Extended Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations, Quasilinear Parabolic Equations, and Feynman-Kac Formula

Hanxiao Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Extended Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations, Quasilinear Parabolic Equations, and Feynman-Kac Formula

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The solution of an EBSVIE is the unique classical solution of a non-local quasilinear parabolic PDE system.

desk verdict Genuinely new extension of the Feynman-Kac formula to non-local PDEs via EBSVIEs, but Theorem 5.2 is under-assumed and its key limiting argument is not written out. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07168 v1 pith:U4TLWQJV submitted 2019-08-20 math.PR

Hanxiao Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60H2045D0535K4035K59

keywords extendedbackwardstochasticVolterraintegralequationdifferentialequationsnon-localquasilinearparabolicnonlinearFeynman-KacformulaMalliavincalculusprobabilisticrepresentationtime-inconsistentcontrol

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 extended backward stochastic Volterra integral equations (EBSVIEs), in which the generator depends on the value of the unknown on the diagonal, $Y(r,r)$, as well as on the current value and the noise term. It proves that, under Lipschitz conditions, an EBSVIE has a unique adapted solution, and it uses Malliavin calculus to show higher-order regularity of that solution in the Markovian setting. The main result is a converse Feynman-Kac statement: the function $\hat{\Theta}(t,s,x)=Y^{s,x}(t,s)$ built from the EBSVIE solution is the unique classical solution of a non-local quasilinear parabolic PDE system. This matters because it gives a probabilistic representation for PDEs that couple different time layers, the kind that appears in time-inconsistent optimal control.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Markovian EBSVIE (1.17), a family of backward stochastic differential equations indexed by $s\in[t,T)$, whose generator at time $\tau$ depends on the solution triple $(Y(s,\tau), Y(\tau,\tau), Z(s,\tau))$; the diagonal process $Y(\tau,\tau)$ is what makes the resulting PDE non-local. The argument proceeds through three linked pieces: a contraction-and-induction proof that the EBSVIE has a unique adapted solution in the space $H^p[0,T]$; Malliavin calculus showing that $Z^{s,x}(s,r)=\nabla Y^{s,x}(s,r)(\nabla X^{s,x}(r))^{-1}\sigma(r,X^{s,x}(r))$, which gives regularity of the solution in the initial data; and, in Theorem 5.2, a Riemann-sum identity (5.6) that is passed to the limit by the Holder estimates and dominated convergence to obtain the PDE (5.1).

What would settle it

For a concrete smooth case with $m=d=1$, $b=0$, $\sigma=1$, $g(t,s,x,y,y',z)=y'$, and $\psi(t,x)=x^2$, simulate the EBSVIE and compute the residual of the PDE (5.1) at fixed $(t,s,x)$; the residual must tend to zero as the time partition is refined, otherwise the limit passage in Theorem 5.2 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a two-way Feynman-Kac correspondence. For the Markovian EBSVIE (1.17) under assumptions (F.1)--(B.4), the deterministic function $\hat{\Theta}(t,s,x)\triangleq Y^{s,x}(t,s)$ is the unique classical solution of the non-local quasilinear parabolic system (5.1). Conversely, if $\Theta$ is a classical solution of (5.1), then $Y^{s,x}(s,r)=\Theta(s,r,X^{s,x}(r))$ and $Z^{s,x}(s,r)=\Theta_x(s,r,X^{s,x}(r))\sigma(r,X^{s,x}(r))$ form the adapted solution of the EBSVIE. This extends the nonlinear Feynman-Kac formula to equations whose nonlinear term involves both $\Theta(t,s,x)$ and the diagonal value $\Theta(s,s,x)$, and it allows the diffusion coefficient to be degenerate.

Load-bearing premise

The transition from the Riemann-sum identity (5.6) to the PDE requires uniform Holder estimates (5.7)--(5.10) and the convergence to zero of the stochastic integral terms, and these are asserted in the text rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under (F.1)--(B.4), the function $\hat{\Theta}$ defined by (5.3) is the unique classical solution of the non-local quasilinear parabolic system (5.1).
Any classical solution of (5.1) yields the EBSVIE solution through (5.2), so the PDE and the stochastic equation determine each other.
The representation applies to possibly degenerate diffusion coefficients, since no uniform ellipticity condition such as (1.10) is imposed.
The regularity proven for the EBSVIE solution implies the PDE system has a classical solution, not merely a weak or viscosity solution.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step would be to extend the same diagonal-coupling mechanism to path-dependent or mean-field EBSVIEs, since the non-locality enters only through $Y(r,r)$ and the Malliavin step does not use the special field structure.
The identity $Z^{s,x}(s,r)=\nabla Y^{s,x}(s,r)\sigma(r,X^{s,x}(r))$ suggests a Monte Carlo scheme that regresses finite-difference estimates of the gradient of $Y$ to approximate $Z$ and then evaluates the PDE residual; the paper does not describe such a scheme.
Because the non-local PDE (1.16) is the equilibrium Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation of time-inconsistent control, the representation gives a probabilistic route to equilibrium value functions and strategies, an application the introduction leaves implicit.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a genuine new object, the EBSVIE, and the intended result — a probabilistic representation for the non-local PDE class (5.1) that includes equilibrium HJB equations — is important within stochastic control. If the proof of Theorem 5.2 is made rigorous, it is a solid step beyond Wang–Yong and Pardoux–Peng.

What is good: Theorem 3.1 (well-posedness) is a clean adaptation of Yong's contraction method, and Theorem 5.1, the Itô direction from PDE to EBSVIE, is correct and short. The Malliavin regularity program is ambitious and gives the right kind of statement. The writing is clear and the citations are fair; the new content is not in the cited papers.

The soft spots are in the converse, Theorem 5.2, and they are concrete.

First, assumption mismatch. The theorem is stated under (F.1)-(B.4), but the proof begins by invoking Theorem 4.7, which is proved under (B.5). (B.5) adds a uniform-in-x modulus of continuity in t for g and ψ. (B.4) only gives continuity and C^3_b in the spatial variables; it does not imply (B.5) — take g(t,x)=cos(tx). So the theorem as stated is not established. This is the most serious issue.

Second, the limit passage from the Riemann sum (5.6) to the PDE. The text says 'by dominated convergence theorem' after asserting (5.7)-(5.10). The estimates are plausible, but the convergence of the two stochastic integral sums to zero is not demonstrated; dominated convergence does not handle Itô integrals directly. I expect it can be fixed with BDG and an L^2 estimate, but the proof is not there.

Third, two smaller things: in Theorem 3.2 the deduction of a.s. joint continuity from L^p bounds is too quick, and Corollary 4.2 asserts the Malliavin-derivative-to-Z identification without proof. Both are likely repairable, but they contribute to a conditional verdict.

The author's claim that Theorem 5.2 gives a nonlinear Feynman-Kac formula for possibly degenerate non-local PDEs is a good and falsifiable claim. The tools are imported, but the target is new.

Who should read: stochastic analysts working with BSVIEs, Malliavin calculus, or time-inconsistent control. They should read it with a red pen on Section 5. It deserves a serious referee — the result is worth the referee's time even though the current version should come back for revision.

My recommendation: send to peer review, but the referee should demand a corrected Theorem 5.2 (either add (B.5) to the assumptions or prove the regularity under (B.4)) and a written proof of the limiting step.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces extended backward stochastic Volterra integral equations (EBSVIEs), in which the generator depends on both Y(t,r) and the diagonal value Y(r,r). It establishes well-posedness in H^p under Lipschitz conditions (Theorem 3.1), a continuity and a priori estimate for the diagonal process Y(t,t) (Theorem 3.2), Malliavin differentiability of the solution (Theorem 4.1), Markovian regularity results (Corollary 4.2, Theorem 4.7), and finally a two-way Feynman--Kac correspondence between the Markovian EBSVIE (1.17) and the nonlocal quasilinear parabolic system (5.1). The main advertised result is Theorem 5.2: under (F.1)--(B.4), the deterministic function \hat{\Theta}(t,s,x)=Y^{s,x}(t,s) is the unique classical solution of (5.1), generalizing the Pardoux--Peng nonlinear Feynman--Kac formula.

Significance. If the main theorem is established, the paper gives a probabilistic representation for a class of nonlocal parabolic PDEs that arise in time-inconsistent control, and it does so without requiring the uniform ellipticity condition (1.10) that appears in Wang--Yong [30]. The structure of the paper is sensible: Theorem 5.1 is a direct Itô-argument, the well-posedness framework for EBSVIEs is useful in itself, and the explicit treatment of the diagonal coupling Y(r,r) is a genuine extension of earlier BSVIE results. However, the advertised converse direction is not proved as written: the proof of Theorem 5.2 relies on regularity results stated under a stronger assumption, and several load-bearing convergence and identification steps are asserted rather than shown. These gaps appear fixable, but they require nontrivial additional work.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Theorem 5.2 versus Theorem 4.7] Theorem 5.2 is stated under (F.1)--(B.4), but its proof begins by invoking Theorem 4.7, which is stated and proved under (F.1)--(B.5), not (B.4). The extra condition in (B.5) is a uniform modulus of continuity in t for both g and ψ, and it is not implied by (B.4): for example g(t,x)=cos(tx) satisfies the C^3_b spatial bounds required by (B.4) for each t, yet it has no uniform modulus in t over x∈R^d. This is load-bearing because \hat{\Theta}(t,s,x)=Y^{s,x}(t,s) depends on t through the first argument of Y, and the proof of Theorem 4.7 uses the uniform t-modulus through Theorem 3.2. The theorem as stated is therefore not established; either add (B.5) to the statement of Theorem 5.2 and Section 5, or prove the needed regularity under (B.4) alone.
[Section 5, equations (5.6)--(5.10)] The passage from the Riemann-sum identity (5.6) to the PDE is the core of Theorem 5.2, but it is not proved. After asserting the Hölder bounds (5.7)--(5.10) via Kolmogorov's continuity theorem, the text says 'by dominated convergence theorem' and lets the mesh go to zero. This does not cover the two stochastic-integral sums in (5.6); no argument is given that they converge to zero in L^2 or in probability. One needs to prove, for example via Itô isometry and the bounds (5.9)--(5.10), that the sum of the stochastic integrals vanishes in the limit, and also to justify the corresponding convergence of the deterministic sums. Since the derivation of the PDE (5.1) depends entirely on this limit passage, a complete proof is required.
[Corollary 4.2 and Lemma 4.4] The identification of Z^{t,x}(s,r) with the Malliavin derivative D_r Y^{t,x}(s,r) is asserted without proof. Corollary 4.2 ends with the 'Moreover' sentence claiming this identification, but the proof stops after establishing the equation (4.12); the identification is not derived. Similarly, equation (4.2) in Theorem 4.1 is stated as 'In addition' without a proof in the Picard-iteration argument. Lemma 4.4 and the subsequent uniform estimates for Z, in particular (5.9)--(5.10), depend on this identification. This is a nontrivial Malliavin-calculus step and should be proved explicitly.
[Theorem 4.7, equations (4.27)--(4.33)] The proof of Theorem 4.7 does not establish the full C^{0,0,0,2} regularity that Theorem 5.2 uses. The argument shows moment bounds for first-order finite differences and states that this implies twice differentiability in x, but it does not prove existence and continuity of the second derivatives, and it does not derive the uniform bound |\hat{\Theta}_{xx}|≤C_p that is asserted in (5.5). To justify (5.5) and the dominated-convergence step in Theorem 5.2, one needs second-difference estimates and a Kolmogorov-type argument yielding a continuous version of the second derivative. As written, the regularity conclusion is under-supported.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 3.2, after (3.21)] The deduction of the pathwise bound |Y(t,s)-Y(t',s)|≤Cρ(|t-t'|) from the conditional estimate (3.21) uses that Y(t,s)-Y(t',s) is F_s-measurable; this measurability should be stated explicitly. Without that remark the step looks unjustified, although it is in fact correct.
[Theorem 5.2, statement] The regularity statement after (5.3) says the solution belongs to C^{0,0,2}(∆[0,T]×R^d; R^d); the codomain should be R^m, matching the values of Y. This is a typo but should be corrected.
[Assumption (B.5)] The condition (B.5) contains a typo: 'x,y,,y′' should read 'x,y,y′'. Please also state explicitly that the modulus of continuity is uniform with respect to the spatial variables, as the example in the major comment shows this uniformity is essential.
[Definition of \hat{\Theta}, equation (5.3)] The expression Y^{s,x}(t,s) uses the extension of Y^{t,x}(s,r) to first arguments s that are smaller than the initial time; this extension is constructed in Proposition 4.6 and equation (4.18), but Theorem 5.2 should recall that convention to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.2 derives the PDE from the EBSVIE solution rather than assuming the PDE as an input.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central object is \hat{\Theta}(t,s,x) = Y^{s,x}(t,s), defined directly from the EBSVIE solution in (5.3), with no reference to a solution of the PDE (5.1). Theorem 5.1 is the PDE-to-EBSVIE direction and is a genuine converse input; Theorem 5.2's proof starts from the EBSVIE equation (1.17), forms the telescoping Riemann-sum identity (5.6), and only then passes to the limit using the Hölder estimates (5.7)-(5.10). The PDE appears as the output of that limiting argument, not as an assumption. Uniqueness is likewise obtained from the independently proved uniqueness of adapted solutions in Theorem 3.1 together with Theorem 5.1, so it is not imported from a self-citation chain. The external citations, such as Pardoux-Peng [21] and Yong [36], supply standard SDE regularity, Malliavin calculus, and BSDE estimates that are external, parameter-free support rather than the target result. There are genuine non-circular correctness concerns: Theorem 4.7 is stated under (B.5), which includes a uniform modulus of continuity in t, while Theorem 5.2 is stated only under (B.4); and the convergence of the two stochastic-integral sums in the passage from (5.6) to the PDE is asserted rather than fully demonstrated. These are gaps in the proof's validity, not reductions of the conclusion to its inputs, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters: all constants C_p are generic and no coefficients are fitted. The paper introduces no new physical or probabilistic entities; EBSVIE is a new equation class, not an entity. It relies on standard SDE, BSDE, and Malliavin calculus results.

assumptions (5)

standard math SDE (1.11) with (F.1) admits a unique strong solution and satisfies the regularity estimates of Lemma 2.2.
Quoted from [38, Chapter 1] and [21]; used throughout Sections 3-5.
standard math BSDE (2.9) well-posedness and the a priori estimates of Lemma 2.6.
Quoted from [38]; used in Step 1 of Theorem 3.1 and in Theorem 3.2.
standard math Malliavin calculus facts: closedness of D, Lemma 2.4 for D_r X^{t,x}, and formula (2.8).
Quoted from [18] and [21, Lemma 1.1]; used in Section 4.
standard math Kolmogorov continuity theorem [9, Theorem 3.1].
Used in Theorem 5.2 to produce Holder-continuous versions with a random constant K(omega).
standard math Ito's formula applied to r maps to Theta(s,r,X^{t,x}(r)) and to |Y|^p.
Standard; used in Theorem 5.1 and Lemma 2.6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations, Quasilinear Parabolic Equations, and Feynman-Kac Formula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4TLWQJV

@misc{pith2026190807168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations, Quasilinear Parabolic Equations, and Feynman-Kac Formula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4TLWQJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07168}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we establish the relationship between backward stochastic Volterra integral equations (BSVIEs, for short) and a kind of non-local quasilinear (and possibly degenerate) parabolic equations. We first introduce the extended backward stochastic Volterra integral equations (EBSVIEs, for short). Under some mild conditions, we establish the well-posedness of EBSVIEs and obtain some regularity results of the adapted solution to the EBSVIEs via Malliavin calculus. We show that a given function expressed in terms of the solution to the EBSVIEs solves a certain system of non-local parabolic partial differential equations (PDEs, for short), which generalizes the famous nonlinear Feynman-Kac formula in Pardoux{Peng [21].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[30]

Wang and J

T. Wang and J. Yong, Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations—Representation of Adapted Solutions, Stoch. Proc. Appl., (2019)

work page 2019
[1]

Dynamic risk measure for BSVIE with jumps and semimartingale issues

N. Agram, Dynamic risk measure for BSVIE with jumps and semimartingal e issues, arXiv:1803.01238v1 [math.OC] 3 Mar 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[2]

Agram and B

N. Agram and B. Øksendal, Malliavin calculus and optimal control of stchastic Volter ra equa- tions, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 167 (2015), 1070–1094

work page 2015
[3]

Aman and M

A. Aman and M. N’Zi, Backward stochastic nonlinear Volterra integ ral equation with local Lipschitz drift, Probab. Math. Stat., 25 (2005), 105–127

work page 2005
[4]

V. V. Anh, W. Grecksch, and J. Yong, Regularity of backward st ochastic Volterra integral equations in Hilbert spaces, Stoch. Anal. Appl., 29 (2011), 146–168

work page 2011
[5]

Bender and S

C. Bender and S. Pokalyuk, Discretization of backward stochastic Volterra integral e quations, Recent Developments in Computational Finance, Interdiscip. Math . Sci., 14, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2013, 245–278

work page 2013
[6]

Djordjevi´ c and S

J. Djordjevi´ c and S. Jankovi´ c, On a class of backward stoc hastic Volterra integral equations, Appl. Math. Lett., 26 (2013), 1192–1197

work page 2013
[7]

Djordjevi´ c and S

J. Djordjevi´ c and S. Jankovi´ c, Backward stochastic Volterra integral equations with additive perturbations, Appl. Math. Comput., 265 (2015), 903–910

work page 2015

Show all 39 references

[8]

Ekren, C

I. Ekren, C. Keller, N. Touzi, and J. Zhang, On viscosity solutions of path dependent PDEs, Ann. Probab., 42 (2014), 204–236

2014
[9]

Friz and M

P. Friz and M. Hairer, A course on rough paths: with an introduct ion to regularity structures, Springer, (2014)

2014
[10]

Hu and B

Y. Hu and B. Øksendal, Linear Volterra backward stochastic integral equations, Stoch. Proc. Appl., (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spa.2018.03.016

2018 doi
[11]

Karatzas and S

I. Karatzas and S. Shreve, Brownian motion and stochastic ca lculus, Springer Science and Business Media. (2012)

2012
[12]

N. El. Karoui, S. Peng and M. C. Quenez, Backward stochastic d iﬀerential equations in ﬁnance, Math. Finance, 7 (1997), 1–71

1997
[13]

Kharroubi, L

I. Kharroubi, L. Nicolas, and H. Pham, Discrete time approximat ion of fully nonlinear HJB equations via BSDEs with nonpositive jumps, Ann. Appl. Probab., 25 (2015), 2301–2338

2015
[14]

Kobylanski, Backward stochastic diﬀerential equations and partial diﬀ erential equations with quadratic growth, Ann

M. Kobylanski, Backward stochastic diﬀerential equations and partial diﬀ erential equations with quadratic growth, Ann. Probab., 28 (2000), 558–602

2000
[15]

Lin, Adapted solution of a backward stochastic nonlinear Volt erra integral equation, Stoch

J. Lin, Adapted solution of a backward stochastic nonlinear Volt erra integral equation, Stoch. Anal. Appl., 20 (2002), 165–183

2002
[16]

Ma and J

J. Ma and J. Yong, Forward-Backward Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations and Th eir Applica- tions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1702, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

1999
[17]

Mei and J

H. Mei and J. Yong, Equilibrium Strategies for Time-Inconsistent Stochastic Switching Sys- tems, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1712.09505, (2017)

2017 arXiv
[18]

Nualart, The Malliavin calculus and related topics, Springer, Heidelberg, 1995

D. Nualart, The Malliavin calculus and related topics, Springer, Heidelberg, 1995. 26

1995
[19]

Overbeck and J

L. Overbeck and J. A. L. R¨ oder, Path-dependent backward stochastic Volterra integral equ a- tions with jumps, diﬀerentiability and duality principle, Probability, Uncertainty and Quanti- tative Risk, (2018)

2018
[20]

Pardoux and S

E. Pardoux and S. Peng, Adapted solution of a backward stoch astic diﬀerential equation, Systems & Control Lett., 14 (1990), 55–61

1990
[21]

Pardouc and S

E. Pardouc and S. Peng, Backward stochastic diﬀerential equ ations and quasilinear parabolic partial diﬀerential equations, Stochastic partial diﬀerential equations and their applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (1992), 200–217

1992
[22]

Pardouc and S

E. Pardouc and S. Peng, Backward doubly stochastic diﬀerent ial equations and systems of quasilinear SPDEs, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 98 (1994), 209–227

1994
[23]

Peng and F

S. Peng and F. Wang, BSDE, path-dependent PDE and nonlinear Feynman-Kac formula, Sci. China Math., 59 (2016), 19–36

2016
[24]

Ren, On solutions of backward stochastic Volterra integral equations with jumps in Hilbert spaces, J

Y. Ren, On solutions of backward stochastic Volterra integral equations with jumps in Hilbert spaces, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 144 (2010), 319–333

2010
[25]

Y. Shi, T. Wang, and J. Yong, Mean-ﬁeld backward stochastic Volterra integral equation s, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B, 18 (2013), 1929–1967

2013
[26]

Y. Shi, T. Wang, and J. Yong, Optimal control problems of forward-backward stochastic Volterra integral equations, Math. Control Rel. Fields, 5 (2015), 613–649

2015
[27]

Wang, Linear quadratic control problems of stochastic Volterra i ntegral equations, ESAIM: COCV, to appear

T. Wang, Linear quadratic control problems of stochastic Volterra i ntegral equations, ESAIM: COCV, to appear
[28]

H. Wang, J. Sun, and J. Yong, Quadratic Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1810.10149, (2018)

2018 arXiv
[29]

Wang and J

T. Wang and J. Yong, Comparison theorems for some backward stochastic Volterra integral equations, Stoch. Proc. Appl., 125 (2015), 1756–1798

2015
[31]

Wang and H

T. Wang and H. Zhang, Optimal control problems of forward-b ackward stochastic Volterra integral equations with closed control regions, SIAM J. Control Optim., 55 (2017), 2574–2602

2017
[32]

Wang and X

Z. Wang and X. Zhang, Non-Lipschitz backward stochastic Volterra type equation s with jumps, Stochastics & Dynamics, 7 (2007), 479–496

2007
[33]

Wang and X

Z. Wang and X. Zhang, A class of backward stochastic Volterra integral equations with jumps and applications, preprint
[34]

Q. Wei, J. Yong, and Z. Yu, Time-inconsistent recursive stocha stic optimal control problems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 55 (2017), 4156-4201

2017
[35]

Yong, Continuous-time dynamic risk measures by backward s tochastic Volterra integral equations, Appl

J. Yong, Continuous-time dynamic risk measures by backward s tochastic Volterra integral equations, Appl. Anal., 86 (2007), 1429–1442

2007
[36]

Yong, Well-posedness and regularity of backward stochast ic Volterra integral equations, Probab

J. Yong, Well-posedness and regularity of backward stochast ic Volterra integral equations, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 142 (2008), 21–77

2008
[37]

Yong, Time-inconsistent optimal control problems and the e quilibrium HJB equation, Math

J. Yong, Time-inconsistent optimal control problems and the e quilibrium HJB equation, Math. Control Rel. Fields, 2 (2012), 271–329

2012
[38]

Yong and X

J. Yong and X. Y. Zhou, Stochastic Control: Hamiltonian Systems and HJB Equations , Springer-Verlag, 1999

1999
[39]

Zhang, Backward Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations: From L inear to Fully Nonlinear Theory, Vol

J. Zhang, Backward Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations: From L inear to Fully Nonlinear Theory, Vol. 86. Springer, 2017. 27

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [30]

Wang and J

T. Wang and J. Yong, Backward Stochastic Volterra Integral Equations—Representation of Adapted Solutions, Stoch. Proc. Appl., (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Dynamic risk measure for BSVIE with jumps and semimartingale issues

N. Agram, Dynamic risk measure for BSVIE with jumps and semimartingal e issues, arXiv:1803.01238v1 [math.OC] 3 Mar 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[3] [2]

Agram and B

N. Agram and B. Øksendal, Malliavin calculus and optimal control of stchastic Volter ra equa- tions, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 167 (2015), 1070–1094

work page 2015

[4] [3]

Aman and M

A. Aman and M. N’Zi, Backward stochastic nonlinear Volterra integ ral equation with local Lipschitz drift, Probab. Math. Stat., 25 (2005), 105–127

work page 2005

[5] [4]

V. V. Anh, W. Grecksch, and J. Yong, Regularity of backward st ochastic Volterra integral equations in Hilbert spaces, Stoch. Anal. Appl., 29 (2011), 146–168

work page 2011

[6] [5]

Bender and S

C. Bender and S. Pokalyuk, Discretization of backward stochastic Volterra integral e quations, Recent Developments in Computational Finance, Interdiscip. Math . Sci., 14, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2013, 245–278

work page 2013

[7] [6]

Djordjevi´ c and S

J. Djordjevi´ c and S. Jankovi´ c, On a class of backward stoc hastic Volterra integral equations, Appl. Math. Lett., 26 (2013), 1192–1197

work page 2013

[8] [7]

Djordjevi´ c and S

J. Djordjevi´ c and S. Jankovi´ c, Backward stochastic Volterra integral equations with additive perturbations, Appl. Math. Comput., 265 (2015), 903–910

work page 2015