This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

The rate of LpL^{p}-convergence for the Euler-Maruyama method of the stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching 111This research was supported by NSFC (Grant No.12071101 and No.11671113).

Minghui Song [email protected] Yuhang Zhang [email protected] Mingzhu Liu [email protected] School of Mathematics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China
Abstract

This work deals with the Euler-Maruyama (EM) scheme for stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching (SDEwMSs). We focus on the LpL^{p}-convergence rate (p2)(p\geq 2) of the EM method given in this paper. As far as we know, the skeleton process of the Markov chain is used in the continuous numerical methods in most papers. By contrast, the continuous EM method in this paper is to use the Markov chain directly. To the best of our knowledge, there are only two papers that consider the rate of LpL^{p}-convergence, which is no more than 1/p(p2)1/p~{}(p\geq 2) in these papers. The contribution of this paper is that the rate of LpL^{p}-convergence of the EM method can reach 1/21/2. We believe that the technique used in this paper to construct the EM method can also be used to construct other methods for SDEwMSs.

keywords:
stochastic differential equations , Markov chain, Euler-Maruyama method , LpL^{p}-convergence , convergence rate
MSC:
[2010] 65C30, 60H35
journal: Journal of  Templates

1 Introduction

Stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching (SDEwMSs), also known as hybrid stochastic differential equations, play an important role in stochastic theory and have been used in various fields, such as the theory of control and neural networks ([1, 2, 3]). Most of SDEwMSs do not have explicit solutions so it is important to have numerical solutions ([4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]). [4] is the first research that developed the Euler-Maruyama (EM) scheme for SDEwMSs with the global Lipschitz continuous coefficients and considered the L2L^{2}-convergence rate for EM solutions. [6] designed approximation methods of Milstein type for SDEwMSs and proved the convergence rate is better than the generally adopted EM procedures.

The primary motivation for this work came from the following observation: to our knowledge, there are plenty of papers on the convergence of numerical algorithms for hybrid systems, most of them showed the convergence (without order)(e.g., [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]) or the rate of convergence in the sense of pathwise or mean square (e.g., [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18]). However, there are only a few papers revealed the LpL^{p}-convergence order of numerical methods for hybrid systems ([19, 20]). Not only that, the order of LpL^{p}-convergence for Euler type numerical algorithms proved in these papers are no more than 1/p(p2)1/p~{}(p\geq 2), instead of the well known 1/21/2. To be specific, the main result in [19] (Theorem 3) shows

𝔼supt[0,T]|y(t)x(t)|pC5Δ(1+𝔼|x0|p),\mathbb{E}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|y(t)-x(t)|^{p}\leq C_{5}\operatorname{\Delta}(1+\mathbb{E}|x_{0}|^{p}), (1)

where x(t)x(t) is the exact solution of the stochastic delay differential equation with phase semi-Markovian switching and Poisson jumps, y(t)y(t) denotes the numerical approximation using the continuous θ\theta method, Δ\operatorname{\Delta} is the given step-size, C5C_{5} denotes a generic constant that independent of Δ\operatorname{\Delta}, x0x_{0} is the initial data. By analyzing the details in this paper, we find that the problem first appears in the estimations of

𝔼0T|f(Z1(s),Z1(sτ),r1(s))f(Z1(s),Z1(sτ),r(s))|pds,\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}|f(Z_{1}(s),Z_{1}(s-\tau),{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}r_{1}(s)})-f(Z_{1}(s),Z_{1}(s-\tau),{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}r(s)})|^{p}{\rm d}s,

and

𝔼0T|f(Z2(s),Z2(sτ),r2(s))f(Z2(s),Z2(sτ),r(s))|pds\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T}|f(Z_{2}(s),Z_{2}(s-\tau),{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}r_{2}(s)})-f(Z_{2}(s),Z_{2}(s-\tau),{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}r(s)})|^{p}{\rm d}s

(Lemma 4 in [19]), we think these two terms can be seen as the errors in approximating r(s)r(s) by r1(s)r_{1}(s) and r2(s)r_{2}(s), where r(s)r(s) is the given continuous-time Markov chain. Similar estimations also exist in many works aforementioned, for example, Eq.(3.7) in [4], Lemma 3 in [10], Eq.(3.6) in [11], as well as Corollary 3.1 in [20], etc. Based on this fact, the main idea of this work is to use r(s)r(s) itself to construct a numerical scheme, rather than its approximation. Therefore, the innovations of this paper are as follows:

  • We will use the continuous-time Markov chain itself to develop the numerical scheme, instead of its approximation.

  • The order of LpL^{p}-convergence for the EM method given in this work to SDEwMSs can reach 1/21/2.

The rest of the paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, we present some notations and fundamental assumptions, moreover, we further introduce the classical EM method for SDEwMSs which is often used in literatures. Then we develop a different EM scheme in Section 3. The rate of LpL^{p}-convergence for the EM method be proved in Section 4. Finally, we give the conclusion of this paper in Section 5.

2 Notations and preliminaries

In the rest of this work, except as otherwise noted, we let (Ω,,{t}t0,)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\left\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\right\}_{t\geq 0},\mathbb{P}) be a complete probability space with a filtration {t}t0\left\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\right\}_{t\geq 0} which satisfies the general conditions (namely, it is right continuous and 0\mathcal{F}_{0} involves all \mathbb{P}-null sets). The transpose of AA is denoted by ATA^{\rm T} when AA is a vector or matrix. B(t)=(B1(t),,Bd(t))TB(t)=(B_{1}(t),\dots,B_{d}(t))^{\rm T} represents a dd-dimensional Brownian motion defined on the (Ω,,{t}t0,)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\left\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\right\}_{t\geq 0},\mathbb{P}). If xx is a vector, |x||x| denotes its Euclidean norm. |A|=trace(ATA)|A|=\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}(A^{\rm T}A)} denotes the trace norm of a matrix AA. If uu and vv are two real numbers, let uvu\vee v and uvu\wedge v be max{u,v}\max\left\{u,v\right\} and min{u,v}\min\left\{u,v\right\}, respectively. Let p([a,b];n)\mathcal{L}^{p}([a,b];\mathbb{R}^{n}) be the family of n\mathbb{R}^{n}-valued processes {f(t)}atb\{f(t)\}_{a\leq t\leq b} which satisfies t\mathcal{F}_{t}-adapted and ab|f(t)|pdt<\int_{a}^{b}|f(t)|^{p}{\rm{d}}t<\infty, a.s. p(+;n)\mathcal{L}^{p}(\mathbb{R}_{+};\mathbb{R}^{n}) denotes the family of processes {f(t)}t0\{f(t)\}_{t\geq 0} such that {f(t)}0tTp([0,T];n)\{f(t)\}_{0\leq t\leq T}\in\mathcal{L}^{p}([0,T];\mathbb{R}^{n}) for any T>0T>0. In this paper, we use CC represents a common positive number independent of Δ\Delta, its value may vary with each appearance.

Suppose α(t),t0,\alpha(t),t\geq 0, is a right-continuous Markov chain taking values in S={1,2,,N}S=\left\{1,2,\dots,N\right\} with generator Γ=(γij)N×N\Gamma=(\gamma_{ij})_{N\times N}, γij0\gamma_{ij}\geq 0 denotes the transition rate from ii to jj when iji\neq j, and

γii=jiγij.\gamma_{ii}=-\sum_{j\neq i}\gamma_{ij}.

Assuming that α()\alpha(\cdot) is independent of the Brownian motion B()B(\cdot).

Let T>0T>0, consider the following SDEwMS

{dz(t)=f(z(t),α(t))dt+g(z(t),α(t))dB(t),z(0)=z0n,α(0)=i0S,\begin{cases}{\rm{d}}z(t)=f(z(t),\alpha(t)){\rm{d}}t+g(z(t),\alpha(t)){\rm{d}}B(t),\\ z(0)=z_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\alpha(0)=i_{0}\in S,\end{cases} (2)

on t[0,T]t\in[0,T], where

f:n×Snandg:n×Sn×d.f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times S\to\mathbb{R}^{n}\quad{\rm{and}}\quad g:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times S\to\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}.

We impose the following conditions:

Assumption 2.1.

There is a number L>0L>0 such that

|f(z,i)f(z¯,i)||g(z,i)g(z¯,i)|L|zz¯|,|f(z,i)-f(\bar{z},i)|\vee|g(z,i)-g(\bar{z},i)|\leq L|z-\bar{z}|,

for all iSi\in S and z,z¯nz,\bar{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Assumption 2.2.

There is a number K>0K>0 such that

|f(0,i)||g(0,i)|K,iS.|f(0,i)|\vee|g(0,i)|\leq K,~{}~{}\forall i\in S.
Remark 1.

By Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2, we can easily arrive at

|f(z,i)||g(z,i)|(K+L)(1+|z|),|f(z,i)|\vee|g(z,i)|\leq(K+L)(1+|z|),

for all iSi\in S and znz\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Lemma 2.3 (Lemma 2.2 in [4]).

If Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2 hold, then for arbitrary p2p\geq 2, there is a unique solution for Eq.(2) with the initial data z0z_{0}. In addition, the solution satisfies

𝔼(sup0tT|z(t)|p)C.\begin{split}\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq C.\end{split}

In the following, we will first introduce the classical methods for simulating discrete-time Markov chain that have been used in many papers, and further present the well known EM method. In the next section, we will introduce the method used to simulate Markov chain in this paper, and further construct another type of EM method for SDEwMS which is different from the one given in the Ref.[4].

2.1 The classical EM method

The most commonly used method to generate the discrete Markov chain {αkΔ,k=0,1,2,}\left\{\alpha_{k}^{\Delta},k=0,1,2,\dots\right\} is based on the properties of embedded discrete Markov chain: For any given step size Δ>0\Delta>0, let αkΔ=α(kΔ)\alpha_{k}^{\Delta}=\alpha(k\Delta) for k0k\geq 0. Then {αkΔ}\left\{\alpha_{k}^{\Delta}\right\} is a discrete Markov chain with the one-step transition probability matrix

(Δ)=(ij(Δ))N×N=eΓΔ.\mathbb{P}(\Delta)=(\mathbb{P}_{ij}(\Delta))_{N\times N}=e^{\Gamma\Delta}.

Hence, the discrete Markov chain {αkΔ,k=0,1,2,}\left\{\alpha_{k}^{\Delta},k=0,1,2,\dots\right\} can be generated as follows: Let α0Δ=i0\alpha_{0}^{\Delta}=i_{0} and compute a pseudo-random number ζ1\zeta_{1} from the uniform [0,1][0,1] distribution. Define

α1Δ={i1,ifi1S{N}suchthatj=1i11i0,j(Δ)ζ1<j=1i1i0,j(Δ),N,ifj=1N1i0,j(Δ)ζ1,\alpha_{1}^{\Delta}=\begin{cases}i_{1},\,\,&{\rm{if\,\,}}i_{1}\in S-\{N\}{\rm{\,\,such\,\,that\,\,}}\sum_{j=1}^{i_{1}-1}\mathbb{P}_{i_{0},j}(\Delta)\leq\zeta_{1}<\sum_{j=1}^{i_{1}}\mathbb{P}_{i_{0},j}(\Delta),\\ N,\,\,&{\rm{if\,\,}}\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\mathbb{P}_{i_{0},j}(\Delta)\leq\zeta_{1},\end{cases}

where we set j=10i0,j(Δ)=0\sum_{j=1}^{0}\mathbb{P}_{i_{0},j}(\Delta)=0 as usual. Generally, having calculated α0Δ,α1Δ,,αkΔ,\alpha_{0}^{\Delta},\alpha_{1}^{\Delta},\dots,\alpha_{k}^{\Delta}, we compute αk+1Δ\alpha_{k+1}^{\Delta} by drawing a uniform [0,1][0,1] pseudo-random number ζk+1\zeta_{k+1} and setting

αk+1Δ={ik+1,ifik+1S{N}suchthatj=1ik+11rkΔ,j(Δ)ζk+1<j=1ik+1rkΔ,j(Δ),N,ifj=1N1αkΔ,j(Δ)ζk+1.\alpha_{k+1}^{\Delta}=\begin{cases}i_{k+1},\,\,&{\rm{if\,\,}}i_{k+1}\in S-\{N\}{\rm{\,\,such\,\,that}}\\ &\quad\sum_{j=1}^{i_{k+1}-1}\mathbb{P}_{r_{k}^{\Delta},j}(\Delta)\leq\zeta_{k+1}<\sum_{j=1}^{i_{k+1}}\mathbb{P}_{r_{k}^{\Delta},j}(\Delta),\\ N,\,\,&{\rm{if\,\,}}\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\mathbb{P}_{\alpha_{k}^{\Delta},j}(\Delta)\leq\zeta_{k+1}.\end{cases}

After explaining how to get the Markov chain {αkΔ,k=0,1,2,}\left\{\alpha_{k}^{\Delta},k=0,1,2,\dots\right\}, we can now give the classical EM method for the SDEwMS (2). Given a step size Δ>0\Delta>0, let tk=kΔt_{k}=k\Delta for k0k\geq 0, setting X0=z0,α0Δ=i0X_{0}=z_{0},\alpha_{0}^{\operatorname{\Delta}}=i_{0} and forming

Xk+1=Xk+f(Xk,αkΔ)Δ+g(Xk,αkΔ)ΔBk,X_{k+1}=X_{k}+f(X_{k},\alpha_{k}^{\operatorname{\Delta}})\operatorname{\Delta}+g(X_{k},\alpha_{k}^{\operatorname{\Delta}})\operatorname{\Delta}B_{k}, (3)

where ΔBk=B(tk+1)B(tk)\operatorname{\Delta}B_{k}=B(t_{k+1})-B(t_{k}), XkX_{k} is the approximation of z(tk)z(t_{k}). Let

X¯(t)=Xk,α¯(t)=αkΔfort[tk,tk+1),\bar{X}(t)=X_{k},\quad\bar{\alpha}(t)=\alpha_{k}^{\operatorname{\Delta}}\quad{\rm for}\quad t\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}),

and the continuous EM method is defined by

X(t)=X0+0tf(X¯(s),α¯(s))ds+0tg(X¯(s),α¯(s))dB(s).X(t)=X_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}f(\bar{X}(s),\bar{\alpha}(s)){\rm d}s+\int_{0}^{t}g(\bar{X}(s),\bar{\alpha}(s)){\rm d}B(s). (4)

It can be verified that X(tk)=X¯(tk)=XkX(t_{k})=\bar{X}(t_{k})=X_{k}.

Remark 2.

As we said in the Section 1, there are only a few papers that estimates the error between the numerical approximation and the exact solution for hybrid systems in the sense of pp-th moment. Inequality (1) is equivalent to

(𝔼supt[0,T]|y(t)x(t)|p)1/pCΔ1/p,\left(\mathbb{E}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|y(t)-x(t)|^{p}\right)^{1/p}\leq C\operatorname{\Delta}^{1/p},

where C=(C5(1+𝔼|x0|p))1/pC=(C_{5}(1+\mathbb{E}|x_{0}|^{p}))^{1/p}, this implies the LpL^{p}-convergence order for the θ\theta method to the hybrid system is 1/p1/p, instead of 1/21/2, which is the convergence order of θ\theta method for stochastic systems without Markov chain ([21]). Main result in [20] is similar to the Theorem 3 in [19].

In the next section, we will give a different EM scheme using another method to formulate the Markov chain α(t)\alpha(t), and we will prove that the EM method given in this paper will converge to Eq.(2) in the sense of Lp(p2)L^{p}~{}(p\geq 2) with the order 1/21/2.

3 Euler-Maruyama method

For the generation of the Markov chain α(t)\alpha(t), we cite the methodology of formulating the Markov chain from Section 2.4 in [22]. In order to get the sample paths of α(t)\alpha(t), we need to determine the time of residence in each state and the succeeding actions. The chain remains at any given state i0(i0S)i_{0}(i_{0}\in S) for a random length of time, τ1\tau_{1}, which follows an exponential distribution with parameter γi0i0-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}}, hence τ1\tau_{1} can be obtained by

τ1=log(1ζ1)γi0i0,\tau_{1}=\frac{\log(1-\zeta_{1})}{\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}}},

where ζ1\zeta_{1} is a random variable uniformly distributed in (0,1)(0,1). Then, the process will enter another state. In addition, the probability that state jj (with jS,ji0j\in S,j\neq i_{0}) becomes the next residence of the chain is γi0j/(γi0i0)\gamma_{i_{0}j}/(-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}}). The position after the jump is determined by a discrete random variable i1(i1S{i0})i_{1}(i_{1}\in S\setminus\{i_{0}\}), namely α(τ1)=i1\alpha(\tau_{1})=i_{1}. The value of i1i_{1} is given by

i1={1,ifξ1<γi01/(γi0i0),2,ifγi01/(γi0i0)ξ1<(γi01+γi02)/(γi0i0),N,ifji0,jN1γi0j/(γi0i0)<ξ1,i_{1}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}~{}\xi_{1}<\gamma_{i_{0}1}/(-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}}),\\ 2,&\text{if}~{}\gamma_{i_{0}1}/(-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}})\leq\xi_{1}<(\gamma_{i_{0}1}+\gamma_{i_{0}2})/(-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}}),\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ N,&\text{if}~{}\sum_{j\neq i_{0},j\leq N-1}\gamma_{i_{0}j}/(-\gamma_{i_{0}i_{0}})<\xi_{1},\end{cases}

where ξ1\xi_{1} is a random variable uniformly distributed in (0,1)(0,1).

The chain remains at state i1i_{1} for a random length of time, τ2\tau_{2} , which follows an exponential distribution with parameter γi1i1-\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}}, thus

τ2=log(1ζ2)γi1i1,\tau_{2}=\frac{\log(1-\zeta_{2})}{\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}}},

where ζ2\zeta_{2} is also a random variable uniformly distributed in (0,1)(0,1). Then, the process will enter another state. The post-jump location is identified by a discrete random variable i2(i2S{i1})i_{2}(i_{2}\in S\setminus\{i_{1}\}), which implies α(τ1+τ2)=i2\alpha(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2})=i_{2}. The value of i2i_{2} is determined by

i2={1,ifξ2<γi11/(γi1i1),2,ifγi11/(γi1i1)ξ2<(γi11+γi12)/(γi1i1),N,ifji1,jN1γi1j/(γi1i1)<ξ2,i_{2}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}~{}\xi_{2}<\gamma_{i_{1}1}/(-\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}}),\\ 2,&\text{if}~{}\gamma_{i_{1}1}/(-\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}})\leq\xi_{2}<(\gamma_{i_{1}1}+\gamma_{i_{1}2})/(-\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}}),\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ N,&\text{if}~{}\sum_{j\neq i_{1},j\leq N-1}\gamma_{i_{1}j}/(-\gamma_{i_{1}i_{1}})<\xi_{2},\end{cases}

where ξ2\xi_{2} is a random variable uniformly distributed in (0,1)(0,1). Therefore, repeating the procedure above, the sampling path of α(t),t0\alpha(t),t\geq 0 is composed of exponential random variables and U(0,1)U(0,1) random variables alternately.

Recall that nearly all sample paths of α()\alpha(\cdot) are right-continuous piecewise constant function with finite sample jumps in [0,T][0,T]. Thus, there are stopping times 0=τ¯0<τ¯1<τ¯2<<τ¯N¯=T(N¯+)0=\bar{\tau}_{0}<\bar{\tau}_{1}<\bar{\tau}_{2}<\cdots<\bar{\tau}_{\bar{N}}=T~{}(\bar{N}\in\mathbb{N}_{+}), where τ¯k=j=1kτj,k=1,2,,N¯1\bar{\tau}_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\tau_{j},k=1,2,\dots,\bar{N}-1, such that

α(t)=k=0N¯1ikI[τ¯k,τ¯k+1)(t).\alpha(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{\bar{N}-1}i_{k}I_{[\bar{\tau}_{k},\bar{\tau}_{k+1})}(t).

Now we are in a position to define the EM method to SDEwMS (2). Given a step size Δ>0\Delta>0, let tk=kΔt_{k}=k\Delta (k)(k\in\mathbb{N}) be the gridpoints.

Define

Ji={0,ifi=0,inf{t(Ji1,T]α(t)α(t)}inf{t(Ji1,T]t=tk,k},ifi1.J_{i}=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if}~{}i=0,\\ \inf\{t\in(J_{i-1},T]\mid\alpha(t)\neq\alpha(t^{-})\}\wedge\inf\{t\in(J_{i-1},T]\mid t=t_{k},k\in\mathbb{N}\},&\text{if}~{}i\geq 1.\end{cases}

According to the definition of JiJ_{i}, it is easy to know that

N~:=#{Ji,i=0,1,}[T/Δ]+N¯+1,\tilde{N}:=\#\{J_{i},i=0,1,\dots\}\leq[T/\Delta]+\bar{N}+1,

where #{Ji}\#\{J_{i}\} denotes the number of elements in set {Ji}\{J_{i}\}. Then we define the EM method to (2) of the following type by setting Z0=z(0)=z0Z_{0}=z(0)=z_{0},

Zk+1=Zk+i=0N~1f(Zk,α(Ji))I[tk,tk+1)(Ji)ΔJi+i=0N~1g(Zk,α(Ji))I[tk,tk+1)(Ji)ΔBJi,\begin{split}Z_{k+1}=Z_{k}+\sum_{i=0}^{\tilde{N}-1}f\left(Z_{k},\alpha(J_{i})\right)I_{[t_{k},t_{k+1})}(J_{i})\operatorname{\Delta}J_{i}+\sum_{i=0}^{\tilde{N}-1}g\left(Z_{k},\alpha(J_{i})\right)I_{[t_{k},t_{k+1})}(J_{i})\Delta B_{J_{i}},\end{split} (5)

for kk\in\mathbb{N}, where ΔJi=Ji+1Ji,ΔBJi=B(Ji+1)B(Ji)\operatorname{\Delta}J_{i}=J_{i+1}-J_{i},\Delta B_{J_{i}}=B(J_{i+1})-B(J_{i}). ZkZ_{k} is the approximate value of z(tk)z(t_{k}). Let

Z¯(t)=k=0ZkI[tk,tk+1)(t),\bar{Z}(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}Z_{k}I_{[t_{k},t_{k+1})}(t),

the continuous EM method is given by

Z(t)=Z0+0tf(Z¯(s),α(s))ds+0tg(Z¯(s),α(s))dB(s).Z(t)=Z_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s)){\rm d}s+\int_{0}^{t}g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s)){\rm d}B(s). (6)

It can be verified that Z(tk)=Z¯(tk)=Zk,k0Z(t_{k})=\bar{Z}(t_{k})=Z_{k},~{}\forall k\geq 0.

4 Rate of the LpL^{p}-convergence for the EM method

Similar to Lemma 4.1 in [23], we can easily obtain the following conclusion.

Lemma 4.1.

Let Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2 hold. Then for any Δ(0,1]\operatorname{\Delta}\in(0,1] and p2p\geq 2, the EM method (6) has the following property

𝔼(sup0tT|Z(t)|p)C.\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq C.

The proof is omitted because it is similar to that for Lemma 4.1 in [23].

Lemma 4.2.

Suppose that Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2 hold. Then for any p2p\geq 2,

sup0tT𝔼|Z(t)Z¯(t)|pCΔp/2.\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|Z(t)-\bar{Z}(t)|^{p}\leq C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2}.
Proof.

For any t[0,T]t\in[0,T], according to (6) and the basic inequality (|u|+|v|)p2p1(|u|p+|v|p)(|u|+|v|)^{p}\leq 2^{p-1}(|u|^{p}+|v|^{p}), p2p\geq 2, one has

𝔼|Z(t)Z¯(t)|p2p1𝔼|[t/Δ]Δtf(Z¯(s),α(s))ds|p+2p1𝔼|[t/Δ]Δtg(Z¯(s),α(s))dB(s)|p.\begin{split}\mathbb{E}|Z(t)-\bar{Z}(t)|^{p}\leq&2^{p-1}\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s)){\rm d}s\right|^{p}+2^{p-1}\mathbb{E}\left|\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s)){\rm d}B(s)\right|^{p}.\end{split}

Applying Hölder’s inequality and Theorem 1.7.1 in [24], one can arrive at

𝔼|Z(t)Z¯(t)|pCΔp1𝔼[t/Δ]Δt|f(Z¯(s),α(s))|pds+CΔp/21𝔼[t/Δ]Δt|g(Z¯(s),α(s))|pds.\begin{split}\mathbb{E}|Z(t)-\bar{Z}(t)|^{p}\leq&C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p-1}\mathbb{E}\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}\left|f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{p}{\rm d}s+C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2-1}\mathbb{E}\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}\left|g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{p}{\rm d}s.\end{split}

On the basis of Remark 1 and Lemma 4.1, one has

𝔼|Z(t)Z¯(t)|pCΔp/21(Δp/2+1)𝔼[t/Δ]Δt(1+|Z¯(s)|p)dsCΔp/21(Δp/2+1)[t/Δ]Δt(1+𝔼sup0st|Z(s)|p)dsCΔp/2,\begin{split}\mathbb{E}|Z(t)-\bar{Z}(t)|^{p}\leq&C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2-1}(\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2}+1)\mathbb{E}\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}\left(1+|\bar{Z}(s)|^{p}\right){\rm d}s\\ \leq&C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2-1}(\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2}+1)\int_{[t/{\operatorname{\Delta}}]\operatorname{\Delta}}^{t}\left(1+\mathbb{E}\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|Z(s)|^{p}\right){\rm d}s\\ \leq&C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2},\end{split}

since t[0,T]t\in[0,T] is arbitrary, the proof is completed. ∎

Theorem 4.3.

Under Assumption 2.1, for any p2p\geq 2, the EM method (6) has the property that

𝔼(sup0tT|z(t)Z(t)|p)CΔp/2.\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq C\Delta^{p/2}.
Proof.

Recall (2) and (6), for any t[0,T]t\in[0,T], according to Itô’s formula, we have

|z(t)Z(t)|2=0t2(z(s)Z(s))T(f(z(s),α(s))f(Z¯(s),α(s)))ds+0t|g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s))|2ds+0t2(z(s)Z(s))T(g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s)))dB(s).\begin{split}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{2}=&\int_{0}^{t}2(z(s)-Z(s))^{\rm T}\left(f(z(s),\alpha(s))-f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right){\rm d}s\\ &+\int_{0}^{t}\left|g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{2}{\rm d}s\\ &+\int_{0}^{t}2(z(s)-Z(s))^{\rm T}\left(g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right){\rm d}B(s).\end{split}

Then for any T1[0,T]T_{1}\in[0,T], it is easily to get that

𝔼(sup0tT1|z(t)Z(t)|p)3p/2𝔼{sup0tT1(0t2(z(s)Z(s))T(f(z(s),α(s))f(Z¯(s),α(s)))ds)p/2}A1+3p/2𝔼(sup0tT1(0t|g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s))|2ds)p/2}A2+3p/2𝔼(sup0tT1(0t2(z(s)Z(s))T(g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s)))dB(s))p/2}A3.\begin{split}&\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\\ \leq&3^{p/2}\underbrace{\mathbb{E}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}\left(\int_{0}^{t}2(z(s)-Z(s))^{\rm T}\left(f(z(s),\alpha(s))-f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right){\rm d}s\right)^{p/2}\right\}}_{A_{1}}\\ &+3^{p/2}\underbrace{\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}\left(\int_{0}^{t}\left|g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{2}{\rm d}s\right)^{p/2}\right\}}_{A_{2}}\\ &+3^{p/2}\underbrace{\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}\left(\int_{0}^{t}2(z(s)-Z(s))^{\rm T}\left(g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right){\rm d}B(s)\right)^{p/2}\right\}}_{A_{3}}.\end{split} (7)

Using Hölder’s inequality and Assumption 2.1, one can deduce that

A12p/2T1p/21𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|p/2|f(z(s),α(s))f(Z¯(s),α(s))|p/2ds2p/2T1p/21Lp/2𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|p/2|z(s)Z¯(s)|p/2dsC𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|pds+C𝔼0T1|Z(s)Z¯(s)|pds,\begin{split}A_{1}\leq&2^{p/2}T_{1}^{p/2-1}\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p/2}\left|f(z(s),\alpha(s))-f(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{p/2}{\rm d}s\\ \leq&2^{p/2}T_{1}^{p/2-1}L^{p/2}\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p/2}\left|z(s)-\bar{Z}(s)\right|^{p/2}{\rm d}s\\ \leq&C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p}{\rm d}s+C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|Z(s)-\bar{Z}(s)\right|^{p}{\rm d}s,\\ \end{split} (8)

and

A2T1p/21𝔼0T1|g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s))|pdsT1p/21Lp𝔼0T1|z(s)Z¯(s)|pdsC𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|pds+C𝔼0T1|Z(s)Z¯(s)|pds.\begin{split}A_{2}\leq&T_{1}^{p/2-1}\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{p}{\rm d}s\\ \leq&T_{1}^{p/2-1}L^{p}\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|z(s)-\bar{Z}(s)\right|^{p}{\rm d}s\\ \leq&C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p}{\rm d}s+C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|Z(s)-\bar{Z}(s)\right|^{p}{\rm d}s.\\ \end{split} (9)

Applying Theorem 1.7.2 in [24], together with Assumption 2.1, we can obtain that

A3C𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|p/2|g(z(s),α(s))g(Z¯(s),α(s))|p/2dsC𝔼0T1|z(s)Z(s)|pds+C𝔼0T1|Z(s)Z¯(s)|pds.\begin{split}A_{3}\leq&C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p/2}\left|g(z(s),\alpha(s))-g(\bar{Z}(s),\alpha(s))\right|^{p/2}{\rm d}s\\ \leq&C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p}{\rm d}s+C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|Z(s)-\bar{Z}(s)\right|^{p}{\rm d}s.\\ \end{split} (10)

Substituting (8)-(10) into (7), yields

𝔼(sup0tT1|z(t)Z(t)|p)C𝔼0T1|z(t)Z(t)|pdt+C𝔼0T1|Z(t)Z¯(t)|pdt.\begin{split}\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq&C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}{\rm d}t+C\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\left|Z(t)-\bar{Z}(t)\right|^{p}{\rm d}t.\\ \end{split}

By Lemma 4.2 one can further show that

𝔼(sup0tT1|z(t)Z(t)|p)C0T1𝔼(sup0st|z(s)Z(s)|p)dt+CΔp/2.\begin{split}\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq&C\int_{0}^{T_{1}}\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|z(s)-Z(s)|^{p}\right){\rm d}t+C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2}.\\ \end{split}

It therefore follows from the Gronwall inequality that

𝔼(sup0tT1|z(t)Z(t)|p)CeCT1Δp/2,\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_{1}}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq C{\rm e}^{CT_{1}}\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2},

since T1[0,T]T_{1}\in[0,T] is arbitrary, hence

𝔼(sup0tT|z(t)Z(t)|p)CΔp/2.\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|z(t)-Z(t)|^{p}\right)\leq C\operatorname{\Delta}^{p/2}.

The proof is completed. ∎

5 Conclusions

In this paper, we develop the EM scheme, which is different from the one given in the references (such as [4, 10]), to generate the approximate solutions to a class of SDEwMSs, and analyze the order of the errors in the LpL^{p}-sense. It has been proved that the LpL^{p}-convergence rate of the EM scheme given in this paper for SDEwMSs can reach 1/21/2. We further point out that the techniques used in this paper to construct the EM method can also be used to construct other schemes for hybrid systems, such as stochastic theta method, tamed EM method, and Milstein method, etc. We believe that this approach will also contribute to the LpL^{p}-convergence order of these numerical methods for hybrid systems.

References

  • [1] X. Mao, A. Truman, C. Yuan, Euler-Maruyama approximations in mean-reverting stochastic volatility model under regime-switching, J. Appl. Math. Stoch. Anal. 2006 (2006) 1–20.
  • [2] S. P. Sethi, Q. Zhang, Hierarchical Decision Making in Stochastic Manufacturing Systems, in: Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications, first ed., Birkhäuser Basel, 1994.
  • [3] M. Mariton, Jump Linear Systems in Automatic Control, Conrad Workshop, Taylor & Francis, 1990.
  • [4] C. Yuan, X. Mao, Convergence of the Euler-Maruyama method for stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 64 (2) (2004) 223–235.
  • [5] S. L. Nguyen, G. Yin, Pathwise convergence rates for numerical solutions of Markovian switching stochastic differential equations, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications 13 (3) (2012) 1170–1185.
  • [6] S. L. Nguyen, T. A. Hoang, D. T. Nguyen, G. Yin, Milstein-type procedures for numerical solutions of stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 55 (2) (2017) 953–979.
  • [7] D. T. Nguyen, S. L. Nguyen, T. A. Hoang, G. Yin, Tamed-Euler method for hybrid stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching, Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems 30 (2018) 14–30.
  • [8] C. Kumar, T. Kumar, On explicit tamed Milstein-type scheme for stochastic differential equation with Markovian switching, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 377 (2020) 112917.
  • [9] X. Gao, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Yang, M. Yang, Tamed-Euler method for nonlinear switching diffusion systems with locally Hölder diffusion coefficients, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 151 (2021) 111224.
  • [10] X. Mao, C. Yuan, G. Yin, Approximations of Euler-Maruyama type for stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching, under non-Lipschitz conditions, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 205 (2) (2007) 936–948.
  • [11] J. Bao, Z. Hou, An analytic approximation of solutions of stochastic differential delay equations with Markovian switching, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 50 (9) (2009) 1379–1384.
  • [12] G. Yin, X. Mao, C. Yuan, D. Cao, Approximation methods for hybrid diffusion systems with state-dependent switching processes: Numerical algorithms and existence and uniqueness of solutions, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 41 (6) (2010) 2335–2352.
  • [13] S. Zhou, Strong convergence and stability of backward Euler-Maruyama scheme for highly nonlinear hybrid stochastic differential delay equation, Calcolo 52 (4) (2015) 445–473.
  • [14] M. Obradović, Implicit numerical methods for neutral stochastic differential equations with unbounded delay and Markovian switching, Applied Mathematics and Computation 347 (2019) 664–687.
  • [15] S. Deng, W. Fei, Y. Liang, X. Mao, Convergence of the split-step θ\theta-method for stochastic age-dependent population equations with Markovian switching and variable delay, Applied Numerical Mathematics 139 (2019) 15–37.
  • [16] X. Li, X. Mao, Y. Shen, Approximate solutions of stochastic differential delay equations with Markovian switching, Journal of Difference Equations and Applications 16 (2-3) (2010) 195–207.
  • [17] T. A. Hoang, G. Yin, F. Xi, Numerical solutions of regime-switching jump diffusions, Applied Mathematics and Computation 244 (2014) 822–835.
  • [18] Y. Cong, W. Zhan, Q. Guo, The partially truncated Euler-Maruyama method for highly nonlinear stochastic delay differential equations with Markovian switching, International Journal of Computational Methods (2019) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876219500142.
  • [19] Z. Hou, J. Tong, Z. Zhang, Convergence of jump-diffusion non-linear differential equation with phase semi-Markovian switching, Applied Mathematical Modelling 33 (2009) 3650–3660.
  • [20] W. Zhang, Convergence rate of the truncated Euler-Maruyama method for neutral stochastic differential delay equations with Markovian switching, Journal of Computational Mathematics 38 (6) (2020) 903–932.
  • [21] X. Zong, F. Wu, C. Huang, Theta schemes for SDDEs with non-globally Lipschitz continuous coefficients, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 278 (2015) 258–277.
  • [22] G. Yin, Q. Zhang, Continuous Time Markov Chains and Applications: A Two-Time-Scale Approach, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  • [23] X. Mao, C. Yuan, Stochastic Differential Equations with Markovian Switching, London: Imperial College Press, 2006.
  • [24] X. Mao, Stochastic Differential Equations and Applications, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2007.