Monotonicity and robustness in Wiener disorder detection
Erik Ekström∗

Juozas Vaicenavicius

†

arXiv:1710.10821v1 [math.ST] 30 Oct 2017

Abstract
We study the problem of detecting a drift change of a Brownian motion under
various extensions of the classical case. Specifically, we consider the case of a random
post-change drift and examine monotonicity properties of the solution with respect
to different model parameters. Moreover, robustness properties – effects of misspecification of the underlying model – are explored.

1

Introduction

In the classical version of the quickest disorder detection (QDD) problem [9], one observes
a one-dimensional process Y which satisfies
Yt = b(t − Θ)+ + σWt ,
where b and σ are non-zero constants, W is a standard Brownian motion and the disorder
time Θ is an exponentially distributed random variable (with intensity λ > 0) such that
W and Θ are independent. The associated Bayes’ risk (expected cost) corresponding to
a stopping rule τ is defined as
P(Θ > τ ) + cE[(τ − Θ)+ ],

(1.1)

where c > 0 is the cost of one unit of detection delay. It is well-known (see [10, Chapter 4])
that to minimise the Bayes risk one should stop the first time the conditional probability
process Πt := P(Θ ≤ t|FtY ) reaches a certain level a. Moreover, the level a is characterized
as the unique solution of a transcendental equation.
In many situations, however, it is natural not to know the exact value of the disorder
magnitude b, but merely its distribution. This is the case for example when a specific
machine is monitored continuously, and the machine can break down in several possible
ways. To study such a situation, we allow for the new drift to be a random variable B
with distribution µ such that B is independent of the other sources of randomness. In
this setting we study monotonicity properties of the QDD problem, i.e. whether the
∗
Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box 480, 751 06 Uppsala, Sweden
(ekstrom@math.uu.se ).
†
Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Box 337, 751 05 Uppsala, Sweden
(juozas.vaicenavicius@it.uu.se).

1

(minimal) expected cost is monotone with respect to various model parameters. In particular, we study the dependence of the expected cost on the volatility σ, the distribution
µ, and the disorder intensity λ. We also study robustness in the QDD problem, i.e.
what happens if one misspecifies various model parameters. More specifically, we aim at
estimates for the increased cost associated with the use of suboptimal strategies. Clearly,
such estimates are helpful in situations where the model is badly calibrated as well as
when one chooses to use a simpler suboptimal strategy rather than a computationally
more demanding optimal strategy.
As mentioned above, the classical version of the QDD problem was studied in [9],
see also [10, Chapter 4] and [8, Section 22]; for extensions to the case of detecting a
change in the intensity of a Poission process, see [7], [3], [4]. Regarding the case of a
random disorder magnitude, [2] obtains asymptotic results of a problem with normally
distributed drift. Concavity of the value function in a related hypothesis testing problem
with two possible post-change drift values in a time-homogeneous case was obtained in
[6]. Finally, practical significance of the disorder detection problem in modern engineering
applications is explained in [11].

2

General model formulation

We model a signal-processing activity on a stochastic basis (Ω, F, F, P), where the filtration F = {Ft }t≥0 satisfies the usual conditions. We are interested in the signal process
X, which is not directly observable, but we can continuously observe the noisy process
Z t
Z t
σ(u)dWu ,
t ≥ 0.
(2.1)
Xu du +
Yt =
0

0

Here W is a Brownian motion independent of X, the dispersion σ is deterministic and
strictly positive, and the signal process follows
Xt = B 0 1{Θ=0} + B 1 1{0<Θ≤t} ,

(2.2)

where Θ is a [0, ∞)-valued random variable representing the disorder occurrence time.
Moreover, B 0 , B 1 are real-valued random variables corresponding to disorder magnitudes
in the cases ‘disorder occurs before we start observing Y ’ and ‘disorder occurs while
we observe Y ’, respectively. Also, Θ, B 0 , and B 1 are independent. Let Θ have the
distribution π̃δ0 + (1 − π̃)ν, were ν is a probability measure on (0, ∞) with a continuously
differentiable distribution function Fν . In addition, denote the distributions of B 0 and
B 1 by µ0 and µ1 , respectively. When referring to µ0 and µ1 collectively, we will simply
say that the prior is µ. Let us introduce the notation
D n := {π ∈ [0, ∞)n : kπk1 ≤ 1}
and
∆n := {π ∈ [0, ∞)n : kπk1 = 1} ,
2

where kπk1 =

Pn

i=1 πi .

We assume that
µ0 =

n
X

µ1 =

p̌i δbi ,

n
X

pi δbi ,

i=1

i=1

where b1 , . . . , bn ∈ R \ {0} and (p̌1 , . . . , p̌n ), (p1 , . . . , pn ) ∈ ∆n .
We are interested in a disorder detection strategy τ incorporating two objectives:
short detection delay and a small portion of false alarms. As noted in the introduction,
a classical choice of Bayes’ risk (see [10]) for a detection strategy to minimize is given by
(1.1). In the present paper, we consider a slightly more flexible risk structure by allowing
a time-dependent cost for the detection delay. More precisely, we consider the Bayes risk


Z τ
R(τ ) = E 1{τ <Θ} +
c(u) du
Θ

Rτ
where 1{τ <Θ} is a fixed penalty for a false alarm, and the term Θ c(u) du is a penalty
for detection delay. Here t 7→ c(t) is a deterministic function with c(t) > 0 for all
t ≥ 0. Writing F Y = {FtY }t≥0 for the filtration generated by Y (which is our observation
filtration), let us introduce Π̃t := E[1R\{0} (Xt ) | FtY ]. Then
Z ∞





R(τ ) = E 1 − E[1{Θ≤τ } | FτY ] +
c(t)E 1{t≤τ } E 1{Θ≤t} | FtY dt
0

Z τ
c(t)Π̃t dt .
= E 1 − Π̃τ +
0

Hence the optimal stopping problem to solve is

Z
V = inf E 1 − Π̃τ +
τ ∈T Y

0

τ


c(t)Π̃t dt ,

(2.3)

where T Y denotes the set of F Y -stopping times.

2.1

Filtering equations

Let us define Πt := E[1{Xt =bi } | FtY ], where i = 1, . . . , n. By the Kallianpur-Striebel
formula (see [5, Theorem 2.9 on p. 39]),
(i)

(i)

Πt =

R t bi
R
bi
R
dYu − θt
du
2σ(u)2
+ (1 − π̃)pi [0,t] e θ σ(u)2
ν(dθ)
2
2


b
b
R
R t bj
R
R t bj
j
j
P R
P
dYu − 0t
du
dYu − θt
du
2σ(u)2
2σ(u)2
pj [0,t] e θ σ(u)2
+ (1 − π̃)
ν(dθ) + ν((t, ∞))
π̃ p̌j e 0 σ(u)2
Rt

π̃ p̌i e

j

bi
0 σ(u)2

dYu −

Rt

b2
i
0 2σ(u)2

2

du

j

(2.4)

3

for i = 1, . . . , n. Moreover, from the Kushner-Stratonovich equation (see [5, Theorem 3.1
on p. 58]), we know that Π(i) satisfies
(i)

dΠt = pi λ(t) 1 −

n
X

(j) 

Πt

j=1

(i)

dt +

n

X
Πt
(j)
bj Πt ) dŴt ,
(bi −
σ(t)

i = 1, . . . , n.

(2.5)

j=1

Here λ(t) = Fν′ (t)/(1 − Fν (t)) is the intensity of the disorder occurring at time t > 0
(conditional on not having occurred yet), and
Ŵt =

Z

0

t

1
( dYu − E[Xu | FuY ] du)
σ(u)

is a standard Brownian motion with respect to {FtY }t≥0 , see [1] (the process Ŵt is referred
P
(i)
to as the innovation process). Note that Π̃t = ni=1 Πt yields
dΠ̃t = λ(t)(1 − Π̃t ) dt +

X̂t
(1 − Π̃t ) dŴt ,
σ(t)

(2.6)

where X̂t = E[Xt |FtY ].
Pn
(i)
The posterior distribution P(Xt ∈ · | FtY ) =
i=1 Πt δbi (·), so the n-tuple Πt =
(n)
(1)
(Πt , . . . , Πt ) fully describes the posterior. As a result, (2.4) and (2.5) provide two
different representations of the posterior distribution.

2.2

Markovian embedding

Following standard lines in optimal stopping theory, we embed our optimal stopping
problem into a Markovian framework. To do that, define a Markovian value function V
by


Z t+τ
t,π
V (t, π) := inf E
c(u)Π̃u du , (t, π) ∈ [0, ∞) × D n , (2.7)
1 − Π̃t+τ +
τ ∈TtΠ

t

where TtΠ denotes the stopping times with respect to the n-dimensional process {Πt,π
t+s }s≥0
starting from π at time t and satisfying (2.5). It is worth noting that V (t, π) corresponds
P
to the value of the problem (2.3) in which the initial time is t and µ0 = ni=1 πi δbi .
Remark 2.1. The value function V (t, ·) in (2.7) is concave for any t ≥ 0. Indeed, the
concavity proof in [6] extends to the current setting. Since concavity is not used in the
monotonicity results below, however, we omit the details.
2.2.1

The classical Shiryaev solution

In this subsection we recall the solution in the classical case where the cost c, the intensity
λ and the post-change drift b are constants. In that case, we have the optimal stopping

4

problem


U (π) = sup E 1 − Πτ + c
τ ∈T Π

Z

τ

Πt dt
0



(2.8)

with an underlying diffusion process
dΠt = λ(1 − Πt ) dt +

b
Πt (1 − Πt ) dŴt .
σ

It is well-known (see [10, Chapter 4] or [8, Sections 22]) that U solves the free-boundary
problem
 2 2
b π (1−π)2 2

∂π U + λ(1 − π)∂π U + cπ = 0 π ∈ (0, a)

2σ2
(2.9)
U (π) = 1 − π
π ∈ [a, 1]


∂π U (a) = −1.

Here a ∈ (0, 1) is the free-boundary, and it can be determined as the solution of a certain
transcendental equation. Moreover, the stopping time τ := inf{t ≥ 0 : Πt ≥ a} is optimal
in (2.8), and one can check that the value function U is decreasing and concave.

3

Value dependencies and robustness

3.1

Monotonicity properties of the value function

In this section, we study parameter dependence of the optimal stopping problem (2.7).
In particular, we investigate how the value function changes when we alter parameters of
the probabilistic model, which include the prior for the drift magnitude and the prior for
the disorder time.
The effects of adding more noise, stretching out the prior by scaling, and increasing
the observation cost are explained by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1 (General monotonicity properties of the value function v).
1. V is increasing in the volatility σ(·).
2. Let Vk denote the Markovian value function (2.7) in the case when the drift magnitude prior is µ( k· ). Then the map k 7→ Vk (t, π) is decreasing on (0, ∞) for any
(t, π).
3. V is increasing in the cost function c(·).
Proof. For simplicity of notation, and without loss of generality, we consider the case
t = 0 in the proofs below.
1. For the volatility, let t 7→ σ1 (t) and t 7→ σ2 (t) be two time-dependent volatility
functions satisying σ1 (t) ≤ σ2 (t) for all t ≥ 0. Also, let
Yti

:=

Z

t

Xu du +
0

Z

5

t

σi (u)dWu ,
0

i = 1, 2,

and let Vi , i = 1, 2, be the corresponding value functions. In addition, let W ⊥ be a
standard Brownian motion independent of W and X. Then, clearly,




Z τ
Z τ
V1 = inf E 1{τ <Θ} +
c(u) du =
inf
E 1{τ <Θ} +
c(u) du .
τ ∈T Y 1

τ ∈T Y 1 ,W ⊥

Θ

Θ

Moreover, the process
Ỹt2 := Yt1 +

Z tq
0

σ22 (u) − σ12 (u)dWu⊥

1

2

⊥

coincides in law with Y 2 and T Ỹ ⊆ T Y ,W . Hence it follows that




Z τ
Z τ
V1 =
inf
E 1{τ <Θ} +
c(u) du ≤ inf E 1{τ <Θ} +
c(u) du = V2 ,
τ ∈T Y 1 ,W ⊥

τ ∈T Ỹ 2

Θ

Θ

which finishes the proof of the claim.
2. Note that for k > 0, the process
Ytk

:=

Z

t

Z

kXu du +
0

t

σ(u)dWu
0

satisfies Ytk = kỸt , where
Ỹt :=

Z

t

Xu du +

Z

0

0

t

σ(u)
dWu .
k

k

Moreover, the set of F Y -stopping times coincides with the set of F Ỹ -stopping
times, so monotonicity in k is implied by monotonicity in the volatility. Thus claim
2 follows from claim 1.
3. The fact that the value is increasing in c is obvious from the definition (2.7) of the
value function.

It is not clear how a change in the disorder intensity λ affects the value function under
a general disorder magnitude distribution. However, we have the following comparison
result for the case of constant parameters.
Theorem 3.2 (Monotonicity in the intensity for constant parameters). Assume that the
disorder magnitude can only take one value b ∈ R \ {0}. Let the cost c, the volatility σ
and the intensity λ be constants, and assume that λ ≥ λ′ (·). Let U be the value function
for Shiryaev’s problem with parameters (b, σ, λ, c), and let V denote the value function
for the problem specification (b, σ, λ′ , c). Then U (π) ≤ V (t, π) for all π ∈ [0, 1] and t ≥ 0.
Proof. Without loss of generality, we only consider the case t = 0. Let π ∈ [0, 1] and
τ ∈ T Y be a bounded stopping time. Also, denote by Π′ the process Π started from π at
6

time 0 when the model specification is (b, σ, λ′ , c). Then, applying (a generalised version
of) Ito’s formula and taking expectations at the stopping time τ , we get
"Z 
τ



′
U (π) = E U Π (τ ) − E
λ′ (s) 1 − Π′ (s) ∂π U (Π′ (s))
0

+

b2

2

(Π′ )2 (s) 1 − Π′ (s) ∂π2 U Π′ (s)
2

2σ
"Z


≤ E U (Π′ (τ )) − E
+

τ

0

b2




λ 1 − Π′ (s) ∂π U (Π′ (s))

2

(Π′ )2 (s) 1 − Π′ (s) ∂π2 U Π′ (s)
2

2σ

 Z τ


′
′
Π (s) ds
≤ E U (Π (τ )) + E c
0

 Z τ


Π′ (s) ds ,
≤ E 1 − Π′ (τ ) + E c





ds

#

ds

#

0

where we used the monotonicity of U and the fact that
λ (1 − π) ∂π U (π) +

b2 2
π (1 − π)2 ∂π2 U (π) + cπ ≥ 0
2σ 2

(3.1)

at all points away from the optimal stopping boundary of Shiryaev’s classical problem,
compare (2.9). Taking the infimum over bounded stopping times τ , we get U (π) ≤
V (0, π), which finishes the proof.
Remark 3.3. The monotonicity in intensity result does not easily extend to cases with
unknown post-change drift by the same argument. It is not difficult to convince oneself
∂V
are not necessarily all negative.
that in higher dimensions the partial derivatives ∂π
i

3.2

Robustness

Robustness concerns how a possible misspecification of the model parameters affects the
performance of the detection strategy when evaluated under the real physical measure.
In this section, we use coupling arguments to study robustness properties with respect to
the disorder magnitude and disorder time. For simplicity, we assume that the parameters
λ, c and σ are constant so that we have a time-independent case; generalizations to the
time-dependent case are straightforward but notationally more involved.
Thus we assume that the signal process follows
Xt = B 0 1{Θ=0} + B 1 1{0<Θ≤t} ,

(3.2)

where B 0 , B 1 are random variables with distributions µ0 , µ1 respectively, and Θ has the
distribution νπ̃ := π̃δ0 + (1 − π̃)ν, where ν is an exponential distribution with intensity
λ. Let us simply write µ := (µ0 , µ1 ).
7

For a given l ∈ R \ {0}, let Θl satisfy Θl ≥ Θ with distribution π̃δ0 + (1 − π̃)νl , where
νl is an exponential distribution with intensity λl ≤ λ. Let
Rt l
l
l2
l2
π̃e σ2 Yt − 2σ2 t + (1 − π̃)λl 0 e σ2 (Yt −Yθ )− 2σ2 (t−θ) e−θ/λl dθ

,
gl (t, π̃, Y ) :=
2
R t l (Yt −Yθ )− l2 (t−θ)
l
Yt − l 2 t
−θ/λ
−t/λ
2
2
2
l
l
σ
2σ
σ
2σ
π̃e
+ (1 − π̃) λl 0 e
e
dθ + 1 − e

(3.3)

compare (2.4). Also, we introduce the notation
Ytµ

:=

Z

t

Xu du + σWt ,

0

Ytδl := l(t − Θl )+ + σWt ,
Π̃δδll (t) := gl (t, π̃, Y δl )
and
Π̃µδl (t) := gl (t, π̃, Y µ ).
Here Y µ is the observation process for a setting in which the post-change drift has distribution µ and the disorder happens at Θ. The process Y δl is the observation process and
Π̃δδll is the corresponding conditional probability process in the situation of a post-change
drift l that occurs at Θl . Moreover, the process Π̃µδl represents the conditional probability
process calculated as if the drift change is described by (l, Θl ) in the scenario where the
true drift-change is given by (µ, Θ).
Now, let a := al denote the optimal stopping boundary for the classical Shiryaev
one-dimensional problem in the scenario (l, Θl ), and define
τδδll := inf{t ≥ 0 : Π̃δδll (t) ≥ a},
τδµl := inf{t ≥ 0 : Π̃µδl (t) ≥ a},
and

Vδµl := E[1{τ µ <Θ} + c(τδµl − Θ)+ ].
δl

Here τδδll is the optimal stopping time in the scenario (l, Θl ), and τδµl is the (sub-optimal)
stopping time and Vδµl is the corresponding cost for someone who believes in (l, Θl ),
whereas the true model has (µ, Θ).
Finally, let
µ
(1)
(n)
Π̃µt := P(1R\{0} (Xt )|FtY ) = Πt + ... + Πt
as in Section 2, and define
γδµl := inf{t ≥ 0 : Π̃µt ≥ a}.
Theorem 3.4 (Robustness).
8

1. Suppose that inf(supp µ) > 0 or sup(supp µ) < 0, and let l := arg min |x|.
x∈supp(µ)

(a) Then
V µ ≤ Vδµl ≤ V δl + c

λ − λl
(1 − π̃) ,
λλl

(3.4)

where V µ and V δl denote the minimal associated Bayes risks for the prior
distributions µ and δl , respectively.
(b) Also,
V µ ≤ P(Θ > γδµl ) + cE[(γδµl − Θ)+ ] ≤ V δl .

(3.5)

2. Suppose r := arg max |x|, and define Vδµr like Vδµl for l = r. If λr ≥ λ, then
x∈supp(µ)

V δr ≤ V µ ≤ Vδµr .

(3.6)

Remark 3.5. Note that (3.4) and (3.6) correspond to situations where the tester misspecifies the model. More precisely, filtering and stopping are performed as if the underlying model had the one-point distribution for the prior (the classical Shiryaev case).
Equation (3.4) gives a bound for the loss in performance for a tester who underestimates the disorder intensity and the disorder magnitude (believing that it is a constant).
In (3.5), on the other hand, filtering is performed according to the correct model but
Shiryaev’s threshold strategy (suboptimal) is used for stopping.
Proof.

1. (a) For definiteness, we consider the case inf(supp µ) > 0 so that l > 0; the
other case is completely analogous. First note that the suboptimality of τδµl
yields V µ ≤ Vδµl . Next, observe that we have Ytδl = Ytµ for all 0 ≤ t ≤ Θ and
Ytδl ≤ Ytµ for all t ≥ 0, and therefore

Π̃δδll (t) = Π̃µδl (t)

for t ∈ [0, Θ]

and
Π̃δδll (t) ≤ Π̃µδl (t) for all t ≥ 0
by the filtering equation (3.3). Consequently,
τδδll ≥ τδµl ,
so
E[(τδδll − Θl )+ ] ≥ E[(τδµl − Θ)+ ] − E[(Θl − Θ)+ ]
λ − λl
= E[(τδµl − Θ)+ ] −
(1 − π̃).
λλl

9

(3.7)

Moreover, since Π̃δδll (t) = Π̃µδl (t) on the time interval [0, Θ], we have
P(τδδll < Θl ) ≥ P(τδδll < Θ) = P(τδµl < Θ),
which together with (3.7) yields
V δl = E[1{τ δl <Θ } + c(τδδll − Θl )+ ]
l

δl

≥ E[1{τ µ <Θ} + c(τδµl − Θ)+ ] − c
δl

= Vδµl − c

λ − λl
(1 − π̃)
λλl

λ − λl
(1 − π̃).
λλl

(b) The first inequality is immediate by suboptimality of γδµl . For the second
one, let U be the value function of the classical Shiryaev problem so that
U (π̃) = V δl . Then U is C 2 on [0, al ) ∪ (al , 1] and C 1 on [0, 1], so applying
Itô’s formula to U (Π̃t ) and taking expectations at the bounded stopping time
γδµl ∧ k, we get
U (π̃) = E[U (Π̃γ µ ∧k )] − E
δl

"Z

γδµ ∧k
l

0

"Z

X̂ 2
λ(1 − Π̃u )U (Π̃u ) + u2 (1 − Π̃u )2 U ′′ (Π̃u ) du
2σ
′

γδµ ∧k

#

l2
≥ E[U (Π̃γ µ ∧k )] − E
λl (1 − Π̃u )U (Π̃u ) + 2 Π̃2u (1 − Π̃u )2 U ′′ (Π̃u ) du
δl
2σ
0
#
" Z µ
h
i
γδ ∧k
l
Π̃u du ,
= E U (Π̃γ µ ∧k ) + E c
δl

l

′

0

where monotonicity and concavity of U were used in the inequality. Letting
k → ∞ gives
#
" Z µ
i
h
γδ
l
Π̃u du ,
U (π̃) ≥ E 1 − Π̃γ µ + E c
δl

0

which finishes the proof of the claim.
2. Recall that
dΠ̃t = λ(1 − Π̃t ) dt +

X̂t
(1 − Π̃t ) dŴt .
σ

Let U (π̃) = V δr (π̃). Since U is C 1 on [0, 1] and C 2 on [0, a) ∪ (a, 1], where a = ar
is the boundary in Shiryaev’s problem with drift r and intensity λr , applying Itô’s

10

#

formula to U (Π̃t ) and taking expectations at a bounded stopping time τ yields
"Z
#
τ
X̂u2
′
2 ′′
U (π̃) = E[U (Π̃τ )] − E
λ(1 − Π̃u )U (Π̃u ) + 2 (1 − Π̃u ) U (Π̃u ) du
2σ
0

Z τ
r2
2 ′′
′
λr (1 − Π̃u )U (Π̃u ) + 2 Π̃u (1 − Π̃u ) U (Π̃u ) du
≤ E[U (Π̃τ )] − E
2σ
0


Z
h
i
τ
Π̃u du
(3.8)
≤ E U (Π̃τ ) + E c
0


Z τ
i
h
Π̃u du .
(3.9)
≤ E 1 − Π̃τ + E c
0

Here concavity was used for the first inequality, (3.8) follows from the fact that
λr (1 − π̃)U ′ (π̃) +

r2
π̃(1 − π̃)2 U ′′ (π̃) + cπ̃ ≥ 0,
2σ 2

π̃ ∈ [0, a) ∪ (a, 1],

and the inequality (3.9) because U (π̃) ≤ 1 − π̃. Hence, since the same value V µ is
obtained if one in (2.3) restricts the infimum to only bounded stopping times,
V δr = U ≤ V µ .
Lastly, since τlµ is a suboptimal strategy, we also have
V µ ≤ Vδµr ,
which finishes the claim.

Corollary 3.6. In the notation above, assume that λ = λl so that there is no misspecification of the intensity. Moreover, assume that supp(µ) ⊆ [l, r], where 0 < l < r.
Then
V δr ≤ V µ ≤ V δl ,
so monotonicity in the disorder magnitude holds when comparing with deterministic magnitudes. Furthermore,
0 ≤ Vδµl − V µ ≤ V δl − V δr ,
so the increase in the Bayes risk due to underestimation (with a constant) of the disorder
magnitude is bounded by the difference of two value functions of the classical Shiryaev
problem.
We finish with some implications concerning the stopping strategy τD := inf{t ≥
0 : Πt ∈ D}, where D = {π ∈ ∆n : V (π) = 1 − π} is a standard abstractly defined
optimal stopping set, see [8] (we now assume that we are in the case of time-independent
coefficients so that the value function is merely a function of π ∈ D n ). The concavity of
V , compare Remark 2.1, yields the existence of a boundary γ ⊂ ∆n separating D from

11

its complement ∆n \ D. The following result provides a more accurate location of the
boundary γ.
Corollary 3.7 (Confined stopping boundary). Assume that the coefficients c, σ and λ are
constant and that supp(µ) ⊆ [l, r], where 0 < l < r. Let al and ar denote the boundaries
in the classical Shiryaev problem with disorder magnitude l and r, respectively. Then
al ≤ inf{kπk1 : π ∈ γ} ≤ sup{kπk1 : π ∈ γ} ≤ ar ,
i.e. the stopping boundary is contained in a strip. Moreover, the optimal strategy τD
satisfies
1 − ar ≤ P(τD < Θ | FτYD ) ≤ 1 − al .

References
[1] Bain, A., Crisan, D. Fundamentals of stochastic filtering. Stochastic Modelling and
Applied Probability, 60. Springer, New York, 2009.
[2] Beibel, M. Sequential change-point detection in continuous time when the postchange drift is unknown. Bernoulli, vol. 3, no. 4, 1997, 457-478.
[3] Bayraktar, E., Dayanik, S., Karatzas, K. The standard Poisson disorder problem
revisited. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, vol. 115, no. 9, 2005, 14371450.
[4] Bayraktar, E., Dayanik, S., Karatzas, I. The Annals of Applied Probability, vol. 16,
no. 3, 2006, 1190-1261
[5] Crisan, Dan, and Boris Rozovskii. The Oxford handbook of nonlinear filtering. Oxford
University Press, 2011.
[6] Muravlev, A., Shiryaev, A. Two-Sided Disorder Problem for a Brownian Motion in
a Bayesian Setting. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, vol. 287,
2014, 202-224.
[7] Peskir, G. and Shiryaev, A. Solving the Poisson disorder problem. Advances in finance and stochastics, 295-312, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
[8] Peskir, G., Shiryaev, A. Optimal stopping and free-boundary problems. Lectures in
Mathematics, ETH Zürich. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006.
[9] Shiryaev.A. N. Two problems of sequential analysis. Cybernetics, vol. 3, no. 2, 1967,
63-69.
[10] Shiryaev, A. N. Optimal Stopping Rules. Springer, New York, 1978.
[11] Zucca, C., Tavella, P. and Peskir, G. Detecting atomic clock frequency trends using
an optimal stopping method. Metrologia, vol. 53, 2016, 89-95.
12

