1 Erratum to: Appl Math Optim DOI 10.1007/s00245-017-9424-2
We correct the statement of Lemma 2.2 in the original article. The solution of the SDE (2.2) is, in general, not a martingale but only a supermartingale. The set of controls is restricted to those processes such that the solution of Eq. (2.2) is a martingale. The remaining results and examples are valid for the new set of controls.
We first correct the statement of Lemma 2.2 in the original article. For \(m\in \mathbb {R}_{+}\) the solution of the SDE
is a supermartingale but not necessarily a martingale (see Example 2.3 below for a counterexample). To show that M is a martingale we conclude in the original article that \(\tau _n=\tau \) on \(\{M_\tau \le n\}\), which is not true in general. The corrected version of Lemma 2.2 reads as follows:
Lemma 2.2
Let \((\alpha _t)_{t\ge 0}=(\alpha ^1_t,\ldots ,\alpha ^d_t)_{t\ge 0}\in L^2_{loc}(W)\) and \(m\in \mathbb {R}_+\). Then there exists a unique strong solution M of (2.2). This solution is a non-negative supermartingale.
As a consequence, for the one-to-one-correspondence claimed in Proposition 2.3 to hold true, we need to require that the set of controls consists of processes \(\alpha \in L^2_{loc}(W)\) such that the solution of (2.2) is a true martingale. More precisely, let
and let \(\mathcal {M}(m)\) be the set of all solutions M of (2.2) with \((\alpha _t)_{t\ge 0} \in \mathcal {A}\). Observe that Lemma 2.2 implies that for \(\alpha \in \mathcal {A}\) the solution \((M_t)\) of (2.2) is a true martingale with \(M_t\rightarrow M_\infty \) in \(L^1(\Omega )\) for \(t\rightarrow \infty \). Moreover, \(M_\infty =M_\tau =H_\tau \) by the definition of \(\tau \). On the other hand, if for \(\alpha \in L^2_{loc}(W)\) the solution of (2.2) is a true martingale with \(M_t\rightarrow M_\infty \) in \(L^1(\Omega )\) for \(t\rightarrow \infty \), then \(E[H_\tau ]=E[M_\tau ]=M_0.\) Notice that \(\mathcal {A}\) is non-empty.
If \(L^2_{loc}(W)\) is replaced by \(\mathcal {A}\) in the subsequent statements, all results and arguments hold true. Moreover, observe that the processes \(\alpha \) and \(\alpha ^*\) in Example 2.6, 2.7, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 are contained in \(\mathcal {A}\). In the proof of the first part of Proposition 3.4 we now consider the control with \(a\in \mathbb {R}^d\). Then \(\alpha \in \mathcal {A}\). For applying Itô’s formula in (3.3) choose \(t\in (0,1)\). The remaining proof is unchanged.
The following example shows that \(\mathcal {A}\ne L^2_{loc}(W)\).
Example 2.3
Let \(d=1\) and \(h(y)=1\) for all \(y\in \mathbb {R}\). Let and \(m=2\). Then \(\tau _n=\inf \{t\ge 0\,|\, |\alpha _t|\ge n\}\) is a localizing sequence for \(\alpha \) and thus, \(\alpha \in L^2_{loc}(W)\). Moreover, the solution M of (2.2) is given by
Then \(M_t\ge 1\) for all \(t\ge 0\) and \(M_1=1=H_1\). Thus, \(\tau :=\inf \{t\ge 0\,|\, M_t\le t\}=1,\) a.s. Moreover, \((M_t)\) is a local martingale, but not a true martingale, because \(M_0=2\) and \( M_1=1\), a.s.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Song Yao for pointing out the error in the original article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s00245-017-9424-2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ankirchner, S., Klein, M. & Kruse, T. Erratum to: A Verification Theorem for Optimal Stopping Problems with Expectation Constraints. Appl Math Optim 79, 179–180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-017-9444-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-017-9444-y