Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Robust mean field control: an application to optimal execution under composite uncertainty

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that robust mean field control problems—with uncertainty in both noise and parameters—have unique HJBI solutions even without momentum convexity, and solve a constrained multi-asset optimal liquidation problem as an applica

desk verdict Strong LQ liquidation results and a genuinely new HJBI framework, but the bridge from the abstract theory to the general liquidation Hamiltonian is asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29514 v1 pith:SSVUM47X submitted 2026-07-31 math.OC

Huafu Liao , Shuhui Liu , Chenchen Mou , Defeng Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49N8049L1291G80
keywords robustnessmeanfieldcontrolHJBIequationoptimalliquidationcompositeuncertaintydisplacementconvexity-concavityRiccativerificationtheorem
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

Robust mean field control models an investor who must liquidate assets while facing uncertainty in both the underlying stochastic process and the deterministic model parameters, and who optimizes against the worst case. The paper's central claim is that the associated Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs (HJBI) equation on the space of probability measures is well-posed—it admits a unique global solution—even when the Hamiltonian is generally neither displacement convex nor concave in the momentum variable, a regime that earlier techniques could not handle. The mechanism is a two-sided generalized displacement convexity-concavity condition on the Hamiltonian, combined with new a priori estimates and a comparison principle for stochastic Riccati equations. For quadratic Hamiltonians the equation reduces to an ODE system, and the theory is used to solve a constrained multi-dimensional linear-quadratic optimal liquidation problem with explicit optimal feedback strategies. If the argument holds, robust mean field control becomes tractable in non-concave settings and yields a concrete solver for optimal liquidation under composite uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the two-sided generalized displacement convexity-concavity condition (Assumption 2.5.2, inequalities (12)–(13)): the second Wasserstein derivative terms of the Hamiltonian and terminal cost, organized by position and momentum components, must satisfy two-sided bounds that trade off the two components. This replaces the usual displacement concavity (Legendre transform) that earlier mean field control theory required. The second crucial mechanism is the comparison principle for symmetric stochastic Riccati equations (Lemma 4.7): ordering of the coefficient matrices propagates to ordering of solutions, which carries local a priori estimates to global time. For the liqui

What would settle it

Take the quadratic liquidation data (41) with parameters used in the numerics (e.g., λ22 = 500, γ1 = γ2 = 0.2, κ1 = κ2 = 0.1) and check the matrix inequalities (15) for the resulting Q^(1)_t, Q^(2)_t near t = 0 with ε = 1: a single choice violating the two-sided bounds would falsify well-posedness for that regime. Alternatively, test inequality (12) directly on H from (30) with U from (28) at a two-point measure; a negative result would falsify the application's standing assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the HJBI equation (1) on probability measures has a unique global classical solution for Hamiltonians satisfying a two-sided generalized displacement convexity-concavity condition (Assumption 2.5.2), despite being generally neither convex nor concave in momentum. The proof uses a priori estimates on N-particle systems, obtained without the Legendre-transform representation of H; a comparison principle for symmetric stochastic Riccati equations (Lemma 4.7) propagates these estimates globally in time. In the quadratic case the equation reduces to the Riccati system (17) under matrix conditions (15), and a penalty limit (Theorem 2.9) yields the value function for the stric

Load-bearing premise

The two-sided generalized displacement convexity-concavity inequalities (Assumption 2.5.2, (12)–(13)) must hold for the Hamiltonian and terminal cost; for the optimal liquidation application this is asserted for the Hamiltonian (30) and its approximations but only the quadratic case is reduced to explicit matrix conditions (15).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The well-posedness theorems (2.6 and 2.8) make the HJBI equation (1) solvable for a broad class of Hamiltonians, not only the displacement-concave ones previously covered, so robust mean field control with composite uncertainty is justified whenever Assumption 2.5 holds.
  • For the linear-quadratic liquidation model, the value function is explicitly given by Riccati solutions; taking the penalty parameter to infinity yields the strict-liquidation value function (Theorem 2.9), solving the constrained problem.
  • The optimal robust feedback (ξ*, η*, α*) in (36) and (42) is Lipschitz and admissible, satisfying the BMO-martingale condition needed for the change of measure; hence the worst-case optimal strategy is implementable.
  • The a priori estimates on first and second order derivatives hold uniformly in the particle number, extending the method to settings with common noise or degenerate individual noise.
  • The numerical experiments indicate that larger ambiguity penalties (κ1, κ2) or a larger variance penalty (λ22) regularize the optimal trajectories, pulling them toward a benchmark path.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test: verify the two-sided displacement inequalities (12)–(13) for the liquidation Hamiltonian (30) in the non-quadratic case, since only the quadratic reduction to matrix conditions (15) is proved in the paper; settling this would determine how far the application extends beyond linear-quadratic models.
  • The two-sided convexity-concavity condition could serve as a template for other robust mean field games and zero-sum games whose Hamiltonians are concave in some control directions and convex in others; adapting it to those settings is a natural next step.
  • The empirical-measure smoothing used to handle Hamiltonians with linear-growth derivatives (Lemma 2.10) is a transferable tool, likely applicable to other mean field control problems with unbounded data.
  • The numerics suggest a regularization effect of composite uncertainty, with trajectories approaching a benchmark as κ1, κ2, λ22 grow; making this precise, e.g., variance bounds on the optimal position derived from the Riccati bounds in (21), is an open quantitative question.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a robust mean field control framework for multi-dimensional optimal liquidation under composite uncertainty, i.e., ambiguity in both the driving stochastic process and deterministic model parameters. The dynamic programming principle leads to the HJBI equation (1). The authors prove a verification theorem (Theorem 2.3), establish well-posedness for Hamiltonians satisfying a generalized two-sided displacement convexity-concavity condition (Theorem 2.6), derive an explicit Riccati-system solution for quadratic Hamiltonians (Theorem 2.8), and treat strict liquidation constraints through a penalized-limit procedure (Theorem 2.9). The abstract theory is then applied to a general liquidation problem using an empirical-measure approximation of the Hamiltonian (Lemma 2.10; Theorem 2.11; Proposition 2.12) and to a multi-dimensional linear-quadratic liquidation model with strict terminal constraint (Theorems 2.13–2.14). The paper closes with numerical illustrations of optimal trajectories under varying ambiguity parameters.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a substantive contribution: it extends mean-field master-equation theory to Hamiltonians that are neither displacement convex nor concave in momentum, and it supplies explicit linear-quadratic solutions for a constrained robust optimal-liquidation problem with composite uncertainty. The verification theorem and the reduction of the quadratic case to a Riccati system are valuable and largely self-contained; the penalized-limit estimates in Theorem 2.9 are concrete. However, the significance is conditional: the bridge from the abstract well-posedness theory to the general liquidation Hamiltonian rests on an unproved preservation assertion for Assumption 2.5.2, and the core well-posedness proof relies substantially on the authors' unpublished preprint [43].

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (31)–(34), Lemma 2.10] The claim 'H_n satisfies Assumption 2.5 if H does' is the linchpin of Theorem 2.11, but it is not proved. The proof of Lemma 2.10 establishes only pointwise convergence H_n→H and boundedness of derivatives of the truncated building blocks; it never verifies the two-sided inequalities (12)–(13) for H_n. These inequalities are used directly in Lemma 4.6 to obtain the N-uniform second-order bound (60), and Theorem 2.6's local-to-global construction uses (60) at every step. Lemma 4.10(i) then invokes Lemma 4.2 for well-posedness of (86), which presupposes Assumption 2.5. Thus the approximating sequence (35) is not currently covered by the paper's own theory. A full proof that the smoothing in (31)–(34) preserves (12)–(13) — or explicit conditions on U, f, Φ under which it does — is needed; otherwise Theorems 2.11 and Proposition 2.12 do not follow.
  2. [§4.2, proof of Theorem 2.6] The main well-posedness theorem is proved only as a sketch. The local-in-time well-posedness of the mean-field FBSDE (68), Lemma 4.5, and the higher-order estimates (71) are imported from the authors' preprint [43] with statements such as 'we may generate a local in time solution' and 'the details are the same as in Proposition 5.16–5.17 in [43]'. Since [43] is unpublished and is formulated under displacement concavity of the Hamiltonian, this is a load-bearing gap for the abstract theory. Please supply complete arguments for these steps, or clearly state them as assumptions and prove the lemmas in full.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (30)] The deterministic-parameter ambiguity term appears incorrect. Optimizing sup_α E[~ p_2·κ_1 α] − Φ(α) yields the convex conjugate Φ*(κ_1 E~ p_2), where Φ*(y)=sup_α{α·y − Φ(α)}. The manuscript defines Φ* with an infimum and writes Φ*(E~ p_2); with the stated definition the term has the opposite sign for quadratic Φ, and the argument should include κ_1. This is inconsistent with the positive term κ_1^2/(4λ_4)|E(~ p_2+2K_tQ)|^2 appearing in (40), which has the correct sign. Please correct (30) and the definition of Φ*, and verify that the subsequent verification arguments use the corrected Hamiltonian.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2.3] In the final display, 'V(t,μ)=V(t,μ)' uses the same symbol for the value function and the candidate solution; please distinguish them, e.g., V versus V̲.
  2. [Lemma 2.10 proof] The proof contains an incomplete sentence: 'Denote by Then ...'. Please revise.
  3. [§2.3, Eqs. (31)–(34)] The domain of H_n is stated as P_2((R^d)^4) in (34) but Lemma 2.10 states H_n∈C^6(P_2(R)). Please clarify the intended dimension and notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the central proofs are analytic and the main concern is an unproved inheritance step and heavy reliance on the authors' prior work, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are proved by analytic arguments, not by fitting or by defining objects in terms of the target. The linear-quadratic solution is derived by solving the Riccati system (17), and the verification theorem is a standard HJBI verification argument; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main potential concern is the bridge from the abstract theory to the liquidation Hamiltonian: the paper asserts that the approximating Hamiltonians H_n satisfy Assumption 2.5 if H does (Section 2.3), and Lemma 4.10(i) invokes this to apply Theorem 2.6, even though H in (30) does not satisfy Assumption 2.5 and the proof of Lemma 2.10 establishes only pointwise convergence and bounded derivatives, not the two-sided inequalities (12)-(13). This is a substantive gap in the derivation chain, but it is not circular: inequalities (12)-(13) are not defined in terms of the solution or value function, and the approximation step is not justified by assuming the conclusion. The other load-bearing citations, especially to the authors' prior work [43], concern a different non-robust potential mean field game problem; the paper explicitly replaces the displacement-concavity and Legendre-transform arguments with new tools (Lemmas 4.5-4.7). Since [43] does not assume the present well-posedness result, reliance on it is heavy self-citation rather than circular reduction. Overall, no step reduces to its own inputs by construction; the score reflects the unproved inheritance assertion and the weight placed on the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a strong structural assumption (Generalized displacement convexity-concavity), on a saddle-point assumption for the Isaacs condition, and on imported technical machinery from the authors' own previous preprint. The free parameters K, C, ε, λ are not fitted to data but are choices made to obtain the theorems and numerics.

free parameters (3)
  • K, C in (39) = K = e^{-1}, C = 1 in the numerics; 'to be determined' in the general derivation
    These enter via the Itô-transformation of the objective, and the matrices Q_t^{(1)}, Q_t^{(2)} in (41) depend on them; Theorem 2.13 requires condition (15) to hold on those matrices, which depends on the choice of K and C.
  • ε regularization in (18) = ε > 0 (not assigned a concrete value)
    The Hamiltonian H_ε includes the term -ε p_1^T p_1; the well-posedness and limit results depend on ε being positive and fixed, and the constant C in the a priori estimates (21) depends on ε.
  • λ terminal penalty in (18)/(20) = λ = 10^5 in the numerical examples
    The strict liquidation constraint M_T=0 is handled by taking λ→∞; the theorem gives convergence on [0,T−κ], and numerics approximate it with finite λ.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.5.2 (generalized displacement convexity-concavity inequalities (12)-(13))
    This structural assumption on H and U is the key premise for Theorem 2.6. For the optimal-liquidation Hamiltonian H in (30), the paper asserts that the approximants preserve 'similar convexity property' but does not provide a detailed verification outside the quadratic case.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.2: existence of a saddle point / Isaacs condition (7)
    The verification theorem (Theorem 2.3) presupposes that the inf-sup and sup-inf exchange in (7) and that the saddle feedback functions θ*, η*, α* exist. This is not proved in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Particle-system a priori estimates and local well-posedness from [43]
    The proof of Theorem 2.6 explicitly says it follows the procedure using 'Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.4∼4.6 in [43]' to obtain a local solution and higher-order estimates. Those lemmas are in the authors' own earlier preprint, not reproduced here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust mean field control: an application to optimal execution under composite uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSVUM47X

@misc{pith2026260729514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust mean field control: an application to optimal execution under composite uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSVUM47X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29514}
}
read the original abstract

We provide a framework for robust mean field control problems that describe multi-dimensional optimal liquidation problems under uncertainty from both the underlying stochastic process and the deterministic model parameters. The verification results are established with Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs (HJBI) equations where the variables are probability measures and the Hamiltonian nonlinearly involves the joint distribution of position and momentum. Using novel a priori estimates, we establish the well-posedness of the HJBI equations featuring general or quadratic Hamiltonians that are neither displacement convex nor concave in their momentum. The a priori estimates and well-posedness results are extended during their application to optimal liquidation problems, where we allow the Hamiltonian to have derivatives of linear growth and solve the constrained multi-dimensional linear quadratic optimal liquidation problem under composite uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation of optimal trajectories with different uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation of optimal trajectories with different management risk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation of optimal positions and strategies with different persistent impact factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [43]

    Liao and C

    H. Liao and C. Mou. A particle system approach towards the global well-posedness of master equations for potential mean field games of controls.arXiv:2412.11742v3

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Abou-Kandil, G

    H. Abou-Kandil, G. Freiling, V. Ionescu and G. JankMatrix Riccati equations in control and systems theory. Birkh¨ auser Basel, 2008

    2008

  3. [2]

    Almgren and N

    R. Almgren and N. Chriss. Optimal execution of portfolio transactions.J. Risk, 3:5–40, 2001

    2001

  4. [3]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli and G. Savar` e.Gradient Flows. Birkhauser Basel, 2008

    2008

  5. [4]

    Ankirchner, M

    S. Ankirchner, M. Jeanblanc and T. Kruse. BSDEs with singular terminal condition and a control problem with constraints.SIAM J. Control Optim., 52(2):893–913, 2014

    2014

  6. [5]

    Barles and H.M

    G. Barles and H.M. Soner. Option pricing with transaction costs and a nonlinear Black-Scholes equation.Finance Stoch., 2:369–397, 1998

    1998

  7. [6]

    Basin and D

    M. Basin and D. Calderon-Alvarez. Optimal controller for uncertain stochastic polynomial systems with deterministic disturbances.Internat. J. Control, 82:1435–1447, 2009

    2009

  8. [7]

    Bauso, H

    D. Bauso, H. Tembine and T. Ba¸ sar. Robust mean field games.Dyn. Games. Appl., 6:277–303, 2016

    2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Bensoussan, P.J

    A. Bensoussan, P.J. Graber and S.C.P. Yam. Stochastic control on space of random variables. arXiv:1903.1260

    1903

  2. [9]

    Bensoussan, S

    A. Bensoussan, S. Hoe and Z. Yan. A mean-variance approach to capital investment optimiza- tion.SIAM J. Financial Math., 10(1):156–180, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Bertsimas and A Lo

    D. Bertsimas and A Lo. Optimal control of execution costs.J. Financ. Mark, 1(1):1–50, 1998

    1998

  4. [11]

    Bismuth, O

    A. Bismuth, O. Gu´ eant and J. Pu. Portfolio choice, portfolio liquidation, and portfolio tran- sition under drift uncertainty.Math. Financ. Econ., 13:661–719, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Bo and A

    L. Bo and A. Capponi. Robust optimization of credit portfolios.Math. Oper. Res., 42:30–56, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    Bordigoni, A

    G. Bordigoni, A. Matoussi and M. Schweizer. A stochastic control approach to a robust utility maximization problem. InStochastic analysis and applications, volume 2 ofAbel Symp., pages 125–151. Springer, Berlin, 2007

    2007

  7. [14]

    Buckdahn, J

    R. Buckdahn, J. Li, S. Peng and C. Rainer. Mean-field stochastic differential equations and associated PDEs.Ann. Probab., 45:824–878, 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Cartea, R

    ´A. Cartea, R. Donnelly and S. Jaimungal. Algorithmic trading with model uncertainty.SIAM J. Financial Math., 8:635–671, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue.Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications I-II, volume 83-84 ofProbability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer Cham, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Cosso and M

    A. Cosso and M. Martini. On smooth approximations in the Wasserstein space.Electron. Commun. Probab., 28(30):1–11, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Cosso and H

    A. Cosso and H. Pham. Zero-sum stochastic differential games of generalized McKean-Vlasov type.J. Math. Pures Appl., 129(9):180–212, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Cvitanic, H

    J. Cvitanic, H. Pham and N. Touzi. A closed-form solution to the problem of super-replication under transaction costsFinance Stoch., 3(1):35–54, 1999

    1999

  13. [20]

    Cvitanic and I

    J. Cvitanic and I. Karatzas. Hedging and portfolio optimization under transaction costs: a martingale approach.Math. Finance, 6:133–165, 1996. 42

    1996

  14. [21]

    Daniel and A

    H.H. Daniel and A. Schied. Robust utility maximization in a stochastic factor model.Statistics and Decisions, 28(30):1–11, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Delarue and P

    F. Delarue and P. Lavigne. Robust mean field control: stochastic maximum principle and variational mean field games.arXiv:2604.21641v1

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Delarue and P

    F. Delarue and P. Lavigne. Robust mean-field games under entropy-based uncertainty. arXiv:2603.18628v2

  17. [24]

    G. Fu, U. Horst and X. Xia. A mean-field control problem of optimal portfolio liquidation with semimartingale strategies.Math. Oper. Res., 49(4):2356–2384, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Gangbo and A.R

    W. Gangbo and A.R. M´ esz´ aros. Global well-posedness of master equations for deterministic displacement convex potential mean field games.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 75:2685–2801, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Gangbo and A.R

    W. Gangbo and A.R. M´ esz´ aros, C. Mou, and J. Zhang. Mean field games master equations with nonseparable Hamiltonians and displacement monotonicity.Ann. Probab., 50(6):2178–2217, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Graewe and A

    P. Graewe and A. Popier. Asymptotic approach for backward stochastic differential equation with singular terminal condition.Stochastic Process. Appl., 133:247–277, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    O.Gu´ eant and J. Pu. Option pricing and hedging with exicution cost and market impact. Math. Financ., 27(3):803–831, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Gilboa and D

    I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler. Maxmin expected utility with nonunique prior.J. Math. Econom., 18(2):141–153, 1989

    1989

  23. [30]

    Hansen and T.J

    L.P. Hansen and T.J. Sargent. Robust control and model uncertainty.Am. Econ. Rev., 91:60– 66, 2001

    2001

  24. [31]

    S. Hara. A probabilistic approach to robust disturbance attenuation for LTI systems with deterministic and stochastic noises.Proceedings of American Control Conference, Arlington, V A, 4061-4066, 2001

    2001

  25. [32]

    Horst and X

    U. Horst and X. Xia. Multi-dimensional optimal trade execution under stochastic resilience. Finance Stoch., 23:889–923, 2019

    2019

  26. [33]

    Huang and M

    J. Huang and M. Huang. Robust mean field linear-quadratic-gaussian games with unknown L2-disturbance.SIAM J. Control Optim., 55(5):2811–2840, 2017

    2017

  27. [34]

    Huang, R.P

    M. Huang, R.P. Malham´ e and P.E. Caines. Large population stochastic dynamic games: Closed-loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty equivalence principle.Commun. Inf. Syst., 6(3):221–251, 2006

    2006

  28. [35]

    Ismail and H

    A. Ismail and H. Pham. Robust markowitz mean-variance portfolio selection under ambiguous covariance matrix.Math. Financ., 29(1):174–207, 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    Knight.Risk, uncertainty, and profit

    F. Knight.Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston MA: Hart, Schaffner and Marx; Houghton Mifflin, 1921

    1921

  30. [37]

    Kratzm and T

    P. Kratzm and T. Sh¨ oneborn. Portfolio liquidation in dark pools in continuous time.Math. Finance, 25:496–544, 2015

    2015

  31. [38]

    Kruse and A

    T. Kruse and A. Popier. Minimal supersolutions for BSDEs with singular terminal condition and application to optimal position targeting.Stochastic Process. Appl., 126(9):2554–2592, 2016

    2016

  32. [39]

    Ladyzhenskaya, V.A

    O.A. Ladyzhenskaya, V.A. Solonnikov and N.N. Uralt’seva.Linear and Quasilinear Equations of Parabolic Type. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1968. 43

    1968

  33. [40]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions. Mean field games.Japan. J. Math., 2(1):229–260, 2007

    2007

  34. [41]

    H.E. Leland. Option Pricing and Replication with Transactions Costs.J. Finance, 40(5):1283– 1301, 2024

    2024

  35. [42]

    Liao, A.R

    H. Liao, A.R. M´ esz´ aros, C. Mou, and C. Zhou. Convergence analysis of controlled particle systems arising in deep learning: from finite to infinite sample size.arXiv:2404.05185v3

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lorenz and A

    C. Lorenz and A. Schied. Drift dependence of optimal trade execution strategies under transient price impact.Finance Stoch., 17:743–770, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Maccheroni, M

    F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci and A. Rustichini. Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences.Econometrica, 74(6):1447–1498, 2006

    2006

  38. [46]

    Maenhout

    P. Maenhout. Robust portfolio rules and asset pricing.Rev. Financ. Stud., 17:951–983, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    Maenhout

    P. Maenhout. Robust portfolio rules and detection-error probabilities for a mean-reverting risk premium.Rev. Financ. Stud., 128:136–163, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Nystr¨ om, S.M

    K. Nystr¨ om, S.M. Ould Aly and C. Zhang. Market making and portfolio liquidation under uncertainty.Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance, 17:1450034,33, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Obizhaeva and J

    A. Obizhaeva and J. Wang. Optimal trading strategy and supply/demand dynamics.J. Financ. Mark.16:1–32, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    H. Pham, X. Wei, and C. Zhou. Portfolio diversification and model uncertainty: A robust dynamic mean-variance approach.Math. Finance, 32(1):349–404, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Popier and C

    A. Popier and C. Zhou. Second-order BSDE under monotonicity condition and liquidation problem under uncertainty.Ann. Appl. Probab., 29(3):1685–1739, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    A. Schied. Robust strategies for optimal order execution in the Almgren–Chriss framework. Appl. Math. Finance, 20:264–286, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    C. Skiadas. Robust control and recursive utility.Finance Stoch., 7(4):475–489, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Sparks and D.S

    A.G. Sparks and D.S. Bernstein. Optimal rejection of stochastic and deterministic disturbances Trans. ASME, 119:140–143, 1997. 44

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.