Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Sensitivity Analysis of Distributionally Robust BSDEs and RBSDEs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Under bounded or square-integrable drift perturbations, the worst-case value of a non-Markovian optimal control, optimal stopping, or mixed control-stopping problem is differentiable at zero perturbation, and its derivative equals the L1 or

desk verdict A useful non-Markovian extension of DRO sensitivity via (R)BSDEs with a clean L1 story and a fixable but real sign error in the L2 proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.01828 v3 pith:NY6435C6 submitted 2025-11-03 math.OC math.PR

Arthur Compoint , Nathan Sauldubois , Nizar Touzi This is my paper
classification math.OCmath.PR MSC 91B0593E2060G40
keywords backwardstochasticdifferentialequationsreflectedBSDEsdistributionallyrobustoptimizationnon-Markoviancontroloptimalstoppingsensitivityanalysismodelriskdriftuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how much the worst-case value of a stochastic control or stopping problem changes when the model is allowed to be misspecified by a small drift perturbation. It proves that, for a broad class of non-Markovian problems, the answer at zero perturbation is a closed-form number: the derivative of the robust value is the L1 or L2 norm of the Z process of the unperturbed backward SDE. Because the result is non-Markovian, it covers path-dependent payoffs, stochastic volatility, and general adapted controls, not just diffusion PDE settings. A sympathetic reader should care because it turns a seemingly complex distributionally robust optimization question into a computation already available from solving the baseline BSDE.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Z component of the unperturbed (R)BSDE solution—the martingale integrand that carries the sensitivity. The main mechanism is a saddle-point identification: with α* the unique argmin of the Hamiltonian and β^r = -r Z^r/|Z^r|, the robust value equals the initial value of the perturbed BSDE with driver f + r|z| (or f + γ|z|² in the L2 case), so comparison and stability theorems for BSDEs convert the robustness problem into a differentiability question for a one-parameter family of BSDEs. Reflected BSDEs and the Skorokhod condition handle the optimal stopping boundary, and a deterministic convex-duality lemma reduces the L2 constraint to a Legendre transform.

What would settle it

Take A=[-1,1], l(a)=a², k=0, λ(a)=-a, so f(y,z)=inf_{a∈[-1,1]}(a²-a·z) has a unique C¹ argmin; set ξ=(∫₀^T W_t dt)⁺. Compute (V∞(r)-V∞(0))/r by simulating the worst-case drift for small r and compare it with the BSDE-computed E^{P⁰}[∫₀^T |Z_s|ds]. If the two numbers differ beyond Monte Carlo error, the saddle-point identification V∞(r)=Y^r_0 fails; if they match, the formula is confirmed in a concrete case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the worst-case value of an optimal control/stopping problem under drift model uncertainty has a well-defined first-order sensitivity at zero uncertainty, and that sensitivity is read off directly from the unperturbed problem: if (Y,Z) solves the BSDE whose driver is the minimal Hamiltonian, then V∞'(0) equals E[∫ K_s |Z_s| ds] under bounded perturbations, and V2'(0) equals (E[∫ K_s |Z_s|² ds])^{1/2} under square-integrable perturbations. For the reflected, mixed control-and-stopping versions, the same formulas hold with the integral truncated at the optimal stopping time. The paper also proves that the inf-sup and sup-inf formulations of the bounded-perturba

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof rests on the Hamiltonian's argmin over controls being a single, measurable, and (for the expansion) differentiable selector α*(y,z); if ties or nondifferentiability appear, the saddle point that identifies the robust value with a BSDE solution may not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any problem satisfying the assumptions, computing the unperturbed BSDE gives the model-risk sensitivity at zero without solving any robust problem.
  • The L∞ robust value and the reversed sup-inf value coincide, so the order of control and adversarial model selection does not matter at first order.
  • The optimal robust control is approximately α*(Y,Z) + r(∂_y α* U + ∂_z α*·V), so robustness corrections are computable from the same linear BSDE.
  • For mixed control/stopping, sensitivity only accumulates up to the optimal stopping time, matching the intuition that after stopping no model risk remains.
  • In the L2 case the derivative is the L2 norm under a tilted measure, showing how risk aversion and discounting enter the sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • By analogy with portfolio Greeks, |Z| acts as a local 'shadow cost' of drift misspecification; one could use its integral under K* as a model-risk metric for ranking hedging strategies without re-solving robust problems.
  • The deterministic lemma at the end of the paper—V'(0)=2√g'(0) for an inf-convolution—is a standalone principle: any robust constraint of the form E∫|β|² ≤ r² whose Lagrangian value is differentiable produces a square-root sensitivity, potentially extending to other divergence-constrained DRO settings.
  • The theory suggests a testable extension to volatility uncertainty: an analogous construction with a quadratic driver in both drift and volatility could yield a second-order sensitivity in the spirit of Malliavin-derivative characterizations.
  • The formulas imply that worst-case sensitivity can be computed pathwise from the baseline model alone, which may make model-risk assessment practical in high-dimensional non-Markovian settings where full DRO re-solving is infeasible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies distributionally robust control and stopping problems under drift model uncertainty in a general non-Markovian Brownian framework. It claims that, for L∞ and L2 perturbations of the drift, the robust control/stopping values are differentiable at zero and that the derivatives are given by the L1 or L2 norms of the Z component of the associated (reflected) BSDE, taken under a tilted measure. The proofs use BSDE comparison and stability, a dual representation of the L2 constraint, and two deterministic lemmas. A numerical example on a portfolio liquidation problem illustrates the sensitivity formulas.

Significance. If the results hold, they extend the Markovian sensitivity analysis of Bartl, Neufeld, and Park to a genuinely non-Markovian setting and provide explicit, interpretable first-order formulas for distributionally robust BSDE/RBSDE values. The overall strategy is sensible and the L∞ parts appear convincing. However, the L2 central results contain several sign errors in the statement and proof of the envelope/duality argument, and a key formula in Theorem 3.2 is also sign-wrong. These issues are local and likely fixable, but as written they prevent Theorem 3.7(ii) and Theorem 3.10(ii) from being established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Proposition 5.7] The stated derivative formula (Gα)′(γ) = E^{P^{λα+2γZγ,α}}[∫ K^α |Zγ,α|²] has the wrong sign. In Step 1 the maximizer is β̂ = −2γZγ,α, and the linear BSDE derived in Step 3 has V-drift (λα−2γZγ,α)·V. The envelope theorem therefore gives an expectation under P^{λα−2γZγ,α}, not P^{λα+2γZγ,α}. With the printed sign, Gα would be decreasing, contradicting the comparison argument in the same proposition and Proposition 5.5. The sign must be corrected before the L2 argument can proceed.
  2. [§5.2, Proposition 5.8] The proof asserts H′(λ)=φ(βλ) for H(λ)=sup_β(ψ(β)−λφ(β)). The correct envelope relation is H′(λ)=−φ(βλ). The missing minus sign is load-bearing: Lemma 5.2 is applied only under condition (5.23), which is exactly H′(λ)=−φ(xλ), and the printed sign would make H increasing. Since Proposition 5.8 is the bridge identifying V2(r)=inf_γ{G(γ)+r²/(4γ)} in Theorem 3.7(ii), the L2 control result is not established as written. This is an internal sign inconsistency, not a matter of convention.
  3. [Theorem 3.2, Eq. (3.11)] The formula ∂rY0_t = E[∫_t^T Γ_s^t |Z_s|ds] with Γ_t^· = E(∫_t^· ∂yf du − ∫_t^· ∂zf·dW_u) is not the solution of the linear BSDE with generator (3.10). Cancelling the V-term in dU = V·dX − (|Z|+∂yf U+∂zf·V)dt requires the measure change with drift +∂zf, i.e., Γ with +∫∂zf·dW_u. As printed, the formula corresponds to the opposite drift and is inconsistent with λ* = −∂zf used in Theorem 3.7. The final statements of Theorem 3.7 use the correct −∂zf, so the error appears local to (3.11), but it must be fixed for the proof of the explicit derivative.
  4. [§5.3, Proposition 5.13] The proposition defines g_t(u,v):=k*_t u+λ*_t·v+|Z_t|² and then sets this equal to ∆^0_t(u,v)+|Z_t|²; however ∆^0_t(u,v)=∂_y f U+∂_z f V = −k*_t u−λ*_t·v under (3.20). Thus the sign of the linear terms is contradictory. The correct generator for the derivative should be −k*_t u−λ*_t·v+|Z_t|², which gives U0 = E^{P^{λ*}}[∫_0^{τ̃} e^{∫_0^t k*} |Z_t|²dt]. The final displayed formula U0=E[∫_0^{τ̃}|Z_t|²dt] additionally omits both the measure change and the discount factor. Since this proposition provides G′(0) for the reflected L2 problem, the proof of Theorem 3.10(ii) is incomplete as written.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The displayed norms ∥Z∥_{L1} and ∥Z∥_{L2} are missing the time integral; they should read E[∫_0^T ... dt] and E[∫_0^T ... dt]^{1/2}, respectively.
  2. [§5.2, proof of Prop. 5.8] The references to 'Lemma 5.7' in the proof should be to Proposition 5.7.
  3. [Remark 5.14] Remark 5.14 states that G is 'nonincreasing', but Proposition 5.12 proves Y^γ is nondecreasing in γ, so G is nondecreasing. This contradicts the earlier L2 control case and should be corrected.
  4. [§5.3, proof of Prop. 5.11] In Step 1, the preliminary bound E∫|Vγ|² ≤ ∥Zγ∥^4_{H4} is dimensionally unclear; the estimate actually used later is (5.37), so the preliminary line appears to be a typo or an incomplete Cauchy-Schwarz step.
  5. [§5.3, proof of Thm. 3.10(i), Step 3] In the first displayed estimate after Eq. (5.32), the integration limits '∫_{τ}^{τ_r}' appear reversed; the intended integral is over [τ_r, τ̃].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Main derivation is self-contained; no load-bearing circularity identified

full rationale

The L1 and L2 sensitivity results are derived by direct perturbations of the underlying (R)BSDE and by an explicit dualization of the L2 constraint; the formulas V∞'(0)=∥Z∥_{L1} and V2'(0)=∥Z∥_{L2} are not fitted parameters nor re-statements of the assumptions. Theorem 3.7(i) is proved by constructing the saddle point (α̂,β̂) from the explicit argmin α* and β̂=-rZ^r/|Z^r|, so the result does not presuppose the derivative being computed; the differentiability comes from BSDE stability and the linear BSDE (3.10). The L2 analysis explicitly derives G'(0) and Gα'(γ) via BSDE expansions and then applies the deterministic Lemmas 5.2 and 5.4; the formulas follow from the same unperturbed (Y,Z). The only self-citation is the illustrative example citing Touzi's Exercise 11.15, which is used for a numerical illustration and is not load-bearing. Assumption 3.4(iii) is a genuine structural hypothesis rather than a circular input. A possible sign inconsistency in Prop. 5.8's envelope condition is a proof-correctness concern, not circularity, and it does not involve equivalence-by-construction or fitted prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard BSDE/RBSDE theory and the stated regularity assumptions (3.4, 3.6, 3.9). No fitted parameters are introduced: the sensitivity is expressed purely in terms of the Z component of the unperturbed (R)BSDE. The only invented entity is the deep BSDE approximation used in the illustration, which is not part of the core theorems.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Existing well-posedness, comparison and stability theorems for Lipschitz BSDEs (Zhang [36] Thm 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.3).
    Used throughout §5 to assert existence/uniqueness and to pass difference quotients to the limit.
  • standard math Well-posedness of quadratic BSDEs with generators of the form f+γ|z|² and BMO estimates (Zhang [36] Thm 7.2.1/7.3.3, Jackson [24], Kobylanski et al. [28]).
    For the L² sensitivity analysis in §5.2-5.3.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.4: Hamiltonian essinf has a unique, measurable selector α* which is the unique argmin; l,k,λ regular.
    Needed for saddle-point representation V∞(r)=V̄∞(r)=Y^r_0, proof of Thm 3.7.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.6: generator f is C² with bounded second derivatives and l bounded.
    Needed for the Taylor expansion estimate (5.27) in the L² differentiability proof.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.9: obstacle continuous on [0,T), ξ_{T-} ≥ ξ_T.
    Used to guarantee τ^r→τ̃ and the K-reflection arguments in Thm 3.10.
  • domain assumption Strong duality Lemma 5.2: H(λ)=sup ψ−λφ is differentiable with envelope property H'(λ)=−φ(x_λ).
    This is an additional structural assumption (verified in the paper via Prop 5.7) needed to interchange inf and sup in the L² problem.
  • domain assumption Deep BSDE numerical scheme converges for the illustrated example (Han et al. [14], Huré et al. [23]).
    Used only in §4; no convergence certificate or error control is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity Analysis of Distributionally Robust BSDEs and RBSDEs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NY6435C6

@misc{pith2026251101828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity Analysis of Distributionally Robust BSDEs and RBSDEs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NY6435C6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.01828}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the sensitivity properties of backward stochastic differential equations and reflected backward stochastic differential equations, which naturally arise in the context of optimal control and optimal stopping problems. Motivated by issues of sensitivity analysis in distributionally robust optimization (DRO) control and optimal stopping problems, we establish explicit formulas for the corresponding sensitivities under drift reference measure uncertainty. Our work is closely related to \citeauthor{bartl2023sensitivity} \cite{bartl2023sensitivity}. In contrast to the existing literature, our analysis is carried out within a general non-Markovian framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01828 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sensitivities for ρ = 0.5. We observe that this metric for assessing the risk model is coherent, since it behaves as expected with respect to the risk aversion parameter. More precisely, it is an increas￾ing function of η, which is consistent with the intuition that higher risk aversion should translate into a larger sensitivity to all kind of risks, included model-risk. 5 Proofs 5.1 Proof of Theorem 3.2 Let f : Ω ×… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Policy Gradient Learning for Distributionally Robust Markov Decision Processes under Wasserstein Ambiguity

    math.OC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Derives a recursive characterization of the robust policy gradient via Wasserstein dual reformulation of the Bellman recursion and proposes a robust actor-critic algorithm for distributionally robust finite-horizon MDPs.

  2. Policy Gradient Learning for Distributionally Robust Markov Decision Processes under Wasserstein Ambiguity

    math.OC 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Wasserstein-robust finite-horizon MDP values admit exact directional-derivative policy-gradient recursions, reducing to a vector-valued gradient when the dual and transport optimizers are unique.

  3. Scaling limits of multi-period distributionally robust optimization problems

    math.OC 2025-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The continuous-time scaling limit of multi-period Wasserstein DRO is a monotone semigroup whose generator is the nominal Bellman operator plus m‖∇f‖.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In:Journal of the European Economic Association1.1 (2003), pp

    EvanWAnderson,LarsPeterHansen,&ThomasJSargent.Aquartetofsemigroups for model specification, robustness, prices of risk, and model detection. In:Journal of the European Economic Association1.1 (2003), pp. 68–123. 28

    2003

  2. [2]

    Pricing and hedging derivative securities in markets with uncertain volatilities

    Marco Avellaneda, Arnon Levy, & Antonio Parás. Pricing and hedging derivative securities in markets with uncertain volatilities. In:Applied Mathematical Finance 2.2 (1995), pp. 73–88

    1995

  3. [3]

    Sensitivity of robust optimization problems under drift and volatility uncertainty

    Daniel Bartl, Ariel Neufeld, & Kyunghyun Park. Sensitivity of robust optimization problems under drift and volatility uncertainty. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11248 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain prob- abilities

    Aharon Ben-Tal, Dick Den Hertog, Anja De Waegenaere, Bertrand Melenberg, & Gijs Rennen. Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain prob- abilities. In:Management Science59.2 (2013), pp. 341–357

    2013

  5. [5]

    In:Mathematics of Operations Research44.2 (2019), pp

    JoseBlanchet&KarthyekMurthy.Quantifyingdistributionalmodelriskviaoptimal transport. In:Mathematics of Operations Research44.2 (2019), pp. 565–600

    2019

  6. [6]

    Briand, B

    Ph. Briand, B. Delyon, Y. Hu, E. Pardoux, & L. Stoica.Lp solutions of backward stochasticdifferentialequations.In:Stochastic Processes and their Applications108.1 (2003), pp. 109–129.doi:10.1016/S0304-4149(03)00076-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-4149(03)00076-3 2003

  7. [7]

    Ambiguity, risk, and asset returns in continuous time

    Zengjing Chen & Larry Epstein. Ambiguity, risk, and asset returns in continuous time. In:Econometrica70.4 (2002), pp. 1403–1443

    2002

  8. [8]

    Backward stochastic differential equations with reflection and Dynkin games

    Jakša Cvitanić & Ioannis Karatzas. Backward stochastic differential equations with reflection and Dynkin games. In:The Annals of Probability(1996), pp. 2024–2056

    1996

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Reflected solutions of backward SDE’s, and related obstacle problems for PDE’s

    Nicole El Karoui, Christophe Kapoudjian, Etienne Pardoux, Shige Peng, & Marie- Claire Quenez. Reflected solutions of backward SDE’s, and related obstacle problems for PDE’s. In:the Annals of Probability25.2 (1997), pp. 702–737

    1997

  2. [10]

    Backward stochastic differ- ential equations in finance

    Nicole El Karoui, Shige Peng, & Marie Claire Quenez. Backward stochastic differ- ential equations in finance. In:Mathematical finance7.1 (1997), pp. 1–71

    1997

  3. [11]

    Nicole El Karoui & Marie-Claire Quenez. Non-linear pricing theory and backward stochasticdifferentialequations.In:Financial Mathematics: Lectures given at the 3rd Session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (CIME) held in Bressanone, Italy, July 8–13, 1996. Springer...

    1996

  4. [12]

    Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior

    Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler. Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. In:Journal of mathematical economics18.2 (1989), pp. 141–153

    1989

  5. [13]

    Deep learning-based numerical methods for high- dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic dif- ferential equations

    Jiequn Han & Arnulf Jentzen. Deep learning-based numerical methods for high- dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic dif- ferential equations. In:Communications in mathematics and statistics5.4 (2017), pp. 349–380

    2017

  6. [14]

    Solving high-dimensional partial differ- ential equations using deep learning

    Jiequn Han, Arnulf Jentzen, & Weinan E. Solving high-dimensional partial differ- ential equations using deep learning. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115.34 (2018), pp. 8505–8510

    2018

  7. [15]

    Risk, ambiguity, and misspecification: Deci- sion theory, robust control, and statistics

    Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J Sargent. Risk, ambiguity, and misspecification: Deci- sion theory, robust control, and statistics. In:Journal of Applied Econometrics39.6 (2024), pp. 969–999

    2024

  8. [16]

    Robust control and model uncertainty

    Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J Sargent. Robust control and model uncertainty. In: American Economic Review91.2 (2001), pp. 60–66

    2001

  9. [17]

    Robust permanent income and pricing

    Lars Peter Hansen, Thomas J Sargent, & Thomas D Tallarini Jr. Robust permanent income and pricing. In:The Review of Economic Studies66.4 (1999), pp. 873–907. 29

    1999

  10. [18]

    Robust control and model misspecification

    Lars Peter Hansen, Thomas J Sargent, Gauhar Turmuhambetova, & Noah Williams. Robust control and model misspecification. In:Journal of Economic Theory128.1 (2006), pp. 45–90

    2006

  11. [19]

    Utility maximization in incomplete markets

    Ying Hu, Peter Imkeller, & Matthias Müller. Utility maximization in incomplete markets. In: (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs

    Ying Hu, Remi Moreau, & Falei Wang. Quadratic Mean-Field Reflected BSDEs. Improved results and updated the references. 2022.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201. 10359. arXiv:2201.10359 [math.PR]

    2022 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kullback-Leibler divergence constrained distributionally robust optimization

    Zhaolin Hu & L Jeff Hong. Kullback-Leibler divergence constrained distributionally robust optimization. In:Available at Optimization Online1.2 (2013), p. 9

    2013

  14. [22]

    Options, futures

    John C Hull. Options, futures. 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    Deep backward schemes for high- dimensional nonlinear PDEs

    Côme Huré, Huyên Pham, & Xavier Warin. Deep backward schemes for high- dimensional nonlinear PDEs. In:Mathematics of Computation89.324 (2020), pp. 1547–1579

    2020

  16. [24]

    The Reverse Hölder Inequality for Matrix-Valued Stochastic Ex- ponentials and Applications to Quadratic BSDE Systems

    Joe Jackson. The Reverse Hölder Inequality for Matrix-Valued Stochastic Ex- ponentials and Applications to Quadratic BSDE Systems. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13886(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sensitivity of causal distributionally robust optimization

    Yifan Jiang & Jan Obłój. Sensitivity of causal distributionally robust optimization. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17109(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Springer, 2006

    Norihiko Kazamaki.Continuous exponential martingales and BMO. Springer, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Frank Hyneman Knight.Risk, uncertainty and profit. Vol. 31. Houghton Mifflin, 1921

    1921

  20. [28]

    Kobylanski, J.-P

    M. Kobylanski, J.-P. Lepeltier, M.-C. Quenez, & S. Torres. Reflected BSDEs with Superlinear Quadratic Coefficient. In:Probability and Mathematical Statistics22.1 (2002), pp. 51–83

    2002

  21. [29]

    Uncertain volatility and the risk-free synthesis of derivatives

    Terry J Lyons. Uncertain volatility and the risk-free synthesis of derivatives. In: Applied mathematical finance2.2 (1995), pp. 117–133

    1995

  22. [30]

    Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model

    Robert C Merton. Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. In:Stochastic optimization models in finance. Elsevier, 1975, pp. 621–661

    1975

  23. [31]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations

    Peyman Mohajerin Esfahani & Daniel Kuhn. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. In:Mathematical Programming171.1 (2018), pp. 115–166

    2018

  24. [32]

    Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differen- tial equation

    Etienne Pardoux & Shige Peng. Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differen- tial equation. In:Systems & control letters14.1 (1990), pp. 55–61

    1990

  25. [33]

    Pricing via utility maximization and entropy

    Richard Rouge & Nicole El Karoui. Pricing via utility maximization and entropy. In:Mathematical Finance10.2 (2000), pp. 259–276

    2000

  26. [34]

    A min-max solution of an inventory problem in Studies in the Mathematical Theory of Inventory and Production

    H Scarf. A min-max solution of an inventory problem in Studies in the Mathematical Theory of Inventory and Production. In:The social cost of foreign exchange reserves (1958), pp. 201–9

    1958

  27. [35]

    Stochastic control and finance

    Nizar Touzi. Stochastic control and finance. In:Lecture note at Fields Institute (2010), pp. 09–10

    2010

  28. [36]

    Jianfen Zhang.Backward Stochastic Differential Equations From Linear to Fully Nonlinear Theory. Vol. 86. Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer, 2017. 30

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.