arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 3 Sep 2021

DIOGO GOMES, JULIAN GUTIERREZ, AND RICARDO RIBEIRO

Abstract. We consider a market where a finite number of players trade an asset whose supply is a stochastic process. The price formation problem consists of finding a price process that ensures that when agents act optimally to minimize their trading costs, the market clears, and supply meets demand. This problem arises in market economies, in- cluding electricity generation from renewable sources in smart grids. Our model includes noise in the supply side, which is counterbalanced in the consumption side by storing energy or reducing the demand according to a dynamic price process. By solving a con- strained minimization problem, we prove that the Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the market-clearing condition defines the solution of the price formation problem. For the linear-quadratic structure, we characterize the price process using optimal control techniques, and we include two numerical approaches for the price computation.

1. introduction

Mean-field game theory (MFG) is an approach to study the evolution of a population of competitive rational players. Each player solves an optimal control problem that depends on statistical features of the population rather than one-to-one interactions. The statistical features inform the objective of each agent, determining their dynamics. Adopting a MFG approach, the authors in [17] addressed a deterministic price formation model with a market- clearing condition in which the objectives of a continuum of agents are coupled to the price.

In this paper, we study a price formation model where N agents interact in a market via the price, $, of the commodity they trade and whose supply is random. The agents meet a balance condition that guarantees the supply, Q, of the commodity equals its demand. The novelty of our model consists of considering a random supply, such as electricity generation from sustainable sources.

The randomness in price formation has potential applications in renewable energy pro- duction on smart grids. Small devices in the grid can to store energy that can be sold back to the grid. Changes in weather conditions and network load cause fluctuations on the available supply. Because the agents can sell the surplus of power, they can benefit from load-adaptive pricing ([18], [1]).

The works [3] and [22] addressed price formation when the producer’s revenue is opti- mized. They proposed a Stackelberg game with a linear dependence on the price and a reverse Stackelberg game with non-linear dependence, respectively. In recent works, [13]

presents a linear-quadratic model for intraday electricity markets. In [10], the authors present a Cournot model where the common noise consists of a Brownian motion and a jump process. The contemporary works [23] and [14] study price formation with a market- clearing condition. The former postulates a model for Solar Renewable Energy Certificate Markets. The supply of the energy being priced is controlled. Their approach uses a forward- backward system and variational techniques to formulate a fixed-point problem to prove the existence of a mean-field distribution, from which they obtain the price. The latter assumes a linear-quadratic structure, and the existence of the price comes from the solvability of a

Date: September 6, 2021.

Key words and phrases. Mean Field Games; Price formation; Common noise, Lagrange multiplier.

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), CEMSE Division, Thuwal 23955-6900.

Saudi Arabia. e-mail: [email protected].

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), CEMSE Division, Thuwal 23955-6900.

Saudi Arabia. e-mail: [email protected].

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), CEMSE Division, Thuwal 23955-6900.

Saudi Arabia. e-mail: [email protected].

The authors were partially supported by KAUST baseline funds and KAUST OSR-CRG2017-3452.

1

arXiv:2109.01478v1 [math.AP] 3 Sep 2021

coupled forward-backward system of the McKean-Vlasov type. More recently, [15] studied a further extension that considers a Major player in the market. Our contribution differs from the previous works since our existence results rely on the calculus of variations approach, whereas we derive forward-backward systems as necessary conditions for such existence.

The case of a finite number of players with a deterministic supply was addressed in [2], were only existence and uniqueness was proved, and no numerical approximation scheme was considered. The model we present here generalizes the deterministic supply case. In [16], we addressed the stochastic supply case from the optimal control perspective, and we provided numerical results for a quadratic Lagrangian depending on the trading rate only. Here, we improve those results by proving existence and uniqueness of solutions in the stochastic framework using the variational approach, and we elaborate on the numerical approximation of those solutions.

Next, we introduce our model. Let T > 0 be the time horizon. In the following, we fix a complete filtered probability space (Ω, F , F, P); that is, F = (Ft)_06t6T is the standard filtration generated by t 7→ W_t, a Brownian motion in R (see [21], Definition 3.1.3, and [11], Section 2, for additional details). Here, W plays the role of the common noise in the sense that the supply follows the stochastic differential equation (SDE)

dQt= b^S(Qt, t)dt + σ^S(Qt, t)dWt. (1.1) In our model, the agent’s interaction determines the market equilibrium price of the commodity. All of this commodity produced is consumed entirely. Let N be the number of agents and let the state variable X_tⁱ account for the quantity of the commodity held by agent i at time t. Each agent controls their trading rate according to

dXt= vtdt, t ∈ [0, T ], (1.2)

where v : [0, T ] × Ω → R, the control variable, is progressively measurable with respect to F. The optimization problem we consider reads:

Problem 1. Let N be the number of agents. Let the supply, Q, be a stochastic process adapted to F solving (1.1). Let L ∈ C¹(R²; R) be a non-negative Lagrangian, and Ψ ∈ C¹(R) be a non-negative terminal cost. Assume that at time t = 0, each agent i owns a quantity xⁱ₀∈ R of the commodity.

Find a price process $ and control processes vⁱ, all adapted to F, such that for each i, with 1 6 i 6 N , Xⁱ solves (1.2) with the initial condition X₀ⁱ = xⁱ₀, and minimizes the cost functional

E

"

Z T 0

L(X_tⁱ, vⁱ_t) + $_tv_tⁱ dt + Ψ(X_Tⁱ)

#

, (1.3)

subject to the balance condition 1 N

N

X

i=1

v_tⁱ= Qt, for 0 6 t 6 T. (1.4)

The functional (1.3) represents the expected cost for each agent on [0, T ]. This cost consists of three parts: the trading at the current price through the linear term $v, the charges related to storage or market impact encoded in L, and the terminal cost; the terminal cost reflects the preferences of players at the terminal time. The balance condition (1.4) guarantees demand consumes all supply. For this problem, we obtain the following result:

Theorem 1.1. Let¹Q ∈ HF and suppose that Assumptions 1-5 hold. Then, there exists control processes v^∗i, for 1 6 i 6 N , and a price process $ that solve Problem 1. Further- more, under Assumption 6, the price $ and the control processes v^∗i, for 1 6 i 6 N , solving Problem 1, are unique.

1See Section 2 for notation and assumptions.

We prove this theorem in Section 4, where we formulate a problem independent of the price, but the constraint imposed by the balance condition is still present. Using a forward- backward characterization of optimizers, we obtain the price as the Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the constrained problem.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the main assumptions for the model as well as the notation for the function spaces. We close by recalling an existence result for backward stochastic differential equations. In Section 3, we study the optimization problem that each agent solves when the price is known, and we obtain a forward-backward characterization of the optimal response. Using the single agent result, we prove the existence of a solution to the N agent price formation problem, Problem 1, in Section 4. We specialize our results for a linear-quadratic structure of the model in Section 5. Using optimal control techniques and an extended-state space approach, we obtained semi-explicit expressions for the price. The computation of the price is discussed in Section 6, where we present numerical results for the model of Section 5.

2. Assumptions, notation and previous results

We consider natural assumptions in the context of the calculus of variations (see [9]).

The following conditions are used to prove the existence of minimizers of (3.2), (4.2), and (4.4). In the following, we suppose the Lagrangian L is non-negative.

Assumption 1. The Lagrangian L ∈ C¹(R²; R⁺∪{0}) is convex in (x, v); that is, (x, v) 7→

L(x, v) is convex.

Assumption 2. The terminal cost Ψ ∈ C¹(R; R⁺∪ {0}) is convex.

Because we consider integrals w.r.t. measure spaces, we require compositions of processes with functions to remain in the same class where the process is taken. The following growth conditions guarantee this.

Assumption 3. Ψ ∈ C¹(R; R⁺∪ {0}) satisfies, for some C > 0, Ψ(x) 6 C(1 + |x|²), for all x ∈ R.

Moreover, its derivative, which we denote by Ψ⁰, satisfies, for some ˜C > 0,

|Ψ⁰(x)| 6 ˜C(1 + |x|).

Assumption 4. L ∈ C¹(R²; R⁺∪ {0}), and there exists ˜β, C > 0 such that L(x, v) 6 ˜β(1 + |v|²), for all x ∈ R,

|Lx(x, v)|, |L_v(x, v)| 6 C(1 + |v|), for all (x, v) ∈ R².

In convex optimization, a natural assumption to obtain the existence of minimizers is the coercivity condition.

Assumption 5. (Coercivity) For some α > 0 and β > 0 α|v|²− β 6 L(x, v), for all x, v ∈ R.

To guarantee the uniqueness of minimizers, we consider next a strong form of convexity.

In turn, this assumption implies the coercivity condition ([4], Corollary 11.17).

Assumption 6. (Uniform convexity) For some θ > 0 v 7→ L(x, v) −θ

2|v|² is convex for all x ∈ R.

We introduce the Hamiltonian, H, the Legendre transform of L, by H(x, p) = sup

v∈R

{−pv − L(x, v)} . (2.1)

Recall that when the map v 7→ L(x, v) is convex, H(x, p) is well defined. Furthermore, if v 7→ L(x, v) is strictly convex, L ∈ C²(R²; R), and Assumption 5 holds, there exists a unique value v^∗ where the supremum is attained. In addition,

v^∗= −H_p(x, p) if and only if p = −L(x, v^∗), and hence H(x, p) = −pv^∗− L(x, v^∗). (2.2) See [7], Theorem A. 2.5, for the proof of the previous results. For the Hamiltonian, we additionally require no more than linear growth of the gradient in the p component, as we state next.

Assumption 7. The Hamiltonian H satisfies, for some C > 0,

|Hp(x, p)| 6 C(1 + |p|), for all (x, p) ∈ R².

Now, we set up the notation. Define the space HFas the set of processes v : [0, T ]×Ω → R, that are measurable and adapted w.r.t. F, and satisfy kvk²_HF< ∞, where

hv, wi_HF:= E

"

Z T 0

vtwtdt

#

, kvk²_H

F:= hv, vi_HF.

This expectation is w.r.t. the measure induced by the Brownian motion. HF is a Hilbert space ([8], Remark 2.2.). Given v ∈ HF, the solution to (1.2) with the initial condition x₀∈ R is

X_t= x₀+ Z t

0

v_sds.

Notice that X ∈ HFbecause kXk²_H

F6 2T |x⁰|²+ 2T²kvk²_H

F. For our purposes, we consider trajectories with initial condition x0∈ R.

For N ∈ N, we define H^N_F, where v = (v¹, . . . , v^N) ∈ H^N_F provided vⁱ∈ HF, and hv, wi_HN

F :=

N

X

i=1

hvⁱ, wⁱi_HF, kvk²_HN F :=

N

X

i=1

kvⁱk²_H

F.

In this context, we recall the following result from [11] (Theorem 2.1) for the existence and uniqueness of solutions to Backward Stochastic Differential Equations (BSDE). The differential is in the sense of Itˆo.

Theorem 2.1. (Pardoux-Peng) Let f : Ω × [0, T ] × R² → R be a Borel measurable map adapted to F. Suppose that it is uniformly Lipschitz; that is, there exists C > 0 such that

|f (ω, t, y1, z1) − f (ω, t, y2, z2)| 6 C(|y¹− y2| + |z1− z2|) for all (y1, z1), (y2, z2) ∈ R² for dP × dt-almost every (ω, t) ∈ Ω × [0, T ]. Let ξ ∈ L²T(R); that is, ξ : Ω → R is F^T- measurable and satisfies E|ξ|² < +∞. Then, the following BSDE

(dY_t= f (t, Y_t, Z_t)dt + Z_tdW_t YT = ξ

has a unique solution (Y, Z) ∈ HF× HF, on [0, T ], in the following sense:

Y_t= ξ + Z T

t

f (s, Y_s, Z_s)ds + Z T

t

Z_sdW_s for all 0 6 t 6 T,

where Y is a continuous R-valued process adapted to F, Z is a R-valued predictable process satisfyingRT

0 |Zt|²dt < +∞, P-almost every ω ∈ Ω.

For an SDE of the form

(dYt= b(t, Yt)dt + σ(t, Yt)dWt

Y0= ξ,

we refer the reader to [21], Section 5.2, where the growth and Lipschitz conditions

|b(t, x)| + |σ(t, x)| 6 C(1 + |x|), for all x ∈ R, 0 6 t 6 T,

|b(t, x) − b(t, y)| + |σ(t, x) − σ(t, y)| 6 D|x − y|, for all x, y ∈ R, 0 6 t 6 T,

for some constants C, D > 0, guarantee the existence and uniqueness of solutions.

The analysis of Problem 1 relies on the results for the single-agent control problem, which we consider in the next section.

3. single agent problem

In this section, we assume that a price, $, is given. We derive a weak formulation for the Euler-Lagrange equation associated with the optimal control problem for one agent. In Section 4, using the single-agent result, we study how the collective actions of the agents determine the price.

Let x0∈ R. Given v ∈ HF, consider the dynamics for the agent (dXt= vtdt, t ∈ [0, T ]

X₀= x₀. (3.1)

Given a price process $ ∈ HF, the agent selects v ∈ HFaiming to reach

v∈HinfFE

"

Z T 0

L(Xt, vt) + $tvt dt + Ψ(XT)

#

(3.2) subject to X solves (3.1).

Let

I[v] := E

"

Z T 0

L(X_t, v_t) + $_tv_tdt + Ψ(X_T)

# ,

where X solves (3.1) for v. In the following, we study the existence and uniqueness of solutions to (3.2). We adopt the direct method of the calculus of variations. Hence, we begin by proving that the functional I[·] is weakly lower semi-continuous.

Proposition 3.1. Let x0∈ R and $ ∈ HF. Under Assumptions 1-4, the functional I[·] is weakly lower semi-continuous in HF.

Proof. We will prove that I[·] is convex and lower semi-continuous, from which weak lower semi-continuity follows ([19] Theorem 7.2.5). First, notice that, by Assumptions 1 and 2, I[·] is convex. To prove lower semi-continuity, let (v^k)_k∈N in HF be such that v^k converges to v. Denote by X^k and X the solutions to (3.1) with the controls v^k and v, respectively.

Notice that, because the trajectories X^k and X have the same initial condition, we have kX^k− Xk²_H

F6 2T²kv^k− vk²_H

F.

Therefore, X^kconverges to X. The convexity in Assumptions 1 and 2 imply ([4], Proposition 17.7)

Lv(Xt, vt)(v^k_t − vt) + L(Xt, vt) 6 L(X^t, v_t^k), (3.3) Ψ⁰(X_T)(X_T^k − XT) + Ψ(X_T) 6 Ψ(XT^k). (3.4) Adding L(X_t^k, v_t^k) − L(X_t, v^k_t) + $_tv_tto both sides of (3.3), we get

L_v(X_t, v_t)(v^k_t − vt) − L(X_t, v_t^k) + L(X_t^k, v^k_t) + L(X_t, v_t) + $_tv_t 6 $^t(vt− v^k_t) + L(X_t^k, v_t^k) + $tv_t^k.

Taking E[RT

0 · dt] in the previous inequality, E[·] in (3.4), and adding both results, we obtain hLv(X, v), v^k− vi_HF+ E

"

Z T 0

L(X_t^k, v^k_t) − L(Xt, v_t^k) dt

#

+ I[v] + EΨ⁰(XT)(X_T^k− XT)

6 h$, v − v^ki_HF+ I[v^k]. (3.5)

By Assumption 4, Lv(X, v) ∈ HF, hence

hLv(X, v), v^k− vi_HF→ 0. (3.6)

By Assumption 3, Ψ⁰(XT) ∈ HF, and using the representation X_T^k − XT =RT

0 v^k_t − vt dt, we obtain

E[Ψ⁰(XT)(X_T^k− XT)] → 0. (3.7)

By Assumption 4, the Cauchy inequality, and the triangle inequality 

    E

"

Z T 0

L(X_t^k, v_t^k) − L(Xt, v^k_t) dt

#    

6 Ch|X^k− X|, 1 + |v^k|i_HF−

6 CkX^k− Xk_HF T + kv^kk_HF
→ 0.

Using the previous inequality, (3.6), (3.7), and the assumption on $, taking lim inf in (3.5), we obtain

I[v] 6 lim inf

k∈N I[v^k].

Therefore, I[·] is lower semi-continuous. 

Proposition 3.2. Suppose that Assumptions 1- 5 hold. Given an initial condition x0∈ R and a price process $ ∈ HF, there exists an optimal control v^∗ ∈ HF that solves (3.2).

Furthermore, under Assumption 6, v^∗ is unique.

Proof. To prove existence, we use the direct method in the calculus of variations. By As- sumption 5, we have

α v + $

2α

2

−$²

4α − β 6 L(x, v) + v$. (3.8)

Since $ ∈ HF, select a and b such that

0 < a < α, _2(α−a)¹ k$k²_H

F6 b.

Then, for any v ∈ HF, we have 0 6 (α − a)E

"

Z T 0

v_t+_2(α−a)¹ $_t² dt

#

+ b −_2(α−a)¹ k$k²_H

F. The previous inequality, (3.8), and 0 6 Ψ in Assumption 2, imply

akvk²_H

F− b − βT 6 E

"

Z T 0

α(vt)²+ $tvt− β dt

# 6 I[v]

for all v ∈ HF. Therefore, v 7→ I[v] is coercive, and in particular, the infimum in (3.2) is finite. Let (v^k)_k∈N in HF be a minimizing sequence; that is,

lim

k→+∞I[v^k] = inf

v∈HF

I[v].

By the coercivity of I[·], (v^k)_k∈N is bounded in HF. Recall that HF is a Hilbert space, so it is reflexive and, therefore, weakly precompact ([12], Appendix D, Theorem 3). Hence, there exists a subsequence, still denoted by v^k, that weakly converges to v^∗∈ H_F; that is, for all w ∈ HF

hv^k, wi_HF→ hv^∗, wi_HF. By Proposition 3.1

I[v^∗] 6 lim inf

k→+∞I[v_k] = lim

k→+∞I[v_k] = inf

v∈HF

I[v].

Therefore, v^∗ is a minimizer.

To prove uniqueness, denote by X^∗ the solution of (3.1) with the control variable v^∗. Assume that ˜v ∈ HF is a minimizer of (3.2), with trajectory ˜X solving (3.1) for ˜v. Set Y = ¹₂(X^∗+ ˜X), so that Y satisfies (3.1) for the control ¹₂(v^∗+ ˜v). Then, by Assumptions 1 and 6,

I1

2(v^∗+ ˜v) 6 ¹2(I [v^∗] + I [˜v]) −^θ₄kv^∗− ˜vk²_H

F.

It follows that ˜v = v^∗ in HF, which implies that ˜X = X^∗.  The following result provides a characterization of minimizers of I[·]. This condition is a weak form of the Euler-Lagrange equation.

Proposition 3.3. Suppose that Assumptions 3 and 4 hold. Let v^∗∈ HF solve (3.2), with the corresponding trajectory X^∗ solving (3.1). Then (X^∗, v^∗) satisfies

E

"

Z T 0



Lx(X_t^∗, v^∗_t)δXt+ (Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) + $t) δvt



dt + Ψ⁰(X_T^∗)δXT

#

= 0 (3.9) for all δv ∈ HF, where

δXt= Z t

0

δvsds. (3.10)

Proof. Let  > 0 and δv ∈ HF. Consider the control v^∗+ δv in (3.1). The corresponding trajectory is X_t^= X_t^∗+ δX_t. Because v^∗ is a minimizer of I[·], the function

 7→ E

"

Z T 0



L(X_t^, v^∗_t + δvt) + $t(v_t^∗+ δvt)

dt + Ψ(X_T^)

#

has a minimum at  = 0; that is, d

dE

"

Z T 0



L(X_t^, v_t^∗+ δvt) + $t(v_t^∗+ δvt)

dt + Ψ(X_T^)

#    _=0

= 0. (3.11) By Assumption 4, the partial derivatives of L evaluated at (X_t^, v^∗_t + δvt) are integrable w.r.t. E[RT

0 · dt]. From Assumption 4 and Young’s inequality, we have that L(X_t^, v^∗_t+ δv_t) + $_t(v^∗_t + δv_t) 6 ˜β + ( ˜β + 1

2)|v_t^∗+ δv_t|²+1 2|$t|².

In the same way, Assumption 3 guarantees analogous conditions for Ψ at X_T^ε. Hence, we can differentiate under the integral sign in (3.11) ([5], Theorem 16.8), from which the result

follows. 

The formulation presented in Proposition 3.3 corresponds to the classical second-order characterization of minimizers given by the Euler-Lagrange equations. As in Hamiltonian mechanics, this second-order characterization has an equivalent first-order formulation. For this first-order characterization, we use the adjoint equation (see (3.12)).

Proposition 3.4. Suppose L ∈ C¹(R²; R) and Assumptions 3 and 6 hold. Given x0∈ R, assume that (v^∗, X^∗) solves (3.9), where v^∗ ∈ H_F, and X^∗ solves (3.1) for v^∗. Then, the backward SDE

(dPt= −Lx(X_t^∗, v^∗_t)dt + ZtdWt

P_T = Ψ⁰(X_T^∗) (3.12)

has a unique solution (P, Z) on [0, T ], where P, Z ∈ HF. Furthermore,

P = −Lv(X^∗, v^∗) − $, (3.13)

and (X^∗, P, Z) solves, on [0, T ], the forward-backward SDE system











dX_t= −H_p(X_t, P_t+ $_t)dt X0= x0

dP_t= H_x(X_t, P_t+ $_t)dt + Z_tdW_t PT = Ψ⁰(XT).

(3.14)

Proof. Assumption 3 implies that Ψ⁰(X_T^∗) ∈ L²T(R), and the continuity of L^x guarantees the adaptability of Lx(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) w.r.t. F. Notice that this term is independent of P and Z.

Hence, Theorem 2.1 guarantees the existence and uniqueness of (P, Z) solving (3.12).

Let δv ∈ HF and δX according to (3.10). Then, because δX0= 0, using (3.12), we have E[Ψ⁰(X_T^∗)δX_T] = E[PTδX_T] = E

"

Z T 0

d (P_tδX_t)

#

= E

"

Z T 0

dP_tδX_t+ P_tδv_tdt

#

= E

"

Z T 0

−L_x(X_t^∗, v_t^∗)δX_tdt + P_tδv_tdt + Z_tδX_tdW_t

# .

From the previous identity and (3.9), we get E[Ψ⁰(X_T^∗)δXT] = E

"

Z T 0

(Lv(X_t^∗, v^∗_t) + $t+ Pt)δvtdt + ZtδXtdWt+ Ψ⁰(X_T^∗)δXT

# .

Recall that Z, δX ∈ HF, which implies that EhRT

0 Z_tδX_tdW_ti

= 0. Hence, we conclude that, for all δv ∈ HF,

E

"

Z T 0

(Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) + $t+ Pt)δvtdt

#

= hLv(X^∗, v^∗) + $ + P, δvi_HF= 0.

Therefore, Pt= −Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗)−$t, from which Assumption 6 and (2.2) imply that (X^∗, P, Z)

solves (3.14). 

Remark 3.5. Notice that (3.14) is independent of the optimal control v^∗. Hence, if (3.14) has a unique solution and (3.13) is invertible, we obtain explicit expressions for the optimal control. This is the case, for instance, when L and Ψ are quadratic, as we illustrate in Section 5.

Next, we give conditions for the converse of Proposition 3.4 to hold.

Proposition 3.6. Assume that L ∈ C²(R²; R) is strictly convex in v, Ψ ∈ C¹(R), and Assumptions 5, and 7 hold. Let (X^∗, P, Z) solve (3.14), where X^∗, P, Z ∈ HF. Then, v^∗:= −Hp(X^∗, P + $) and X^∗ satisfy (3.9). Furthermore, P = −Lv(X^∗, v^∗) − $.

Proof. From Assumption 7, we have v^∗ ∈ HF. The first equation in (3.14) states that X^∗ solves (3.1) for the control v^∗. Then, by the strict convexity of L in v and Assumption 5, (2.2) gives that P = −L_v(X^∗, v^∗) − $ and L_x(X^∗, v^∗) = −H_x(X^∗, P + $). Take δv ∈ HF

and δX, as in (3.10), and multiply the previous identities to obtain

Lx(X^∗, v^∗)δX = −Hx(X^∗, P + $)δX, and (Lv(X^∗, v^∗) + $)δv = −P δv. (3.15) Integrating on [0, T ] the relation d

P_tδX_t

= dP_tδX_t+ P_tδv_tdt, recalling that δX₀= 0, and replacing (3.15), we have

PTδXT = Z T

0

dPtδXt− (Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) + $t)δvtdt.

Using the third equation in (3.14), the previous expression becomes PTδXT =

Z T 0

Hx(X_t^∗, Pt+ $t)δXtdt + ZtδXtdWt− (Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) + $t)δvtdt.

Replacing the terminal condition for P in (3.14), using (2.2), taking expectation and recalling that Eh

RT

0 ZtδXtdWt

i

= 0, we obtain

E

"

Z T 0

Lx(X_t^∗, v_t^∗)δXt+ (Lv(X_t^∗, v^∗_t) + $t)δvt dt + Ψ⁰(X_T^∗)δXT

#

= 0.

Because δv ∈ HFis arbitrary, (X^∗, v^∗) solves (3.9).  Notice that Proposition 3.4 guarantees the existence of solutions to the system (3.12) and (3.14), but it only states the uniqueness of solutions to the system (3.12). The following proposition states a uniqueness result for (3.14).

Proposition 3.7. Suppose that Assumptions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 hold. Assume that L is strictly convex in v. Let H be given by (2.1). Suppose H ∈ C¹(R²; R), and either

L is strictly convex in (x, v) or Ψ is strictly convex, and Hp, Hx

are uniformly Lipschitz in (x, p).

Then, the solution to (3.14) is unique.

Proof. Let (X, P, Z) and ( ˜X, ˜P , ˜Z) solve (3.14). Let

v = −H_p(X, P + $), H_x= H_x(X_t, P_t+ $_t), L_x= L_x(X, v), L_v = L_v(X, v).

˜

v = −H_p( ˜X, ˜P + $), H˜_x= H_x( ˜X_t, ˜P_t+ $_t), L˜_x= L_x( ˜X, ˜v), K˜_v = L_v( ˜X, ˜v).

By Assumption 7, v, ˜v ∈ HF. Because of the strict convexity of L in v and Assumption 5, using (2.2), we have

Lv= −(P + $), ˜Lv= −( ˜P + $), Hx= −Lx, ˜Hx= − ˜Lx. (3.16) By Assumption 3, Ψ⁰(XT), Ψ⁰( ˜XT) ∈ L²T(R) (see Theorem 2.1). Hence, using (3.14) and Itˆo’s product rule, we get

Eh

Ψ⁰(XT) − Ψ⁰( ˜XT)

XT − ˜XT

i

(3.17)

= E

"

Z T 0

d

(Pt− ˜Pt)(Xt− ˜Xt)

#

= E

"

Z T 0

(H_x− ˜H_x)(X_t− ˜X_t)dt + (Z_t− ˜Z_t)(X_t− ˜X_t)dW_t− (Pt− ˜P_t)(˜v_t− vt)dt

# .

Recalling that Eh RT

0 (Zt− ˜Zt)(Xt− ˜Xt)dWt

i

= 0 and using (3.16), we obtain

E

"

Z T 0

(Hx− ˜Hx)(Xt− ˜Xt)dt + (Zt− ˜Zt)(Xt− ˜Xt)dWt− (Pt− ˜Pt)(˜vt− vt)dt

#

= E

"

Z T 0

( ˜L_x− Lx)(X_t− ˜X_t)dt − ( ˜L_v− Lv)(˜v_t− vt)dt

# , and by Assumption 1 ([4], Proposition 17.7)

E

"

Z T 0

( ˜Lx− Lx)(Xt− ˜Xt)dt − ( ˜Lv− Lv)(˜vt− vt)dt

#

6 0. (3.18)

In the same way, the convexity of Ψ (see Assumption 2) implies 0 6 Eh

Ψ⁰(XT) − Ψ⁰( ˜XT)

XT − ˜XT

i

. (3.19)

Hence, from (3.17), (3.18) and (3.19), it follows that 0 6 Eh

Ψ⁰(XT) − Ψ⁰( ˜XT)

XT − ˜XT

i

(3.20) 6 E

"

Z T 0

( ˜L_x− Lx)(X_t− ˜X_t)dt − ( ˜L_v− Lv)(˜v_t− vt)dt

# 6 0.

Now we use a characterization of strict convexity provided in [4], Proposition 17.10: If L is strictly convex in (x, v), (3.20) implies X = ˜X and v = ˜v, from which (3.16) implies P = ˜P and Z = ˜Z follows. On the other hand, if Ψ is strictly convex, (3.20) implies ˜XT = XT. Therefore, both (X, P, Z) and ( ˜X, ˜P , ˜Z) solve the BSDE











dXt= −Hp(Xt, Pt+ $t)dt XT = ˜XT,

dPt= Hx(Xt, Pt+ $t)dt + ZtdWt

PT = Ψ⁰( ˜XT)

for all t ∈ [0, T ]. The Lipschitz condition in both Hp and Hxallows us to use Theorem 2.1

to conclude that (X, P, Z) = ( ˜X, ˜P , ˜Z). 

Propositions 3.3 and 3.4 show that the existence of solutions to (3.14) is a necessary condition for the existence of solutions to (3.2). In the next result, we consider conditions for (3.14) to be sufficient.

Proposition 3.8. Suppose that Assumptions 1, 2, 5, and 7 hold. Assume further that L is strictly convex in v. Let (X^∗, P, Z) solve (3.14) and define v^∗= −Hp(X^∗, P + $). Then v^∗ solves (3.2).

Proof. By Assumption 7, v^∗∈ HF. Let v ∈ HF and X solve (3.1) for v. From Proposition 3.6, we have Lv(X^∗, v^∗) = −P − $. By the convexity of L in (x, v), we have

L(X_t^∗, v_t^∗) + Lx(X_t^∗, v_t^∗)(Xt− X_t^∗) + Lv(X_t^∗, v_t^∗)(vt− v_t^∗) 6 L(X^t, vt) By Assumption 5 and the strict convexity of L in v, from (2.2), we get

L_x(X_t^∗, v^∗_t)(X_t− X_t^∗) + L_v(X_t^∗, v^∗_t)(v_t− v^∗_t)

= −Hx(X_t^∗, Pt+ $t)(Xt− X_t^∗) − (Pt+ $t)(vt− v_t^∗).

Hence,

L(X_t^∗, v^∗_t) + $v_t^∗− H_x(X_t^∗, P_t+ $_t)(X_t− X_t^∗) − (P_t)(v_t− v_t^∗) 6 L(Xt, v_t) + $_tv_t. (3.21) Using (3.1) and (3.14), we compute

d (Pt(Xt− X_t^∗)) = dPt(Xt− X_t^∗) + Pt(dXt− dX_t^∗)

= Hx(X_t^∗, Pt+ $t)(Xt− X_t^∗)dt + Zt(Xt− X_t^∗)dWt+ Pt(vt− v_t^∗).

Taking E[RT

0 · dt] in the previous identity, recalling that Eh RT

0 Zt(Xt− X_t^∗)dWt

i

= 0, and using the terminal condition for P in (3.14) and the initial condition for X and X^∗in (3.1), we get

E [PT(X_T − X_T^∗)] = E

"

Z T 0

H_x(X_t^∗, P_t+ $_t)(X_t− X_t^∗)dt + P_t(v_t− v^∗_t)dt

# .

From the previous identity, (3.21), and the convexity of Ψ (see Assumption 2), we conclude that

I[v^∗] 6 I[v]

for arbitrary v. The result follows. 

4. N-agent problem

Here, we introduce a minimization problem that aggregates the costs of all agents con- sidered in the previous section and is constrained by the total supply. By aggregating the costs of all agents, we obtain an equivalent variational problem that is independent of the price. We show the existence of minimizers and obtain the price as the Lagrange multiplier for the supply constraint.

Let x0 ∈ R^N be the initial configuration of N agents. Given the controls v ∈ H^N_F, consider the dynamics for N agents

(dX_t= v_tdt, t ∈ [0, T ]

X0= x0, (4.1)

where X = (X¹, . . . , X^N). If the price is known, the functional of the single-agent mini- mization in (3.2) is independent of the actions of other agents. To solve (3.2), each agent looks for their optimal control v^∗, and this control is coupled with the control of other agents through the balance condition (1.4). Hence, as long as the balance condition is satisfied, the vector v^∗ := (v^∗1, . . . , v^∗i), consisting of the optimal controls for each agent, is an optimal control for the following minimization problem

inf

v∈H^N_F

1 N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

L(X_tⁱ, v_tⁱ) + $tvⁱ_tdt + Ψ(X_Tⁱ)

#

subject to X solves (4.1).

Reciprocally, as long as the balance condition is satisfied, any optimal control v^∗ of the previous minimization problem provides, through its components v^∗i, for 1 6 i 6 N , an optimal control for (3.2). Therefore, Problem 1 is equivalent to the following

inf

v∈H^N_F

1 N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

L(X_tⁱ, v_tⁱ) + $tvⁱ_tdt + Ψ(X_Tⁱ)

#

(4.2)

subject to 1 N

N

X

i=1

vⁱ = Q, and X solves (4.1).

Substituting the balance condition into the expression to minimize in (4.2), we get 1

N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

L(X_tⁱ, vⁱ_t) + $_tQ_tdt + Ψ(X_Tⁱ)

#

. (4.3)

Let

IN[v] := 1 N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

L(X_tⁱ, v_tⁱ)dt + Ψ(X_Tⁱ)

# .

Since the expression h$, Qi_HFin (4.3) is independent of v, we can drop this term and obtain that (4.2) is equivalent to

Problem 2. Find a vector of control processes v^∗∈ H^N_F that attains the following inf

v∈H^N_F

IN[v] (4.4)

subject to 1 N

N

X

i=1

vⁱ= Q, and X solves (4.1).

The next proposition shows that this problem has a solution; that is, there exists v^∗∈ H^N_F such that IN[v^∗] attains the infimum in (4.4) and satisfies the constraints.

Proposition 4.1. Let Q ∈ HF. Suppose that Assumptions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 hold. Given an initial condition x0 ∈ R^N, there exists an optimal control v^∗ ∈ H^N_F that solves Problem 2. Furthermore, under Assumption 6, v^∗ is unique.

Proof. We follow the direct method in the calculus of variations to prove existence. Define the set of admissible controls

C = (

v ∈ H^N_F : 1 N

N

X

i=1

vⁱ= Q, )

. (4.5)

Notice that C is a convex set. Also, this set is not empty because vⁱ = Q for 1 6 i 6 N is an element of C. The set C is also closed because any sequence (v^k)_k∈N in C that converges to v in H^N_F satisfies

1 N

N

X

i=1

vⁱ− Q

2

HF

6 2 N

N

X

i=1

vⁱ− v^i,k

2 HF→ 0.

By a similar argument to that used in the proof of Proposition 3.2, Assumption 5 implies

that α

Nkvk²_HN

F − βT 6 IN[v],

for all v ∈ H^N_F. Therefore, v 7→ IN[v] is coercive and bounded from below. In particular, the infimum in (4.4) is finite. Let (v^k)_k∈N in C be a minimizing sequence of (4.4); that is,

lim

k→+∞IN[v^k] = inf

v∈CIN[v].

By coercivity of IN[·], (v^k)_k∈Nis bounded in H^N_F. Because HFis a Hilbert space, H^N_F is also a Hilbert space. Hence, let v^∗∈ H^N_F be a control for which there is a subsequence, still denoted by v^k, that weakly converges to v^∗. Since C is convex and closed, by Mazur’s theorem ([19],

Theorem 7.2.4), it is weakly closed. Therefore, v^∗∈ C. Arguing as in Proposition 3.1 using Assumptions 1, 2, 3, and 4, we have that IN is weakly lower semi-continuous. Hence,

I_N[v^∗] 6 lim inf

k→+∞I_N[v^k] = lim

k→+∞I_N[v^k] = inf

v∈CI_N[v].

Accordingly, v^∗ is a minimizer. The uniqueness of v^∗ follows from Assumption 6 and a similar argument to the one in the proof of Proposition 3.2.  The following lemma characterizes the orthogonal complement of the elements in H^N_F, whose entries add to zero. We will use this lemma to prove the existence of a Lagrange multiplier.

Lemma 4.2. Let Z =n

w ∈ H^N_F : PN

i=1wⁱ = 0o

. Denote by Z^⊥ the orthogonal comple- ment of the set Z with respect to h·, ·i_HN

F. Then, Z^⊥ = v ∈ H^N_F : v = ¯v1^N, ¯v ∈ HF , where 1N = (1, . . . , 1) ∈ R^N.

Proof. Let v ∈ Z^⊥. For δw ∈ H^N_F, define w = δw −



1 N

N

P

i=1

δwⁱ



1N. Then, w ∈ Z, which implies that hv, wi_HN

F = 0. Writing

N

X

i=1



δwⁱ, vⁱ− 1 N

N

X

k=1

v^k



HF

= E

"

Z T 0

N

X

i=1

δwⁱ_t v_tⁱ− 1 N

N

X

k=1

v^k_t

!#

= E

"

Z T 0

N

X

i=1

v_tⁱ δwⁱ_t− 1 N

N

X

k=1

δw_t^k

!#

= E

"

Z T 0

N

X

i=1

vⁱ_twⁱ_tdt

#

= hv, wi_HN F, the orthogonality between v and w implies that

N

X

i=1



δwⁱ, vⁱ− 1 N

N

X

k=1

v^k



HF

= 0.

Because in the previous identity δw is arbitrary, we conclude that ¯v := _N¹ PN

k=1v^k ∈ HF

satisfies vⁱ = ¯v, for 1 6 i 6 N ; that is, v = ¯v1^N, where ¯v ∈ HF. On the other hand, let v = ¯v1^N, where ¯v ∈ HF, and let w ∈ Z. Then,

hv, wi_HN F =

N

X

i=1

hvⁱ, wⁱi_HF =

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

¯ vtwⁱ_tdt

#

= E

"

Z T 0

N

X

i=1

wⁱ_t

!

¯ vtdt

#

= 0,

which implies that v ∈ Z^⊥. This completes the proof. 

Next, we prove the existence of a Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the balance con- dition. This Lagrange multiplier uniquely defines the price.

Proposition 4.3. Suppose that Assumptions 3 and 4 hold. Let v^∗∈ H^N_F solve Problem 2 with the corresponding trajectory X^∗. For 1 6 i 6 N , let Pⁱ, Zⁱ ∈ H_F solve, on [0, T ],

(dP_tⁱ= −Lx(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i)dt + Z_tⁱdWt

P_Tⁱ = Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i). (4.6)

Then, there exists a unique Π ∈ HF that satisfies

Π = Pⁱ+ Lv(X^∗i, v^∗i) for 1 6 i 6 N. (4.7) Hence,

Π = 1 N

N

X

i=1

Pⁱ+ Lv(X^∗i, v^∗i), and ΠT = 1 N

N

X

i=1

Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i) + Lv(X_T^∗i, v_T^∗i). (4.8)

Proof. Let δv ∈ Z, and define δX according to (3.10). Then, for all  > 0, according to (4.1), the process X^= X^∗+ δX is driven by v^∗+ δv. Notice that v^∗+ δv ∈ C because v^∗ satisfies the balance condition, and hence

1 N

N

X

i=1



v^∗i+ δvⁱ

= Q.

Thus, the function  7→ IN[v^∗+ δv] attains a minimum at  = 0. Therefore, d

dI_N[v^∗+ δv]

   _=0

= 0.

Proceeding as in the proof of Proposition 3.3, using Assumptions 3 and 4, we conclude that 1

N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

L_x(X_t^∗i, v^∗_tⁱ)δX_tⁱ+ L_v(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i)δvⁱ_tdt + Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i)δX_Tⁱ

#

= 0. (4.9) Now, for 1 6 i 6 N , consider the following BSDE on [0, T ]

(dP_tⁱ= −Lx(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i)dt + Z_tⁱdWt

P_Tⁱ = Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i). (4.10)

Assumption 3 guarantees that Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i) ∈ L²T(R), so we use Theorem 2.1, and we denote by (Pⁱ, Zⁱ) the unique solution of (4.10). By applying Itˆo’s product rule to PⁱδXⁱ, we get

Lx(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i)δX_tⁱdt = P_tⁱδv_tⁱdt − d P_tⁱδX_tⁱ
+ δX_tⁱZ_tⁱdWt. (4.11) Because the process s 7→Rs

0Z_tⁱδX_tⁱdWt is a martingale w.r.t. Fsand hence ([21], Corollary 3.2.6)

E

"

Z T 0

Z_tⁱδX_tⁱdWt

#

= 0, (4.12)

using 4.11, the definition of δX, and the previous identity, we write (4.9) as 1

N

N

X

i=1

E

"

Z T 0

P_tⁱ+ L_v(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i) δv_tⁱ dt

#

= 1

NhP + Lv(X^∗, v^∗), δvi_HN F = 0.

Hence, by Lemma 4.2, there exists Π ∈ HF such that for 1 6 i 6 N Pⁱ+ Lv(X^∗i, v^∗i) = Π.

Thus, taking the mean over i and using the terminal condition for Pⁱ, we get Π = 1

N

N

X

i=1

Pⁱ+ Lv(X^∗i, v^∗i), and ΠT = 1 N

N

X

i=1

Ψ⁰(X_T^∗i) + Lv(X_T^∗i, v_T^∗i).  The following result shows that existence of the price process follows from existence of the Lagrange multiplier associated with the balance condition.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. By Proposition 4.1, let v^∗ = (v^∗1, . . . , v^∗N) be a minimizer of (4.4). From Proposition 4.3, let Π ∈ HFbe the process that satisfies, for 1 6 i 6 N ,

Pⁱ+ Lv(X^∗i, v^∗i) − Π = 0.

Hence, for δv ∈ H^N_F and 1 6 i 6 N , we have E

"

Z T 0



P_tⁱ+ Lv(X_t^∗i, v^∗_tⁱ) − Πt

 δvⁱ_tdt

#

= 0.

Applying Itˆo’s product rule to PⁱδXⁱ, δX as in (3.10), and using (4.6), we rearrange (4.11) to obtain

d P_tⁱδX_tⁱ
= −Lx(X_t^∗i, v_t^∗i)δX_tⁱdt + Z_tⁱδX_tⁱdWt+ P_tⁱδv_tⁱdt.