B_{r}^{i}\right)^{c}}|x|\mathbb{P}^{\mu}_{X_{t}^{i,\mu}}(dx) =\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}^{\mu}}\left|X_{t}^{i,\mu}\right|\mathbf{1}_{\left\{\left|X_{t}^{i,\mu}\right|\geq r\right\}}$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\mathcal{E}^{i}_{T}(\mu)\left|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}\right|\mathbf{1}_{\left\{\left|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}\right|\geq r\right\}}$$

$$\leq\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left(\mathcal{E}^{i}_{T}(\mu)\right)^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{r}\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left(\left|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}\right|^{4}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Notice that above inequality goes to $0$ as $r\rightarrow\infty$, and therefore, equation (3.6) holds. Such tightness condition (3.6) gives us that for each $i\in\mathcal{O}$, the collection of probability measures of $\mathbb{P}^{\mu}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1}$ is relatively weakly compact in $\mathcal{P}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$ by Prokhorov’s theorem. Now, let us prove (ii). Recall Remark 3.5 such that $(\hat{X}^{i},\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{t}^{i,\mu},W^{i,\mu},\mathbb{P}^{\mu})$ and $(\hat{X}^{i},\hat{Y}_{t}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{t}^{i,\nu},W^{i,\nu},\mathbb{P}^{\nu})$ are weak solutions of

$$dX^{i,\mu}_{t} =\left(h^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})+b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu},Y_{t}^{i,\mu},Z_{t}^{i,\mu},\mu_{t})\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\mu})dW^{i,\mu}_{t}$$

$$dX^{i,\nu}_{t} =\left(h^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\nu})+b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\nu},Y_{t}^{i,\nu},Z_{t}^{i,\nu},\nu_{t})\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i,\nu})dW^{i,\nu}_{t},$$

respectively. Since the Girsanov transformed SDEs enjoy the uniqueness in law, we have

$$\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{i,\mu}_{t})^{-1} =\mathbb{P}\circ(\hat{X}^{i}_{t})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{i,\nu}_{t})^{-1}.$$

Note that

$$\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{t}(\nu)) =\sum_{i=1}^{H}\sup_{\phi\in Lip_{1}}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{m}}\phi(x)\>[\psi^{i}_{t}(\mu)-\psi^{i}_{t}(\nu)](dx)\right|$$

$$\leq H\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\sup_{\phi\in Lip_{1},\phi(0)=0}\left|\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}^{\mu}}\phi(X^{i,\mu}_{t})-\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}^{\nu}}\phi(X^{i,\nu}_{t})\right|$$

$$\leq H\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\left|\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)-\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\nu)\right|\left|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}\right|\right].$$

Using $\left|e^{x}-e^{y}\right|\leq|x-y|(e^{x}+e^{y})$, Hölder inequality, and Minkowski’s inequality, we can obtain

$$\mathcal{K} (\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{t}(\nu))\leq H\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left(\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)+\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\nu)\right)|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}|$$

$$\times\left|\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})dW^{i}_{s}\right.$$

$$-\left.\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}ds\right|$$

$$\leq H\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}\left(\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\nu)^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)$$

$$\times\left(\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\int_{0}^{t}\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|dW^{i}_{s}\right]^{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right.$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\left.\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\int_{0}^{t}\left|\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}\right|ds\right]^{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right)\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}|\hat{X}^{i}_{t}|^{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$

By the definition of $\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)$, we have for a suitable constant $C$

$$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left|\mathcal{E}^{i}_{s}(\mu)\right|^{2} \leq 2+2\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left|\int_{0}^{s}\tilde{b}^{i}(r,\hat{X}^{i}_{r},\hat{Y}_{r}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{r},\mu_{r})\mathcal{E}^{i}_{r}(\mu)dW^{i}_{r}\right|^{2}$$

$$\leq 2+8\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\int_{0}^{t}\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}^{i,\mu}_{s},\mu_{s})\mathcal{E}^{i}_{s}(\mu)\right|^{2}ds\leq 2+C\int_{0}^{t}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\sup_{r\in[0,s]}\left|\mathcal{E}^{i}_{r}(\mu)\right|^{2}ds.$$

Since $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)\right|^{2}<\infty$, further by Grönwall inequality, we know that there exists a constant $C^{\prime}$ independent of $\mu$, such that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\mathcal{E}^{i}_{t}(\mu)\right|^{2}\leq C^{\prime}$. Thus we could deduce that there is a constant $C_{H,T}>0$ which satisfies

$$\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathcal{K}(\psi_{t}(\mu),\psi_{t}(\nu)) \leq\sup_{i\in\mathcal{O}}C_{H,T}\left(\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}ds\right]^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right.$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\left.\left(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left|\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}\right|ds\right]^{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right).$$

Since $\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)$ is uniformly bounded and by Lemma 3.9, the following inequality is enough to conclude the proof:

$$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\int_{0}^{T} \left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}ds$$

$$\lesssim\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\int_{0}^{T}\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\mu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})\right|^{2}+\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\mu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\mu_{s})\right|^{2}$$

$$+\left|\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\mu_{s})-\tilde{b}^{i}(s,\hat{X}^{i}_{s},\hat{Y}_{s}^{i,\nu},\hat{Z}_{s}^{i,\nu},\nu_{s})\right|^{2}ds.$$

Then from Lemma 3.9 and the transitivity of continuity we conclude $\psi$ is a continuous function on $E$. ∎

Theorem 3.12.

Under Assumption 3.1, FBSDE (2.1) has a strong solution.

Proof.

By Lemma 3.11 and Lemma 3.2, we have $\mu=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})$ where $(X^{i,\mu}_{t},Y^{i,\mu}_{t},Z^{i,\mu}_{t})$ is a strong solution of (3.1). ∎

It is noteworthy that we can extend Assumption 3.1 to the case where it has linear growth in the mean-field term by a localization argument.

Corollary 3.13.

For a process $X\in\mathbb{H}^{2}(H,m)$, we denote by $\bar{\rho}(X_{t})=\sum_{i=1}^{H}\mathbb{E}\rho^{i}(X^{i}_{t})$, where $\rho^{i}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is twice differentiable with uniformly bounded first- and second-order derivatives. Now we consider mean-field FBSDE to be of the form:
For any $i\in\mathcal{O}$, we let

$$h^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$b^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$f^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$$

$$\sigma^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$$

$$g^{i}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n},$$

and FBSDE

$$\begin{split}&dX^{i}_{t}=\left(h^{i}(t,\rho^{i}(X^{i}_{t}))+b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\bar{\rho}(X_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t}\\ &dY^{i}_{t}=-f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},Z^{i}_{t},\bar{\rho}(X_{t}))dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}\\ &X^{i}_{0}=x^{i};\ Y^{i}_{T}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\bar{\rho}(X_{T})).\end{split}$$ (3.7)

We assume all the coefficients satisfy Assumption 3.1 except we allow them have linear growth with respect to the expectation term $\rho^{i}(X)$ for $h,b,f,$ and $g$. In this case, mean-field FBSDE (3.7) has a solution.

Proof.

This can be proven via a localization argument. Let

$$P_{N}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\ni(t,x,y,z,r)\mapsto\left(t,x,y,z,\frac{Nr}{|r|\vee N}\right)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

and $b_{N}:=b\circ P_{N},f_{N}:=f\circ P_{N}$, and $g_{N}:=g\circ P_{N}$. Thus from Theorem 3.12 we know that mean-field FBSDE

$$\begin{split}&dF^{i}_{t}=\left(h^{i}(t,\rho^{i}(F^{i}_{t}))+b^{i}_{N}(t,F^{i}_{t},U^{i}_{t},V^{i}_{t},\bar{\rho}(F_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,F^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t}\\ &dU^{i}_{t}=-f^{i}_{N}(t,F^{i}_{t},U^{i}_{t},V^{i}_{t},\bar{\rho}(F_{t}))dt+V^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}\\ &F^{i}_{0}=x^{i};\ U^{i}_{T}=g^{i}_{N}(F^{i}_{T},\bar{\rho}(F_{T}))\end{split}$$ (3.8)

has a strong solution $(F,U,V)$ since $b_{N},f_{N},g_{N}$ are uniformly bounded with respect to $\rho$. Moreover, since $b,h$ are under the linear growth condition, $\rho^{i}$ has bounded derivative, and $\sigma$ is bounded, we can apply Itô’s formula to deduce that

$$\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F^{i}_{t})\right| \lesssim\left|\rho^{i}(x^{i})\right|+\int_{0}^{t}1+\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F_{s}^{i})\right|+\left|\bar{\rho}(F_{s})\right|ds+\mathbb{E}\left|W^{i}_{t}\right|$$

$$\lesssim\left|\rho^{i}(x^{i})\right|+\int_{0}^{t}1+\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F_{s}^{i})\right|+\sum_{j=1}^{H}\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{j}(F_{s}^{j})\right|ds$$

Thus we obtain

$$\sum_{i=1}^{H}\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F_{t}^{i})\right|\lesssim 1+\sum_{i=1}^{H}\left|\rho^{i}(x^{i})\right|+\int_{0}^{t}\sum_{i=1}^{H}\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F_{s}^{i})\right|ds.$$

Consequently from Grönwall inequality we know that $\left|\bar{\rho}(F_{t})\right|\leq\sum_{i=1}^{H}\mathbb{E}\left|\rho^{i}(F_{t}^{i})\right|\lesssim 1+\sum_{i=1}^{H}\left|\rho^{i}(x^{i})\right|$, and that is independent with respect to $N$. Therefore, if we chose $N$ to be large enough, then the solution $(F,U,V)$ of (3.8) would be the solution of mean-field FBSDE (3.7). ∎

We are going to discuss that in some cases, FBSDE (2.1) could have a unique solution.

Assumption 3.14.

We assume $b$ does not depend on $y,z$, and $b$ is $\theta$ modulus continuous in the third variable. We call $b$ is $\theta$ modulus continuous in the third variable if there exists a continuous function $\theta:\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$, with $\theta(y)>0$ for all $y\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, $\int_{0}^{z}\frac{dy}{\theta(y)}=\infty$ for all $z\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that for all $t\in[0,T],x\in\mathbb{R}^{m},\mu,\nu\in\mathcal{P}_{1}^{H}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$

$$|b(t,x,\mu)-b(t,x,\nu)|^{2} \leq\theta\left(\mathcal{K}(\mu,\nu)^{2}\right).$$

Corollary 3.15.

Under Assumption 3.1 and Assumption 3.14, FBSDE (2.1) has a unique solution.

Proof.

Without losing generality in the proof we only consider the case when there is one population, and we apply $i\in\{1,2\}$ as a solution indicator. We consider under measure $\mathbb{P}$, FBSDE (2.1) is of the form

$$\begin{split}&dX_{t}=\left(h(t,X_{t})+b(t,X_{t},\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t}\\ &dY_{t}=-f(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t},\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))dt+Z_{t}dW_{t}\\ &X_{0}=x;\ Y_{T}=g(X_{T},\mathcal{L}(X_{T})).\end{split}$$ (3.9)

The key point is to verify whether the forward equation in (3.9) is uniquely solvable and the Corollary follows easily. The result is similar to Bauer et al., (2018) in which they proved the strong existence and uniqueness of mean-field SDEs with constant diffusion term. We notice that since $b$ is uniformly bounded and $\sigma$ is non-degeneracy, we could apply Girsanov transform to define new Brownian motions. By denoting $\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,m)=(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(t,x)b^{i}(t,x,m)$, we define a Brownian motion $W^{\prime}$ under a measure $\bar{\mathbb{P}}$

$$dW^{\prime}_{t}=\left(\tilde{b}(t,X_{t}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{t}))-\tilde{b}(t,X^{2}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))\right)dt+dW_{t}.$$

So that we have under measure $\bar{\mathbb{P}}$,

$$dX^{2}_{t}=\left(h(t,X^{2}_{t})+b(t,X^{2}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma(t,X^{2}_{t})dW^{\prime}_{t}.$$

Meanwhile, we further define the following that under some measures $\mathbb{Q},\bar{\mathbb{Q}}$

$$dX^{1}_{t} =h(t,X^{1}_{t})dt+\sigma(t,X^{1}_{t})d\bar{W}_{t}$$

$$dX^{2}_{t} =h(t,X^{2}_{t})dt+\sigma(t,X^{2}_{t})d\hat{W}_{t},$$

where

$$\begin{split}d\bar{W}_{t}&=\tilde{b}(t,X^{1}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))dt+dW_{t}\\ d\hat{W}_{t}&=\tilde{b}(t,X^{2}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))dt+dW^{\prime}_{t}.\end{split}$$ (3.10)

Notice that the following SDE has a unique strong solution

$$dX_{t} =h(t,X_{t})dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dB_{t},$$

where $B$ is a well-defined Brownian motion. Thus we know there exists a measurable function $\Phi:[0,T]\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$ such that

$$X^{1}_{t} =\Phi_{t}(\bar{W}),\ \mathbb{Q}-a.s.$$

$$X^{2}_{t} =\Phi_{t}(\hat{W}),\ \bar{\mathbb{Q}}-a.s..$$

Furthermore, from (3.10) we can obtain that there exists a measurable function $\Psi:[0,T]\times C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}$ such that

$$W_{t} =\Psi_{t}(\bar{W})\ \text{and}\ W^{\prime}_{t}=\Psi_{t}(\hat{W}).$$

Thus we have for all bounded measurable function $F:C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{d})^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$

$$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}F(W,\bar{W}) =\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{T}\tilde{b}(t,X^{1}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))d\bar{W}_{t}\right)F(\Psi(\bar{W}),\bar{W})$$

$$=\mathbb{E}_{\bar{\mathbb{Q}}}\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{T}\tilde{b}(t,X^{2}_{t},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{t}))d\hat{W}_{t}\right)F(\Psi(\hat{W}),\hat{W})=\mathbb{E}_{\bar{\mathbb{P}}}F(W^{\prime},\hat{W}).$$

Therefore we can conclude

$$\mathbb{P}\circ(W,\bar{W},X^{1})^{-1}=\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(W^{\prime},\hat{W},X^{2})^{-1},$$

and so $\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{1})^{-1}=\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(X^{2})^{-1}$. Now from the definition of $\mathcal{K}$ and Assumption 3.14 we have

$$\mathcal{K} \left(\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1},\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1}\right)\lesssim\left(\mathbb{E}_{\bar{\mathbb{P}}}\left|\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{t}\left(\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{s}))-\tilde{b}(s,X^{2}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{s}))\right)dW^{\prime}_{s}\right)-1\right|^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\leq \left(\mathbb{E}_{\bar{\mathbb{P}}}\int_{0}^{t}\left|\left(\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{s}))-\tilde{b}(s,X^{2}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{s}))\right)\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{s}\tilde{b}(r,X_{r}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{r}))-\tilde{b}(r,X^{2}_{r},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{r}))dW^{\prime}_{r}\right)\right|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\lesssim \left(\mathbb{E}_{\bar{\mathbb{P}}}\sup_{r\in[0,T]}\left|\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{r}\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{s}))-\tilde{b}(s,X^{2}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{s}))dW^{\prime}_{s}\right)\right|^{2}\int_{0}^{t}\left|\left(\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{2},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{s}))-\tilde{b}(s,X^{2}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{s}))\right)\right|^{2}ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

$$\lesssim \left(\int_{0}^{t}\theta\left(\mathcal{K}\left(\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1},\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1}\right)^{2}\right)ds\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Putting $u(t):=\mathcal{K}\left(\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1},\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(X^{2}_{t})^{-1}\right)^{2}$, since we have previously proved in Lemma 3.3 that $u(\cdot)$ is continuous and $u(t)\lesssim\int_{0}^{t}\theta(u(s))ds$, then by Bihari’s inequality, we have $u(t)=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Thus we have $\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{2})^{-1}=\bar{\mathbb{P}}\circ(X^{2})^{-1}=\mathbb{P}\circ(X^{1})^{-1}$ which means the forward equation in FBSDE (3.9) is uniquely solvable, and from our assumptions, the backward equation in FBSDE (3.9) is uniquely solvable, which means the system has a unique solution. ∎

Assumption 3.16.

We assume $b$ is $\theta$ modulus continuous in the mean-field variable and $f,g$ do not have dependency on the mean-field term.

Corollary 3.17.

Under Assumption 3.1 and Assumption 3.16, FBSDE (2.1) has a unique solution.

Proof.

Similar to previous proof, we only consider the case when there is one population, and we apply $i\in\{1,2\}$ as a solution indicator. In this case, under measure $\mathbb{P}$, FBSDE (2.1) is of the form

$$\begin{split}&dX_{t}=\left(h(t,X_{t})+b(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t},\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t}\\ &dY_{t}=-f(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})dt+Z_{t}dW_{t}\\ &X_{0}=x;\ Y_{T}=g(X_{T}).\end{split}$$ (3.11)

Since $b$ is uniformly bounded and $\sigma$ is non-degeneracy, by denoting $\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)=(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(t,x)b^{i}(t,x,y,z,m)$, we could apply Girsanov theorem for

$$B^{1}_{t}=W_{t}+\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{1},Y_{s}^{1},Z^{1}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{1}_{s}))ds\ \text{and}\ B^{2}_{t}=W_{t}+\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{b}(s,X_{s}^{2},Y_{s}^{2},Z^{2}_{s},\mathcal{L}(X^{2}_{s}))ds$$

such that $(X^{1},Y^{1},Z^{1},B^{1}),(X^{2},Y^{2},Z^{2},B^{2})$ are weak solutions of

$$dX_{t}=h(t,X_{t})dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW^{\prime}_{t}$$

$$dY_{t}=-f(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})-Z_{t}\tilde{b}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t},\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))dt+Z_{t}dW^{\prime}_{t}$$

$$X_{0}=x;\ Y_{T}=g(X_{T}).$$

Since the forward equation of above system is uniquely solvable, we can deduce that $X^{1}=X^{2}$ a.s. for a given $W$. Moreover, the BSDE of (3.11) is also uniquely solvable for given $X$, which means there exist measurable functions $u,d$ such that $(Y^{1}_{t},Z^{1}_{t})=(Y^{2}_{t},Z^{2}_{t})=(u(t,X_{t}),d(t,X_{t}))$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.. In this sense, we have the forward equation of (3.11) is of the form

$$dX_{t}=\left(h(t,X_{t})+b(t,X_{t},u(t,X_{t}),d(t,X_{t}),\mathcal{L}(X_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t},$$

which is also uniquely solvable from the proof of Corollary 3.15. Thus the system (3.11) has a unique solution. ∎

We provide an example here to demonstrate that even in a simple case, the uniqueness of (2.1) may fail.

Example 3.18.

We consider following mean-field FBSDE with $\mathcal{O}=\{1\}$

$$\begin{split}dX_{t}&=b(Y_{t})dt+dW_{t}\\ dY_{t}&=-f(\mathbb{E}(X_{t}))dt+Z_{t}dW_{t}\\ X_{0}&=0;\ Y_{T}=g(\mathbb{E}(X_{T})).\end{split}$$ (3.12)

We let $b,f,g$ are Lipschitz and bounded functions. In particular, we consider the case $T=\frac{\pi}{4}$, $b(x)=f(x)=g(x)=x$ when $|x|\leq C$, where $C$ is a large enough constant. In this case, one can easily verify that $(X,Y,Z)$ with $X_{t}=C^{\prime}\sin(t)+W_{t},Y_{t}=C^{\prime}\cos(t),Z_{t}=0$ where $C^{\prime}$ is a suitable constant, is a solution of FBSDE (3.12). Thus uniqueness fails.

4 Mean-field FBSDE and multi-population mean-field game

4.1 Model setup

In order to facilitate a better understanding, we start with an $N$-player optimal control problem where the players’ states and costs are influenced by other players’ states. For a player $i$, his state $X^{i}$ can be described by the following SDE

$$dX_{t}^{i}=b^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i},X_{t}^{-i},\alpha_{t}^{i})dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i})dW^{i}_{t},$$ (4.1)

where $X_{t}^{-i}$ is the state profile of the other players, and $\alpha^{i}$ stands for the control of player $i$. The goal of player $i$ is to try to minimize his cost at terminal time $T$

$$J^{i}(\alpha^{i})=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}f^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i},X_{t}^{-i},\alpha_{t}^{i})dt+g^{i}(X_{T},X_{T}^{-i}).$$ (4.2)

However, such game can be too complicated to study when $N$ is large. Luckily, when the number is large enough, we observe that the difference among players are negligible, or sometimes we call it indistinguishable. It allows us to consider the aggregation of the other players’ influence given as a empirical measure $\mu^{N}_{t}(x)=\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathbbm{1}_{X_{t}^{j}=x}\right)$. Then the search for approximate Nash equilibriums could be done through the solution of the optimization problem of one single player interacting with the other players through the empirical distribution $\mu^{N}_{t}$. Moreover, one can expect that the empirical measure $\mu^{N}_{t}$ will not be much affected by the deviation of one single player, and should be able to assume that the empirical measure $\mu^{N}_{t}$ is approximately equal to a limit $\mu_{t}$, which can be taken as a deterministic function. Namely, we let the representative with its state denoted by $X$ and control denoted by $\alpha$ and thus we translate the $N$-player game into a mean-field game

$$dX_{t}=b(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha_{t})dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t},$$ (4.3)

such that the representative aims at minimizing his cost

$$J(\alpha,m)=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}f(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha_{t})dt+g(X_{T},\mu_{T}),$$ (4.4)

with

$$\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}(X_{t}),\quad\forall t\in[0,T].$$

Now we consider an environment that contains $H$ populations or groups, and each populations contains a large number of players. Moreover, we assume players in the same population are indistinguishable. Based on the mean-field notion, we denote $X^{i}$ as the state of the representative of population $i$ and its state can be given by the following SDE

$$dX^{i}_{t}=b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},p_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t},$$ (4.5)

where here $\mu=(\mu^{i})_{i=1,\cdots,H}$ stands for a mean-field vector with $\mu^{i}$ the collective behavior in population $i$, and $p=(p^{i})_{i=1,\cdots,H}$ is a vector with $p^{i}$ the proportion of the population in group $i$ relative to the total population. Similarly, we consider the payoff of representative $i$ is of the form

$$J^{i}(\alpha^{i},\mu,p)=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},p_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},p_{T},\mu_{T}),$$ (4.6)

and

$$\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}),\quad\forall t\in[0,T].$$

In particular, we consider the population proportion changes in group $i$ satisfy the following replicator equation

$$dp^{i}_{t}=p_{t}^{i}(\pi^{i}-\langle\pi\rangle)dt,$$ (4.7)

where $\pi^{i}$ is the fitness of this type and $\langle\pi\rangle$ is the average payoff in the whole environment. Generally speaking, a replicator equation is a differential equation that governs the evolution of the densities of different strategies. In evolutionary game theory, the procedures that agents follow in deciding when to switch strategies and which strategies to switch to are called revision protocols. They are usually payoff functions of playing one strategy against another based on the current state of the entire environment, which, in our case, is the average state of each population $\mathcal{L}(X^{i}_{t})$ and the population distribution $p_{t}$. A revision protocol, for instance, is usually considered as a non-negative valued function $\rho:\mathbb{R}^{H}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$. For more information about evolutionary games we refer the book Sandholm, (2010). In our case, we do not take migration into consideration but apply the idea of replicator equation to describe the population changes. We log the number of players in each groups, and add a small amount of randomness imposed on the changes in the number of players, and we consider $\hat{X}^{i}:=(X^{i},p)$ as a new stochastic process to reformulate the mean-field problem.

Specifically, we consider (4.7) is of the form

$$dp_{t}^{i}=V^{i}_{t}(p,\mu)dt=\left(\rho^{i}(p_{t},\mu_{t})-p^{i}_{t}\sum_{j=1}^{H}\rho^{j}(p_{t},\mu_{t})\right)dt.$$ (4.8)

Then we times the total number of players in the environment $N$ on the both side of (4.8), and consider the logarithm of the number of population $i$ that we denote by $\bar{p}^{i}=log(Np^{i})$. In the spirit of equation (4.8), we could write a equation

$$d\bar{p}^{i}_{t}=\bar{V}^{i}_{t}(\bar{p},\mu)dt=\left(\frac{N}{e^{\bar{p}^{i}_{t}}}\rho^{i}(\bar{p}_{t},\mu_{t})-\sum_{j=1}^{H}\rho^{j}(\bar{p}_{t},\mu_{t})\right)dt,$$ (4.9)

and we assume there exists a constant $C$ such that for all $(p,m)\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\times\mathcal{P}_{1}^{H}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, $\rho^{i}(p,m)\leq Ce^{p^{i}}$, $\sum_{i=1}^{H}\rho^{i}(p,m)\leq C$. At last we add a noise to the logarithm number of players which still denote by $p_{t}$ with $p_{t}=(p^{1}_{t},\cdots,p^{H}_{t})$, and assume it satisfies the following SDE

$$dp_{t}=\rho(p_{t},\mu_{t})dt+\varepsilon dW^{0}_{t}$$ (4.10)

where $\rho=(\bar{V}^{i},\cdots,\bar{V}^{H})^{\intercal}$, $\varepsilon>0$.

In this sense, we could properly define $\hat{X}^{i}$, $\hat{b},\hat{\sigma},\hat{f},\hat{g},\hat{W}^{i}$ with $\hat{X}^{i}:=(X^{i},p)$, $\hat{b}=(b,\rho)^{\intercal}$, $\hat{\sigma}=(\sigma,\varepsilon)^{\intercal}$, $\hat{f}=f$, $\hat{g}=g$, and $\hat{W}^{i}=(W^{i},W^{0})^{\intercal}$. Thus we could rewrite our multi-population mean-field problem as

$$d\hat{X}^{i}_{t}=\hat{b}^{i}(t,\hat{X}^{i}_{t},\hat{\mu}_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+\hat{\sigma}^{i}(t,\hat{X}^{i}_{t})d\hat{W}^{i}_{t},$$

where the representative tries to minimize

$$J^{i}(\alpha^{i},\hat{\mu})=\hat{\mathbb{E}}\int_{0}^{T}\hat{f}^{i}(t,\hat{X}^{i}_{t},\hat{\mu}_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+\hat{g}^{i}(\hat{X}^{i}_{T},\hat{\mu}_{T})$$

with

$$\hat{\mu}_{t}=\mathcal{L}^{H}(\hat{X}_{t}).$$

Remark 4.1.

Unlike the usual MPMFG, we take the population changes in each group into consideration. The crucial adjustment we made in our model is to reinterpret the variable $p$ not as a representation of the population distribution, but rather as the number of players influenced by a small degree of randomness. This strategic shift is motivated by the need to ensure that our findings accommodated a non-degenerate diffusion coefficient, while minimizing alterations to the fundamental aspects of the original model. Also, one should note that given above problem is solvable, we require the $\hat{X}^{i}=(X^{i},p)$ share the same $p$ for all $i$. It is true since we assume $\rho$ is bounded, that once $\mu$ is given, Menoukeu-Pamen et al., (2013) provides us SDE (4.10) is uniquely solvable.

4.2 Multi-population mean-field game and corresponding Hamiltonian system

In this section we denote by $\mathbb{A}$ the set of all the admissible actions or controls, which means $\mathbb{A}$ will be the set of processes taking values in $A$ which satisfy a set of admissibility conditions. In our case one can consider $A$ as a convex subspace of Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{k}$. We introduce the Hamiltonian of the system for each representatives is the function $H^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$

$$H^{i}(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha)=b^{i}(t,x,\mu,\alpha)\cdot y+f^{i}(t,x,\mu,\alpha)$$

For notation simplicity sometimes we would omit the superscript $i$ from now on. For an admissible process $\alpha$, we denote $X$ be its corresponding controlled state process. We call adjoint processes associated with $\alpha$ for any solution $(Y,Z)$ of the BSDE

$$dY_{t}=-\partial_{x}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha_{t})dt+Z_{t}dW_{t},\quad Y_{T}=\partial_{x}g(X_{T},\mu_{T}).$$ (4.11)

This equation is called the adjoint equation associated with the admissible control $\alpha$. Notice that when $X,\mu,\alpha$ are given, BSDE (4.11) is uniquely solvable since it is linear. We consider the following assumptions hold for any given $\mu\in\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$.

• The terminal condition $\partial_{x}g(x,\mu)$ is bounded.

• $\sigma(t,x)$ is non-degenerate and locally Lipschitz with respect to $x$.
  

• $b(t,x,\mu,\alpha)$ is a bounded function with bounded first order partial derivatives $\partial_{x}b,\partial_{\alpha}b$, and bounded second order partial derivative $\partial_{\alpha,x}^{2}b$. Also we assume $\partial_{\alpha,\alpha}^{2}b=0$.
  

• For all $t\in[0,T]$ the mapping $(x,\alpha)\mapsto f(t,x,\mu,\alpha)$ is twice continuously differentiable, and $\partial_{x}f$ is bounded and Lipschitz continuous with respect to $\alpha$, and $\partial^{2}_{\alpha,x}f$ are uniformly bounded. Moreover, the second-order partial derivatives of $f$ with respect to $x$ and $\alpha$ satisfy

  $$\left(\begin{matrix}\partial^{2}_{x,x}f&\partial^{2}_{\alpha,x}f\\ \partial^{2}_{x,\alpha}f&\partial^{2}_{\alpha,\alpha}f\end{matrix}\right)\geq\left(\begin{matrix}0&0\\ 0&\lambda\mathbf{1}_{k}\end{matrix}\right)$$

  for some $\lambda>0$ and $\mathbf{1}_{k}$ denotes the identity matrix of dimension $k$.

• All the coefficients and their partial derivatives with respect to $x,\alpha$ are continuous with respect to $\mu$.

Remark 4.2.

From our assumptions we know that $\partial_{x}b,\partial_{x}f$ and $\partial_{x}g$ are uniformly bounded, therefore, for any $(X,\mu,\alpha)\in\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A$, there exists a unique pair of solution $(Y^{X,\mu,\alpha},Z^{X,\mu,\alpha})$ of BSDE (4.11) with $Y^{X,\mu,\alpha}$ is uniformly bounded, namely

$$\sup_{(t,X,\mu,\alpha)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A}\left|Y_{t}^{X,\mu,\alpha}\right|\leq C.$$

Lemma 4.3.

Under above assumptions, for any given $\mu\in\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, and for all $(t,x,y,z)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$ there exists a unique minimizer $\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)=argmin_{\alpha\in A}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha)$. Furthermore, $\alpha^{*}(t,0,0,0)$ is bounded and $\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to $(x,y)$ uniformly in $t\in[0,T]$ and continuous with respect to $\mu$.

Proof.

Since the second partial derivative $\partial^{2}_{\alpha,\alpha}H=\partial^{2}_{\alpha,\alpha}f$ is invertible and its inverse is uniformly bounded, the implicit function theorem implies the existence and uniqueness of the minimizer $\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)$, together with its boundedness on bounded subsets. Moreover, since $\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)$ is the unique solution of the equation $\partial_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha^{*})=0$, the implicit function theorem implies that $\alpha^{*}$ is differentiable with respect to $(x,y)$ with a continuous derivative. Moreover, we could write $\partial_{x}\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)=-\mathcal{J}\left(\partial^{2}_{\alpha,\alpha}H\right)^{-1}\mathcal{J}\left(\partial^{2}_{\alpha,x}H\right)$ and $\partial_{y}\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)=-\mathcal{J}\left(\partial^{2}_{\alpha,\alpha}H\right)^{-1}\mathcal{J}\left(\partial^{2}_{\alpha,y}H\right)$ where $\mathcal{J}$ stands for the Jacobian matrix. Thus by our boundedness assumptions on $\partial_{\alpha,x}^{2}b,\partial_{\alpha}b,\partial_{\alpha,x}^{2}f$ and Remark 4.2, such derivatives must be globally bounded. The regularity of $\alpha^{*}$ with respect to $\mu$ follows from the following. If $(t,x,y)$ is fixed and $\mu,\mu^{\prime}$ are generic elements in $\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, $\alpha^{*}$ and $\alpha^{*^{\prime}}$ denoting the associated minimizers, we deduce from the convexity assumption

$$\lambda\left|\alpha^{*}-\alpha^{*^{\prime}}\right|^{2} \leq\langle\alpha^{*}-\alpha^{*^{\prime}},\partial_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha^{*})-\partial_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha^{*^{\prime}})\rangle$$

$$=\langle\alpha^{*}-\alpha^{*^{\prime}},\partial_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu^{\prime},\alpha^{*^{\prime}})-\partial_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha^{*^{\prime}})\rangle$$

$$=\langle\alpha^{*}-\alpha^{*^{\prime}},\partial_{\alpha}f(t,x,\mu^{\prime},\alpha^{*^{\prime}})+\partial_{\alpha}b(t,x,\mu^{\prime},\alpha^{*^{\prime}})-\partial_{\alpha}f(t,x,\mu,\alpha^{*^{\prime}})-\partial_{\alpha}b(t,x,\mu,\alpha^{*^{\prime}})\rangle.$$

Since $\partial_{\alpha}f$ and $\partial_{\alpha}b$ are continuous with respect to $\mu$, we can conclude the result. ∎

Follow by Lemma 4.3, we could have the following mean-field FBSDE

$$\begin{split}dX_{t}&=\partial_{y}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t}))dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t},\quad X_{0}=x^{\prime}\\ dY_{t}&=-\partial_{x}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t}))dt+Z_{t}dW_{t},\quad Y_{T}=\partial_{x}g(X_{T},\mu_{T}),\end{split}$$

For readers’ convenience, we recall that

• $\partial_{y}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*})=b(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*})$

• $\partial_{x}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*})=\partial_{x}b(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*})Y_{t}+\partial_{x}f(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*})$

Then the multi-population mean-field game can be translated into the following mean-field FBSDE problem

$$\left\{\begin{aligned} \hfil\displaystyle\begin{split}dX_{t}^{i}&=\partial_{y}H^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}),\alpha^{i^{*}}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})))dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t},\\ dY^{i}_{t}&=-\partial_{x}H^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}),\alpha^{i^{*}}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})))dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t},\\ Y^{i}_{T}&=\partial_{x}g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{T})),\quad X_{0}=x^{i}.\end{split}\end{aligned}\right.$$ (4.12)

Moreover, we further assume $b(t,x,\mu,\alpha)=b^{1}(t,x,\mu)+b^{2}(t,\mu,\alpha)$ with $\partial_{x}b^{1}$ is bounded, and $g(x,\mu),H(t,x,y,z,\mu,\alpha)$ are convex with respect to $x$. Then we can deduce the following proposition.

Proposition 4.4.

Mean-field FBSDE (4.12) has a solution, while

$$\alpha^{i^{*}}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))=argmin_{\alpha\in A}H^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},Y^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}),\alpha_{t})$$

is is an optimal control for representative $i$.

Proof.

Firstly we verify that if $H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})=argmin_{\alpha\in A}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha)$ a.s., $\alpha^{*}$ is an optimal control, i.e., $J(\alpha^{*})=\inf_{\alpha\in\mathbb{A}}J(\alpha)$. Let $\alpha^{\prime}\in\mathbb{A}$ be a generic admissible control, and we denote $X^{\prime}$ the associated controlled process. By integration by parts and the convexity of the functions, we have

$$\mathbb{E}g(X_{T},\mu_{T}) -g(X^{\prime}_{T},\mu_{T})$$

$$\leq \mathbb{E}\partial_{x}g(X_{T},\mu_{T})(X_{T}-X^{\prime}_{T})$$

$$= \mathbb{E}Y_{T}(X_{T}-X^{\prime}_{T})$$

$$= \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}(X_{t}-X^{\prime}_{t})dY_{t}+\int_{0}^{T}Y_{t}d[X_{t}-X^{\prime}_{t}]$$

$$= \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}Y_{t}(b(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-b(t,X^{\prime}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t}))-(X_{t}-X^{\prime}_{t})\partial_{x}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})dt.$$

Similarly, we can deduce that

$$\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T} f(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-f(t,X^{\prime}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t})dt$$

$$= \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}(H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-H(t,X^{\prime}_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t}))-(Y_{t}(b(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-b(t,X^{\prime}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t}))dt.$$

Therefore, we can obtain

$$J(\alpha^{*}) -J(\alpha^{\prime})=\mathbb{E}g(X_{T},\mu_{T})-g(X^{\prime}_{T},\mu_{T})+\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}f(t,X_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-f(t,X^{\prime}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t})dt$$

$$\leq\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}(H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})-H(t,X^{\prime}_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{\prime}_{t}))-(X_{t}-X^{\prime}_{t})\partial_{x}H(t,X_{t},Y_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{*}_{t})dt$$

$$\leq 0.$$

Now we verify the solvability of FBSDE (4.12). Notice that we have $\partial_{x}f$ is Lipchitz continuous with respect to $\alpha$, and from Lemma 4.3 we know that $\alpha^{*}(t,x,y,\mu)$ is Lipchitz continuous with respect to $(x,y)$. Therefore, combining $\partial_{x}b^{1}$ is bounded, we have $\partial_{x}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha(t,x,y,\mu))$ is Lipschitz with respect to $y$. Moreover, we have $b,\partial_{x}f,\partial_{x}g$ are all bounded functions, $\partial_{x}f,\partial_{x}b,b$ are continuous with respect to $\mu$, and $Y$ is bounded from Lemma 4.2. Thus, the coefficients satisfy Assumption 3.1 with $r=0$. ∎

For some cases, we do not necessarily need the boundedness of $b$, or even the continuously differentiability for the coefficients.

Example 4.5.

We consider the $i$th representative’s state satisfies the following one-dimensional mean-field SDE

$$dX^{i}_{t}=\left(b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))-\alpha^{i}_{t}\right)dt+\sigma^{i}dW^{i}_{t};\quad X^{i}_{0}=x^{i}$$

and its objective is to minimize the cost functional

$$J^{i}(\alpha^{i})=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}|\alpha^{i}_{t}|^{2}+f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))dt.$$

We consider $b(t,x,\mu)=b^{1}(t,x)+b^{2}(t,x,\mu)$ with $|b^{1}(t,x)|\leq C\left(1+|x|\right)$ and $b^{2}$ is a bounded function. We also assume $(b,f):[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathcal{P}_{1}^{H}(\mathbb{R})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ are uniformly Lipchitz, convex, possibly not continuous differentiable with respect to $x$, and are continuous with respect to $\mu$. Moreover, we assume $f$ is non-decreasing with respect to $x$. In this sense, we could write the corresponding Hamiltonian and its minimizer

$$H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha) =\left(b(t,x,\mu)-\alpha\right)y+f(t,x,\mu)+|\alpha|^{2}$$

$$argmin_{\alpha}H(t,x,y,\mu,\alpha) =\frac{(y\vee 0)}{2}.$$

Lemma 4.6.

Let $\partial_{+}$ denote the right derivative, and $(X,Y,Z)$ be the solution of the following mean-field FBSDE

$$\begin{split}dX^{i}_{t}&=\left(b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))-\frac{\left(Y^{i}_{t}\vee 0\right)}{2}\right)dt+\sigma^{i}dW^{i}_{t};\quad X^{i}_{0}=x^{i}\\ dY^{i}_{t}&=-\left(\partial_{+}f(t,X^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))+\partial_{+}b(t,X^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}))Y^{i}_{t}\right)dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t};\quad Y^{i}_{T}=0.\end{split}$$ (4.13)

Then $Y_{t}^{i}$ is bounded for all $t\in[0,T]$ a.s., and for $\alpha^{i^{*}}=\frac{\left(Y^{i}_{t}\vee 0\right)}{2}$, we have $J^{i}(\alpha^{i^{*}})\leq J^{i}(\alpha^{i})$ for any $\alpha^{i}\in\mathbb{H}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$.

Proof.

Firstly note that from our assumptions, there exists a suitable constant $C$ such that $\partial_{+}f\in[0,C]$ and $\partial_{+}b\in[-C,C]$. By the well-known comparison principle, if (4.13) is solvable, then $Y^{d}_{t}\leq Y^{i}_{t}\leq Y^{u}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ a.s., where

$$dY^{u}_{t} =-\left(C+C|Y^{u}_{t}|\right)dt+Z^{u}_{t}dW_{t}; Y^{u}_{T} =0$$

$$dY^{d}_{t} =C|Y^{d}_{t}|dt+Z^{d}_{t}dW_{t}; Y^{d}_{T} =0.$$

As $Y^{u}_{t}=e^{C(T-t)}-1\leq e^{CT}$ and $Y^{d}\equiv 0$ almost surely. Based on above observation we now prove the existence result of FBSDE (4.13) by using the localization argument. For $C^{u}$, the boundary of $Y$ we obtained above, we define $\varphi$ be a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying

$$\varphi(y)=\begin{cases}y,&\text{if }y\in[0,C^{u}]\\ 0,&\text{if }y\in(-\infty,-1]\cup[C^{u}+1,\infty)\end{cases}$$

and $|\varphi(y)|\leq|y|$. Consider the mean-field FBSDE

$$d\tilde{X}^{i}_{t} =\left(b^{i}(t,\tilde{X}^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(\tilde{X}_{t}))-\frac{\varphi(\tilde{Y}^{i}_{t})}{2}\right)dt+\sigma^{i}dW^{i}_{t}; \tilde{X}^{i}_{0} =x^{i}$$ (4.14)

$$d\tilde{Y}^{i}_{t} =-\left(\partial_{+}f(t,\tilde{X}^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(\tilde{X}_{t}))+\partial_{+}b(t,\tilde{X}^{i}_{t},\mathcal{L}^{H}(\tilde{X}_{t}))\varphi(\tilde{Y}^{i}_{t})\right)dt+\tilde{Z}^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}; \tilde{Y}^{i}_{T} =0.$$

Then one can check that the coefficients satisfy our Assumption 3.1 with $r=0$, and thus $(\tilde{X}^{i},\tilde{Y}^{i},\tilde{Z}^{i})$ is a solution of (4.14). Moreover, by the same comparison argument, we could obtain that $\tilde{Y}^{i}_{t}\in[0,C^{u}]$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Thus $(\tilde{X}^{i},\tilde{Y}^{i},\tilde{Z}^{i})$ is also a solution of FBSDE (4.13). For the statement $J^{i}(\alpha^{i^{*}})\leq J^{i}(\alpha^{i})$ for any $\alpha^{i}\in\mathbb{A}$, one can easily verify that by using the similar idea in the proof of Proposition 4.4. ∎

4.3 Strong solvability of multi-population mean-field games

To begin with, we want to mention a pioneer work done by Carmona and Lacker, (2015), in which they studied mean-field games in a probability weak formulation. They take advantage of the comparison theorem of BSDEs and translate the search for the Nash equilibrium of a mean-field game into a decoupled mean-field FBSDE problem. However, since a measure-change technique is applied, they cannot obtain the equilibrium is adapted to the original filtration. To solve the mean-field game in a strong sense, one must solve a coupled mean-field FBSDE, and thus our results can be helpful.

We denote the control space by $A$ which is a compact convex subset of a normed vector space, and the set $\mathbb{A}$ of admissible controls consists of all progressively measurable $A$-valued processes. We consider a MPMFG under measure $\mathbb{P}$ with

$$h^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$b^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$$

$$f^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$$

$$\sigma^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$$

$$g^{i}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}.$$

The representative’s state is given by the following SDE

$$dX^{i}_{t}=\left(h^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})+b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t},$$

with utility functional

$$J^{i,\mu}(\alpha^{i})=\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T}),$$

and we require

$$\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t}),\quad\forall t\in[0,T].$$

The goal of the representative is to find the optimal control $\hat{\alpha}^{i}$ such that

$$J^{i,\mu}\left(\hat{\alpha}^{i}\right)\geq J^{i,\mu}(\alpha^{i})$$

for all $\alpha^{i}\in\mathbb{A}$. We assume coefficients $g(x,m),f(t,x,m,a),b(t,x,m,a)$ are continuous in $m,a$. For any $i\in\mathcal{O}$ and $(t,x,m,m^{\prime},a)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times A$, we let $r>0$ and

$$|g^{i}(x,m)| \leq C(1+|x|^{r})$$

$$|f^{i}(t,x,m,a)| \leq C(1+|x|^{r})$$

$$|b^{i}(t,x,m,a)| \leq C.$$

We also assume $h^{i},\sigma^{i}$ satisfy the assumption in 3.1. We denote $\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,m,\alpha)=(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal}(\sigma^{i}(\sigma^{i})^{\intercal})^{-1}(t,x)b^{i}(t,x,m,\alpha)$ and introduce the following decoupled FBSDE

$$\begin{split}dX^{i}_{t}&=h^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i,\mu}_{t}\\ dY^{i}_{t}&=-\left(f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})+Z^{i}_{t}\tilde{b}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})\right)dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i,\mu}_{t}\\ X^{i}_{0}&=x^{i};\ Y^{i}_{T}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T}),\end{split}$$ (4.15)

where $dW^{i,\mu}_{t}=\tilde{b}^{i}(t,x,m,\alpha)dt+dW^{i}_{t}$ is a well-define Brownian motion for given $m,\alpha$. Furthermore, we denote

$$\bar{f}(t,x,m,z,a) :=f(t,x,m,a)+z\cdot\tilde{b}(t,x,m,a)$$

$$H(t,x,m,z) :=\sup_{a\in A}\bar{f}(t,x,m,z,a)$$

$$A(t,x,m,z) :=\{a\in A:\bar{f}(t,x,m,z,a)=H(t,x,m,z)\}.$$

Notice that for each $(t,x,m,z)$, the set $A(t,x,m,z)$ is always non-empty since $A$ is assumed to be compact and $\bar{f}$ is continous in $a$. In particular, we assume for any $\hat{\alpha}\in A(t,x,m,z)$, $f(t,x,m,\hat{\alpha}(t,x,m,z))$ is continuous with respect to $m$, uniformly continuous with respect to $z$, and $b(t,x,m,\hat{\alpha}(t,x,m,z))$ is continuous with respect to $(m,z)$. Then we have for each $\alpha^{i}\in\mathbb{A}$, the FBSDE

$$\begin{split}dX^{i}_{t}&=\left(h^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})+b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t},\\ dY^{i}_{t}&=-f^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}\\ X^{i}_{0}&=x^{i};\ Y_{T}^{i}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T})\end{split}$$ (4.16)

has a solution with $\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})$ by Theorem 3.12, and thus the existence of weak solution of (4.15).

Moreover, notice that we have

$$Y^{i,\alpha^{i}}_{t} =g(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T})+\int_{t}^{T}\bar{f}^{i}(s,X^{i}_{s},\mu_{s},Z^{i}_{s},\alpha^{i}_{s})ds-\int_{t}^{T}Z^{i}_{s}dW^{i,\mu}_{s}$$

$$=g(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T})+\int_{t}^{T}f^{i}(s,X^{i}_{s},\mu_{s},\alpha^{i}_{s})ds-\int_{t}^{T}Z^{i}_{s}dW^{i}_{s},$$

and

$$Y^{i,\alpha^{i}}_{0}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\int_{0}^{T}f^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\alpha^{i}_{t})dt+g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T}).$$

Thus from the well-known comparison principle of BSDEs, we know that $Y^{i,\hat{\alpha}^{i}}$ where

$$Y^{i,\hat{\alpha}^{i}}_{t}=g(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T})+\int_{t}^{T}H(s,X^{i}_{s},\mu_{s},Z^{i}_{s})ds-\int_{t}^{T}Z^{i}_{s}dW^{i,\mu}_{s},$$

such that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left(Y^{i,\hat{\alpha}^{i}}_{0}\right)\geq\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left(Y^{i,\alpha^{i}}_{0}\right)$ for each $\alpha^{i}\in\mathbb{A}$. The existence of such $\hat{\alpha}^{i}$ can be obtained from well-known measurable selection theorem, e.g. Theorem 18.19 of Aliprantis and Border, (2007), namely there exists a function $\hat{\alpha}^{i}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathcal{P}^{H}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ such that

$$\hat{\alpha}^{i}(t,x,m,z)\in A(t,x,m,z)\ \forall(t,x,m,z),$$

and for each $m$ the map $(t,x,z)\mapsto\hat{\alpha}^{i}(t,x,m,z)$ is jointly measurable with respect to $\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\otimes\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$. The only problem we face right now is the existence of the mapping $\psi:E\rightarrow E$ such that $\psi(\mu)=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X)$ has a fixed point. Notice that we have (4.16) is of the form

$$dX^{i}_{t} =\left(h^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})+b^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},\hat{\alpha}^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},Z^{i}_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t})dW^{i}_{t},$$

$$dY^{i}_{t} =-f^{i}(t,X_{t}^{i},\mu_{t},\hat{\alpha}^{i}(t,X^{i}_{t},\mu_{t},Z^{i}_{t}))dt+Z^{i}_{t}dW^{i}_{t}$$

$$X^{i}_{0} =x^{i};\ Y_{T}^{i}=g^{i}(X^{i}_{T},\mu_{T}),$$

with requiring $\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}^{H}(X_{t})$. This allows us to adopt results in Theorem 3.12. Therefore, such game has a solvable equilibrium in the strong sense. In particular, if we have set $A(t,x,m,z)$ is a singleton and $\hat{\alpha}^{i}$ does not depend on $z$ and $b^{i}(t,x,m,\hat{\alpha}(t,x,m))$ is modulus continuous with respect to $m$, then according to Corollary 3.15, we can deduce such game has a unique equilibrium.

Appendix A Measure Change of FBSDE

In this subsection, we provide sufficient conditions that guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a strong solution under the Girsanov transform. We assume the following conditions:

• The SDE

  $$dF_{t}=h(t,F_{t})dt+\sigma(t,F_{t})dW_{t}$$

  has a unique strong solution.

• For notation simplicity, we denote $\tilde{b}(t,x,y,z,m)=(\sigma)^{\intercal}(\sigma(\sigma)^{\intercal})^{-1}(t,x)b(t,x,y,z,m)$, and for the strong solution $F$ obtained in (H1), there exist Borel measurable functions $(u,d):[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ such that $U_{t}=u(t,F_{t})$ and $V_{t}=d(t,F_{t})$ is a strong solution of BSDE

  $$dU_{t} =-\left(f(t,F_{t},U_{t},V_{t})+V_{t}\tilde{b}(t,F_{t},U_{t},V_{t})\right)dt+V_{t}dW_{t}; U_{T} =g(F_{T}).$$

• For $(F,U,V)$ in (H1) and (H2), the process

  $$\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{\cdot}\tilde{b}(s,F_{s},U_{s},V_{s})^{\intercal}dW_{s}\right)$$

  is a martingale on $[0,T]$.

• For $u,d$ in (H3), the forward SDE

  $$d\tilde{F}_{t} =\left(h(t,\tilde{F}_{t})+b(t,\tilde{F}_{t},u(t,\tilde{F}_{t}),d(t,\tilde{F}_{t}))\right)dt+\sigma(t,\tilde{F}_{t})dW_{t}; \tilde{F}_{0} =x$$

  has a (pathwise) unique strong solution $\tilde{F}$.

Lemma A.1.

Assume (H1)–(H4). Then, the FBSDE

$$\begin{split}dX_{t}&=\left(h(t,X_{t})+b(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})\right)dt+\sigma(t,X_{t})dW_{t};\ X_{0}=x\\ dY_{t}&=-f(t,X_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})dt+Z_{t}dW_{t};\ Y_{T}=g(X_{T})\end{split}$$ (A.1)

has a strong solution $(X,Y,Z)$ that satisfies (H3) and $(Y,Z)=(u(t,X_{t}),d(t,X_{t}))$. In addition, if we assume that, for any Itô process $I$,

$$dY_{t}=-f(t,I_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})dt+Z_{t}dW_{t};\ Y_{T}=g(I_{T})$$

has a unique strong solution, then (A.1) has a unique strong solution $(X,Y,Z)$ such that $\mathcal{E}\left(-\int_{0}^{\cdot}g(s,X_{s},Y_{s},Z_{s})^{\intercal}dW_{s}\right)$ is a martingale on $[0,T]$. Moreover, it also implies that BSDE

$$dY_{t} =-\left(f(t,I_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})+Z_{t}\tilde{b}(t,I_{t},Y_{t},Z_{t})\right)dt+Z_{t}dW_{t};\ Y_{T}=g(I_{T})$$

has a unique solution.

Proof.

See Lemma 4.1, Nam and Xu, (2022), and one can easily prove the last argument using the similar idea in Proposition 3.6. ∎