Regularization by noise for stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi equations

We study regularizing effects of nonlinear stochastic perturbations for fully nonlinear PDE. More precisely, path-by-path $L^{\infty}$ bounds for the second derivative of solutions to such PDE are shown. These bounds are expressed as solutions to reflected SDE and are shown to be optimal.


Introduction
The questions of regularizing effects and well-posedness by noise for (stochastic) partial differential equations have attracted much interest in recent years. The principle idea is that the inclusion of stochastic perturbations may lead to more regular solutions and in some cases even to uniqueness of solutions. Historically, possible regularizing effects of additive noise have been investigated, e.g. for (stochastic) reaction diffusion equations dv = ∆v dt + f (v) dt + dW t in [20] and for Navier-Stokes equations in [13,14]. In [3,10,11], well-posedness and regularization by linear multiplicative noise for transport equations, that is for have been obtained. We refer to [12] for more details on the literature. Only very recently, regularizing effects of non-linear stochastic perturbations in the setting of (stochastic) scalar conservation laws have been discovered in [17]. In particular, in [17] it has been shown that quasi-solutions to where T is the one-dimensional torus, enjoy fractional Sobolev regularity of the order v(t) ∈ W α,1 (T) for all α < 4 5 , t > 0, P-a.s.. (1.2) This is in contrast to the deterministic case, in which examples of quasi-solutions to have been given in [8] such that, for all α > 1 3 , v(t) ∈ W α,1 (T) for all t > 0.
In this sense, the stochastic perturbation introduced in (1.1) has a regularizing effect. In [17], the question of optimality of the estimate (1. 2) remained open.
Subsequently, the results and techniques developed in [17] have been (partially) extended in [18] to a class of parabolic-hyperbolic SPDE, as a particular example including the SPDE In [18], the regularity of solutions to (1.3) was analyzed. More precisely, it was shown that v(t) ∈ W α,1 (T) for all α < 2 3 , P-a.s.. (1.4) However, neither optimality of these results nor regularization by noise could be observed in this case. That is, the regularity estimates for solutions to (1.3) proven in [18] did not exceed the known regularity for the solutions to the non-perturbed cases (1. 5) In [17,18] the estimation of the regularity of solutions to (1.1), (1.3) relied on properties of the law of Brownian motion. The question of the pathwise properties of β leading to regularization by noise could thus not be answered (cf. [6] for related questions in the case of linear transport equations).
The purpose of this paper is to provide sharp, pathwise regularity estimates to a class of SPDE, in particular including (1.1), (1.3) and to prove regularization by noise in this case. More precisely, sharp estimates are obtained for the L ∞ norm of the second derivative of solutions to SPDE of the type for F satisfying appropriate assumptions detailed below and ξ being a continuous function.
Our proof is based on the regularizing effects of the semi-groups S H and S −H associated to the Hamiltonians H ∶= p ↦ 1 2 p 2 and −H. It is well-known that S H and S −H allow to obtain one-sided bounds (of the opposite sign) on the second derivative (cf e.g. [27]), and the fact that one can combine these two bounds to obtain C 1,1 bounds goes back to Lasry and Lions [25]. Our main theorem is in a sense a generalization of their result.
Let us emphasize that while one-sided (i.e. semiconcavity or semiconvexity) bounds are typical for solutions of deterministic Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations (cf. [5,15]), two-sided (i.e. C 1,1 ) bounds in general do not hold for degenerate parabolic equations 1 . The fact that we are able to obtain such two-sided bounds in our case depends crucially on the "stochastic" (or "rough") nature of the signal ξ in (1.6).
Before stating our theorem in detail let us first consider some concrete examples (cf. Section 3.2 below for details).
As a first example, as mentioned above, the results answer the question of optimal regularity and (pathwise) regularization by noise for (1.3). Indeed, let u be the unique viscosity solution to the SPDE Then, informally, v = ∂ x u is a solution to (1.3). Our results (cf. Corollary 5.2 below) yield that if β = σB where B is a standard Brownian motion, then whereas (at least for some choice of initial conditions) More precisely, we obtain the sharp bound where L + , L − are the solutions to the reflected (at 0 + ) SDE with dynamics on (0, ∞) given by This demonstrates that, when the noise coefficient is large enough, the stochastic perturbation in (1.3) has a regularizing effect as compared to the non-perturbed situation for which solutions are known to develop singularities in terms of a blow-up of ∂ x w L ∞ . This dependence of a regularizing effect of noise on the strength of the noise σ seems to be observed here for the first time. Concerning the optimality of (1.7) and thus of the main result, we prove that for a certain class of initial conditions (cf. Section 5 below) equality in (1.7) holds. The proof of optimality relies on a careful choice of approximations and on a monotonicity property with respect to the driving path β, which follows from results in [16].
As a second example, consider hyperbolic SPDE of the form where β H is a fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1). Typically, the solutions to the deterministic counterpart develop singularities in terms of shocks of the derivative, that is, Dw will become discontinuous for large times, even if w 0 is smooth. In contrast, our results yield that (cf. Example 3.5 below) for u being a solution to (1.8).
Our results may also be applied to some cases where, unlike in the previous examples, the deterministic part of the equation has a regularizing effect. For example, consider the equation with initial condition w 0 such that ∂ x w 0 L ∞ < 1. Since this is preserved by the equation, that is ∂ x w(t, ⋅) L ∞ < 1 for all t ≥ 0, the deterministic part is uniformly elliptic. In particular, the solutions are smooth at positive times. Our result yields that this is still true for the solution u to if the intensity is the noise is small enough. More precisely, if ξ ∈ C α , α > 1 2 or ξ = σB with B a Brownian motion and σ < 1, then (almost surely in the latter case) Again this follows from properties of SDE, namely that the solutions to Finally, let us mention that our regularity results imply some estimates for large time behavior. For instance, if u is a solution to the stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi equation then for all t ≥ 0, (cf. Proposition 3.8 below) Note that when β is a Brownian motion, we get a rate of decay in t −1 4 which is the same rate as obtained in [17].
1.1. Organization of the paper. In Section 2 we give the precise statement of the assumptions and the main theorem. Subsequently, we provide sufficient conditions for these assumptions as well as a series of applications of the main result to specific SPDE in Section 3. The proof of the main result is given in Section 4 while the proof of optimality is given in Section 5. In the Appendix A we recall the employed well-posedness and stability results for stochastic viscosity solutions.
1.2. Notation. We let R + ∶= [0, ∞) and S N be the set of all symmetric N × N matrices. We further define A modulus of continuity is a nondecreasing, subadditive function ω ∶ [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that lim r→0 ω(r) = ω(0) = 0. We define UC(R N ) to be the space of all uniformly continuous functions, that is, for some modulus of continuity ω. If, in addition, u is bounded, we say u ∈ BUC(R N ). Furthermore, USC(R N ) (resp. LSC(R N )) denotes the set of all upper-(resp. lower) semicontinuous functions in R N , and BUSC(R N ) (resp. BLSC(R N )) is the set of all bounded functions in USC(R N ) (resp. LSC(R N )).
We say that a function u ∶ R N → R is semiconvex (resp. semiconcave) of order C if x ↦ u(x) For a, b ∈ R we set a ∧ b ∶= min(a, b), a ∨ b ∶= max(a, b), a+ ∶= max(a, 0) and a− ∶= max(−a, 0). We let K,K be generic constants that may change value from line to line.

Main result
We consider rough PDE of the form where u 0 ∈ BUC(R N ), ξ is a continuous path and F satisfies the typical assumptions from the theory of viscosity solutions, that is, (2) Lipschitz continuity in r: There exists an L > 0 such that for all p ∈ R N and X, Y ∈ S N such that We refer to the Appendix A for an according well-posedness result for (2.1). We will make the following assumption on F : There exists V F ∶ (0, ∞) → R, locally Lipschitz and bounded from above on [1, ∞) such that for all g ∈ BUC(R n ), t ≥ 0, one has the inequalities being understood in distribution sense.
The above assumption yields a control on the rate of loss of semiconcavity for S F . Note that ϕ V F may take the value 0 and thus no preservation of semiconcavity is assumed.
Suppose that D 2 u 0 ≤ Id ℓ 0 for some ℓ 0 ∈ [0, ∞), in the sense of distributions. Then, for each t ≥ 0, The proof of Theorem 2.3 is given in Section 4 below.

Examples
In this section we present applications of our main Theorem 2.3 to certain classes of PDE. To do so, in particular, Assumption 2.2 has to be verified. We first provide a general result on the preservation of semiconvexity for fully nonlinear PDE in Section 3.1, which is then applied to several PDE in Section 3.2.
3.1. Semiconvexity preservation. In this section we provide sufficient conditions on F to satisfy Assumption 2.2. From [28] we recall and a classical supersolution

2)
and let be the partial convex envelope of u. Then u * * is a viscosity supersolution to (3.2).
Proof. For the reader's convenience we provide a proof. First note that by continuity of F , it is straightforward to see that the assumption (3.1) is equivalent to the fact that for any subspace V ⊂ R n which is not reduced to {0}, the map Now consider (t, x) ∈ (0, T ] × R n , and let (q, p, A) be in the parabolic subjet of u * * at (t, x) (we refer e.g. to [7] for definitions). Assume that u * * (t, Note that since u * * (t, ⋅) is affine in the directions spanned by V in a neighborhood of x, one has A ≤ 0 on V , so that by ellipticity and by ellipticity of F and the fact that u is a supersolution to the equation we finally obtain We deduce the following and is a classical solution to Proof. Let ε > 0 arbitrary, fix and let λ ε be the solution to (3.10) with initial (3.11) By (3.7),F satisfies (3.1). Hence, by Proposition 3.1, the convex envelope v * * 0f v is a supersolution to (3.11).
On the other hand, since v * * ≤ v we have that Hence,û = u and, since v * * is convex, we conclude Since this is true for all ε > 0 the proof is finished.
We next provide a series of abstract PDE for which condition (3.7) is satisfied.
For the first part, F 1 , we note that, by [28, Theorem 3.1, Remark (ii)], convexity of (y, A) ↦ F 1 (x + y, p, B) follows from convexity of √ a. For the second part F 2 we note that (4): Note that we have X ξ = {0} in (3.7) and thus only convexity in y has to be checked, which easily follows from semiconvexity of F .

3.2.
Examples. In this section we provide a series of PDE for which regularization by noise can be observed based on our main result.
Example 3.4. We consider the quasilinear PDE where L ± are the maximal solutions on R + to In particular this includes the p-Laplace equation in one space dimension with a(p) = m p m−1 and m ≥ 3.
Proof. We aim to apply Theorem 2.3. Hence, we have to verify Assumption 2.2.
By [2,9] we have u ε → u locally uniformly and thus in the sense of distributions. In conclusion, since ε > 0 was arbitrary, Assumption 2.1 is satisfied with Sinceũ ∶= −u solves (3.12) with ξ replaced byξ ∶= −ξ, and a byã ∶= a(−⋅), we also have In conclusion, Example 3.5. We consider the quasilinear PDE where u 0 ∈ (BUC ∩ W 1,∞ )(R N ) and F ∈ C 2 (R N ). Then, , (3.15) where L ± are the maximal continuous solutions on R + to Proof. In order to verify Assumption 2.2 we first consider (0)) . By [24] there is a unique, classical solution u ε to (3.16). As in Example 3.4, we have the uniform estimate u ε (t) W 1,∞ (R N ) ≤ u 0 W 1,∞ (R N ) . By Example 3.3, (1) and arguing as in Example 3.4 we obtain that (3.7) is satisfied with Φ we have i.e. Assumption 2.2 is satisfied with V F (l) = − F pp L ∞ (B R (0)) , which implies the claim as in Example 3.4.
Example 3.6. We consider the quasilinear, one-dimensional PDE

17)
where F ∈ C 0 (R) is non-decreasing. Then, Proof. We consider a smooth approximation F ε of F such that F ε → F locally uniformly. Let u ε 0 ∈ C ∞ (R) such that u ε 0 → u 0 locally uniformly. By [26,Theorem 14.24] there is a (unique) classical solution u ε to By the maximum principle we obtain that ∂ xx u ε (t) ≤ sup ∂ xx u ε 0 . Since u ε → u locally uniformly, we conclude that Assumption 2.1 is satisfied with V F = 0.
Remark 3.7. We emphasize that the estimate (3.18) is uniform in F and u 0 . For example, consider F m (r) ∶= r [m] = r m−1 r → sgn(r) for all r ∈ R for m → 0 and let u m 0 ∈ (BUC ∩ W 1,1 )(R) with u m 0 → u 0 in W 1,1 (R). Then, at least formally, (3.18) continues to hold for the limit implying Lipschitz bounds for the stochastic total variation flow These bounds improve the deterministic case. Indeed, in [4,Section 2.5] it has been shown that the solution v(t, ⋅) to the total variation flow in one spatial dimension is a step-function if v 0 is. In particular, for v 0 ∈ BV (R) one only has v(t) ∈ BV (R) in general.
Proposition 3.8. Let u be the solution to 20) where F satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 2.3. Then for all t ≥ 0 where L ± are the bounds on D 2 u from Theorem 2.3.
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.3, noting that if u is semiconcave (or semiconvex) of order C then Du ∞ ≤ 2C u ∞ (e.g. [27, p.240]), and the fact that since the coefficients in (3.20) only depend on Du and D 2 u, u(t, ⋅) ∞ and Du(t, ⋅) ∞ are nonincreasing in t.

Proof of Theorem 2.3
The proof of Theorem 2.3 is based on a Trotter-Kato splitting scheme for (2.1). The estimate (2.3) is then proven for the corresponding approximating solutions u n with respect to a discretization L n of L, based on semiconvexity estimates for S H , with H(p) = 1 2 p 2 . The corresponding estimates are derived in Section 4.1 below. The rest of the proof then consists in proving the convergence of the approximations L n (cf. Section 4.2 below) and u n (cf. Section 4.3 below). Finally, the proof of Theorem 2.3 is given in Section 4.

4.1.
Inf-and sup-convolution estimates. In this section we provide Lipschitz and semiconvexity estimates for S H with H(p) = 1 2 p 2 . We refer to [25,27] for related arguments.
We begin by the case when φ is concave. Then for any x 1 , x 2 ∈ R N and λ ∈ [0, 1], where in the third inequality we have used the concavity of φ and of −1 (2δ) ⋅ 2 .

Reflected SDE.
In this section we first study stability properties of solutions to reflected SDE and then their boundary behavior.
Let V be locally Lipschitz on (0, +∞), bounded from above on [1, ∞), and ξ be a continuous path. In this section we study the maximal solution on [0, T ] to More precisely, a function X ∈ C([0, T ]; R + ) is said to be a solution to (4.3) if, for all s ≤ t ∈ [0, T ], Let S(V, ξ, x) be the set of solutions. Note that by the assumptions on V there exists a unique solution X to (4.3) until τ = inf{t ≥ 0 ∶ lim s↑t X(s) = 0}, and a particular element of S(V, ξ, x) is given by letting X(t) ≡ 0 for t ≥ τ .
Proof. We first show that elements of S(V, ξ, x) are equibounded and equicontinuous. Indeed, it is easy to see that is an upper bound forX. Then letting for ε > 0 where ω ξ is a modulus of continuity for ξ on [0, T ], one sees that each element X of S(V, ξ, x) admits ω ε as a modulus of continuity on (connected subsets of) {X ≥ ε}. This implies that is a modulus of continuity for X. Indeed, given s < t in [0, T ], either X ≥ ε on [s, t], or there exist s 1 ≤ t 1 ∈ [s, t] with X(s 1 ), X(t 1 ) ≤ ε, with X ≥ ε on (s, s 1 ) and (t 1 , t) (these intervals might be empty if X ≤ ε in t or s). Then one has It follows thatX is non-negative, finite and continuous on [0, T ]. Note that since S(V, ξ, x) is stable under the maximum operation, one can find an increasing sequence X n in S(V, ξ, x) converging toX uniformly. One then simply passes to the limit to check that In particular, ξ ↦X is continuous in supremum norm.

REGULARIZATION BY NOISE FOR STOCHASTIC HAMILTON-JACOBI EQUATIONS 19
Then, L n converges uniformly to L on [0, T ], where L is the (unique continuous) solution to the reflected SDE Proof. We first note that the L n have a common modulus of continuity, uniformly in n ≥ 0. Indeed, taking t n i < t n j , we distinguish two cases : where ω is the modulus of continuity of ξ.
(2) Otherwise considering the first last times where L n = 0 between t n i and t n j and applying the above bound, we obtain This implies that, passing to a subsequence if necessary, L n →L (locally uniformly), and it is enough to show thatL = L.
We can define L n (s) for all s ≥ 0 by V (L n (s))ds + ξ 0,t n i + K n (t n i ), and it follows that K n converges to someK, which is continuous and nondecreasing, and such thatL (t) = t 0 V (L(s))ds + ξ 0,t +K(t).
By the same argument, we see thatX 1,ε decreases as ε ↓ 0, and as in the proof of Proposition 4.3 we can show that the limitX 1 is in S(V, x; ξ). This yieldŝ X 2 ≤X 1 ≤X 1 which finishes the proof.
We next analyze the boundary behavior of the solutions to (4.3). The first result, Proposition 4.7 below, shows that if the signal ξ is too regular compared to the singularity of V at zero, then zero is absorbing or repelling depending on the sign of V . In contrast, in the case that ξ is given by Brownian motion, Proposition 4.8 below shows that zero may be either absorbing, reflecting or repelling, depending on the singularity of V at zero.
When ξ is a standard Brownian motion, one has a complete classification of the boundary behavior at 0.

4.3.
A Trotter-Kato formula. In this section we establish a Trotter-Kato formula for viscosity solutions to (2.1).
We now show that, as a consequence of this estimate, it is possible to define S ξ (u 0 ) for paths ξ admitting jumps, in such a way that the estimate (4.7) remains true.
Proof. The idea is to change the parametrization of ξ, ζ in order to replace the piecewise-continuous paths by continuous paths.
We replace [0, T ] by [0,T ], obtained from [0, T ] by adding an interval for each jump of ξ and ζ. For instance, say that ξ and ζ have jumps at the points (t i ) i=0,...,m . We then takeT = T + m, and let We defineξ such thatξ = ξ ○ s on J andξ is affine linear on each interval of I and analogously for forζ. Then, We further defineF (t, ⋅) = 0, t ∈ I, F (s(t), ⋅), t ∈ J, .
Letũ ξ be the solution to whereΦ is given by Theorem A.1 applied toF ,T . Now sinceF satisfies Assumption 2.1 with the same quantities as F , andT may be taken as close to T as one wishes, it follows that the estimate above also holds withΦ replaced by Φ.
Proof. We have u n = S ξ n (u 0 ), where ξ n is the piecewise constant path equal to ξ t n i on [t n i , t n i+1 ). The claim now follows from Proposition 4.9.

Proposition 4.2 combined with Assumption 2.2 implies
where L n is defined by the induction Now If V F admits a Lipschitz extension to [0, ∞), then as n → ∞ L n converges to L by Proposition 4.5 and we are done.
Let now V be only locally Lipschitz continuous. First assume that L > ε > 0 on [0, t] for some ε > 0. LetṼ be Lipschitz continuous on [0, ∞) withṼ = V on (ε, +∞) and letL,L n be the solutions to (2.4), (4.5) with V replaced byṼ respectively. Then L =L andL = lim nL n by Proposition 4.5. Thus,L n > ε for n large enough, which implies L n =L n and lim n L n = L.

Optimality
In this section we prove the optimality of the estimates given in Example 3.4 and thereby also the ones given in Theorem 2.3 by providing an example of an SPDE and suitable initial conditions for which these estimates are shown to be sharp.
We consider the class of functions where both of them may take the value +∞.
Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that u is smooth and obtain L ∞ estimates from the PDE applied to the derivatives of u. This can be easily justified by considering solutions u ε to the equations with an additional viscosity εu xx in the right-hand side, and noting that the bounds obtained from the arguments below are uniform in ε.
Now we first note that the fact that 0 ≤ u x ≤ 1, u xx ≥ 0 is clear by (5.7), (5.8) and the maximum principle, and so is the fact that u(t, ⋅), u(t, 1 + ⋅) are even for all t ≥ 0. In addition, we already know from Example 3.4 that u xx (t, ⋅) is bounded for t ∈ [0, τ ). We set u i ∶= (∂ x ) i u and observe that One first checks that sup x∈R u 3 (0, x) ≤ 0 implies sup x∈R u 3 (t, x) ≤ 0, by a maximum principle argument. Since the only nonlinear term in the right hand side of (5.5) is 3u 2 3 u 1 ≥ 0, the maximum principle implies that on [0, τ ) × R + , Then one writes in a similar way the equation for u 4 (and then u 5 , u 6 ), noting that this time they are linear with coefficients depending on u 1 , u 2 , u 3 , (resp. u 1 to u 4 , and u 1 to u 5 ) so that u 4 , u 5 and u 6 also stay bounded for t < τ .
Proof. Let u 0,ε ∈ U be smooth approximations of u 0 , ξ ε be smooth approximations of ξ and u ε be the unique smooth solution (cf. [24]) to Since u ε is smooth, as in the proof of the previous lemma we may differentiate (5.6) and use the maximum principle to obtain that for each ε > 0, u ε is 2-periodic, symmetric in x around 0 and 1, and 0 ≤ u ε x ≤ 1, u ε xxx ≤ 0 on [0, +∞) × (0, 1). Since u ε → u uniformly and U is stable under uniform convergence, we can conclude.
Proof. In the case of ξ ∈ C 1 and u ∈ C 1,4 with u(t, ⋅) ∈ U for all t ≥ 0, the result follows from differentiating (5.2) twice and noting that u x (t, 0) = u xxx (t, 0) = 0 for all t ≥ 0.

Appendix A. Stochastic viscosity solutions
In this section we briefly recall the definition and main properties of stochastic viscosity solutions to fully nonlinear SPDE of the type In the case where F = F (p, X) only depends on its last two arguments, the estimate simplifies to