Neural Expectation Operators

Qian Qi

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Neural Expectation Operators

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that a neural-network driver satisfying quadratic growth in the martingale component, uniform local Lipschitz dependence on the value, and monotonicity in that value, together with an exponentially integrable…

desk verdict A useful bridge idea between quadratic BSDEs and neural drivers, but the main theorem's proof has a real gap and the Merton application overclaims; worth refereeing, not citable as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10607 v1 pith:FO3CU6VU submitted 2025-07-13 math.PR cs.AIcs.LG

Qian Qi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRcs.AIcs.LG MSC 60H1093E2060K3591G8035K5968T07

keywords BackwardStochasticDifferentialEquationsNon-linearExpectationNeuralNetworksQuadraticBSDEsMean-FieldSystemsPropagationofChaosControlAmbiguity

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

The paper introduces 'Measure Learning': instead of committing to a single probability measure or a hand-picked driver, it represents model ambiguity by a backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE) whose driver is a neural network, and calls the resulting solution operator a Neural Expectation Operator. The central result, Theorem 3.7, gives conditions under which such an equation is well-posed, meaning it has one unique solution, even though neural drivers are not globally Lipschitz. The paper then shows constructively that these conditions are achievable by concrete network designs: separable or bounded-interaction architectures, sign constraints that enforce monotonicity, and input-convex networks that enforce convexity. If the theorem is right, ambiguity-aware models in finance, control, and mean-field systems can be learned from data with a rigorous guarantee that the learned expectation is a genuine mathematical object.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Neural BSDE, whose driver $f_\theta$ is parameterized by a neural network. Four components carry the argument: the quadratic-growth condition $|f_\theta(t,x,y,z)|\leq K(1+\|x\|^p+|y|)+\tfrac{\alpha}{2}\|z\|^2$, the uniform local Lipschitz condition in $y$ whose constant depends only on the radius $R$ and not on $t,x,z$, the exponential integrability $E[e^{\beta_0|\xi|}]<\infty$ with $\beta_0>\alpha$, and the space of BMO martingales that makes Girsanov changes of measure available. The proof machinery is the comparison and domination theory of quadratic BSDEs: a dominating bounded BSDE supplies uniform bounds, monotonicity in $y$ lets the comparison principle compare solutions, and BMO control of $Z$ closes the estimates. On the architecture side, monotonicity is enforced by a sign-constrained feed-forward network and convexity by an input-convex network.

What would settle it

Take the separable architecture from Proposition 3.5(a), for instance $f_\theta(y,z)=N_2(y)+\tfrac{\alpha}{2}z^2$ with $N_2$ a smooth bounded non-increasing function and terminal condition $\xi=e^{\beta_0 W_T}$ with $\beta_0>\alpha$, then run the paper's truncation scheme for two different approximating sequences; if the two limits differ in $S^2\times H^2$, or leave $S^\infty\times H^2_{\mathrm{BMO}}$, then Theorem 3.7 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves that for a terminal condition with $E[e^{\beta_0|\xi|}]<\infty$ where $\beta_0>\alpha$, a neural driver $f_\theta$ that is continuous, at most quadratically growing in $z$, uniformly locally Lipschitz in $y$, and non-increasing in $y$, the BSDE $Y_s=\xi+\int_s^T f_\theta(r,X_r,Y_r,Z_r)\,dr-\int_s^T Z_r\,dW_r$ has a unique solution $(Y,Z)$ in $S^\infty\times H^2_{\mathrm{BMO}}$. Uniqueness comes from the comparison principle for quadratic BSDEs, which the monotonicity assumption makes available; existence comes from truncating the terminal condition and the $y$-dependence, obtaining uniform $S^\infty$ and BMO bounds, and passing to the limit. From this foundation the paper derives the axiomatic properties of the resulting expectation, including dynamic consistency, monotonicity, normalization under a structural driver condition, and convexity when the driver is an input-convex network. It extends the well-posedness to fully coupled forward-backward systems via the four-step scheme, and proves a law of large numbers and a central limit theorem for interacting-particle limits under learned ambiguity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof leans on the driver being non-increasing in the value variable $y$; if that monotonicity property is dropped, the comparison theorem that delivers existence and uniqueness no longer applies, so the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every driver that meets Assumptions 3.1 and 3.3 defines a unique non-linear expectation $E_\theta$, so the statistical learning problem for $\theta$ is a well-posed optimization rather than a heuristic.
ReLU and GeLU activations are compatible with the theory, since the uniform local Lipschitz condition replaces the classical global Lipschitz assumption.
Risk-averse convex expectations can be built into the architecture, giving data-driven convex risk measures that are well-posed by construction.
Fully coupled neural forward-backward systems are well-posed under the stated Lipschitz and hybrid conditions, and their mean-field limits satisfy propagation of chaos and a central limit theorem.
In the Merton application, learned ambiguity makes the optimal allocation uniformly smaller than the classical Merton fraction and decreasing in the ambiguity parameter $\theta$.
In the Merton application, learned ambiguity makes the optimal allocation uniformly smaller than the classical Merton fraction and decreasing in the ambiguity parameter $\theta$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the monotonicity assumption could be relaxed, the class of learnable ambiguity models would grow substantially; a natural test is to run the paper's truncation scheme on a non-monotone but still quadratically growing driver and look for multiple limit points.
The normalization condition $f_\theta(t,x,y,0)=0$ is not enforced by architecture, and the proposed regularization suggests that learned models will trade exact normalization against fit, which is a falsifiable identifiability question.
The linearized fluctuation system in Theorem 6.5 could be solved numerically through the decoupled PDE representation mentioned in Remark 6.6, offering a scalable way to compute distributional uncertainty around mean-field limits.
Wealth-dependent investment in the Merton application is a testable signature of learned ambiguity: with $0<\gamma<1$ the allocation fraction should fall with wealth, while with $\gamma<0$ it should rise.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Short version: the paper proposes a sensible bridge between quadratic BSDE theory and neural-network parameterized drivers, and the architectural constructions are correct as far as they go. But the proof of the main well-posedness theorem has a load-bearing gap, and the applications overclaim what the theorem delivers. This deserves a serious referee, but as written it is not a solid paper.

What is actually new: the observation that sign-constrained ReLU networks can satisfy the monotonicity and local Lipschitz hypotheses of the quadratic BSDE theory, and the idea of treating the resulting operator as a learnable object. Proposition 3.5 is straightforward but correct. The axiomatic properties (dynamic consistency, convexity via ICNN) are standard consequences of the BSDE framework, stated cleanly.

The soft spots are significant. Theorem 3.7's proof is not valid as written. The stability estimate in Step 2.2 is asserted, not derived, and the stress-test concern is correct: the driver difference contains a pure quadratic z-term, so the claimed Cauchy estimate does not close. The standard Kobylanski route uses exponential transforms and BMO arguments, not the raw S^2 inequality invoked here. The theorem may be true as a specialization of known results, but this paper does not supply the proof. The mean-field LLN and CLT sections are similarly sketchy; the stability estimates are hand-waved and the CLT is a derivation sketch. Finally, the Merton application claims all conditions of Theorem 3.7 hold, but the terminal utility U(X_T) does not satisfy the required exponential integrability for any γ≠0, so the application is not covered by the theorem. That is a clear mismatch.

The paper is honest about its limitations, and the writing is clear. It would be useful as a roadmap for someone who wants to connect quadratic BSDEs with neural driver parameterization, but the central theorem needs a repaired proof and the applications need either verification of hypotheses or explicit conjecture labels.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but flag the main proof gap and the Merton integrability issue for the referee to check.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "Neural Expectation Operators," defined as solutions of backward stochastic differential equations whose drivers are neural networks, and develops a framework called "Measure Learning" for data-driven modeling of ambiguity. The central theoretical claim is Theorem 3.7, which asserts well-posedness in S^∞ × H^2_BMO for such BSDEs under a local-Lipschitz-in-y, quadratic-in-z, monotone driver and an exponentially integrable terminal condition. The paper also proposes constructive neural architectures satisfying the assumptions, derives axiomatic properties such as convexity and Jensen's inequality, extends the framework to fully coupled FBSDEs and mean-field systems with a propagation-of-chaos theorem and a central limit theorem, and illustrates the framework on a Merton portfolio problem.

Significance. If Theorem 3.7 is established with a complete proof, the paper provides a useful bridge between the deep theory of quadratic BSDEs and neural-network-based modeling of nonlinear expectations. The constructive architectural results in Proposition 3.5, the candid discussion of the restrictive monotonicity assumption, and the explicit treatment of BMO spaces are valuable and will be of interest to researchers working at the interface of stochastic analysis and machine learning. However, the proofs of the main theorem and several extensions are incomplete as written, and the central well-posedness claim is not yet established by the manuscript.

major comments (5)

[§3.3, Step 2.2 of Theorem 3.7] The asserted stability estimate cannot be used to prove that the approximation sequence is Cauchy as written. For δY = Y^k − Y^m and δZ = Z^k − Z^m, the driver difference Δf_s = f_θ(s,X_s,Y^k_s,Z^k_s) − f_θ(s,X_s,Y^m_s,Z^m_s) contains, under Assumption 3.3(ii), a quadratic contribution roughly of order (α/2)(|Z^k_s|^2 − |Z^m_s|^2). This term is not controlled by |δZ_s| and does not vanish merely because ξ_k → ξ_m in L^2. The displayed inequality bounding E[sup|δY|^2 + ∫|δZ|^2] by C_stab E[|ξ_k−ξ_m|^2 + (∫|Δf_s|ds)^2] is therefore not compatible with the subsequent claim that Gronwall's lemma reduces the bound to C' E|ξ_k−ξ_m|^2. A complete proof needs a Kobylanski-type exponential transformation and BMO estimates, or an explicit citation of a theorem that applies to this class of drivers. As written, the existence half of Theorem 3.7 is not established.
[§3.3, Step 2.3 of Theorem 3.7] The convergence of the driver integrals is asserted in a single sentence: 'The stability properties of quadratic BSDEs ... ensure' that E[∫|f_k(s,...,Y^k,Z^k) − f_θ(s,...,Y,Z)|ds] → 0. This is a nontrivial point because f has quadratic growth in z and convergence in S^2 × H^2 together with uniform S^∞ and BMO bounds does not by itself imply L^1 convergence of the driver. The proof must supply an argument that controls ∫|Z^k_s|^2 ds using the BMO property, or invoke a precise theorem that yields this convergence. Without this, the passage to the limit in the integral equation is incomplete.
[§4.3, Proposition 4.3] The convex-analysis inequality used in the proof is false as stated. For a convex h and a C^2 convex φ, the inequality h(φ(y),φ'(y)z) ≥ φ'(y)h(y,z) − (1/2)φ''(y)|z|^2 is not a consequence of convexity. For example, take h(y,z)=−y+z^2, which is convex and non-increasing in y, and φ(y)=e^y. At y=−10 and z=0, the left-hand side is −e^{−10}, while the right-hand side is 10e^{−10}. Thus the proof of Jensen's inequality for Neural Expectations is invalid. The statement may still be true under additional conditions, but it requires a correct proof or a clear retraction.
[§6.2, Theorem 6.2] The BSDE stability step in the proof of the law of large numbers repeats the difficulty identified in Step 2.2 of Theorem 3.7: the displayed stability inequality for quadratic BSDEs and the subsequent Gronwall reduction are not justified for a quadratic driver. In addition, the proof asserts that Y^N and ar Y are uniformly bounded 'by a comparison argument analogous to Theorem 3.7,' but the mean-field dependence of f_θ requires an extra a priori estimate or exponential-moment condition involving sup_s W_2(µ^N_s, µ_s), which is not established. The theorem may be true, but the proof as written does not close these gaps.
[§6.5, Theorem 6.5] The proof of the central limit theorem is only a sketch. Tightness of the fluctuation processes (U^{i,N}, V^{i,N}, Z^{i,N}) and uniqueness of the limiting linear McKean-Vlasov FBSDE are asserted to follow from 'standard but technical' arguments without being supplied. Since the backward driver f_θ has quadratic growth in z, the passage from the finite-N fluctuation BSDEs to the limiting equation requires estimates that are not provided. This gap is load-bearing for the CLT claim.

minor comments (5)

[§4.3.1] The text contains stray LaTeX artifacts such as '/bracehtipupleft/bracehtipdownright/bracehtipdownleft/bracehtipupright' that should be removed before publication.
[§3.2, Proposition 3.5(a)] In part (a), N_1 is described as 'any network satisfying the quadratic growth condition,' but the proposition should also require the continuity and progressive measurability needed for Assumption 3.3(i).
[§5.1, Assumption 5.1(iv)] The smallness condition is stated with an unspecified constant C; to be verifiable, it should be expressed explicitly in terms of the Lipschitz constants and the horizon T, as in the reference to Delarue (2002).
[§8.4, Proposition 8.2] The proof is explicitly heuristic ('A formal proof relies on comparison theorems', 'A full analysis shows'), yet the proposition is stated without qualification; it should either be proved rigorously or labeled as a heuristic/conjecture.
[§5, Part 2 of Theorem 5.2] The implicit equation z = (∇_x u)^T σ_θ(...,z) is introduced before the contraction argument that guarantees a unique solution; the exposition would be clearer if the smallness condition were stated before the construction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central well-posedness result is imported from external quadratic-BSDE theory, and the proof gaps noted by the skeptic are correctness issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper makes no load-bearing self-citations: the only author has no prior works cited, and the existence, comparison, stability, and BMO results are attributed to external, independently established sources such as Kobylanski (2000), Briand et al. (2003), Delarue (2002), and Carmona and Delarue (2018). Theorem 3.7 does not derive quadratic-BSDE theory from scratch; it explicitly imports the foundational results and then verifies that the neural-network driver satisfies the hypotheses. This is a legitimate application of an external theorem, not a circular derivation. The assumptions in Assumption 3.3 are structural restrictions on the driver, not restatements of the conclusion. In particular, monotonicity in y (Assumption 3.3(iv)) is explicitly flagged in Remark 3.4 as a limitation needed for comparison principles, and Proposition 3.5 gives constructive architectural checks rather than assuming the theorem. Similarly, the convexity and Jensen-type results in Section 4 are derived by verifying comparison-theorem hypotheses, and the dual representation in Proposition 4.6 cites external Feynman-Kac theory. The skeptic's objection to Step 2.2 of Theorem 3.7 is a mathematical proof gap: the claimed Gronwall simplification does not account for the quadratic-z dependence in the driver difference, so the Cauchy estimate is not justified as written. This is a correctness concern about the proof, not a circularity in the sense of the target result being equivalent to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the present authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled as a new paradigm. The paper's central claim remains an application of external theory, so the circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a patchwork of external theorems from quadratic BSDE theory and mean-field theory, plus a strong monotonicity assumption on the neural driver. The only free parameter in the learning framework, θ, is not fitted anywhere in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

θ (neural network parameters)
The entire framework depends on a parameter vector θ that is to be learned from data (Section 7). The paper provides no fitted value; in the Merton application θ is a scalar to be estimated.

assumptions (4)

standard math Kobylanski's existence, uniqueness, comparison and BMO theory for quadratic BSDEs
Used throughout Theorem 3.7 proof: existence of dominating bounded solution, comparison principle, BMO estimates, and stability estimates are all imported from Kobylanski (2000) and Briand et al. (2003).
domain assumption Assumption 3.1: exponential integrability of terminal condition and driver
Used to obtain S∞ boundedness of the solution; assumed without verification for the forward process in applications.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 3.3(iv): monotonicity of driver in y
Required for comparison principles in quadratic BSDE theory; acknowledged in Remark 3.4 as a significant structural restriction.
domain assumption Assumptions 6.1 and 6.3: Lipschitz and differentiability of mean-field coefficients
Used for LLN and CLT in Section 6; not checked for concrete neural parameterizations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Expectation Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FO3CU6VU

@misc{pith2026250710607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Expectation Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FO3CU6VU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10607}
}

abstract

This paper introduces \textbf{Measure Learning}, a paradigm for modeling ambiguity via non-linear expectations. We define Neural Expectation Operators as solutions to Backward Stochastic Differential Equations (BSDEs) whose drivers are parameterized by neural networks. The main mathematical contribution is a rigorous well-posedness theorem for BSDEs whose drivers satisfy a local Lipschitz condition in the state variable $y$ and quadratic growth in its martingale component $z$. This result circumvents the classical global Lipschitz assumption, is applicable to common neural network architectures (e.g., with ReLU activations), and holds for exponentially integrable terminal data, which is the sharp condition for this setting. Our primary innovation is to build a constructive bridge between the abstract, and often restrictive, assumptions of the deep theory of quadratic BSDEs and the world of machine learning, demonstrating that these conditions can be met by concrete, verifiable neural network designs. We provide constructive methods for enforcing key axiomatic properties, such as convexity, by architectural design. The theory is extended to the analysis of fully coupled Forward-Backward SDE systems and to the asymptotic analysis of large interacting particle systems, for which we establish both a Law of Large Numbers (propagation of chaos) and a Central Limit Theorem. This work provides the foundational mathematical framework for data-driven modeling under ambiguity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Propagation of Chaos for Singular Interactions via Regular Drivers
math.AP 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

Under a dissipation condition, N-particle systems with implicitly defined density-dependent diffusion converge, after regularization, to a McKean-Vlasov SDE whose diffusion coefficient depends on the solution's own density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" url if FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if ne...
[2]

, Xu , Lei L

binproceedings [author] Amos , Brandon B. , Xu , Lei L. Kolter , J. Zico J. Z. ( 2017 ). Input Convex Neural Networks . In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning ( Doina D. Precup Yee Whye Y. W. Teh , eds.). Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 70 146--155 . PMLR . binproceedings

work page 2017
[3]

Hu , Ying Y

barticle [author] Briand , Philippe P. Hu , Ying Y. ( 2008 ). Quadratic BSDEs with convex generators and unbounded terminal conditions . Probability Theory and Related Fields 141 543--567 . 10.1007/s00440-007-0094-4 barticle

work page doi:10.1007/s00440-007-0094-4 2008
[4]

, Delyon , Bernard B

barticle [author] Briand , Philippe P. , Delyon , Bernard B. , Hu , Ying Y. , Pardoux , Etienne E. Stoica , Ludovic L. ( 2003 ). L^p solutions of backward stochastic differential equations . Stochastic Processes and their Applications 108 109--129 . 10.1016/S0304-4149(03)00096-3 barticle

work page doi:10.1016/s0304-4149(03)00096-3 2003
[5]

Delarue , Fran c ois F

bbook [author] Carmona , Ren \'e R. Delarue , Fran c ois F. ( 2018 ). Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications I-II . Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling 83-84 . Springer . 10.1007/978-3-319-58920-6 bbook

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58920-6 2018
[6]

( 2002 )

barticle [author] Delarue , Fran c ois F. ( 2002 ). On the existence and uniqueness of solutions to FBSDEs in a non-degenerate case . Stochastic Processes and their Applications 99 209--286 . 10.1016/S0304-4149(02)00092-A barticle

work page doi:10.1016/s0304-4149(02)00092-a 2002
[7]

, Peng , Shige S

barticle [author] El Karoui , Nicole N. , Peng , Shige S. Quenez , Marie Claire M. C. ( 1997 ). Backward stochastic differential equations in finance . Mathematical Finance 7 1--71 . 10.1111/1467-9965.00022 barticle

arXiv 1997
[8]

( 2000 )

barticle [author] Kobylanski , Magdalena M. ( 2000 ). Backward stochastic differential equations and partial differential equations with quadratic growth . The Annals of Probability 28 558--602 . 10.1214/aop/1019160256 barticle

arXiv 2000

Show all 11 references

[9]

, Protter , Philip P

barticle [author] Ma , Jin J. , Protter , Philip P. Yong , Jiongmin J. ( 1994 ). Solving forward-backward stochastic differential equations explicitly---a four step scheme . Probability Theory and Related Fields 98 339--359 . 10.1007/BF01192258 barticle

1994 doi
[10]

Peng , Shige S

barticle [author] Pardoux , Etienne E. Peng , Shige S. ( 1990 ). Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation . Systems & Control Letters 14 55--61 . 10.1016/0167-6911(90)90082-6 barticle

1990 doi
[11]

( 2010 )

bbook [author] Peng , Shige S. ( 2010 ). Nonlinear Expectations and Stochastic Calculus under Uncertainty . Springer . 10.1007/978-3-642-16723-8 bbook

2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" url if FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if ne...

[2] [2]

, Xu , Lei L

binproceedings [author] Amos , Brandon B. , Xu , Lei L. Kolter , J. Zico J. Z. ( 2017 ). Input Convex Neural Networks . In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning ( Doina D. Precup Yee Whye Y. W. Teh , eds.). Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 70 146--155 . PMLR . binproceedings

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Hu , Ying Y

barticle [author] Briand , Philippe P. Hu , Ying Y. ( 2008 ). Quadratic BSDEs with convex generators and unbounded terminal conditions . Probability Theory and Related Fields 141 543--567 . 10.1007/s00440-007-0094-4 barticle

work page doi:10.1007/s00440-007-0094-4 2008

[4] [4]

, Delyon , Bernard B

barticle [author] Briand , Philippe P. , Delyon , Bernard B. , Hu , Ying Y. , Pardoux , Etienne E. Stoica , Ludovic L. ( 2003 ). L^p solutions of backward stochastic differential equations . Stochastic Processes and their Applications 108 109--129 . 10.1016/S0304-4149(03)00096-3 barticle

work page doi:10.1016/s0304-4149(03)00096-3 2003

[5] [5]

Delarue , Fran c ois F

bbook [author] Carmona , Ren \'e R. Delarue , Fran c ois F. ( 2018 ). Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications I-II . Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling 83-84 . Springer . 10.1007/978-3-319-58920-6 bbook

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58920-6 2018

[6] [6]

( 2002 )

barticle [author] Delarue , Fran c ois F. ( 2002 ). On the existence and uniqueness of solutions to FBSDEs in a non-degenerate case . Stochastic Processes and their Applications 99 209--286 . 10.1016/S0304-4149(02)00092-A barticle

work page doi:10.1016/s0304-4149(02)00092-a 2002

[7] [7]

, Peng , Shige S

barticle [author] El Karoui , Nicole N. , Peng , Shige S. Quenez , Marie Claire M. C. ( 1997 ). Backward stochastic differential equations in finance . Mathematical Finance 7 1--71 . 10.1111/1467-9965.00022 barticle

arXiv 1997

[8] [8]

( 2000 )

barticle [author] Kobylanski , Magdalena M. ( 2000 ). Backward stochastic differential equations and partial differential equations with quadratic growth . The Annals of Probability 28 558--602 . 10.1214/aop/1019160256 barticle

arXiv 2000