A Bayesian sequential test
for the drift of a fractional Brownian motion
Alexey Muravlev∗

Mikhail Zhitlukhin†

arXiv:1804.02757v1 [math.ST] 8 Apr 2018

April 10, 2018

Abstract
We consider a fractional Brownian motion with unknown linear drift such that the drift
coefficient has a prior normal distribution and construct a sequential test for the hypothesis
that the drift is positive versus the alternative that it is negative. We show that the problem
of constructing the test reduces to an optimal stopping problem for a standard Brownian
motion, obtained by a transformation of the fractional one. The solution is described as
the first exit time from some set, whose boundaries are shown to satisfy a certain integral
equation, which is solved numerically.
Keywords: sequential test, Chernoff’s test, fractional Brownian motion, optimal stopping.
AMS Subject Classification: 62L10, 62L15, 60G40.

1.

Introduction

Suppose one observes a fractional Brownian motion process (fBm) with linear drift and unknown
drift coefficient. We are interested in sequentially testing the hypotheses that the drift coefficient
is positive or negative. By a sequential test we call a procedure which continues to observe
the process until a certain time (which generally depends on a path of the process, so it is a
stopping time), and then decides which of the two hypotheses should be accepted. We consider
a Bayesian setting where the drift coefficient has a prior normal distribution, and we use an
optimality criterion of a test which consists of a linear penalty for the duration of observation
and a penalty for a wrong decision proportional to the true value of the drift coefficient. The
goal of this paper is to describe the structure of the exact optimal test in this problem, i.e.
specify a stopping time and a rule to choose between the two hypotheses.
The main novelty of our work compared to the large body of literature related to sequential
tests (for an overview of the field, see e.g. [13, 29]) is that we work with fBm. To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first non-asymptotic solution of a continuous-time sequential testing
problem for this process. Recall that the fBm is a Gaussian process, which generalizes the
standard Brownian motion (sBm) and allows for dependent increments; see the definition in
Section 2. It was first introduced by Kolmogorov [11] and gained much attention after the work
of Mandelbrot and van Ness [15]. Recently, this process has been used in various models in
applied areas, including, for example, modeling of traffic in computer networks and modeling of
stock market prices and their volatility; a comprehensive review can be found in the preface to
the monograph [16].
∗

Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, 8 Gubkina st., Moscow 119991, Russia.
Email: almurav@mi.ras.ru.
†
Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, 8 Gubkina st., Moscow 119991, Russia.
Email: mikhailzh@mi.ras.ru. Corresponding author.

1

It is well-known that a fBm is not a Markov process, neither a semimartingale except the case
when it is a sBm. As a consequence, many standard tools of stochastic calculus and stochastic
control (Itô’s formula, the HJB equation, etc.) cannot be applied in models based on fBm.
In particular, recall that a general method to construct exact sequential tests, especially in
Bayesian problems, consists in reduction to optimal stopping problems for processes of sufficient
statistics; see e.g. Chapter VI in the book [24]. In the majority of problems considered in the
literature sufficient statistics are Markov processes, and so the well-developed general theory
of Markov optimal stopping problems can be applied. On the other hand, optimal stopping
problems for non-Markov and non-semimartingale processes, like fBm, often cannot be solved
even by numerical methods.
Fortunately, in the problem we consider it turns out to be possible to change the original
problem for fBm so that it becomes tractable. One of the key steps is a general transformation
outlined in the note [18], which allows to reduce sequential testing problems for fBm to problems
for diffusion processes. It is achieved by integration of a certain kernel with respect to an
observable process and using the known fact that a fBm can be expressed as an integral with
respect to a sBm, and vice versa.
In the literature, the result which is most closely related to ours is the sequential test proposed
by H. Chernoff [4], which has exactly the same setting and uses the same optimality criterion,
but considers only sBm. For a prior normal distribution of the drift coefficient, Chernoff and
Breakwell [1, 5] found asymptotically optimal sequential tests when the variance of the drift
goes to zero or infinity. In the paper [19], we extended their result and constructed an exact
optimal test. An important step was a transformation of the problem that reduced the optimal
stopping problem for the sufficient statistic process, as studied by Chernoff and Breakwell, to
an optimal stopping problem for a standard Brownian motion with nonlinear observation cost.
A similar transformation is used in the present paper as well, see Section 3.
Let us mention two other recent results in the sequential analysis of fBm, related to estimation
of its drift coefficient. Cetin, Novikov, and Shiryaev [3] considered a sequential estimation
problem assuming a normal prior distribution of the drift with a quadratic or a δ-function
penalty for a wrong estimate and a linear penalty for observation time. They proved that in
their setting the optimal stopping time is non-random. Gapeev and Stoev [9] studied sequential
testing and changepoint detection problems for Gaussian processes, including fBm. They showed
how those problems can be reduced to optimal stopping problems and found asymptotics of
optimal stopping boundaries. There are many more results related to fixed-sample (i.e. nonsequential) statistical analysis of fBm. See, for example, Part II of the recent monograph [28],
which discusses statistical methods for fBm in details.
Our paper is organized as follows. Section 2 formulates the problem. Section 3 describes a
transformation of the original problem to an optimal stopping problem for a sBm and introduces
auxiliary processes which are needed to construct the optimal sequential test. The main result
of the paper – the theorem which describes the structure of the optimal sequential test – is
presented in Section 4, together with a numerical solution. Section 5 contains the proof. Some
technical details are in the appendix.

2.

Decision rules and their optimality

Suppose one observes the stochastic process
Zt = θt + BtH ,

t ≥ 0,

where BtH , t ≥ 0, is a fractional Brownian motion (fBm) with known Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1)
and unknown drift coefficient θ. Recall that a fBm is a continuous zero-mean Gaussian process

2

with the covariance function
1
cov(BtH , BsH ) = (s2H + t2H − |t − s|2H ),
2

t, s ≥ 0.

In the particular case H = 1/2 this process is a standard Brownian motion (sBm) and has independent increments; its increments are positively correlated in the case H > 1/2 and negatively
correlated in the case H < 1/2. Except the case H = 1/2, a fBm is not a Markov process,
neither a semimartingale.
We will consider a Bayesian setting and assume that θ is a random variable defined on the
same probability space as B H , independent of it and having a normal distribution with known
mean µ ∈ R and known variance σ 2 > 0.
It is assumed that neither the value of θ, nor the value of BtH can be observed directly, but
the observer wants to determine whether the value of θ is positive or negative based on the
information conveyed by the combined process Zt . We will look for a sequential test for the
hypothesis θ > 0 versus the alternative θ ≤ 0. By a sequential test we call a pair δ = (τ, d)
which consists of a stopping time τ of the filtration FtZ , generated by Z, and an FτZ -measurable
function d assuming values ±1. The stopping time is the moment of time when observation is
terminated and a decision about the hypotheses is made; the value of d shows which of them is
accepted.
We will use the criterion of optimality of a decision rule consisting in minimizing the linear
penalty for observation time and the penalty for a wrong decision proportional to the absolute
value of θ. Namely, with each decision rule δ we associate the risk
R(δ) = E(τ + |θ| I(d 6= sgn(θ))),

(1)

where sgn(θ) = −1 if θ ≤ 0 and sgn(θ) = 1 if θ > 0. The problem consists in finding δ ∗ that
minimizes R(δ) over all decision rules. Note that one can consider a more general setting when
the penalty for observation time is equal to cτ with some constant c > 0 (or the penalty for a
wrong decision is c|θ| I(d 6= sgn(θ))), but this case can be reduced to the one we consider by a
change of the parameters µ, σ (see [4]), and so we’ll focus only on c = 1.
This problem was proposed by H. Chernoff in [4] for sBm, and we refer the reader to that
paper and the subsequent papers [1, 5, 6] for a rationale for this setting. Those papers contain
results about the asymptotics of the optimal test and other its properties, including a comparison
with Wald’s sequential probability ratio test. Our paper [19] contains a result which allows to
find an exact (non-asymptotic) optimal test by a relatively simple numerical procedure.

3.

Reduction to an optimal stopping problem

We will transform the problem of finding a decision rule minimizing (1) by eliminating the
function d from it and reducing it to an optimal stopping problem. On the first step, we’ll
obtain an optimal stopping problem for a fBm. Then by changing time and space coordinates
it will be reduced to an optimal stopping problem for a sBm, which will allow to apply welldeveloped methods to solve it.
From the relation |θ| I(d 6= sgn(θ)) = θ+ I(d = −1) + θ− I(d = 1), where θ+ = max(θ, 0),
−
θ = − min(θ, 0), and the fact that d is FτZ -measurable, one can see that the optimal decision
rule should be looked for among rules (τ, d) with d = min(E(θ− | FτZ ), E(θ+ | FτZ )). Hence, it
will be enough to solve the optimal stopping problem which consists in finding a stopping time
τ ∗ such that R(τ ∗ ) = inf τ R(τ ), where
R(τ ) = E(τ + min(E(θ− | FτZ ), E(θ+ | FτZ )))

3

(for brevity, we’ll use the same notation R for the functional associated with a decision rule,
and the functional associated with a stopping time). Then the optimal decision rule will be
δ ∗ = (τ ∗ , d∗ ) with d∗ = 1 if E(θ− | FτZ∗ ) < E(θ+ | FτZ∗ )) and d∗ = −1 otherwise.
Next we are going to transform the expression inside the expectation in R(τ ) to the value of
some process constructed from a sBm. It is known (see e.g. [10] and the earlier results [17, 20])
that the following process Bt , t ≥ 0, is a sBm, and the filtrations generated by Bt and BtH
coincide:
Z t
KH (t, s)dBsH
(2)
B t = CH
0

with the kernel
KH (t, s) = (t − s)

1
−H
2

2 F1

1
3
s − t
− H, − H, − H,
,
2
2
2
t

1

where 2 F1 (a, b, c, x) is the Gauss hypergeometric function, and the constant CH is defined by

CH =

Γ(2 − 2H)
1
2HΓ( 2 + H)(Γ( 32 − H))3

1
2

,

where Γ(x) denotes the gamma function. See [10] for details of the definition of the integral
with respect to B H in formula (2). Introduce the process Xt , t ≥ 0, by
Z

t

Xt = CH

KH (t, s)dZs .
0

Using the above connection between Bt and BtH and computing the corresponding integral with
respect to ds we obtain that
Z t
1
Xt = θLH
s 2 −H ds + Bt ,
0

and the filtrations of the processes Zt and Xt coincide. The constant LH is defined by
LH

 
 1
− 12
3
−H B
+ H, 2 − 2H
,
= 2H
2
2

where B(x, y) is the beta function (see the appendix for computational details).
From the Cameron–Martin theorem or the Girsanov formula and the general Bayes theorem
(see e.g. Chapters 6, 7 in [14], and the appendix) one can find that the conditional distribution
of θ is normal:


at 1
X
Law(θ | Ft ) = N
,
(3)
bt bt
with the processes
µ
at = 2 + LH
σ

Z

t

1

s 2 −H dXs ,

bt =

0

L2H 2−2H
1
+
t
.
σ 2 2 − 2H

Then R(τ ) can be written as
R(τ ) = E(τ + h(aτ , bτ ))

(4)

with the function h(a, b) = min(E ξ + , E ξ − ) for a normal random variable ξ ∼ N ( ab , 1b ). In the
|a|
√
explicit form, h(a, b) = √1b ϕ( √ab ) − |a|
b Φ(− b ), where Φ, ϕ are the standard normal distribution
and density functions.
Observe also that (3) implies that for the optimal stopping time τ ∗ , the corresponding optimal
function d∗ is equal to 1 if aτ ∗ > 0 and −1 if aτ ∗ ≤ 0.

4

et , t ≥ 0,
Define the process B
Z t
Z
1
et = Xt − LH
E(θ | FsX )s 2 −H ds = Xt − LH
B
0

t

0

as 1 −H
s 2 ds.
bs

et is a standard Brownian
The innovation representation (see Chapter 7.4 in [14]) implies that B
motion. Then the process at satisfies the SDE
1
at
et .
dat = dbt + LH t 2 −H dB
bt
Next we’ll apply the Itô formula to h(aτ , bτ ). In order to avoid problems caused by that h(a, b)
is not smooth at a = 0, consider the function e
h(a, b) = h(a, b) + |a|
2b . It can be easily verified
2,1
0
e
e
that h ∈ C (R \ {0} × R+ ), the derivative ha (a, b) is continuous at a = 0 for any b > 0, and
e
e0
h0b (a, b) + 21 e
h00aa (a, b) + |a|
b ha (a, b) = 0 for all a ∈ R \ {0}, b > 0. From this identity, applying the
Itô formula we obtain
1
et .
de
h(at , bt ) = e
h0a (at , bt )LH t 2 −H dB
R∞ 0
1
|a|
Using that e
h0 (a, b) = − 1 Φ(− √
) + 1 , one can see that E
(e
h (at , bt )t 2 −H )2 dt is finite,
a

b

b

2b

0

a

so e
h(at , bt ) is a square-integrable martingale. Therefore, for any stopping time τ we have
Ee
h(aτ , bτ ) = e
h(a0 , b0 ), which transforms (4) to


|aτ |
R(τ ) = E τ −
+e
h(a0 , b0 ).
2bτ
(Explicitly, e
h(a0 , b0 ) = σϕ( σµ ) + |µ|( 12 − Φ(− |µ|
σ )).) Observe that

at
bt

satisfies the equation

1
−H
2

a 
t
t
et .
d
= LH
dB
bt
bt
For brevity, denote
1
.
2 − 2H
Then under the following monotone change of time (see the appendix for details)


(2 − 2H)r γ
t(r) =
,
r ∈ [0, 1),
σ 2 L2H (1 − r)
γ = γ(H) =

(5)

where t runs through the half-interval [0, ∞) when r runs through [0, 1), the process
at(r)
µ
Wr =
−
σbt(r) σ
X coincide. Therefore, for any stopping
is a sBm in r ∈ [0, 1), and the filtrations FrW and Ft(r)
time τ of the filtration FtX we have


γ

σ
ρ
µ
R(τ ) = E Mσ,H
− Wρ +
+e
h(a0 , b0 ),
2
1−ρ
σ

where ρ = t−1 (τ ) < 1 is a stopping time of the filtration FrW , and the constant


2 2 − 2H γ
Mσ,H =
.
σ σ 2 L2H
Thus, the optimal stopping problem for X in t-time is equivalent to the following optimal
stopping problem for W in r-time:
γ



ρ
µ
.
(6)
V = inf E Mσ,H
− Wρ +
ρ<1
1−ρ
σ
Namely, if ρ∗ is an optimal stopping time in (6), then an optimal decision rule δ ∗ = (τ ∗ , d∗ ) is
given by
(7)
τ ∗ = t(ρ∗ ),
d∗ = I(aτ ∗ > 0) − I(aτ ∗ ≤ 0).
5

4.

The main result

In this section we formulate the main theorem about the solution of problem (6), which provides
an optimal sequential test via (7). Throughout we will assume that the parameters of the
problem µ, σ, H remain fixed and will denote the function

γ
t
.
f (t) = Mσ,H
1−t
It is well-known that under general conditions the solution of an optimal stopping problem
for a Markov process can be represented as the first time when the process enters some set –
a stopping set. Namely, let us first rewrite our problem in the Markov setting by allowing the
process Wt to start from any point (t, x) ∈ [0, 1) × R:
V (t, x) = inf E(f (t + ρ) − |Wρ + x|) − f (t),
ρ<1−t

(8)

where the infimum is over all stopping times ρ of the Brownian motion W such that ρ < 1 − t
a.s. In particular, for the quantity V from (6) we have V = V (0, σµ ). We subtract f (t) in the
definition of V (t, x) to make the function V (t, x) bounded. For t = 1 we define V (1, x) = −|x|.
The following theorem describes the structure of the optimal stopping time in problem (8).
In its statement, we set


1 − 2H
t0 = t0 (H) := max 0,
.
4(1 − H)
Obviously, 0 < t0 < 41 for H < 12 and t0 = 0 for H ≥ 12 . We find the solution of problem (8) by
describing the boundary of the stopping set as a function of time t: in the case H < 12 this will
be done only for t ≥ t0 , while in the case H ≥ 21 for all t ∈ (0, 1). Unfortunately, our method of
proof does not work for t < t0 when H ≤ 12 , although the boundary can still be formally found
from the equation we obtain in the theorem; see the discussion below.
Main theorem. 1) There exists a function A(t) defined on (t0 , 1], which is continuous, nonincreasing, and strictly positive for t < 1 with A(1) = 0, such that for any t > t0 and x ∈ R the
optimal stopping time in problem (8) is given by
ρ∗ (t, x) = inf{s ≥ 0 : |Ws + x| ≥ A(t + s)}.
Moreover, for any t ∈ (2t0 , 1] the function A(t) satisfies the inequality
A(t) ≤

(1 − t)γ
.
2Mσ,H tγ−1

(9)

2) The function A(t) is the unique continuous non-negative solution of the integral equation
Z 1
G(t, A(t)) =
F (t, A(t), s, A(s))ds,
t ∈ (t0 , 1),
(10)
t

√

√
with the functions G(t, x) = E |ζ 1 − t + x| − x and F (t, x, s, y) = f 0 (s) P(|ζ s − t + x| ≤ y)
for a standard normal random variable ζ.
The main reason why we characterize the boundary A(t) only for t > t0 in the case H < 21 is
that the method of proof we use to show that A(t) satisfies the integral equation requires it to
be of bounded variation (at least, locally). This condition is needed as a sufficient condition to
apply the Itô formula with local time on curves [22], on which the proof is based on. In the case
H ≥ 12 and for t ≥ t0 in the case H < 12 by a direct probabilistic argument we can prove that
A(t) is monotone and therefore has bounded variation; this argument however doesn’t work for
t < t0 in the case H < 12 , and, as a formal numerical solution shows, the boundary A(t) seems
6

Figure 1: The stopping boundary A(t) for different values of H and σ = 1.

to be indeed not monotone in that case. Of course, the assumption of bounded variation can
be relaxed while the Itô formula can still be applied (see e.g. [7, 8, 22]), however verification
of weaker sufficient conditions is problematic. Although the general scheme to obtain integral
equations of type (10) and prove uniqueness of their solutions was discovered quite a while ago
(the first full result was obtained by Peskir [23] for the optimal stopping problem for American
options), and has been used many times in the literature for various optimal stopping problems
(a large number of examples can be found in [24]), we are unaware of any of its non-trivial
applications in the case when stopping boundaries are not monotone. Nevertheless, a formal
numerical solution of the integral equation shows that the stopping boundaries “look smooth”,
but we admit that a rigor proof of this fact in the above-mentioned cases remains an open
question.
Note also, that in the case H ≥ 12 the space-time transformation we apply to pass from the
optimal stopping problem for the process at to the problem for Wr is essential from this point of
view, because the boundaries in the problem for at are not monotone. Moreover, they are not
monotone even in the case H = 21 , when at is obtained by simply shifting Xt in time and space,
see [4, 19].
The second remark we would like to make is that in the case H > 12 we do not know whether
A(0) is finite. In the case H = 21 the finiteness of A(0) follows from inequality (9), which is
proved by a direct argument based on comparison with a simpler optimal stopping problem
(one can easily see from the proof that (9) extends to t = 0 for H = 12 ). It seems that a deeper
analysis is required for the case H > 21 , which is beyond this paper.
Figure 1 shows the stopping boundary A(t) for different values H computed by solving
equation (10) numerically. The solution can be obtained by backward induction on a discrete
set of points of [t0 , 1] starting with t = 1 and going towards t = t0 using that the expression
under the integral depends only on the values of A(s) for s ≥ t; the method is described in more
details, for example, in [21].

5.

The proof of the theorem

The proof will be conducted in several steps: (i) prove the monotonicity and continuity of the
function V (t, x) + |x|; (ii) analyze the stopping set and its boundaries; (iii) formulate a freeboundary problem for V (t, x); (iv) derive the integral equation for A(t); (v) prove the uniqueness
of its solution.
(i) It is clear that
Z
V (t, x) = inf E
ρ<1−t

ρ


f 0 (s + t)ds − |Wρ + x| .

0

7

One can easily verify that f 0 (t) is increasing in t ∈ [t0 , 1), which implies that V (t, x) doesn’t
decrease in t ∈ [t0 , 1] for each fixed x (t0 is the point of minimum of f 0 (t) on (0, 1)). Also,
for any t ∈ [0, 1] the function V (t, x) + |x| is non-decreasing in x on [0, ∞) and non-increasing
in (−∞, 0]. This follows from the inequality |x1 | − E |Wρ + x1 | ≤ |x2 | − E |Wρ + x2 | for any
0 ≤ x1 ≤ x2 and any stopping time ρ < 1 − t.
The monotonicity of V (t, x)+|x| both in t and x implies that in order to prove the continuity
of this function for t ≥ t0 , it is enough to prove the continuity in each argument (see e.g. [12]).
The continuity in x follows from that for any t ∈ [0, 1), x1 , x2 ∈ R we have
V (t, x1 ) − V (t, x2 ) ≤ sup E |Wρ + x1 | − |Wρ + x2 | ≤ |x1 − x2 |,

(11)

ρ<1−t

and also the continuity of V (1, x) is obvious. In order to prove the continuity in t, fix x ∈ R and
consider arbitrary t0 ≤ t < 1, 0 ≤ ε < 1 − t. Then for any stopping time ρ < 1 − t
Z ρ

E
f 0 (t + s) − |Wρ + x|
0
Z ρ∨ε
 Z ε
(12)
0
≥E
f (t + s)ds − |Wρ∨ε + x| + |Wε + x| − |Wρ∧ε + x| −
f 0 (t + s)ds
0

0

≥ E V (t + ε, Wε + x) + E(|Wε + x| − |Wρ∧ε + x|),
where the first inequality follows from straightforward algebraic transformations, and to prove
the second one the Markov property of Brownian motion was used. We have
√
fε−ρ∧ε | ≤ ε,
E(|Wε + x| − |Wρ∧ε + x|) ≤ E |Wε − Wρ∧ε | = E |W
f = (W
ft )t≤ε , W
ft = Wε − Wε−t , is a Brownian motion. In the right inequality
where the process W
√
fτ | ≤ E τ , which easily follows from the Wald identity and
we used the well-known bound E |W
Jensen’s inequality. Taking in (12) the infimum over all stopping times ρ < 1 − t we obtain
√
V (t, x) ≥ E V (t + ε, Wε +
x)
−
ε. According to what was proved above, | E V (tp
+ ε, Wε + x) −
p
√
V (t + ε, x)| ≤ E |Wε | = 2ε/π. Therefore, 0 ≥ V (t, x) − V (t + ε, x) ≥ −( ε + 2ε/π), which
proves the continuity of V (t, x) in t for t ∈ [t0 , 1). The continuity at t = 1 is obvious since
V (1, x) = −|x| ≥ V (t, x) ≥ − supρ≤1−t E |Wρ + x| → −|x| as t → 1.
(ii) Define the stopping set D = {(t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × R | V (t, x) = −|x|} and the set D0 =
D ∩ {t ≥ t0 }. The continuity of V (t, x) implies that D0 is closed.
It is clear that D0 is symmetric in x, and from the monotonicity of V (t, x) + |x| it follows
that D0 can be represented in the form
D0 = {(t, x) : t ∈ [t0 , 1], |x| ≥ A(t)},
where A(t) is some non-increasing function on [t0 , 1]. Obviously, A(1) = 0 and one can easily
see that A(t) > 0 for any t < 1, since for for any t < 1 it is possible to find a sufficiently small
non-random r such that E(f (r + t) − |Wr |) < f (t), hence V (t, 0) < 0.
Mσ,H γtγ−1
Let us prove inequality (9) for A(t). By using the inequality f 0 (s) ≥ (1−s)
for any s ≥ t,
γ+1
one can see that for any t ∈ [0, 1) and any stopping time ρ < 1 − t


Mσ,H tγ−1
(1 − t)γ
f (t + ρ) − f (t) ≥
−1 .
(1 − t)γ
(1 − ρ − t)γ
Denote the expression in the brackets by ν(ρ). Observe that if t ≥ 2t0 = 1 − γ, then ν(ρ) ≥ ρ
and hence ν is a stopping time, and also E |Wν + x| ≥ E |Wρ + x|. Then
V (t, x) ≥ inf E(cν − |Wν + x|),
ν≥0

8

M

tγ−1

σ,H
where c = (1−t)
γ . For the optimal stopping problem in the RHS, the solution is well-known
1
(see e.g. Section 16 in [24]): the optimal stopping time is ν ∗ (x) = inf{t ≥ 0 : |Wt + x| ≥ 2c
}.
1
Hence, if |x| ≥ 2c , then V (t, x) = −|x| and (t, x) ∈ D, which proves (9). In particular, A(t) is
finite-valued for all t > 2t0 .
In order to show that A(t) is finite-valued for t ∈ [t0 , 2t0 ] when H < 21 , one can use that
V (t, x) ≥ inf ρ E(f 0 (t0 )ρ − |Wρ + x|), since t0 is the point of minimum of the function f 0 (t) when
H < 12 . Again, all the points (t, x) with |x| ≥ 2f 01(t0 ) should be in the stopping set, so A(t) is
bounded by 1/(2f 0 (t0 )).
Next, for any point (t, x), t > t0 , define the candidate optimal stopping time ρ∗ (t, x) – the
first entry into the stopping set:

ρ∗ = ρ∗ (t, x) = inf{s ≥ 0 : (t + s, Ws + x) ∈ D}.
In the general theory of optimal stopping for Markov processes, it is well-known that the first
entry into the stopping set is an optimal stopping time under mild conditions. In our problem
this fact can be proved similarly to [27] (one subtlety here is that general conditions for the
optimality of ρ∗ typically require some boundedness of the payoff function, see for example
Chapter 1 in [24]; since the payoff in our problem is unbounded a finer argument is needed).
Now we prove that A(t) is continuous on (t0 , 1]. Since it doesn’t increase and the set D is
closed, it is clear that A(t) is right-continuous. Let us prove that it is left-continuous. Using
that E Wρ∗ = 0 we can write
V (t, x) = E (f (ρ∗ + t) + Wρ∗ − |Wρ∗ + x|) − f (t).

(13)

Suppose A(t−) > A(t) for some t ∈ (t0 , 1). Consider points (t − ε, x) with x = (A(t−) + A(t))/2
and sufficiently small ε > 0. Let Ωε = {ω : Ws (ω) + x ∈ [A(t), A(t−)] for all s ≤ ε} denote the
random event that W exists the rectangle [t − ε, t] × [A(t), A(t−)] through the right boundary.
Denote for brevity fε = f (t) − f (t − ε) > 0. Then from (13) we have





V (t − ε, x) ≥ E (fε − x) I(Ωε ) + E Wρ∗ − |Wρ∗ + x| I(Ω \ Aε )


q
≥ fε − x − P(Ω \ Aε ) fε − x + E(Wρ∗ − |Wρ∗ + x|)2 ,
where in the first inequality we used that Wρ∗ − |Wρ∗ + x| = −x on Ωε and in the second one
we applied the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to E[(Wρ∗ − |Wρ∗ + x|)I(Ω \ Aε )].

2
According to Doob’s martingale inequality, P(Ω \ Ωε ) ≤ 2 exp − (A(t−)−A(t))
. Since fε ≥
8ε
f 0 (t − ε)ε when t − ε ≥ t0 , there exists a sufficiently small ε > 0 such that V (t − ε, x) > −x,
which contradicts the definition of V (t, x). This proves the continuity of A(t) on (t0 , 1). The
continuity at t = 1 follows from inequality (9).
(iii) As follows from the general theory of optimal stopping for Markov processes, inside the
continuation set C0 = (t0 , 1] × R \ D the value function V (t, x) is C1,2 and satisfies the partial
differential equation (see Section 7 in [24])
1 00
Vt0 (t, x) + Vxx
(t, x) = −f 0 (t),
2

t ∈ (t0 , 1), |x| < A(t).

(14)

Together with the condition V (t, x) = −|x| in the set D, this constitutes a free boundary problem
for the value function V (t, x) with the unknown free boundary A(t).
The continuity of V (t, x) implies the so-called condition of continuous fit: V (t, A(t)−) =
V (t, A(t)+), i.e. V (t, x) is continuous at the stopping boundary. Let us now prove the smooth-fit
condition, which states that the x-derivative of V (t, x) is continuous at the stopping boundary:
Vx0 (t, A(t)−) = Vx0 (t, A(t)+) (= −1),
9

t ∈ (t0 , 1].

(15)

The function V (t, x) in concave in x since it is the infimum (over ρ) of concave functions.
0 (t, A(t)). Clearly, V 0 (t, A(t)) = −1,
Therefore, there exist the left and right derivatives Vx±
x+
since V (t, x) = −|x| for x ≥ A(t). Moreover, for any sufficiently small ε > 0 we have
V (t, A(t) − ε) − V (t, A(t))
≥ −1
−ε
0 (t, A(t)) ≥ −1. Let
since V (t, A(t) − ε) ≤ −(A(t) − ε) and V (t, A(t)) = −A(t). Therefore, Vx−
us prove the opposite inequality.
Fix t ∈ (t0 , 1). Set x = A(t) and let ε > 0 be sufficiently small. Then for the optimal time
∗
ρ = ρ∗ (t, x − ε) we have

E |Wρ∗ + x| − E |Wρ∗ + x − ε|
V (t, x − ε) − V (t, x)
≤
,
−ε
−ε



∗ + t) − |W ∗ + x| − f (t) and V (t, x − ε) = E f (ρ∗ + t) −
where we used
that
V
(t,
x)
≤
E
f
(ρ
ρ

|Wρ∗ + x − ε| − f (t). Transform the obtained expression:
E |Wρ∗ + x| − E |Wρ∗ + x − ε| = ε P(Wρ∗ + x − ε = A(t + ρ∗ ))



+ E |Wρ∗ + x| − |Wρ∗ + x − ε| I(Wρ∗ + x − ε = −A(t + ρ∗ ) .
The second term can be bounded in absolute value by ε P(Wρ∗ + x − ε = −A(t + ρ∗ )) = o(ε).
Then
V (t, x − ε) − V (t, x)
lim
≤ −1,
ε↓0
−ε
0 (t, A(t)) ≤ −1.
which proves the inequality Vx−

(iv) So far we have established the following properties: (a) V (t, x) is continuous on [t0 , 1]×R
and is C1,2 in C0 and in the interior of D0 ; (b) A(t) is continuous and non-increasing on (t0 , 1];
00 )(t, x) is locally bounded in C and in the interior of D , which follows from (14);
(c) (Vt0 + 21 Vxx
0
0
(d) the function x 7→ V (t, x) is concave and the function t 7→ Vx0 (t, A(t)±) (≡ ∓1) is continuous.
These properties allow to apply the Itô formula with local time on curves (see [22] and
Section 2.6 in [23]) to V (t, x): for any t0 < t < T < 1 and x ∈ R we have
E V (T, WT −t + x) − V (t, x)
Z T −t 
1 00 
=E
Vt0 + Vxx
(t + s, Ws + x) I(Ws + x 6= ±A(t + s)) ds
2
0
Z T −t
Vx0 (t + s, Ws + x) I(Ws + x 6= ±A(t + s)) dWs
+E
0
Z T −t
1
+ E
∆Vx0 (t + s, A(t + s)) I(Ws + x = A(t + s)) dLA
s
2
0
Z T −t
1
+ E
∆Vx0 (t + s, −A(t + s)) I(Ws + x = −A(t + s)) dL−A
s ,
2
0

(16)

where L±A is the local time processes of W on the curves ±A (see [22]), and ∆Vx0 (t, x) =
Vx0 (t, x+) − Vx0 (t, x−).
Smooth-fit condition (15) implies that the two last terms in (16) are equal to zero. Also, the
derivative Vx0 (t, x) is uniformly bounded according to (11), and therefore the expectation of the
stochastic integral in (16) is also zero.
0 )(t, x) = 0 for |x| > A(t) we obtain
From (14) and the fact that (Vt0 + 12 Vxx
Z
V (t, x) = E V (T, WT −t + x) +

T −t

f 0 (t + s) P(|Ws + x| < A(t + s)) ds.

0

10

(17)

By passing to the limit T → 1, we have E V (T, WT −t + x) → − E |W1−t + x| from the dominated
convergence theorem. Finally, to obtain integral equation (10), it remains to put x = A(t) and
use the identity V (t, A(t)) = −A(t).
e
(v) To prove that A(t) is the unique solution of integral equation (10), suppose A(t)
is
another non-negative continuous solution satisfying (9). Define the function (cf. (17))
Z 1−t
e + s))ds
f 0 (t + s) I(|Ws + x| < A(t
Ve (t, x) = − E |W1−t + x| + E
0
Z 1
e
F (t, x, s, A(s))ds,
= −|x| − G(t, x) +
t

where t ∈ (t0 , 1), x ∈ R. We don’t exclude the possibility Ve (t, x) = +∞, however, obviously,
Ve (t, x) > −∞ for all t, x. Using the strong Markov property, one can show that for any t ∈ (t0 , 1),
x ∈ R, and any stopping time ρ < 1 − t we have
Z ρ
e + s))ds.
f 0 (t + s) I(|Ws + x| < A(t
Ve (t, x) = E Ve (t + ρ, Wρ + x) + E
(18)
0

e + s)} ∧ (1 − t). Since A
e satisfies the
Consider the stopping time ρAe = inf{s ≥ 0 : |Ws + x| = A(t
integral equation, one can see that Ve (t + ρAe, WρAe + x) = −|WρAe + x|. Together with (18), this
implies
Ve (t, x) = −|x|,
Z ρ e

A
0
e
V (t, x) = E
f (t + s)ds − |WρAe + x| ,

e
|x| ≥ A(t),
e
|x| < A(t).

0

Consequently Ve (t, x) ≥ V (t, x) for all t ∈ (t0 , 1], x ∈ R.
e
e
Suppose A(t)
> A(t) for some t ∈ (t0 , 1). Set x = A(t)
and consider the corresponding
∗
e
optimal stopping time ρ . Then from (18), using that V (t, x) = −|x| and Ve (t + ρ∗ , Wρ∗ ) ≥
V (t + ρ∗ , Wρ∗ ) = −|Wρ∗ + x|, we get

Z
−x ≥ E −|Wρ∗ + x| +

ρ∗



0

e + s))ds .
f (t + s) I(|Ws + x| < A(t

0

However, the expectation of the integral in the above formula is strictly positive since the process
e (here we use the assumption
Ws +x spends a.s. strictly positive time between the boundaries ±A
e is continuous). Moreover, E |Wρ∗ + x| = E(Wρ∗ + x) = x, since Ws + x remains positive
that A
e ≤ A(t).
until time ρ∗ . Thus, we get a contradiction, implying that A(t)
e
e
Suppose now that A(t) < A(t) for some t ∈ (t0 , 1) and set x = A(t).
Then Ve (t, x) = −x and
∗
e
V (t + ρ , Wρ∗ ) = −|Wρ∗ + x|. From (18) we get

Z
−x = E −|Wρ∗ + x| +

ρ∗


e
f (t + s) I(|Ws + x| < A(t + s))ds < V (t, x),
0

0

where we used that the indicator function under the integral is not identically 1 a.s. Again, we
get a contradiction with that V (t, x) ≤ −x, which finishes the proof.

Appendix
This appendix contains some technical details related to Section 3.

11

(a) Evaluation of the integral CH
t

Z

KH (t, s)ds = t

3
−H
2

0

Z
0

∞

Rt
0

KH (t, s)ds. By the change u =
1

u 2 −H
(u + 1)

5
−H
2

2 F1

1
2

− H,

t−s
s

we have


1
3
− H, − H, −u du.
2
2

(19)

Next one can use the formula (see [2], formula 2.21.1.16)
Z

∞

0

uc−1
2 F1 (a, b, c, −u)dx
(u + z)r
Γ(c)Γ(a − c + r)Γ(b − c + r)
=
2 F1 (a − c + r, b − c + r, a + b − c + r, 1 − z),
Γ(r)Γ(a + b − c + r)

which holds for complex a, b, c, r, z such that Re(a + r), Re(b + r) > Re c > 0 and | arg z| < π.
Clearly, these conditions are satisfied in (19), and using that 2 F1 (a, b, c, 0) = 1 we obtain
Z

t

0

3

t 2 −H Γ( 32 − H)2
KH (t, s)ds = 3
.
( 2 − H)Γ(2 − 2H)

Multiplying the right-hand side by the constant CH , we obtain LH .
(b) The conditional distribution Law(θ | FtX ). Although formula (3) can be found from the
general filtration theory for Gaussian processes, let us show its straightforward derivation. From
the general Bayes theorem (see e.g. § II.7 in [26]), one finds the conditional density
P(θ ∈ du |
where

d Pu
t
d P0t

FtX )

d Put
=
ϕµ,σ (u) ×
d P0t

Z
R

d Pvt
ϕµ,σ (v)dv
d P0t

−1
,

u ∈ R,

denotes the density process of the measure generated by Xtu = Bt + uLH

Rt
0

1

s 2 −H ds

with respect to the measure generated by Xt0 , both restricted to the σ-algebra FtX . By
2
ϕµ,σ (u) = σ1 ϕ( u−µ
σ ) we denote the density function of the normal distribution N (µ, σ ). From
the Cameron–Martin theorem


Z
Z t
1
u2 L2H t 1−2H
d Put
−H
2
s
ds
= exp uLH
s
dXs −
2
d P0t
0
0
and the remaining step to obtain Law(θ | FtX ) is a straightforward integration.
(c) The change of time for at /bt . The Dambis–Dubins–Schwarz theorem (see [25]) says that
any continuous local martingale Yt with Y0 = 0 can be obtained from a Brownian motion Wr by
the time change Yt = Wr(t) , where r(t) = hY it , the quadratic variation of Y . This representation
is strict in the sense that W is defined on the same probability space as Y . In our case


Z t 2 1−2H
DaE
LH s
σ 2 L2H t2−2H −1
=
ds = 1 − 1 +
,
σb t
σ 2 b2s
2 − 2H
0
which gives formula (5) for t(r).

References
[1] J. Breakwell, H. Chernoff (1964). Sequential tests for the mean of a normal distribution II (large t). The
Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35, 162-173.
[2] Y.A. Brychkov, O.I. Marichev A.P. Prudnikov (1986). Integrals and Series, vol. 3: More Special Functions.
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

12

[3] U. Cetin, A. Novikov, A.N. Shiryaev (2013). Bayesian sequential estimation of a drift of fractional Brownian
motion. Sequential Analysis 32, 288–296.
[4] H. Chernoff (1961). Sequential tests for the mean of a normal distribution. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley
Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1, 79–91.
[5] H. Chernoff (1965). Sequential test for the mean of a normal distribution III (small t). The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics 36, 28–54.
[6] H. Chernoff (1965). Sequential Tests for the Mean of a Normal Distribution IV (Discrete Case). The Annals
of Mathematical Statistics 36, 55–68.
[7] N. Eisenbaum (2006). Local time–space stochastic calculus for Lévy processes. Stochastic processes and their
applications 116, 757–778.
[8] H. Föllmer, P. Protter, A.N. Shiryayev (1995). Quadratic covariation and an extension of Itô’s formula.
Bernoulli 1, 149–169.
[9] P.V. Gapeev, Y.I. Stoev (2017). On the Laplace transforms of the first exit times in one-dimensional nonaffine jump–diffusion models. Statistics & Probability Letters 121, 152–162.
[10] C. Jost (2006). Transformation formulas for fractional Brownian motion. Stochastic Processes and their
Applications 116, 1341–1357.
[11] A.N. Kolmogorov (1940). Wienersche Spiralen und einige andere interessante Kurven im Hilbertschen Raum,
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 26, 115–118.
[12] R.L. Kruse, J.J. Deely (1969). Joint continuity of monotonic functions. The American Mathematical Monthly
76, 74–76.
[13] T.L. Lai (1997). On optimal stopping problems in sequential hypothesis testing. Statistica Sinica 7, 33–51.
[14] R.S. Liptser, A.N. Shiryaev (2001). Statistics of Random Processes I: General Theory, 2nd ed. Springer.
[15] B.B. Mandelbrot, J.W. van Ness (1968). Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications.SIAM Review 10, 422–437.
[16] Yu. Mishura (2007). Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Related Processes. Springer.
[17] G.M. Molchan, Y.I. Golosov (1969). Gaussian stationary processes with asymptotical power spectrum. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 184, 546–549.
[18] A.A. Muravlev (2013). Methods of sequential hypothesis testing for the drift of a fractional Brownian motion.
Russian Mathematical Surveys 68, 577–579.
[19] A.A. Muravlev, M.V. Zhitlukhin (2013). On Chernoff’s hypotheses testing problem for thqe drift of a Brownian motion. Theory of Probability and its Applications 57, 708–717.
[20] I. Norros, E. Valkeila, J. Virtamo (1999). An elementary approach to a Girsanov formula and other analytical
results on fractional Brownian motions. Bernoulli 5, 571–587.
[21] J.L. Pedersen, G. Peskir (2002). On nonlinear integral equations arising in problems of optimal stopping.
Functional analysis VII: proceedings. Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17–26 September 2001.
[22] G. Peskir (2005). A change-of-variable formula with local time on curves. Journal of Theoretical Probability
18, 499–535.
[23] G. Peskir (2005). On the American option problem. Mathematical Finance 15, 169–181.
[24] G. Peskir, A. Shiryaev (2006). Optimal stopping and free-boundary problems. Birkhäuser Basel.
[25] D. Revuz, D, M. Yor (1999). Continuous martingales and Brownian motion, 3rd ed. Springer.
[26] A.N. Shiryaev (1996). Probability, 2nd ed. Springer
[27] A.N. Shiryaev, M.V. Zhitlukhin (2014). On the existence of solutions of unbounded optimal stopping problems. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics 287, 299–307.
[28] K. Tanaka (2017). Time series analysis: nonstationary and noninvertible distribution theory. John Wiley &
Sons.
[29] A. Tartakovsky, I. Nikiforov, M. Basseville (2014). Sequential analysis: Hypothesis testing and changepoint
detection. CRC Press.

13

