pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.18397 · v3 · pith:6Q56FDDQnew · submitted 2024-11-27 · 💱 q-fin.PM · q-fin.MF· q-fin.RM

Optimal payoff under Bregman-Wasserstein divergence constraints

Silvana M. Pesenti , Steven Vanduffel , Yang Yang , Jing Yao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.PM q-fin.MFq-fin.RM
keywords optimal payoffBregman-Wasserstein divergenceexpected utility maximizationbenchmark constraintasymmetric divergenceportfolio optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimal payoff for expected utility maximizers is derived explicitly under Bregman-Wasserstein divergence constraints to a benchmark.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper solves the problem of selecting a payoff that maximizes expected utility while keeping the payoff from deviating too far from a given benchmark, where the deviation is measured by a Bregman-Wasserstein divergence generated by a convex function phi. This setup differs from the standard Wasserstein distance because the asymmetry built into phi allows positive deviations to be penalized differently from negative ones. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting explicit solution for the optimal payoff can be tuned via the choice of phi to better match specific investor objectives. Numerical examples in the paper demonstrate how varying phi produces payoffs that align more closely with those objectives than symmetric alternatives.

Core claim

We provide the optimal payoff in the setting where an expected utility maximizer's payoff is constrained via a Bregman-Wasserstein divergence generated by a convex function phi. Unlike the case when phi(x)=x^2 which recovers the Wasserstein distance, the asymmetry permits penalizing positive deviations differently than negative ones. Numerical examples illustrate that the choice of phi allows to better align the payoff choice with the objectives of investors.

What carries the argument

The Bregman-Wasserstein divergence generated by a convex function phi, which constrains the distance between the chosen payoff and the benchmark in the utility maximization problem.

If this is right

  • The optimal payoff admits an explicit form once phi is fixed.
  • The asymmetry of the divergence allows separate control over penalties for outperformance versus underperformance relative to the benchmark.
  • Numerical choices of phi produce payoffs that align more closely with investor objectives than the symmetric Wasserstein case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same explicit-solution approach could be tested on other benchmark-constrained problems in portfolio selection where over- and under-performance carry unequal costs.
  • Specific families of phi might be calibrated to match observed investor behavior in real market data.

Load-bearing premise

The deviation between the chosen payoff and the benchmark is assessed via a Bregman-Wasserstein divergence generated by a convex function phi.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample in which another feasible payoff yields strictly higher expected utility than the derived candidate while satisfying the same Bregman-Wasserstein constraint for a chosen phi would falsify the optimality claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18397 by Jing Yao, Silvana M. Pesenti, Steven Vanduffel, Yang Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Bregman divergence for the generators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The quantile functions of the three acceptable strategies (left panel) and the rela￾tionship between their payoffs and the stock price (right panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The optimal quantile function F˘∗ (·) in the absence of a BW constraint, i.e., ε = +∞ in problem (P˘), for γ = 1 (blue line) and γ = 1.5 (red line), respectively. The green curve depicts the quantiles of the constant benchmark. are far away from the benchmark. Next, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The optimal quantile functions F˘∗ (u) for the generators ϕ1(x) = x 2 (blue lines), ϕ2(x) = x ln x (red lines), and the constant benchmark F˘ b(u) (green line) for γ = 1 and γ = 1.5, respectively. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optimal payoff Xˆ T as a function of ST under the BW constraint induced by the generators ϕ1(x) = x 2 (blue lines), ϕ2(x) = x ln x (red lines) and when no such constraint is considered (purple lines). The left panel depicts the optimal payoffs for γ = 1 and the right panel for γ = 1.5. divergences. Again, the last column depicts the tolerance levels ε that the investor chooses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optimal quantile functions F˘∗ (u) for the generators ϕ˜ 1(·; α) (blue lines), ϕ˜ 2(·; α) (red lines) and the constant benchmark F˘ b(u) (green line). The BW generator threshold is α = 0.95 (bottom panels) and α = 1 (top panels) and the investor’s risk aversion is γ = 1 (left panels) and γ = 1.5 (right panels), respectively. To determine the tolerance level ε, the investor pursues similarly to Subsection 4… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Optimal quantile functions F˘∗ (u) for the generators ϕ˜ 1(·; 1) (blue lines), ϕ˜ 2(·; 1) (red lines) and the constant benchmark F˘ b(u) (green line) with different choice of ϑ. The investor’s risk aversion is γ = 1. As before, we consider Bregman generators ϕi(·), ϕ˜ i(·; 1) and ϕ˜ i(·; 0.95) for i = 1, 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Optimal payoffs Xˆ T as a function of ST for the generators ϕ˜ 1(·; α) (blue lines) and ϕ˜ 2(·; α) (red lines). The purple line shows the payoff when the BW divergence constraint is absent. The BW generator threshold is α = 0.95 (bottom panels) and α = 1 (top panels) and the investor’s risk aversion is γ = 1 (left panels) and γ = 1.5 (right panels), respectively. is appreciating. In summary, the BW constra… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The optimal payoff as a function of ST when there are no BW constraints (purple curve) and when there is a BW constraint induced by the generator ϕ1(x) = x 2 (blue curve) or by the generator ϕ2(x) = x ln x (red curve). The non constant benchmark is depicted by the green curve. The cases γ = 1 (left panel) and γ = 1.5 (right panel) are studied. grateful to FWO for financial support (grant numbers FWO SBO S0… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The optimal payoff as a function of ST , when there are no BW constraints (purple curve) and when there is a BW constraint induced by the generator ϕ˜ 1(x; α) (blue curve) or by the generator ϕ˜ 2(x; α) (red curve). The non constant benchmark is depicted by the green curve. The cases γ = 1 (left panel) and γ = 1.5 (right panel) are studied. Define the feasible set FL as follows: FL := {x ∈ L | gi(x) ≤ 0, … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study optimal payoff choice for an expected utility maximizer under the constraint that their payoff is not allowed to deviate ``too much'' from a given benchmark. We solve this problem when the deviation is assessed via a Bregman-Wasserstein (BW) divergence, generated by a convex function $\phi$. Unlike the Wasserstein distance (i.e., when $\phi(x)=x^2$) the inherent asymmetry of the BW divergence makes it possible to penalize positive deviations different than negative ones. As a main contribution, we provide the optimal payoff in this setting. Numerical examples illustrate that the choice of $\phi$ allow to better align the payoff choice with the objectives of investors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies the problem of choosing an optimal payoff for an expected-utility maximizer subject to a constraint that the payoff cannot deviate too much from a given benchmark, where deviation is measured by a Bregman-Wasserstein divergence generated by an arbitrary convex function φ. Unlike the symmetric Wasserstein case (φ(x)=x²), the asymmetry of the BW divergence permits different penalization of positive and negative deviations. The central claim is an explicit closed-form expression for the optimal payoff; numerical examples are provided to illustrate how the choice of φ aligns the solution with investor objectives.

Significance. If the derivation is valid for general convex φ, the result supplies a tractable, asymmetric extension of existing Wasserstein-constrained portfolio problems. The explicit payoff formula would be a useful theoretical and computational contribution in quantitative finance, particularly for applications where one-sided risk constraints matter. The numerical illustrations provide concrete evidence of practical flexibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Theorem 3.1] §3, Theorem 3.1 (or the main derivation of the optimal payoff): the explicit form X^*=T(B) with deterministic transport map T relies on the Bregman cost D_φ satisfying the twist condition or c-convexity so that the dual problem yields a deterministic coupling. For arbitrary convex φ this need not hold (e.g., when φ'' changes sign or is not strictly convex), and the manuscript does not state or verify the required regularity on φ. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed closed-form optimality.
  2. [§2.2] §2.2 (definition of the BW constraint) and the subsequent optimization: the problem is posed as an expectation under the physical measure, yet the BW divergence is defined via an optimal-transport problem between the law of the payoff and the benchmark law. The manuscript does not clarify whether the constraint is enforced pathwise or in law, nor how the utility maximizer interacts with the measure-theoretic formulation; this affects whether the stated pointwise argmax solution remains optimal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the convex function φ and the resulting divergence D_φ is introduced without an explicit list of standing assumptions (strict convexity, twice differentiability, etc.). Adding a short paragraph or assumption box would improve readability.
  2. [§4] The numerical examples in §4 would benefit from a table reporting the realized BW divergence values and utility gains for each φ, to make the comparison quantitative rather than visual only.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments highlight important points regarding the regularity assumptions and the measure-theoretic formulation. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3, Theorem 3.1] §3, Theorem 3.1 (or the main derivation of the optimal payoff): the explicit form X^*=T(B) with deterministic transport map T relies on the Bregman cost D_φ satisfying the twist condition or c-convexity so that the dual problem yields a deterministic coupling. For arbitrary convex φ this need not hold (e.g., when φ'' changes sign or is not strictly convex), and the manuscript does not state or verify the required regularity on φ. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed closed-form optimality.

    Authors: We agree that the deterministic transport map in Theorem 3.1 requires the Bregman cost to satisfy the twist condition, which holds when φ is strictly convex, twice continuously differentiable, and φ'' > 0 everywhere. While the manuscript refers to an 'arbitrary convex function φ', the derivation implicitly uses these conditions to guarantee c-convexity and a deterministic optimal coupling. We will revise the statement of Theorem 3.1 (and the surrounding discussion in §3) to explicitly list the required assumptions on φ. This narrows the claim but preserves the closed-form result under the stated conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2.2] §2.2 (definition of the BW constraint) and the subsequent optimization: the problem is posed as an expectation under the physical measure, yet the BW divergence is defined via an optimal-transport problem between the law of the payoff and the benchmark law. The manuscript does not clarify whether the constraint is enforced pathwise or in law, nor how the utility maximizer interacts with the measure-theoretic formulation; this affects whether the stated pointwise argmax solution remains optimal.

    Authors: The BW divergence constraint is enforced at the level of the laws (i.e., between the pushforward measures of X and B under the physical measure P). The optimization is an expectation under P, but the feasible set is defined via the OT problem between the marginal laws. The pointwise argmax solution yields a deterministic map X = T(B), which induces a coupling supported on the graph of T; this coupling is optimal for the dual formulation and therefore satisfies the law-level constraint. We will add a clarifying paragraph in §2.2 that explicitly distinguishes the pathwise payoff from the distributional constraint and confirms that the deterministic map remains optimal in this measure-theoretic setting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optimal payoff derived from external divergence constraint

full rationale

The paper states it solves for the optimal payoff of an expected utility maximizer subject to a Bregman-Wasserstein divergence constraint generated by an arbitrary convex phi. The abstract and skeptic summary present this as a mathematical derivation under an externally defined divergence, with no indication that the claimed optimum is obtained by fitting parameters to data, redefining the objective in terms of itself, or relying on a load-bearing self-citation whose content reduces to the present result. No equations or steps are shown that equate the output payoff to an input by construction. The derivation is therefore treated as self-contained against the stated external constraint.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The convexity of phi is invoked as part of the divergence definition but is treated as given.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 1030 out tokens · 25839 ms · 2026-05-23T17:31:00.536382+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Distributionally Robust Insurance under Bregman-Wasserstein Divergence

    q-fin.RM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Closed-form optimal indemnity functions and worst-case distributions are derived for alpha-maxmin VaR insurance demand and for minimizing worst-case convex distortion risk measures subject to VaR constraints, using as...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Balder, E. J. (1984). A general approach to lower semicontinuity and lower closure in optimal control theory. SIAM journal on control and optimization , 22(4):570--598

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    and Precupanu, T

    Barbu, V. and Precupanu, T. (2012). Convexity and optimization in Banach spaces . Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    and Shapiro, A

    Basak, S. and Shapiro, A. (2001). Value-at-risk-based risk management: optimal policies and asset prices. The review of financial studies , 14(2):371--405

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Bayraktar, E., Belak, C., Christensen, S., and Seifried, F. T. (2022). Convergence of optimal investment problems in the vanishing fixed cost limit. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 60(5):2712--2736

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Belak, C., Mich, L., and Seifried, F. T. (2022). Optimal investment for retail investors. Mathematical Finance , 32(2):555--594

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    P., and Vanduffel, S

    Bernard, C., Boyle, P. P., and Vanduffel, S. (2014). Explicit representation of cost-efficient strategies. Finance , 35(2):5--55

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    S., and Vanduffel, S

    Bernard, C., Chen, J. S., and Vanduffel, S. (2015a). Rationalizing investors’ choices. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 59:10--23

    work page

  8. [8]

    Bernard, C., Junike, G., Lux, T., and Vanduffel, S. (2024a). Cost-efficient payoffs under model ambiguity. Finance and Stochastics , pages 1--33

    work page

  9. [9]

    Bernard, C., Moraux, F., R\"uschendorf, L., and Vanduffel, S. (2015b). Optimal payoffs under state-dependent constraints. Quantitative Finance , 15(7):1157--1173

    work page

  10. [10]

    M., and Vanduffel, S

    Bernard, C., Pesenti, S. M., and Vanduffel, S. (2024b). Robust distortion risk measures. Mathematical Finance , 34(3):774--818

    work page

  11. [11]

    Bi, X., Yuan, L., Cui, Z., Fan, J., and Zhang, S. (2023). Optimal investment problem under behavioral setting: A L agrange duality perspective. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 156:104751

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Boudt, K., Dragun, K., and Vanduffel, S. (2022). The optimal payoff for a yaari investor. Quantitative Finance , 22(10):1839--1852

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    and Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex optimization . Cambridge university press

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Breeden, D. T. and Litzenberger, R. H. (1978). Prices of state-contingent claims implicit in option prices. The Journal of Business , 51(4):621--651

    work page 1978

  15. [15]

    and R\"uschendorf , L

    Burgert , C. and R\"uschendorf , L. (2006). On the optimal risk allocation problem. Stat. Decis. , 24(1):153--171

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    and Dana , R.-A

    Carlier , G. and Dana , R.-A. (2006). Law invariant concave utility functions and optimization problems with monotonicity and comonotonicity constraints. Stat. Decis. , 24(1):127--152

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    and Dana, R.-A

    Carlier, G. and Dana, R.-A. (2011). Optimal demand for contingent claims when agents have law invariant utilities. Mathematical Finance: An International Journal of Mathematics, Statistics and Financial Economics , 21(2):169--201

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    and Jimenez, C

    Carlier, G. and Jimenez, C. (2007). On monge's problem for bregman-like cost functions. Journal of Convex Analysis , 14(3):647

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    and Chou, A

    Carr, P. and Chou, A. (1997). Breaking barriers: Presenting a method of static replication for barrier securities. Risk , 10:139--145

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    Chen, A., Stadje, M., and Zhang, F. (2024). On the equivalence between value-at-risk-and expected shortfall-based risk measures in non-concave optimization. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , 117:114--129

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Cuoco, D., He, H., and Isaenko, S. (2008). Optimal dynamic trading strategies with risk limits. Operations Research , 56(2):358--368

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Dybvig, P. H. (1988). Distributional Analysis of Portfolio Choice . Journal of Business , 61(3):369--393

    work page 1988

  23. [23]

    and Schied , A

    F\"ollmer , H. and Schied , A. (2004). Stochastic Finance. An Introduction in Discrete Time. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd revised and extended edition

    work page 2004

  24. [24]

    and Zhu, M

    Ghossoub, M. and Zhu, M. B. (2025). Risk-constrained portfolio choice under rank-dependent utility. Finance and Stochastics , 29(2):399--442

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Harlow, W. V. (1991). Asset allocation in a downside-risk framework. Financial analysts journal , 47(5):28--40

    work page 1991

  26. [26]

    and Zhou, X

    He, H. and Zhou, X. Y. (2011). Portfolio choice via quantiles. Mathematical Finance , 21:203--231

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    He, X. D. and Jiang, Z. (2021). Optimal payoff under the generalized dual theory of choice. Operations Research Letters , 49(3):372--376

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    He, X. D. and Zhou, X. Y. (2016). Hope, fear, and aspirations. Mathematical Finance , 26(1):3--50

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    M., Wang, Y

    Jaimungal, S., Pesenti, S. M., Wang, Y. S., and Tatsat, H. (2022). Robust risk-aware reinforcement learning. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics , 13(1):213--226

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    and Zhou, X

    Jin, H. and Zhou, X. Y. (2008). Behavioral portfolio selection in continuous time. Mathematical Finance: An International Journal of Mathematics, Statistics and Financial Economics , 18(3):385--426

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    S., Rankin, C., and Wong, T.-K

    Kainth, A. S., Rankin, C., and Wong, T.-K. L. (2025). Bregman-wasserstein divergence: Geometry and applications. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    and Liebmann, T

    Kassberger, S. and Liebmann, T. (2012). When are path-dependent payoffs suboptimal? Journal of Banking & Finance , 36(5):1304--1310

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Klebaner, F., Landsman, Z., Makov, U., and Yao, J. (2017). Optimal portfolios with downside risk. Quantitative Finance , 17(3):315--325

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 20:255--295

    work page 1987

  35. [35]

    P., Rud, O

    Magnani, J., Rabanal, J. P., Rud, O. A., and Wang, Y. (2022). Efficiency of dynamic portfolio choices: An experiment. The Review of Financial Studies , 35(3):1279--1309

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Nachman, D. (1988). Spanning and completeness with options. The Review of Financial Studies , 1(3):311--328

    work page 1988

  37. [37]

    Pesenti, S. M. and Jaimungal, S. (2023). Portfolio optimisation within a W asserstein ball. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics , 14(4):1175--1214

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Pesenti, S. M. and Vanduffel, S. (2024). Optimal transport divergences induced by scoring functions. Operations Research Letters , 57:107146

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized Expected Utility Theory -- The Rank-Dependent Model . Kluwer Academic Publishers

    work page 1993

  40. [40]

    Ross, S. (1976). Options and efficiency. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 90(1):75--89

    work page 1976

  41. [41]

    and Vanduffel, S

    R \"u schendorf, L. and Vanduffel, S. (2020). On the construction of optimal payoffs. Decisions in Economics and Finance , pages 1--25

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Shefrin, H. M. and Statman, M. (2000). Behavioral portfolio theory. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 35(2):127--151

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    and Kahneman, D

    Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: C umulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 5(4):297--323

    work page 1992

  44. [44]

    u tkebohmert, E., R \

    Von Hammerstein, E. A., L \"u tkebohmert, E., R \"u schendorf, L., and Wolf, V. (2014). Optimality of payoffs in l \'e vy models. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance , 17(06):1450041

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    and Morgenstern, O

    von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, 2nd edition

    work page 1947

  46. [46]

    Wei, P. (2021). Risk management with expected shortfall. Mathematics and Financial Economics , pages 1--37

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    and Zhou, X

    Xia, J. and Zhou, X. Y. (2016). Arrow--debreu equilibria for rank-dependent utilities. Mathematical Finance , 26(3):558--588

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Xu, Z. Q. (2014). A new characterization of comonotonicity and its application in behavioral finance. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 418(2):612--625

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Xu, Z. Q. (2016). A note on the quantile formulation. Mathematical Finance , 26(3):589--601

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Xu , Z. Q. and Zhou , X. Y. (2013). Optimal stopping under probability distortion. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 23(1):251--282

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Yaari, M. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica , 55:95--115

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    Q., and Zhou, X

    Zhang, S., Jin, H. Q., and Zhou, X. Y. (2011). Behavioral portfolio selection with loss control. Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series , 27(2):255--274

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1 'skip if FUNCTION new.block.checka empty 'skip 'new.block if FUNCTION field.or.null duplicate empty pop "" 'skip ...

    work page