pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.00095 · v2 · submitted 2024-08-26 · 💱 q-fin.PR · math.PR· q-fin.MF

Risk-indifference Pricing of American-style Contingent Claims

Rohini Kumar , Frederick "Forrest" Miller , Hussein Nasralah , Stephan Sturm This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.PR math.PRq-fin.MF
keywords risk-indifference pricingAmerican contingent claimsconvex risk measuresbackward stochastic differential equationsstochastic volatilitydeep learningno-arbitrage pricing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Risk-indifference prices for American-style contingent claims can be defined in continuous time using dynamic convex risk measures and remain consistent with no-arbitrage even when buyer and seller have different information.

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

The paper defines risk-indifference prices for buyers and sellers of American claims in a continuous-time setting where the parties may have access to different information. It shows these prices align with no-arbitrage principles. In stochastic volatility models, the prices are characterized as solutions to reflected backward stochastic differential equations. This characterization supports numerical computation through deep learning techniques. A sympathetic reader would care because it extends indifference pricing to American options in incomplete markets without relying on complete market assumptions.

Core claim

The paper establishes a general definition of risk-indifference prices for American-style contingent claims in continuous time using fully dynamic convex risk measures, proves consistency with no-arbitrage, and in stochastic volatility models shows that these prices solve reflected BSDEs, providing a foundation for deep learning-based numerical methods.

What carries the argument

risk-indifference prices defined via fully dynamic convex risk measures, characterized by solutions of BSDEs reflected at BSDEs in stochastic volatility models

If this is right

  • Indifference prices for American claims respect no-arbitrage in markets with asymmetric information.
  • The prices can be computed numerically in stochastic volatility models using deep learning.
  • Buyer and seller prices are well-defined separately under possibly different filtrations.
  • The framework applies to general convex risk measures in continuous time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such prices could be used to hedge American claims in incomplete markets where traditional arbitrage-free prices are not unique.
  • This might allow pricing in settings with different market views between parties.
  • Deep learning implementations could extend to other path-dependent claims beyond American style.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the existence and applicability of fully dynamic convex risk measures in a continuous-time market model where buyer and seller may have different information filtrations.

What would settle it

An observation that the defined prices permit an arbitrage opportunity or fail to satisfy the reflected BSDE characterization in a stochastic volatility model would disprove the claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.00095 by Frederick "Forrest" Miller, Hussein Nasralah, Rohini Kumar, Stephan Sturm.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Buyer’s and seller’s prices of American options in terms of strikes. Middle panel: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper studies the pricing of contingent claims of American style, using indifference pricing by fully dynamic convex risk measures. We provide a general definition of risk-indifference prices for buyers and sellers in continuous time, in a setting where buyer and seller have potentially different information, and show that these definitions are consistent with no-arbitrage principles. Specifying to stochastic volatility models, we characterize indifference prices via solutions of Backward Stochastic Differential Equations reflected at Backward Stochastic Differential Equations and show that this characterization provides a basis for the implementation of numerical methods using deep learning.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines risk-indifference prices for buyers and sellers of American-style contingent claims in continuous time via fully dynamic convex risk measures, allowing for possibly asymmetric information filtrations between the agents. It establishes that these prices are consistent with no-arbitrage principles. Specializing to stochastic volatility models, the indifference prices are characterized as solutions to backward stochastic differential equations reflected at other BSDEs, and this characterization is presented as enabling numerical implementation through deep learning methods.

Significance. If the characterizations are valid, the work supplies a general, dynamic risk-measure-based extension of indifference pricing to American claims that accommodates information asymmetry, which is a non-trivial advance over static or utility-based approaches in incomplete markets. The BSDE-reflected-at-BSDE representation is a concrete technical contribution that connects the pricing problem to well-studied stochastic analysis objects and supplies an explicit route to deep-learning numerics, both of which are strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2] §2 (Definitions of risk-indifference prices): The central definitions presuppose the existence of fully dynamic, convex, time-consistent risk measures that remain well-defined when the buyer and seller operate under distinct filtrations. No existence theorem, explicit construction, or verification of compatibility with the underlying market model (including stochastic volatility dynamics) is supplied. This assumption is load-bearing for both the no-arbitrage consistency claim and the subsequent BSDE characterization.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly flag that the existence of the required risk measures is taken as an assumption rather than derived within the paper.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the potential significance of the work. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Definitions of risk-indifference prices): The central definitions presuppose the existence of fully dynamic, convex, time-consistent risk measures that remain well-defined when the buyer and seller operate under distinct filtrations. No existence theorem, explicit construction, or verification of compatibility with the underlying market model (including stochastic volatility dynamics) is supplied. This assumption is load-bearing for both the no-arbitrage consistency claim and the subsequent BSDE characterization.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the definitions in Section 2 are formulated under the standing assumption that fully dynamic convex time-consistent risk measures exist and are well-defined under the (possibly asymmetric) filtrations of the buyer and seller. The manuscript does not supply an existence theorem or explicit construction because its primary contributions lie in (i) extending the indifference pricing concept to American claims via these measures, (ii) proving no-arbitrage consistency of the resulting prices, and (iii) deriving the reflected-BSDE characterization in stochastic volatility models. The no-arbitrage result and the BSDE representation are derived conditionally on the risk measures satisfying the requisite properties; the framework is therefore compatible with any risk measure that meets the axioms, including standard constructions from the dynamic risk-measure literature that are known to be compatible with diffusion-type models and filtration enlargements. We agree that an explicit clarifying remark would improve readability and will insert a short paragraph in the revised Section 2 referencing representative existence results for dynamic convex risk measures. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: definitions and BSDE characterizations are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper defines risk-indifference prices for American claims using fully dynamic convex risk measures in a continuous-time setting with possible filtration asymmetry, then shows no-arbitrage consistency and derives BSDE-reflected-at-BSDE characterizations in stochastic volatility models. These steps rely on standard stochastic analysis constructions rather than reducing to self-definitions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or claims in the provided text exhibit the enumerated circular patterns; the framework is self-contained against external benchmarks in mathematical finance.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; the paper rests on standard domain assumptions from mathematical finance regarding the existence and properties of fully dynamic convex risk measures and continuous-time stochastic processes.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Fully dynamic convex risk measures are well-defined and applicable to pricing in continuous time
    Central to the general definition of risk-indifference prices for buyers and sellers.
  • domain assumption The underlying market follows a stochastic volatility model
    Required for the reflected BSDE characterization of indifference prices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5621 in / 1319 out tokens · 41942 ms · 2026-05-23T21:55:08.384336+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dynamic risk measures

    Beatrice Acciaio and Irina Penner. Dynamic risk measures. In Advanced mathematical methods for finance, pages 1–34. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Coherent measures of risk

    Philippe Artzner, Freddy Delbaen, Jean-Marc Eber, and David Heath. Coherent measures of risk. Math. Finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Optimal derivatives design under dynamic risk measures

    Pauline Barrieu and Nicole El Karoui. Optimal derivatives design under dynamic risk measures. In Mathematics of finance , volume 351 of Contemp. Math. , pages 13–25. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004. 15

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Pricing, hedging and optimally designing derivatives via mini- mization of risk measures

    Pauline Barrieu and Nicole El Karoui. Pricing, hedging and optimally designing derivatives via mini- mization of risk measures. In R. Carmona, editor, Indifference Pricing, pages 77–146. Princeton Uni- versity Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    On hedging American options under model uncer- tainty

    Erhan Bayraktar, Yu-Jui Huang, and Zhou Zhou. On hedging American options under model uncer- tainty. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 6(1):425–447, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    On controller-stopper problems with jumps and their applications to indifference pricing of American options

    Erhan Bayraktar and Zhou Zhou. On controller-stopper problems with jumps and their applications to indifference pricing of American options. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 5(1):20–49, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Bielecki, Igor Cialenco, and Marcin Pitera

    Tomasz R. Bielecki, Igor Cialenco, and Marcin Pitera. A survey of time consistency of dynamic risk mea- sures and dynamic performance measures in discrete time: LM-measure perspective. Probab. Uncertain. Quant. Risk, 2:Paper No. 3, 52, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Fully-dynamic risk-indifference pricing and no-good-deal bounds

    Jocelyne Bion-Nadal and Giulia Di Nunno. Fully-dynamic risk-indifference pricing and no-good-deal bounds. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 11(2):620–658, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Indifference pricing

    Ren´ e Carmona, editor. Indifference pricing. Theory and applications . Princeton Series in Financial Engineering. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Coherent and convex monetary risk measures for bounded c` adl` ag processes.Stochastic Process

    Patrick Cheridito, Freddy Delbaen, and Michael Kupper. Coherent and convex monetary risk measures for bounded c` adl` ag processes.Stochastic Process. Appl., 112(1):1–22, 2004

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Numerical methods for back- ward stochastic differential equations: a survey

    Jared Chessari, Reiichiro Kawai, Yuji Shinozaki, and Toshihiro Yamada. Numerical methods for back- ward stochastic differential equations: a survey. Probab. Surv., 20:486–567, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    American option valuation in a stochastic volatility model with transaction costs

    Andrea Cosso, Daniele Marazzina, and Carlo Sgarra. American option valuation in a stochastic volatility model with transaction costs. Stochastics, 87(3):518–536, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Computation of reservation prices of options with proportional transaction costs

    Anders Damgaard. Computation of reservation prices of options with proportional transaction costs. J. Econom. Dynam. Control , 30(3):415–444, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    Mark H. A. Davis, Vassilios G. Panas, and Thaleia Zariphopoulou. European option pricing with transaction costs. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 31(2):470–493, 1993

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    Mark H. A. Davis and Thaleia Zariphopoulou. American options and transaction fees. In Mark H. A. Davis, Darrell Duffie, Wendell H. Fleming, and Steven E. Shreve, editors, Mathematical Finance, pages 47–61. Springer, 1995

    work page 1995

  16. [16]

    The mathematics of arbitrage

    Freddy Delbaen and Walter Schachermayer. The mathematics of arbitrage . Springer Finance. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2006

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Fully dynamic risk measures: horizon risk, time- consistency, and relations with BSDEs and BSVIEs

    Giulia Di Nunno and Emanuela Rosazza Gianin. Fully dynamic risk measures: horizon risk, time- consistency, and relations with BSDEs and BSVIEs. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 15(2):399–435, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Deep learning-based numerical methods for high- dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic differential equations.Com- mun

    Weinan E, Jiequn Han, and Arnulf Jentzen. Deep learning-based numerical methods for high- dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic differential equations.Com- mun. Math. Stat. , 5(4):349–380, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Algorithms for solving high dimensional PDEs: from nonlinear Monte Carlo to machine learning

    Weinan E, Jiequn Han, and Arnulf Jentzen. Algorithms for solving high dimensional PDEs: from nonlinear Monte Carlo to machine learning. Nonlinearity, 35(1):278–310, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    El Karoui, E

    N. El Karoui, E. Pardoux, and M. C. Quenez. Reflected backward SDEs and American options. In Numerical methods in finance, volume 13 of Publ. Newton Inst., pages 215–231. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    Elliott and Tak Kuen Siu

    Robert J. Elliott and Tak Kuen Siu. Risk-based indifference pricing under a stochastic volatility model. Commun. Stoch. Anal., 4(1):51–73, 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Convex measures of risk and trading constraints

    Hans F¨ ollmer and Alexander Schied. Convex measures of risk and trading constraints. Finance Stoch., 6(4):429–447, 2002. 16

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    Law invariant convex risk measures

    Marco Frittelli and Emanuela Rosazza Gianin. Law invariant convex risk measures. In Advances in mathematical economics. Volume 7, volume 7 of Adv. Math. Econ., pages 33–46. Springer, Tokyo, 2005

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    Convergence of the backward deep BSDE method with applications to optimal stopping problems

    Chengfan Gao, Siping Gao, Ruimeng Hu, and Zimu Zhu. Convergence of the backward deep BSDE method with applications to optimal stopping problems. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 14(4):1290–1303, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Gyulov and Miglena N

    Tihomir B. Gyulov and Miglena N. Koleva. Penalty method for indifference pricing of American option in a liquidity switching market. Appl. Numer. Math. , 172:525–545, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning

    Jiequn Han, Arnulf Jentzen, and Weinan E. Solving high-dimensional partial differential equations using deep learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 115(34):8505–8510, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Hodges and Anthony Neuberger

    Stewart D. Hodges and Anthony Neuberger. Optimal replication of contingent claims under transaction costs. Rev. Futures Markets, 8(2):222–239, 1989

    work page 1989

  28. [28]

    Risk Management and Financial Institutions

    John Hull. Risk Management and Financial Institutions. Wiley, United State, 5th edition edition, 2018. includes index

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Theses, Universit´ e Paris Diderot (Paris 7), Sorbonne Paris Cit´ e, June 2019

    Cˆ ome Hur´ e.Numerical Methods and Deep Learning for Stochastic Control Problems and Partial Dif- ferential Equations. Theses, Universit´ e Paris Diderot (Paris 7), Sorbonne Paris Cit´ e, June 2019

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Deep backward schemes for high-dimensional nonlinear PDEs

    Cˆ ome Hur´ e, Huyˆ en Pham, and Xavier Warin. Deep backward schemes for high-dimensional nonlinear PDEs. Math. Comp., 89(324):1547–1579, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Machine learning approximations for some parabolic partial differential equations

    Idris Kharroubi. Machine learning approximations for some parabolic partial differential equations. Grad. J. Math. , 6(1):1–26, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv-preprint 1412.6980, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Kl¨ oppel and M

    S. Kl¨ oppel and M. Schweizer. Dynamic utility indifference valuation via convex risk measures. NCRR FINRISK working paper No.209. ETH Z¨ urich , 2005. Shorter version published in Math. Finance 17(4):599–627, 2007

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    Kobylanski, J

    M. Kobylanski, J. P. Lepeltier, M. C. Quenez, and S. Torres. Reflected BSDE with superlinear quadratic coefficient. Probab. Math. Statist., 22(1):51–83, 2002

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Pricing contingent claims in incomplete markets when the holder can choose among different payoffs

    Christoph K¨ uhn. Pricing contingent claims in incomplete markets when the holder can choose among different payoffs. Insurance Math. Econom., 31(2):215–233, 2002

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    Effect of volatility clustering on indifference pricing of options by convex risk measures

    Rohini Kumar. Effect of volatility clustering on indifference pricing of options by convex risk measures. Appl. Math. Finance , 22(1):63–82, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Exponential hedging with optimal stopping and application to employee stock option valuation

    Tim Leung and Ronnie Sircar. Exponential hedging with optimal stopping and application to employee stock option valuation. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 48(3):1422–1451, 2009

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    Forward indifference valuation of American options

    Tim Leung, Ronnie Sircar, and Thaleia Zariphopoulou. Forward indifference valuation of American options. Stochastics, 84(5-6):741–770, 2012

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Reflected backward stochastic differential equations and a class of non-linear dynamic pricing rule

    Marie-Amelie Morlais. Reflected backward stochastic differential equations and a class of non-linear dynamic pricing rule. Stochastics, 85(1):1–26, 2013

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    An essay on the general theory of stochastic processes

    Ashkan Nikeghbali. An essay on the general theory of stochastic processes. Probab. Surv., 3:345–412, 2006

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Oberman and T

    A. Oberman and T. Zariphopoulou. Pricing early exercise contracts in incomplete markets. Computa- tional Management Science , 1(1):75–107, 2003

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

    Nonlinear expectations, nonlinear evaluations and risk measures

    Shige Peng. Nonlinear expectations, nonlinear evaluations and risk measures. In Stochastic methods in finance, volume 1856 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 165–253. Springer, Berlin, 2004. 17

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Risk measures via g-expectations

    Emanuela Rosazza Gianin. Risk measures via g-expectations. Insurance Math. Econom., 39(1):19–34, 2006

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    Pricing via utility maximization and entropy

    Richard Rouge and Nicole El Karoui. Pricing via utility maximization and entropy. Math. Finance, 10(2):259–276, 2000

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    From smile asymptotics to market risk measures

    Ronnie Sircar and Stephan Sturm. From smile asymptotics to market risk measures. Math. Finance, 25(2):400–425, 2015

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Deep Learning-Based BSDE Solver for Libor Market Model with Application to Bermudan Swaption Pricing and Hedging

    Haojie Wang, Han Chen, Agus Sudjianto, Richard Liu, and Qi Shen. Deep learning-based bsde solver for libor market model with application to bermudan swaption pricing and hedging. arXiv-preprint 1807.06622, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Pricing jump risk with utility indifference

    Lixin Wu and Min Dai. Pricing jump risk with utility indifference. Quant. Finance, 9(2):177–186, 2009

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Risk measure pricing and hedging in incomplete markets

    Mingxin Xu. Risk measure pricing and hedging in incomplete markets. Annals of Finance, 2(1):51–71, January 2006

    work page 2006

  49. [49]

    Indifference pricing and hedging in a multiple-priors model with trading constraints

    HuiWen Yan, GeChun Liang, and Zhou Yang. Indifference pricing and hedging in a multiple-priors model with trading constraints. Sci. China Math. , 58(4):689–714, 2015

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Zakamouline

    Valeri I. Zakamouline. American option pricing and exercising with transaction costs. J. Comput. Finance, 8(3):81–113, 2005. 18

    work page 2005