Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: in this paper we study the optimal stopping problems in an uncertain environment . the classical solution to the optimal stopping problems based on the dynamic programming principle assumes that there is a unique subjective prior distribution driving the reward process . however , for example , in incomplete financial markets , we have to deal with multiple equivalent martingale measures not being sure which one underlies the market . in fact under the presence of the multiple possible distributions , a solution of the optimal stopping problem by maximization with respect to some subjective prior can not be reliable . instead , it is reasonable to view the multitude of possible distributions as a kind of _ model uncertainty risk _ which should be taken into account while formulating an optimal stopping problem . here one may draw on concepts from the theory of risk measures . as the established generic notion for static risk assessment at present time @xmath14 , convex risk measures are specific functionals @xmath15 on vector spaces of random variables viewed as financial risks ( see @xcite and @xcite ) . they typically have the following type of robust representation @xmath16 - \gamma_{0}({\mathrm{q}})\bigr\},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath17 denotes the set of probability measures which are absolutely continuous w.r.t . a given reference probability measure @xmath18 and @xmath19 is some penalty function ( see e.g. @xcite and @xcite ) . in this way , model uncertainty is incorporated , as no specific probability measure is assumed . moreover , the penalty function scales the plausibility of models .    turning over from static to dynamic risk assessment , convex risk measures have been extended to the concept of conditional convex risk measures @xmath20 at a future time @xmath21 which are specific functions on the space of financial risks with random outcomes ( see @xcite , @xcite and @xcite ) . under some regularity conditions , they have a robust representation of the form ( see e.g. @xcite , @xcite or ( * ? ? ? 11 ) ) @xmath22-\gamma_t({\mathrm{q}})\bigr\},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath23 is a ( random ) penalty function and @xmath24 consists of all @xmath25 with @xmath26 as in ( [ rhostatic ] ) , the robust representation mirrors the model uncertainty , but now at a future time @xmath8    in recent years the optimal stopping with families @xmath27}$ ] of conditional convex risk measures was subject of several studies . for example , the works @xcite and @xcite are settled within a time - discrete framework , where in addition the latter one provides some dual representations extending the well - known ones from the classical optimal stopping . optimal stopping in continuous time was considered in @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite . all these contributions restrict their analysis to the families @xmath27}$ ] satisfying the property of time consistency , sometimes also called recursiveness , defined to mean @xmath28 hence the results of the above papers can not be , for example , used to solve optimal stopping problems under such very popular convex risk measure as average value at risk . the only paper which tackled the case of non time - consistent families of conditional convex risk measures so far is @xcite , where the authors considered the so - called distorted mean payoff functionals . however , the analysis of @xcite excludes the case of average value at risk as well . moreover , the class of processes to be stopped is limited to the functions of a one - dimensional geometric brownian motion . the main probabilistic tool used in @xcite is the skorokhod embedding .    in this paper we consider a rather general class of conditional convex risk measures having representation with @xmath29 $ ] for some lower semicontinuous convex mapping @xmath1.$ ] the related class of risk measures @xmath15 known as the class of _ divergence risk measures _ or _ optimized certainty equivalents _ was first introduced in @xcite , @xcite . any divergence risk measure has the representation @xmath30\ ] ] with @xmath31,\ , y\mapsto\sup_{x\geq 0}(xy - \phi(x)).\ ] ] ( cf . @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , or appendix [ appendixaa ] ) . here we study the problem of optimally stopping the reward process @xmath32 where @xmath9}$ ] is an adapted nonnegative , right - continuous stochastic process with @xmath33 } y_t$ ] satisfying some suitable integrability condition . we do not assume any time - consistency for the family @xmath34 and basically impose no further restrictions on @xmath35 . our main result is the representation @xmath36\right\},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which allows one to apply the well known methods from the theory of ordinary optimal stopping problems . in particular , we derive the so - called additive dual representation of the form : @xmath37}\big(\phi^{*}(x+ y_{t } ) - x - m_{t}\big)\right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath38 is the class of adapted martingales vanishing at time 0 . this dual representation generalizes the well - known dual representation of rogers , @xcite . the representation together with can be used to efficiently construct lower and upper bounds for the optimal value by monte carlo . the paper is organised as follows . in section  [ setup ] we introduce notation and set up the optimal stopping problem . the main results are presented in section  [ main_results ] where in particular a criterion ensuring the existence of a saddle - point in is formulated . section  [ discussion ] contains some discussion on the main results and on their relation to the previous literature . a monte carlo algorithm for computing lower and upper bounds for the value function is formulated in section  [ mc ] , where also an example of optimal stopping under average value at risk is numerically analized . the crucial idea to derive representation is to consider the optimal stopping problem @xmath39 where @xmath40 denotes the set of all randomized stopping times on @xmath11.$ ] it will be studied in section [ optimalrandomizedstoppingtimes ] , where in particular it will turn out that this optimal stopping problem has the same optimal value as the originial one . finally , the proofs are collected in section  [ proofs ] . let @xmath41 be a probability space and denote by @xmath42 the class of all finitely - valued random variables ( modulo the @xmath4-a.s . equivalence ) . let @xmath43 be a young function , i.e. , a left - continuous , nondecreasing convex function @xmath44 $ ] such that @xmath45 and @xmath46 . the orlicz space associated with @xmath43 is defined as @xmath47<\infty~ \mbox { for some $ c>0$}\big\}.\ ] ] it is a banach space when endowed with the luxemburg norm @xmath48\leq 1\right\}.\ ] ] the orlicz heart is @xmath49<\infty~ \mbox { for all $ c>0$}\big\}.\ ] ] for example , if @xmath50 for some @xmath51 then @xmath52 is the usual @xmath53space . in this case @xmath54 where @xmath55 stands for @xmath53norm . if @xmath43 takes the value @xmath56 , then @xmath57 and @xmath58 is defined to consist of all @xmath59essentially bounded random variables . by jensen inequality , we always have @xmath60 in the case of finite @xmath61 we see that @xmath62 is a linear subspace of @xmath63 which is dense w.r.t . @xmath64 ( see theorem 2.1.14 in @xcite ) . let @xmath65 and let @xmath66 be a filtered probability space , where @xmath67}$ ] is a right - continuous filtration with @xmath68 containing only the sets with probability @xmath14 or @xmath69 as well as all the null sets of @xmath70 . furthermore , consider a lower semicontinuous convex mapping @xmath1 $ ] satisfying @xmath71 for some @xmath72 @xmath73 and @xmath74 its fenchel - legendre transform @xmath75 is a finite nondecreasing convex function whose restriction @xmath76 to @xmath77 is a finite young function ( cf . lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] in appendix [ appendixaa ] ) . we shall use @xmath78 to denote the orlicz heart w.r.t . @xmath79 then we can define a conditional convex risk measure @xmath80}$ ] via @xmath81-   { \mathbb{e}}\left[\left.\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{q}}}{d{\mathrm{p}}}\right)\right |{\mathcal f}_{t}\right]\right)\ ] ] for all @xmath82 where @xmath83 denotes the set of all probability measures @xmath3 which are absolutely continuous w.r.t . @xmath4 such that @xmath84 is @xmath59integrable and @xmath5 on @xmath6 note that @xmath85 is @xmath59integrable for every @xmath86 and any @xmath87 due to the young s inequality . consider now a right - continuous nonnegative stochastic process @xmath88 adapted to @xmath89 furthermore , let @xmath10 contain all finite stoping times @xmath90 w.r.t . @xmath89 the main object of our study is the following optimal stopping problem @xmath91 if we set @xmath92 for @xmath93 and @xmath94 otherwise , we end up with the classical stopping problem @xmath95.\ ] ] it is well known that the optimal value of the problem may be viewed as a risk neutral price of the american option with the discounted payoff @xmath96}$ ] at time @xmath97 however , in face of incompleteness , it seems to be not appropriate to assume the uniqueness of the risk neutral measure . instead , the uncertainty about the stochastic process driving the payoff @xmath98 should be taken into account . considering the optimal value of the problem ( [ stoppproblem ] ) as an alternative pricing rule , model uncertainty risk is incorporated by taking the supremum over @xmath83 where the penalty function is used to assess the plausibility of possible models . the more plausible is the model , the lower is the value of the penalty function . let us illustrate our setup in the case of the so called average value at risk risk measure . the average value at risk risk measure at level @xmath990,1]$ ] is defined as the following functional : @xmath100 where @xmath101 and @xmath102 denotes the left - continuous quantile function of the distribution function @xmath103 of @xmath104 defined by @xmath105 for @xmath990,1[$ ] . note that @xmath106 $ ] for any @xmath107 moreover , it is well known that @xmath108\quad\mbox{for}\ , x\in l^{1},\ ] ] where @xmath109 is the young function defined by @xmath110 for @xmath111 and @xmath112 otherwise ( cf . * theorem 4.52 ) and @xcite ) . observe that the set @xmath113 consists of all probability measures on @xmath70 with @xmath114a.s .. hence the optimal stopping problem ( [ stoppproblem ] ) reads as follows @xmath115 the family @xmath116}$ ] of conditional convex risk measure associated with @xmath109 is also known as the conditional av@r @xmath117}$ ] at level @xmath118 ( cf . * definition 11.8 ) ) . [ entropicriskmeasure ] let us consider , for any @xmath119 the continuous convex mapping @xmath120 } : [ 0,\infty[\rightarrow{\mathbb{r}}$ ] defined by @xmath120}(x ) = ( x\ln(x ) - x + 1)/\gamma$ ] for @xmath121 and @xmath120}(0 ) = 1/\gamma.$ ] the fenchel - legendre transform of @xmath120}$ ] is given by @xmath120}^{*}(y ) = ( \exp(\gamma y ) - 1)/\gamma$ ] for @xmath122 in view of lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixaa ] ) the corresponding risk measure @xmath123}}$ ] has the representation @xmath124}}(x ) = \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\frac{\exp(\gamma x - \gamma x ) - 1}{\gamma } - x\right ] =   \frac{\ln\big({\mathbb{e}}[\exp ( - \gamma x)]\big)}{\gamma}\ ] ] for @xmath125}^{*}}.$ ] this is the well - known entropic risk measure . optimal stopping with the entropic risk measures is easy to handle , since it can be reduced to the standard optimal stopping problems via @xmath126}}(-y_{\tau } ) =   \frac{1}{\gamma}\cdot\ln\big(\sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}\big[\exp(\gamma y_{\tau})\big]\big).\ ] ]    [ polynomial ] set @xmath127 } = x^{p}/p$ ] for any @xmath1281,\infty[,$ ] then the set @xmath129},0}$ ] contains all probability measures @xmath3 on @xmath70 with @xmath130 and @xmath131}}(x ) = \sup\limits_{{\mathrm{q}}\in { \mathcal q}_{\phi^{[p]},0}}\left({\mathbb{e}}_{{\mathrm{q}}}[- x ] -   \frac{1}{p}~{\mathbb{e}}\left[\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{q}}}{d{\mathrm{p}}}\right)^{p}\right]\right)\quad\mbox{for}~x\in l^{p/(p - 1)}.\ ] ] let @xmath132 denote the topological interior of the effective domain of the mapping @xmath1.$ ] we shall assume @xmath133 to be a lower semicontinuous convex function satisfying @xmath134      the following theorem is our main result .    [ new_representation ] let @xmath135 be atomless with countably generated @xmath136 for every @xmath137 furthermore , let ( [ annahmen young function ] ) be fulfilled , and let @xmath33}y_{t}\in h^{\phi^{*}},$ ] then @xmath138\\   & = &   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x ] < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ optimalstoppingoptimizedcertainty ] the functional @xmath139\ ] ] is known as the optimized certainty equivalent w.r.t . @xmath140 ( cf . @xcite,@xcite ) . thus the relationship @xmath141   =   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] may also be viewed as a representation result for optimal stopping with optimized certainty equivalents . let us illustrate theorem [ new_representation ] for the case @xmath142 with some @xmath990,1].$ ] the young function @xmath109 satisfies the conditions of theorem [ new_representation ] if and only if @xmath143 the fenchel - legendre transform @xmath144 of @xmath133 is given by @xmath145 and it fullfills the inequality @xmath146 for @xmath147 then , as an immediate consequence of theorem [ new_representation ] , we obtain the following primal representation for the optimal stopping problem ( [ av@rstopping ] ) . [ representation av@r ] let @xmath148 be atomless with countably generated @xmath136 for every @xmath137 if @xmath33}y_{t}\in l^{1},$ ] then it holds for @xmath990,1[$ ] @xmath149\\ & = &   \inf_{x\leq 0}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{\tau})^{+ } - x\right ] < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    let us now consider the case @xmath150}$ ] for some @xmath1511,\infty[.$ ] this mapping meets all requirements of theorem [ new_representation ] , and @xmath127^{*}}(x ) = \phi^{\left[p/(p-1)\right]}(x^{+}).$ ] then by theorem [ new_representation ] , we have the following primal representation of the corresponding optimal stopping problem . [ primalrepresentation ] let @xmath148 be atomless with countably generated @xmath136 for every @xmath137 if @xmath33}y_{t}\in l^{p/(p-1)}$ ] for some @xmath1511,\infty[,$ ] then @xmath152}}(-y_{\tau } ) = \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\frac{(p-1)\ ,   \big((x + y_{\tau})^{+}\big)^{p/(p-1)}}{p } - x\right ] < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ]      a natural question is whether we can find a real number @xmath153 and a @xmath154-stopping time @xmath155 which solve . we may give a fairly general answer within the context of discrete time optimal stopping problems . in order to be more precise , let @xmath156 denote all stopping times from @xmath10 with values in @xmath157 where @xmath158 is any finite subset of @xmath11 $ ] containing @xmath159 consider now the stopping problem @xmath160 turning over to the filtration @xmath161}$ ] defined by @xmath162}$ ] with @xmath163 : = { \max}\{s\in{\mathbb{t}}\mid s\leq t\},$ ] we see that @xmath164}$ ] with @xmath165}$ ] describes some @xmath166adapted process . hence we can apply theorem [ new_representation ] to get @xmath167\\   & = & \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\end{aligned}\ ] ] in this section we want to find conditions which guarantee the existence of a saddle point for the optimization problems @xmath168\,\mbox{over}\,\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}\,\ ] ] and @xmath169\,\mbox{over}\ , x\in{\mathbb{r}}.\ ] ] to this end , we shall borrow some arguments from the theory of lyapunoff s theorem for infinite - dimensional vector measures . a central concept in this context is the notion of _ thin subsets _ of integrable mappings . so let us first recall it . for a fixed probability space @xmath170 a subset @xmath171 is called thin if for any @xmath172 with @xmath173 there is some nonzero @xmath174 vanishing outside @xmath175 and satisfying @xmath176 = 0 $ ] for every @xmath177 ( cf . @xcite , or @xcite ) . best known examples are finite subsets of @xmath178 or finite - dimensional linear subspaces of @xmath178 if @xmath179 is atomless ( cf . @xcite , or @xcite ) . [ saddle - point ] let the assumptions of theorem [ new_representation ] be fulfilled , and let @xmath180 with @xmath181 moreover , let @xmath182\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] be a thin subset of @xmath183 for @xmath184 with @xmath185 and @xmath186 then there are @xmath187 and @xmath188 satisfying @xmath189   & = &   \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\\   & = &   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\\ & = &   \sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x^ { * } + y_{\tau } ) - x^{*}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] in particular , it holds @xmath190   \leq   { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x^ { * } + y_{\tau^ { * } } ) - x^ { * } ]   \leq   { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau^ { * } } ) - x]\end{aligned}\ ] ] for any @xmath191 and @xmath192    the proof of proposition [ saddle - point ] can be found in section [ proof of saddle - point ] . let the mapping @xmath193 be defined by @xmath194 for some @xmath195 obviously , @xmath196 is convex , nondecreasing , and satisfies @xmath197 as well as @xmath198 hence @xmath199 defines a lower semicontinuous convex function which satisfies , and whose fenchel - legendre transform coincides with @xmath200 since @xmath196 is continuous . moreover , for any @xmath184 such that @xmath201 and @xmath202 the set @xmath203\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] is contained in the finite - dimensional linear subspace of @xmath183 spanned by the sequence of r. v. @xmath204 ~\big|~ \ , k=0,\dots , n\right\},\ ] ] where by definition @xmath205 as a result , @xmath203\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath183 in the case of atomless @xmath148 ( cf . e.g. ( * ? ? ? * proposition 2.6 ) ) .      in this section we generalize the celebrated additive dual representation for optimal stopping problems ( see @xcite ) to the case of optimal stopping under uncertainty . the result in @xcite is formulated in terms of martingales @xmath206 with @xmath207 satisfying @xmath208}|m_{t}|\in l^{1}.$ ] the set of all such adapted martingales will be denoted by @xmath209    [ dualrepresentation ] let @xmath210 $ ] be the snell envelope of an integrable right - continuous stochastic process @xmath211}$ ] adapted to @xmath212 if @xmath208}|z_{t}|\in l^{p}$ ] for some @xmath213 then @xmath214 = \inf_{m\in { \mathcal m}_{0}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}(z_{t } - m_{t})\right],\ ] ] where the infimum is attained for @xmath215 with @xmath216 being the martingale part of the doob - meyer decomposition of @xmath217}.$ ] even more it holds @xmath218 = \sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}({z}_{t } - m^{*}_{t})\quad{\mathrm{p}}-\mbox{a.s.}.\ ] ]    [ relaxed ] by inspection of the proof of theorem 2.1 in @xcite , one can see that the assumption @xmath208}{\mathbb{e}}[z_{t}]\in l^{p}$ ] for some @xmath219 is only used to guarantee the existence of the doob - meyer decomposition of the snell envelope @xmath217}.$ ] therefore this assumption may be relaxed , if we consider discrete time optimal stopping problems on the set @xmath158 for some finite @xmath220 $ ] containing @xmath159 in this case , the doob - meyer decomposition always exists if @xmath221 is integrable , and theorem [ dualrepresentation ] holds with @xmath10 replaced by @xmath222 and @xmath11 $ ] replaced by @xmath158 ( see also ( * ? ? ? * theorem 5.5 ) ) . theorem  [ new_representation ] allows us to extend the additive dual representation to the case of stopping problems . we shall use the following notation . for a fixed @xmath133 and @xmath191 we shall denote by @xmath223}$ ] the snell - envelope w.r.t . to @xmath224}$ ] defined via @xmath225.\ ] ] the application of theorem [ new_representation ] together with theorem [ dualrepresentation ] provides us with the following additive dual representation of the stopping problem . [ dualrepresentation_utility ] under assumptions on @xmath133 and @xmath226 of theorem  [ new_representation ] and under the condition @xmath33}|\phi^{*}(x + y_{t})|\in l^{p}$ ] for some @xmath219 and any @xmath227 the following dual representation holds @xmath228}\big(\phi^{*}(x + y_{t } ) - x - m_{t}\big)\big]\\ & = & \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}\big[\sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}\big(\phi^{*}(x + y_{t } ) - x - m^{*,\phi , x}_{t}\big)\big]\\ & = &   { \mathop{\mathrm{ess\,inf}}\displaylimits}_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}\big(\phi^{*}(x + y_{t } ) - x - m^{*,\phi , x}_{t}\big ) \quad { \mathrm{p}}-\mbox{a.s.}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath229 stands for the martingale part of the doob - meyer decomposition of the snell - envelope @xmath230    [ relaxed2 ] under the assumptions of theorem  [ new_representation ] , we have that @xmath33}y_{t}\in h^{\phi^{*}}.$ ] furthermore , @xmath140 is convex and nondecreasing with @xmath231 ( see lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] in appendix [ appendixaa ] ) so that for any @xmath232 @xmath233 where @xmath234 denotes the right - sided derivative of @xmath235 using the monotonicity of @xmath140 again , we conclude that @xmath236}y_{t})\in l^{1}\ ] ] for all @xmath191 and @xmath237.$ ] hence the application of theorem  [ dualrepresentation_utility ] to is already possible under the assumptions of theorem [ new_representation ] . the dual representation for the optimal stopping problem under average value at risk reads as follows . [ cor_dual_avar ] let the assumptions on @xmath133 and @xmath226 be as in theorem  [ new_representation ] . if @xmath33}y_{t}\in l^{p}$ ] for some @xmath213 then it holds @xmath4-a.s . @xmath238}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{t})^{+ } - x - m_{t}\right)\right]\\ & = & \nonumber \inf_{x\leq 0}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{t})^{+ } - x - m^{*,\alpha , x}_{t}\right)\right]\\ & = & \label{dual_avr } { \mathop{\mathrm{ess\,inf}}\displaylimits}_{x\leq 0}\sup_{t\in [ 0,t]}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{t})^{+ } - x - m^{*,\alpha , x}_{t}\right)\quad { \mathrm{p}}-\mbox{a.s.}. \ ] ] here @xmath239 denotes the martingale part of the doob - meyer decomposition of the snell - envelope @xmath240    [ relax3 ] let us consider a discrete time optimal stopping problem @xmath241 for some finite @xmath220 $ ] with @xmath242 in view of remark [ relaxed2 ] , the assumptions of theorem [ new_representation ] are already sufficient to obtain the dual representation with @xmath10 replaced by @xmath243 and @xmath11 $ ] replaced by @xmath244 in @xcite the optimal stopping problems of the type @xmath245 were studied , where for any @xmath246 the functional @xmath247 maps a linear subspace @xmath248 of the space @xmath249 into @xmath250 and satisfies @xmath251 for @xmath252a.s .. in fact there is a one - to - one correspondence between conditional convex risk measures @xmath27}$ ] and dynamic utility functionals @xmath253}$ ] satisfying the following two properties :    * * conditional translation invariance : * + @xmath254 for @xmath255 and @xmath256 * * conditional concavity : * + @xmath257 for @xmath258 and @xmath259 with @xmath260    more precisely , any conditionally translation invariant and conditionally concave dynamic utility functional @xmath261}$ ] defines a family @xmath262}$ ] of conditional convex risk measures via @xmath263 and vice versa . the results of @xcite essentially rely on the following additional assumptions    * * regularity : * + @xmath264 for @xmath265 and @xmath256 * * recursiveness : * + @xmath266 for @xmath267    recursiveness is often also referred to as time consistency . obviously , the dynamic utility functional @xmath268},$ ] defined by @xmath269 satisfies the regularity and the conditional translation invariance , but it fails to be recursive ( cf . * example , 11.13 ) ) . even worse , according to theorem 1.10 in @xcite for any @xmath270 there is in general no regular conditionally translation invariant and recursive dynamic utility functional @xmath271 such that @xmath272 this means that we can not in general reduce the stopping problem ( [ av@rstopping ] ) to the stopping problem ( [ dmu ] ) with a regular , conditionally translation invariant and recursive dynamic utility functional @xmath271 . note that this conclusion can be drawn from theorem 1.10 of @xcite , because @xmath273 is law - invariant , i.e. , @xmath274 for identically distributed @xmath104 and @xmath275 , and satisfies the properties @xmath276 as well as @xmath277 for any @xmath278 and @xmath279 with @xmath280    the stopping problem ( [ av@rstopping ] ) may also be viewed as a special case of the following stopping problem : @xmath281 where @xmath282\mapsto[0,1]$ ] is a so - called distortion function , i.e. , @xmath283 is nondecreasing and satisfies @xmath284 @xmath285 indeed , if for @xmath990,1[$ ] the distortion function @xmath286 is defined by @xmath287 then the stopping problems ( [ av@rstopping ] ) and ( [ osf_distortion ] ) coincide . recalling theorem 1.10 of @xcite again , we see that the stopping problem ( [ osf_distortion ] ) is not in general representable in the form ( [ dmu ] ) with some regular , conditionally translation invariant and recursive dynamic utility functional . the stopping problem ( [ osf_distortion ] ) was recently considered by @xcite . however , the analysis in @xcite relies on some additional assumptions . first of all , the authors allow for all finite stopping times w.r.t . to some filtered probability space @xmath288 instead of restricting to those which are bounded by a fixed number . secondly , they assume a special structure for the process @xmath289 namely it is supposed that @xmath290 for an absolutely continuous nonnegative function @xmath291 on @xmath77 and for a one - dimensional geometric brownian motion @xmath292 . thirdly , the authors focus on strictly increasing absolutely continuous distortion functions @xmath283 so that their analysis does not cover the case of average value at risk . more precisely , in @xcite the optimal stopping problems of the form @xmath293 are studied , where @xmath294 denotes the set of all finite stopping times . a crucial step in the authors argumentation is the reformulation of the optimal stopping problem as @xmath295 where @xmath296 and @xmath297 are derivatives of @xmath291 and @xmath298 respectively , and @xmath299 denotes the set of all distribution functions @xmath300 with a nonnegative support such that @xmath301 the main idea of the approach in @xcite is that any such distribution function may be described as the distribution function of @xmath302 for some finite stopping time @xmath303 and this makes the application of the skorokhod embedding technique possible . hence , the results essentially rely on the special structure of the stochastic process @xmath304 and seem to be not extendable to stochastic processes of the form @xmath305 where @xmath306 is a multivariate markov process . moreover , it remains unclear whether the analysis of @xcite can be carried over to the case of bounded stopping times , as the skorokhod embedding can not be applied to the general sets of stopping times @xmath10 ( see e.g. @xcite ) . in this section we illustrate how our results can be used to price bermudan - type options in uncertain environment . specifically , we consider the model with @xmath307 identically distributed assets , where each underlying has dividend yield @xmath308 . the dynamic of assets is given by @xmath309where @xmath310 , are independent one - dimensional brownian motions and @xmath311 are constants . at any time @xmath312 the holder of the option may exercise it and receive the payoff @xmath313if we are uncertain about our modelling assumption and if the average value at risk is used to measure the risk related to this uncertainty , then the risk - adjusted price of the option is given by @xmath314}av@r_{\alpha}(-y_{\tau})&= & { \sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}[t_0,\ldots , t_j]}\sup\limits_{{\mathrm{q}}\in{\mathcal q}_{\phi_{\alpha},0}}{\mathbb{e}}_{{\mathrm{q}}}[-y_{\tau } ] } \\ \label{opt_stop_ex } & = & \inf_{x\leq 0}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}[t_0,\ldots , t_j]}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{\tau})^{+ } - x\right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath315 consists of all probability measures @xmath316 on @xmath70 with @xmath317 if we restrict our attention to the class of generalised black scholes models of the type @xmath318 with adapted processes @xmath319 @xmath320 and independent brownian motions @xmath321 then @xmath322 with @xmath323 and the condition transforms to @xmath324 due to corollary  [ representation av@r ] , one can use the standard methods based on dynamic programming principle to solve and @xmath325 $ ] stands for a set of stopping times with values in @xmath326 indeed , for any fixed @xmath327 the optimal value of the stopping problem @xmath328}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha}\ , ( x + y_{\tau})^{+ } - x\right]\end{aligned}\ ] ] can be , for example , numerically approximated via the well known regression methods like longstaff - schwartz method . in this way one can get a ( suboptimal ) stopping rule @xmath329 where @xmath330 are continuation values estimates . then @xmath331 is a low - biased estimate for @xmath332 . note that the infimum in can be easily computed using a simple search algorithm . an upper - biased estimate can be constructed using the well known andersen - broadie dual approach ( see @xcite ) . for any fixed @xmath333 this approach would give us a discrete time martingale @xmath334 which in turn can be used to build an upper - biased estimate via the representation ( [ dual_avr ] ) : @xmath335\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that remains upper biased even if we replace the infimum of the objective function in by its value at a fixed point @xmath336 in table  [ max_call_2d ] we present the bounds @xmath337 and @xmath338 together with their standard deviations for different values of @xmath339 as to implementation details , we used @xmath340 basis functions for regression ( see @xcite ) and @xmath341 training paths to compute @xmath342 in the dual approach of andersen and broadie , @xmath343 inner simulations were done to approximate @xmath344 in both cases we simulated @xmath345 testing paths to compute the final estimates .     for comparison let us consider a problem of pricing the above bermudan option under entropic risk measure . due to , we need to solve the optimal stopping problem @xmath346}{\mathbb{e}}\big[\exp(\gamma y_{\tau})\big].\ ] ] the latter problem can be solved via the standard dynamic programming combined with regression as described above . in table  [ max_call_2d_entrop ] the upper and lower mc bounds for @xmath347 are presented for different values of the parameter @xmath348 unfortunately for larger values of @xmath349 the corresponding mc estimates become unstable due to the presence of exponent in . in figure [ fig : bounds ] the lower bounds for av@r and the entropic risk measure are shown graphically . as can be seen the quality of upper and lower bounds are quite similar . however due to above mentioned instability , av@r should be preferred under higher uncertainty . [ max_call_2d ]    .bounds ( with standard deviations ) for @xmath350-dimensional bermudan max - call with parameters @xmath351 , @xmath352 @xmath353 under av@r at level @xmath118 [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ] in order to prove theorem [ new_representation ] we shall proceed as follows . first , by lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixaa ] ) , we obtain immediately @xmath354- { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{p}}}{d{\mathrm{q}}}\right)\right]\right ) =   \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\ ] ] the proof of theorem [ new_representation ] would be completed , if we can show that @xmath355   =   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\ ] ] using fubini s theorem , we obtain for any @xmath356 and every @xmath191 @xmath357 = \int_{x^{-}}^{\infty}\phi^{*'}(x + z)[1 - f_{y_{\tau}}(z)]~dz + \phi^{*}(x^{+ } ) - x,\ ] ] where @xmath358 stands for the distribution function of @xmath359 and @xmath234 denotes the right - sided derivative of the convex function @xmath235 in the same way we may also find @xmath360 = -\int_{0}^{x^{-}}\phi^{*'}(x + z)f_{y_{\tau}}(z)~dz.\ ] ] hence the property @xmath361 for @xmath191 yields @xmath362 = \int_{0}^{\infty}\phi^{*'}(x + z)[1 - f_{y_{\tau}}(z)]~dz + \phi^{*}(x ) - x\ ] ] for @xmath356 and @xmath363 since the set @xmath364 of distribution functions @xmath358 of @xmath359 is not , in general , a convex subset of the set of distribution functions on @xmath365 we can not apply the known minimax results . the idea is to first establish ( [ minimaxrelationship ] ) for the larger class of randomized stopping times , and then to show that the optimal value coincides with the optimal value @xmath366.$ ]    let us recall the notion of randomized stopping times . by definition ( see e.g. @xcite ) , a randomized stopping time w.r.t . @xmath66 is a mapping @xmath367\rightarrow [ 0,\infty]$ ] which is nondecreasing and left - continuous in the second component such that @xmath368 is a stopping time w.r.t . @xmath67}$ ] for any @xmath369.$ ] notice that any randomized stopping time @xmath370 is also an ordinary stopping time w.r.t . the enlarged filtered probability space @xmath371,{\mathcal f}\otimes { \mathcal b}([0,1 ] ) , \big({\mathcal f}_{t}\otimes { \mathcal b}([0,1])\big)_{t\in [ 0,t]},{\mathrm{p}}\otimes { \mathrm{p}}^{u}\big).$ ] here @xmath372 denotes the uniform distribution on @xmath373,$ ] defined on @xmath374),$ ] the usual borel @xmath375algebra on @xmath373.$ ] we shall call a randomized stopping time @xmath370 to be degenerated if @xmath376 is constant for every @xmath377 there is an obvious one - to - one correspondence between stopping times and degenerated randomized stopping times .    consider the stochastic process @xmath378 defined by @xmath379\rightarrow{\mathbb{r}},\ , ( \omega , u)\mapsto y_{t}(\omega).\ ] ] which is adapted w.r.t . the enlarged filtered probability space . denoting by @xmath380 the set of all randomized stopping times @xmath381 we shall study the following new stopping problem @xmath382~\mbox{over}~\tau^r\in{\mathcal t^{r}}.\ ] ] obviously , @xmath383 = \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{\tau^{r } } } ) - x]$ ] is valid for every stopping time @xmath384 where @xmath385 is the corresponding degenerated randomized stopping time such that @xmath386 @xmath369.$ ] thus , in general the optimal value of the stopping problem ( [ randomstop ] ) is at least as large as the one of the original stopping problem ( [ stoppproblem ] ) due to ( [ hilfsstoppproblem ] ) . one reason to consider the new stopping problem is that it has a solution under fairly general conditions . [ solution ] let @xmath96}$ ] be quasi - left - continuous , defined to mean @xmath387 @xmath59a.s . whenever @xmath388 is a sequence in @xmath10 satisfying @xmath389 for some @xmath356 . if @xmath390 is countably generated , then there exists a randomized stopping time @xmath391 such that @xmath392   =   \sup_{{\tau^{r}}\in { \mathcal t^{r}}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{\tau^{r } } } ) - x\right].\ ] ]    proposition will be proved in section  [ proof of solution ] . moreover the following important minimax result for the stopping problem ( [ randomstop ] ) holds . [ minimax ] if ( [ annahmen young function ] ) is fulfilled , and if @xmath33}y_{t}\in h^{\phi^{*}},$ ] then @xmath393 =   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau^{r}\in{\mathcal t}^{r}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{{\tau^{r}}}^{r } ) - x].\end{aligned}\ ] ] moreover , if @xmath96}$ ] is quasi - left - continuous and if @xmath390 is countably generated , then there exist @xmath394 and @xmath188 such that @xmath395   \leq   { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x^ { * } + y^{r}_{\tau^{r * } } ) - x^ { * } ]   \leq   { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{\tau^{r * } } ) - x]\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath191 and @xmath396    the proof of proposition [ minimax ] can be found in section [ beweis minimax ] . in the next step we shall provide conditions ensuring that the stopping problems ( [ stoppproblem ] ) and ( [ randomstop ] ) have the same optimal value .    [ derandomize2 ] let @xmath148 be atomless with countably generated @xmath136 for every @xmath137 if ( [ annahmen young function ] ) is fulfilled , and if @xmath33}y_{t}$ ] belongs to @xmath397 then @xmath393 & = & \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\\ & = &   \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\sup_{{\mathrm{q}}\in{\mathcal q}_{\phi,0}}\left({\mathbb{e}}_{{\mathrm{q}}}[y_{\tau}]- { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{p}}}{d{\mathrm{q}}}\right)\right]\right ) \end{aligned}\ ] ]    the proof of proposition [ derandomize2 ] is delegated to section [ beweis derandomize2 ] . we shall start with some preparations which also will turn out to be useful later on . let us recall ( cf . @xcite ) that every @xmath385 induces a stochastic kernel @xmath398)\rightarrow [ 0,1 ] $ ] with @xmath399 being the distribution of @xmath376 under @xmath372 for any @xmath377 here @xmath400)$ ] stands for the usual borel @xmath375algebra on @xmath11.$ ] this stochastic kernel has the following properties : @xmath401)~\mbox{is}~{\mathcal f}_{t}-\mbox{measurable for every}~t\geq 0,\\ & & k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\omega,[0,t ] ) = \sup\{u\in [ 0,1]\mid { \tau^{r}}(\omega , u)\leq t\}. \ ] ] the associated stochastic kernel @xmath402 is useful to characterize the distribution function @xmath403 of @xmath404    [ stopped distribution ] for any @xmath385 with associated stochastic kernel @xmath405 the distribution function @xmath406 of @xmath407 may be represented in the following way @xmath408\mid y_{t}\leq x\})]\quad\mbox{for}~ x\in{\mathbb{r}}.\ ] ]    let @xmath409 and let us fix @xmath363 then @xmath410-\infty , x]}(y_{{\tau^{r}}}^{r } ) ]   & = &   \int_{0}^{1}{\mathbb{e}}[{\mathbbm{1}}_{]-\infty , x]}(y_{{\tau^{r}}(\cdot , u)}^{r})]\,du\\   & = &   { \mathbb{e}}\left[\int_{0}^{1}{\mathbbm{1}}_{]-\infty , x]}(y_{{\tau^{r}}(\cdot , u)}^{r})\ , du\right]\end{aligned}\ ] ] holds ( cf . * theorem 4.5 ) ) , where the last equation on the right hand side is due to fubini - tonelli theorem . then by definition of @xmath405 we obtain for every @xmath411 @xmath412-\infty , x]}(y^{r}_{{\tau^{r}}}(\omega , u))\ , du & = &   { \mathbb{e}}_{{\mathrm{p}}^{u}}\left[{\mathbbm{1}}_{]-\infty , x]}(y^{r}_{{\tau^{r}}(\omega,\cdot)}(\omega))\right]\\ & = & { \mathrm{p}}^{u}\left(\left\{y^{r}_{{\tau^{r}}(\omega,\cdot)}(\omega)\leq x\right\}\right)\\   & = &   k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\omega,\{t\in [ 0,t]\mid y_{t}(\omega)\leq x\ } ) . \end{aligned}\ ] ] this completes the proof .    following a suggestion by one referee we placed the proof of proposition [ solution ] in front of that of proposition [ minimax ] . let us introduce the filtered probability space @xmath413 defined by @xmath414 we shall denote by @xmath415 the set of randomized stopping times according to @xmath416 furthermore , we may extend the processes @xmath96}$ ] and @xmath417}$ ] to right - continuous processes @xmath418}$ ] and @xmath419}$ ] in the following way @xmath420 recall that we may equip @xmath415 with the so called baxter - chacon topology which is compact in general , and even metrizable within our setting because @xmath390 is assumed to be countably generated ( cf . theorem 1.5 in @xcite and discussion afterwards ) . next , consider the mapping @xmath421.\ ] ] by assumption on @xmath96}$ ] , the processes @xmath418}$ ] and @xmath419}$ ] are quasi - left - continuous . moreover , @xmath140 is continuous due to lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] , ( i ) in appendix [ appendixaa ] , so that @xmath422}$ ] is a quasi - left - continuous and right - continuous adapted process . hence in view of ( * ? ? ? * theorem 4.7 ) , the mapping @xmath423 is continuous w.r.t . the baxter - chacon topology for every @xmath424 and thus @xmath425 is upper semicontinuous w.r.t . the baxter - chacon topology . then by compactness of the baxter - chacon topology , we may find some randomized stopping time @xmath426 such that @xmath427 this completes the proof because @xmath428 and @xmath429 belongs to @xmath380 for every @xmath430 @xmath431      let us define the mapping @xmath432 by @xmath433.\ ] ] since @xmath33}y_{t}$ ] is assumed to belong to @xmath397 the mapping @xmath434 is finite and convex , and thus continuous . moreover , by lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixaa ] ) @xmath435 hence @xmath436 } \sup\limits_{{\tau^{r}}\in{\mathcal t^{r}}}h({\tau^{r}},x)$ ] for some @xmath437 thus @xmath438 attains its minimum at some @xmath439 due to continuity of @xmath440 moreover , if @xmath96}$ ] is quasi - left - continuous and if @xmath390 is countably generated , then @xmath441 for some @xmath394 due to proposition [ solution ] . it remains to show that @xmath442 following the same line of reasoning as for the derivation of , we may rewrite @xmath443 in the following way . @xmath444~dz +   \phi^{*}(x ) - x,\ ] ] where @xmath403 stands for the distribution function of @xmath445 and @xmath234 denotes the right - sided derivative of the convex function @xmath235 obviously , we have @xmath446 set @xmath447 + 1 { = \inf\limits_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau^{r}\in{\mathcal t}^{r}}h({\tau^{r}},x ) + 1}$ ] which is a real number because @xmath448 has been already proved to be a finite function which attains its minimum on some compact interval of @xmath449 . furthermore , we may conclude from @xmath450 for @xmath191 that @xmath451 and @xmath452 by ( [ infcompact ] ) we verify @xmath453 and @xmath454 we want to apply fan s minimax theorem ( cf . * theorem 2 ) or @xcite ) to @xmath455 . in view of and it remains to show that for every @xmath456 and any @xmath4570,1[$ ] there exists some @xmath385 such that @xmath458 to this end let @xmath459 with associated stochastic kernels @xmath460 and @xmath4570,1[.$ ] first , @xmath461)\rightarrow [ 0,1]$ ] defines a stochastic kernel satisfying @xmath462)~\mbox{is}~{\mathcal f}_{t}-\mbox{measurable for every}~t\in [ 0,t],\\ & & k(\omega,[0,t ] ) = 1.\end{aligned}\ ] ] then @xmath463\mid k(\omega,[0,t])\geq u\}\ ] ] defines some @xmath385 with @xmath464 furthermore , we obtain @xmath465 due to lemma [ stopped distribution ] . in view of ( [ rewrite ] ) this implies ( [ concave ] ) and the proof of proposition [ minimax ] is completed . @xmath431      the starting idea for proving proposition [ derandomize2 ] is to reduce the stopping problem ( [ randomstop ] ) to suitably discretized random stopping times . the choice of the discretized randomized stopping times is suggested by the following lemma . [ discretize ] for @xmath385 the construction @xmath466(\omega , u ) : = \min\{k/2^{j}\mid k\in{\mathbb{n } } , { \tau^{r}}(\omega , u)\leq k/2^{j}\}\wedge t\ ] ] defines a sequence @xmath467)_{j\in{\mathbb{n}}}$ ] in @xmath380 satisfying the following properties .    1 . @xmath468\searrow{\tau^{r}}$ ] pointwise , in particular it follows @xmath469(\omega , u)}(\omega , u ) = y^{r}_{{\tau^{r}}(\omega , u)}(\omega , u)\ ] ] for any @xmath411 and every @xmath369.$ ] 2 . @xmath470}}(x ) = f^{r}_{y_{{\tau^{r}}}}(x)$ ] holds for any continuity point @xmath471 of @xmath472 3 .   for any @xmath191 and every @xmath473 we have @xmath474}}(x ) = { \mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{1j}}^{x } k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\cdot,[0,t_{1j}])\right ]   + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{kj}}^{x}\ , k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\cdot,]t_{(k-1)j } , t_{kj}])\right],\ ] ] where @xmath475 for @xmath476 and @xmath477-\infty , x]}\circ y_{t}$ ] for @xmath237.$ ]    statements ( i ) and ( ii ) are obvious , so it remains to show ( iii ) . to this end recall from lemma [ stopped distribution ] @xmath478}}(x ) = { \mathbb{e}}[k_{{\tau^{r}}[j]}(\cdot,\{t\in [ 0,t]\mid y_{t}\leq x\})]\quad\mbox{for}~ x\in{\mathbb{r}}.\ ] ] since @xmath479}(\omega,\cdot)$ ] is a probability measure , we also have @xmath480}(\omega,\{t\in [ 0,t]\mid y_{t}(\omega)\leq x\})\\ \nonumber & = &   k_{{\tau^{r}}[j]}(\omega,\{t\in [ 0,t_{1j}]\mid y_{t}(\omega)\leq x\})\\ \nonumber   & & \qquad + \sum_{k = 2}^{\infty }   k_{{\tau^{r}}[j]}(\omega,\{t\in ] t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}]\mid y_{t}(\omega)\leq x\})\\ \nonumber & = & k_{{\tau^{r}}[j]}(\omega,\{t\in [ 0,t_{1j}]\mid \widehat{y}_{t}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\})\\   & & \qquad + \sum_{k = 2}^{\infty }   k_{{\tau^{r}}[j]}(\omega,\{t\in ] t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}]\mid \widehat{y}_{t}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\})\end{aligned}\ ] ] for every @xmath377 then by definitions of @xmath479}$ ] and @xmath405 @xmath481}(\omega,\{t\in ] t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}]\mid \widehat{y}_{t}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\ } ) \\ \nonumber & = & { \mathrm{p}}^{u}(\{{\tau^{r}}[j](\omega,\cdot)\in ] t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}],\,\widehat{y}_{{\tau^{r}}[j](\omega,\cdot)}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\})\\ \nonumber & = &   { \mathrm{p}}^{u}(\{{\tau^{r}}[j](\omega,\cdot ) = t_{kj},\,\widehat{y}_{t_{kj}}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\})\\ \nonumber & = & \widehat{y}^{x}_{t_{kj}}(\omega)\,{\mathrm{p}}^{u}(\{{\tau^{r}}[j](\omega,\cdot ) = t_{kj}\})\\ \nonumber & = &   \widehat{y}^{x}_{t_{kj}}(\omega)\,{\mathrm{p}}^{u}(\{{\tau^{r}}(\omega,\cdot)\in ] t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}]\})\\ & = & \widehat{y}^{x}_{t_{kj}}(\omega)\ , k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\omega,]t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}])\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath411 and @xmath482 with @xmath483 analogously , we also obtain @xmath484}(\omega,\{t\in [ 0,t_{1j}]\mid \widehat{y}_{t}^{x}(\omega ) = 1\ } ) =   \widehat{y}_{t_{1j}}(\omega)\ , k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\omega,[0,t_{1j}]).\ ] ] then statement ( iii ) follows from ( [ ausgangspunkt ] ) combining ( [ auseinanderziehen ] ) with ( [ anwendungkerndefinition ] ) and ( [ anwendungkerndefinition2 ] ) . the proof is finished . we shall use the discretized randomized stopping times , as defined in lemma [ discretize ] , to show that we can restrict ourselves to discrete randomized stopping times in the stopping problem ( [ randomstop ] ) . [ discretizedstop ] if ( [ annahmen young function ] ) is fulfilled , then for any @xmath409 we have    1 . @xmath485 } ) - x_{j } ] =   { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{\tau^{r } } } ) - x ] $ ] for any sequence @xmath486 in @xmath487 converging to some @xmath488 2 . @xmath489 } ) - x ] =   \inf\limits_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{\tau^{r } } } ) - x ] . $ ]    let the mapping @xmath490 be defined by @xmath491.$ ] for every @xmath409 the mapping @xmath492 is convex and thus continuous . recalling that @xmath493 a direct application of lemma [ discretize ] , ( i ) , along with the dominated convergence theorem yields part ( i ) . using terminology from @xcite ( see also @xcite ) , statement ( i ) implies that the sequence @xmath494,\cdot))_{j\in{\mathbb{n}}}$ ] of continuous mappings @xmath495,\cdot)$ ] epi - converges to the continuous mapping @xmath496 moreover , in view of ( [ infcompactneu ] ) and ( [ infcompact ] ) , we may conclude @xmath497,x ) = \inf\limits_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}h({\tau^{r}},x),\ ] ] drawing on theorem 7.31 in @xcite ( see also satz b 2.18 in @xcite ) . the following result provides the remaining missing link to prove proposition [ derandomize2 ] . [ missinglink ] let ( [ annahmen young function ] ) be fulfilled . furthermore , let @xmath409 and let us for any @xmath473 denote by @xmath498 $ ] the set containing all nonrandomized stopping times from @xmath10 taking values in @xmath499 with probability @xmath500 if @xmath148 is atomless with countably generated @xmath136 for every @xmath501 and if @xmath502 for @xmath501 then @xmath503 } ) - x ]   \leq   \sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}[j]}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\end{aligned}\ ] ]    let @xmath504 if @xmath505 then the statement of lemma [ missinglink ] is obvious . so let us assume @xmath506 set @xmath475 and let the mapping @xmath507 be defined via @xmath508.$ ] we already know from lemma [ discretize ] that @xmath509}}(x ) = { \mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{1j}}^{x } k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\cdot,[0,t_{1j}])\right ]   + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{k_{j}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{kj}}^{x } k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\cdot,]t_{(k-1)j},t_{kj}])\right]\ ] ] holds for any @xmath363 here @xmath477-\infty , x]}\circ y_{t}$ ] for @xmath237.$ ] next @xmath510)&k = 1\\ k_{{\tau^{r}}}(\cdot,]t_{(k-1 ) j},t_{kj}])&k\in\{2, ... ,k_{j}\ } \ecswitch\ ] ] defines a random variable on @xmath511 which satisfies @xmath512 @xmath59a.s .. in addition , we may observe that @xmath513 holds @xmath59a.s .. since the probability spaces @xmath514 @xmath515 are assumed to be atomless and countably generated , we may draw on corollary [ dichtheit ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixc ] ) along with lemma [ banachalaoglu ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixc ] ) and proposition [ angelic ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixa ] ) to find a sequence @xmath516 in @xmath517{$\scriptstyle k=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle k_{j}$ } } \end{picture } } } { \mathcal f}_{t_{kj}}$ ] such that @xmath518 is a partition of @xmath519 for @xmath520 and @xmath521 = { \mathbb{e}}\left[z_{k}\cdot g\right]\ ] ] holds for @xmath522 and @xmath523 in particular we have by ( [ eins ] ) @xmath474}}(x ) = \lim\limits_{n\to\infty } \sum\limits_{k=1}^{k_{j}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{kj}}^{x }   { \mathbbm{1}}_{b_{kn}}\right]\ , \mbox{for}\ , x\in{\mathbb{r}}.\ ] ] so by fatou s lemma along with , @xmath524,x ) \leq \liminf\limits_{n\to\infty }   \int_{0}^{\infty}\phi^{*'}(x + z)\,\big ( 1 - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{k_{j}}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\widehat{y}_{t_{kj}}^{z }   { \mathbbm{1}}_{b_{kn}}\right]\big)\ , dz + \phi^{*}(x ) - x\ ] ] for @xmath363 here @xmath234 denotes the right - sided derivative of @xmath235 next we can define a sequence @xmath388 of nonrandomized stopping times from @xmath498 $ ] via @xmath525 the distribution function @xmath526 of @xmath527 satisfies @xmath528\ , \mbox{for}\ , x\in{\mathbb{r}}\ ] ] so that by ( [ rewrite ] ) @xmath529\big)\ , dz + \phi^{*}(x ) - x\ ] ] for @xmath363 the crucial point now is to show that    ( @xmath530 ) : :    @xmath531\big\}$ ]    is equicontinuous ,    where @xmath532 is the interval defined in . note that @xmath533 is a sequence in @xmath534 and that @xmath535\big\}$ ] is bounded for every @xmath363 thus , in view of ( [ convex ] ) the statement ( @xmath530 ) together with arzela - ascoli theorem implies that we can find a subsequence @xmath536 such that @xmath537 for some continuous mapping @xmath538 hence , we may conclude from ( [ drei ] ) and ( [ zwei ] ) @xmath539,x)\ , \mbox { for } \ , x\in i_{\beta}.\ ] ] for any @xmath540 we may find some @xmath541 such that @xmath542 which implies by ( [ vier ] ) together with ( [ infcompact ] ) : @xmath543,x ) - \varepsilon\\ & \geq &   \inf\limits_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}h({\tau^{r}}[j],x ) - \varepsilon\end{aligned}\ ] ] and is proved . therefore it remains to show the statement ( @xmath530 ) . [ [ proof - of - star ] ] proof of ( @xmath530 ) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    first , observe that for @xmath544 $ ] and real numbers @xmath545 the inequality @xmath546 holds . hence @xmath547 - { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau})\right ] +     & = &   \sum\limits_{k = 1}^{k_{j } } { \mathbb{e}}\big[{\mathbbm{1}}_{\{t_{kj}\}}\circ \tau\ ,   \underbrace{\big(\phi^{*}\big(y + y_{t_{kj}}\big ) -   \phi^{*}\big(x + y_{t_{kj}}\big)\big)}_{\geq 0}\big ] + |x - y| \nonumber\\ & \leq & \sum\limits_{k = 1}^{k_{j } } { \mathbb{e}}\big [   \phi^{*}\big(y + y_{t_{kj}}\big ) -   \phi^{*}\big(x + y_{t_{kj}}\big)\big ] + |x - y| \nonumber\\ & \leq &   \sum\limits_{k = 1}^{k_{j}}|h(t_{kj},x ) - h(t_{kj},y)| + ( k_{j } + 1)\ , |x - y|\end{aligned}\ ] ] by convexity , the mappings @xmath548 @xmath549 are also locally lipschitz continuous . thus , in view of ( [ fuenf ] ) , it is easy to verify that @xmath550 is equicontinuous at every @xmath551 this proves ( @xmath530 ) .    now , we are ready to prove proposition [ derandomize2 ] . by ( [ hilfsstoppproblem ] ) we have @xmath552 & \geq & \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\\ & = &   \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\sup_{{\mathrm{q}}\in{\mathcal q}_{\phi,0}}\left({\mathbb{e}}_{{\mathrm{q}}}[y_{\tau}]- { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{p}}}{d{\mathrm{q}}}\right)\right]\right ) \end{aligned}\ ] ] moreover , due to ( ii ) of corollary [ discretizedstop ] and lemma [ missinglink ] we conclude that for any @xmath385 @xmath553   & = &   \lim_{j\to\infty}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{\tau^{r}}[j ] } ) - x]\\   & \leq &   \sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\end{aligned}\ ] ] thus proposition [ derandomize2 ] is proved . @xmath431      first , we get from propositions [ minimax ] and [ derandomize2 ] @xmath554 & = &   \sup\limits_{\tau^{r}\in{\mathcal t}^{r}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y^{r}_{{{\tau^{r } } } } ) - x]\\ & = & \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] furthermore , @xmath554 & \geq &   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\\ & \geq &   \sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\end{aligned}\ ] ] thus @xmath555 =   \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x]\ ] ] which completes the proof of theorem [ new_representation ] . @xmath431      just simplifying notation , we assume that @xmath556 with @xmath557 being a positive integer . by we have @xmath558 = \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}\sup\limits_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x].\ ] ] so it is left to show that there exists a solution @xmath559 of the maximization problem and a solution @xmath439 of the minimization problem . indeed such a pair @xmath560 would be as required . in view of , we may find some compact interval @xmath561 of @xmath449 such that @xmath562 =   \sup_{\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{\mathbb{t}}}\inf_{x\in i}{\mathbb{e}}\left[\phi^{*}(x + y_{\tau } ) - x\right].\ ] ] let @xmath563 denote the space of continuous real - valued mappings on @xmath564 this space will be equipped with the sup - norm @xmath565 whereas the product @xmath566 is viewed to be endowed with the norm @xmath567 defined by @xmath568 the key in solving the maximization problem is to show that @xmath569 is a weakly compact subset of @xmath566 w.r.t . the norm @xmath570 here @xmath571 stands for the set of all @xmath572 satisfying @xmath573 for @xmath574 as well as @xmath575 for @xmath576 and @xmath577 furthermore , define @xmath578\quad\mbox{for}~t\in\{1,\dots , t\},~a_{t}\in{\mathcal f}_{t}.\ ] ] notice that any mapping @xmath579 is extendable to a real - valued convex function on @xmath449 , and therefore also continuous .    before proceeding , we need some further notation , namely @xmath580 denoting the set of all @xmath581 satisfying @xmath582 with @xmath583a.s . for @xmath584 and @xmath585a.s .. obviously , the subset @xmath586 consists of extreme points of @xmath587 any @xmath582 may be associated with the mapping @xmath588\quad(t \in\{1,\dots , t\}).\ ] ] it is extendable to a real - valued convex function on @xmath449 , and thus also continuous . hence , the mapping @xmath589{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}(\omega,{\mathcal f}_{t},{\mathrm{p}}|_{{\mathcal f}_{t}})\rightarrow { \mathcal c}(i)^{t},~ ( f_{1},\dots , f_{t})\mapsto ( h_{1,f_{1}},\dots , h_{t , f_{t}})\ ] ] is well - defined , and obviously linear . in addition it satisfies the following convenient continuity property . [ kompaktheitparti ] let @xmath517{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{t},l^{1}_{t})$ ] be the product topology of @xmath590 @xmath591 on @xmath517{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}(\omega,{\mathcal f}_{t},{\mathrm{p}}|_{{\mathcal f}_{t}}),$ ] where @xmath590 denotes the weak * topology on @xmath592    then , @xmath580 is compact w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{t},l^{1}_{t}),$ ] and the mapping @xmath593 is continuous w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{t},l^{1}_{t})$ ] and the weak topology induced by @xmath570 in particular the image @xmath594 of @xmath580 under @xmath593 is weakly compact w.r.t . @xmath570 the continuity of @xmath593 follows in nearly the same way as in the proof of proposition 3.1 from @xcite . moreover , @xmath580 is obviously closed w.r.t . the product topology @xmath517{$\scriptstyle t=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle t$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{t},l^{1}_{t}),$ ] and even compact due to banach - alaoglu theorem . then by continuity of @xmath595 the set @xmath594 is weakly compact w.r.t . @xmath570 this completes the proof . we need some further preparation to utilize lemma [ kompaktheitparti ] . [ thin ] let @xmath596 with @xmath201 and let @xmath186 if @xmath148 is atomless and if @xmath182\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath183 , then @xmath597\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath598    let @xmath265 with @xmath280 since @xmath148 is atomless , we may find disjoint @xmath599 contained in @xmath175 with @xmath600 then by assumption there exist nonzero @xmath601 such that @xmath602 vanishes outside @xmath603 as well as @xmath604~\right ] = 0 $ ] for @xmath191 and @xmath605    moreover , we may choose @xmath606 with @xmath607 for at least one @xmath608 and @xmath609 = 0.$ ] finally , @xmath610 and , setting @xmath611 @xmath612~\right]\\   & = &   \sum_{i=1}^{2}\lambda_{i}~{\mathbb{e}}\left[~f_{i}\cdot{\mathbb{e}}\left[{\mathbbm{1}}_{a}\cdot\phi^{*}(x + y_{s } ) ~|~{\mathcal f}_{t}\right]~\right ]   - x~{\mathbb{e}}\left[\left(\lambda_{1 } f_{1 } + \lambda_{2 } f_{2}\right)\cdot{\mathbbm{1}}_{a}\right ]   =   0\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath363 this completes the proof . the missing link in concluding the desired compactness of the set @xmath613 from is provided by the following auxiliary result . [ schlussel ] let @xmath148 be atomless for @xmath584 and furthermore let the subset @xmath182\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\right\}$ ] of @xmath183 be thin for arbitrary @xmath596 with @xmath185 and @xmath186    then for any @xmath614 there exist @xmath615 and mappings @xmath616 @xmath617 such that @xmath618 and @xmath619    let @xmath596 with @xmath185 and @xmath186 we may draw on lemma [ thin ] to observe that @xmath620\mid x\in{\mathbb{r}}\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath598 then the statement of lemma [ schlussel ] follows immediately from proposition [ kreinmilman ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixc ] ) applied to the sets @xmath621 ( @xmath622 ) , where @xmath623    under the assumptions of lemma [ schlussel ] , the set @xmath613 defined in coincides with @xmath624 which in turn is weakly compact w.r.t . @xmath625 due to lemma [ kompaktheitparti ] .    [ kompaktheitpartii ] under the assumptions of lemma [ schlussel ] , the set @xmath613 ( cf . ) is weakly compact w.r.t . @xmath570    now we are ready to select a solution of the maximization problem .    : + let the assumptions of proposition [ saddle - point ] be fulfilled . in view of it suffices to solve @xmath626\,\mbox{over}\,\tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}.\ ] ] let us assume that @xmath627 > \inf_{x\in i}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + y_{0 } ) - x]$ ] because otherwise @xmath628 would be optimal . since @xmath629 for @xmath630 by assumption , any stopping time @xmath631 is concentrated on @xmath632    by corollary [ kompaktheitpartii ] , the set @xmath613 ( cf . ) is weakly compact w.r.t . the norm @xmath570 furthermore , the concave mapping @xmath633 defined by @xmath634 is continuous w.r.t . @xmath570 this means that @xmath635 is convex as well as well as @xmath636continuous , and thus also weakly lower semicontinuous because @xmath636closed convex subsets are also weakly closed . hence @xmath637 is weakly upper semicontinuous , and therefore its restriction to @xmath613 attains a maximum . in particular , the set @xmath638\mid \tau\in{\mathcal t}_{{\mathbb{t}}}\setminus\{0\}\right\ } = l(k)\ ] ] has a maximum . this shows that we may find a solution of .@xmath431    : + by @xmath639 $ ] we may define a convex , and therefore also continuous mapping @xmath640 moreover by lemma [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] ( cf . appendix [ appendixaa ] ) , @xmath641 this means that @xmath642}l(x)$ ] for some @xmath437 hence @xmath643 attains its minimum at some @xmath644 $ ] because @xmath643 is continuous . any such @xmath439 is a solution of the problem . @xmath431 [ optimizedcertaintyequivalent ] let @xmath1 $ ] be a lower semicontinuous , convex mapping satisfying @xmath73 and @xmath645 furthermore , let @xmath646 denote the set of all probability measures @xmath3 on @xmath70 which are absolutely continuous w.r.t . @xmath4 such that the radon - nikodym derivative @xmath647 satisfies @xmath648 < \infty.$ ] then the following statements hold true .    1 .   if @xmath71 for some @xmath72 then the fenchel - legendre transform @xmath649 of @xmath133 is a nondecreasing , convex finite mapping . in particular its restriction @xmath650 to @xmath77 is a finite young - function , which in addition satisfies the condition @xmath651 if @xmath652 and @xmath653 in the case of @xmath654 2 . if @xmath655 for some @xmath656 then for any @xmath104 from @xmath657 we obtain @xmath658- { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{q}}}{d{\mathrm{p}}}\right)\right]\right ) = \inf_{x\in{\mathbb{r}}}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x + x ) - x],\ ] ] where the supremum on the left hand side of the equality is attained for some @xmath659    let @xmath660 for some @xmath661 obviously , @xmath140 is a nondecreasing convex function satisfying the properties @xmath662 next , we want to verify the finiteness of @xmath235 since @xmath140 is nondecreasing , and @xmath663 holds for any @xmath664 it suffices to show that @xmath665 for every @xmath666 for that purpose consider the mapping @xmath667 by assumption on @xmath668 we have @xmath669 hence for any @xmath670 we may find some @xmath671 such that we obtain @xmath672 moreover , @xmath673 is upper semicontinuous for @xmath666 hence , for every @xmath670 there is some @xmath674 $ ] with @xmath675    as a finite convex function @xmath140 is continuous . since it is also nondecreasing , we may conclude from that its restriction to @xmath77 is a finite young function . let us now assume that @xmath676 then @xmath677 analogously , @xmath678 may be derived in the case of @xmath654 thus we have proved the full statement ( i ) . let us turn over to the proof of statement ( ii ) , and let us consider the mapping @xmath679\ ] ] then , due to convexity of @xmath680 we may apply jensen s inequality along with statement ( i ) to conclude @xmath681\geq   \lim_{x\to - \infty}([\phi^{*}(x - { \mathbb{e}}[x])]-x ) = \infty\quad\mbox{for}\ , x\in h^{\phi^{*}},\ ] ] and @xmath682\geq   \lim_{x\to \infty}[\phi^{*}(x - { \mathbb{e}}[x ] ) - x ] = \infty\quad\mbox{for}\ , x\in h^{\phi^{*}}.\ ] ] thus , for any @xmath82 we find some @xmath683 such that @xmath684}{\mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x - x ) - x].\ ] ] in addition , for @xmath82 the mapping @xmath685 $ ] is a convex mapping on @xmath365 hence its restriction to @xmath686 $ ] is continuous . this implies that @xmath687 is a real - valued function . moreover , it is easy to check that @xmath687 is a so called convex risk measure , defined to mean that it satisfies the following properties . * monotonicity : @xmath688 for all @xmath689 with @xmath690 , * cash - invariance : @xmath691 for all @xmath87 and @xmath692 , * convexity : @xmath693 for all @xmath694 @xmath695.$ ]    then we obtain from theorem 4.3 in @xcite that @xmath696- \rho^{*}({\mathrm{q}})\right)\ ] ] holds for all @xmath82 where @xmath697 - \rho(x)\right).\ ] ] by routine procedures we may verify @xmath698 - { \mathbb{e}}[\phi^{*}(x)]\right)\ ] ] for @xmath659 since @xmath699 = \lim_{x\to \infty}[\phi^{*}(x ) - x ] = \infty$ ] due to statement ( i ) , we may conclude from ( * ? ? ? * ( 5.23 ) ) @xmath700 - { \mathbb{e}}[\rho^{*}(x)]\right ) =   { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{q}}}{d{\mathrm{p}}}\right)\right]\quad\mbox{for all}\ , { \mathrm{q}}\in{\mathcal q}_{\phi,0}.\ ] ] this completes the proof . let @xmath701 be a filtered probability space , and let the product space @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] be endowed with the product topology @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})$ ] of the weak * topologies @xmath702 on @xmath703 ( for @xmath704 ) . [ angelic ] let @xmath705 be separable w.r.t . the weak topology @xmath706 for @xmath707 and let @xmath708{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] be relatively compact w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i}).$ ]    then for any @xmath104 from the @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})-$]closure of @xmath709 we may find a sequence @xmath710 in @xmath711 which converges to @xmath104 w.r.t . the @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i}).$ ]    setting @xmath712{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}}),$ ] we shall denote by @xmath713 the topological dual of @xmath714 w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i}).$ ] it is easy to check that @xmath715,\ ] ] where @xmath716 and @xmath717 ( for @xmath704 ) defines a linear operator from @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{1}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] onto @xmath713 which is continuous w.r.t . the product topology @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{1}_{i},l^{\infty}_{i})$ ] of the weak topologies @xmath718 and the weak topology @xmath719    since @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{1}_{i},l^{\infty}_{i})$ ] is separable by assumption , we may conclude that @xmath720 is separable too . then the statement of the proposition [ angelic ] follows immediately from @xcite , p.30 . let for @xmath721 denote by @xmath722 a filtered probability space , and let the set @xmath723 gather all sets @xmath724 from @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } { \overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}$ ] satisfying @xmath725 for @xmath726 and @xmath727 we shall endow respectively the product spaces @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] with the product topologies @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})$ ] of the weak * topologies @xmath702 on @xmath703 ( for @xmath728 and @xmath729 ) . fixing @xmath728 and nonnegative @xmath730 the subset @xmath731{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] is defined to consist of all @xmath732{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] such that @xmath733 @xmath734a.s . for any @xmath735 and @xmath736 @xmath734a.s .. for abbreviation we shall use notation @xmath737    [ banachalaoglu ] @xmath738 is a compact subset of @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] w.r.t . the topology @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})$ ] for @xmath728 and arbitrary nonnegative @xmath739    the statement of lemma [ banachalaoglu ] is obvious in view of the banach - alaoglu theorem . [ kreinmilmanallgemein ] let @xmath740 be nonvoid for @xmath741 such that @xmath742\mid f\in m_{j}\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath705 for @xmath743 with @xmath744 and any @xmath745 furthermore , let us fix @xmath746 and consider the set @xmath747 consisting of all @xmath748 from @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] satisfying @xmath749 = { \mathbb{e}}\left[f_{i}\cdot \varphi_{i}\right]$ ] for any @xmath750 @xmath751 then the set @xmath752 has extreme points , and for each extreme point @xmath753 there exists some @xmath754 such that @xmath755 @xmath734 a.s . holds for @xmath756    we shall use ideas from the proof of proposition 6 in @xcite .    first , let us , for any @xmath728 , denote by @xmath757 the set of all @xmath758 from @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } l^{\infty}({\overline{\omega}},{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i},{\overline{{\mathrm{p}}}}|_{{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}})$ ] satisfying @xmath749 = { \mathbb{e}}\left[f_{i}\cdot \varphi_{i}\right]$ ] for @xmath759 and @xmath760 it is closed w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i}).$ ] hence by lemma [ banachalaoglu ] , the set @xmath761 is compact w.r.t . @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i = k$ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})$ ] for every nonnegative @xmath739 since it is also convex , we may use the krein - milman theorem to conclude that each set @xmath762 has some extreme point if it is nonvoid . notice that @xmath763 contains at least @xmath764 so that it has some extreme point . we shall now show by backward induction that for any @xmath728 and any nonnegative @xmath765 with nonvoid @xmath762    * each of its extreme points @xmath766 satisfies @xmath767 @xmath734a.s . ( @xmath729 ) for some @xmath754 with @xmath768 if @xmath769    obviously , this would imply the statement of proposition [ kreinmilmanallgemein ] . for @xmath770 the set @xmath771 is nonvoid iff @xmath772 = { \mathbb{e}}\left[f_{m}\cdot\varphi_{m}\right]$ ] holds for every @xmath773 in this case , @xmath443 is the only extreme point , which has trivial representation @xmath774 corresponding to @xmath775    now let us assume that for some @xmath776 and every nonvoid @xmath762 statement @xmath777 is satisfied . let @xmath778 be nonnegative with @xmath779 and select any extreme point @xmath780 of @xmath781 then @xmath782 belongs to @xmath783 and is nonnegative . moreover , @xmath784 and it is easy to check that @xmath785 is even an extreme point of @xmath786 hence by assumption , there exists some @xmath754 satisfying @xmath768 if @xmath787 and @xmath788 @xmath734a.s . for @xmath789    setting @xmath790 we want to show @xmath791 this will be done by contradiction assuming @xmath792 then @xmath793 for some @xmath540 where @xmath794    we may observe by assumption that @xmath795\mid \varphi_{i } \in m_{i}\}$ ] ( with @xmath729 ) as well as @xmath796 are all thin subsets of @xmath797 since finite unions of thin subsets are thin subsets again ( cf . * proposition 2.1 ) ) , we may find some nonzero @xmath798 vanishing outside @xmath799 and satisfying @xmath800 = 0 $ ] for @xmath801 as well as @xmath802 =   { \mathbb{e}}\left[g\cdot{\mathbb{e}}\left[{\mathbbm{1}}_{a_{i}}\cdot\varphi_{i}~|~{\overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{k-1}\right]\right ]   =   0 \quad ( \varphi_{i}\in m_{i},~i\in\{k,\dots , m\}).\ ] ] according to theorem 2.4 in @xcite , we may choose @xmath803 such that @xmath804 holds . now , define @xmath805 and @xmath806 by @xmath807 since @xmath725 for @xmath726 and @xmath808 we obtain @xmath809 @xmath734a.s .. so by construction , @xmath810 differ , and belong both to @xmath781 moreover , @xmath811 for @xmath812 this contradicts the fact that @xmath780 is an extreme point of @xmath781 therefore , @xmath791    now define @xmath813{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } { \overline{{\mathcal f}}}_{i}$ ] by @xmath814 obviously , @xmath815 for @xmath726 follows from @xmath725 for @xmath816 moreover , @xmath817 in particular @xmath818 finally , it may be verified easily that @xmath819 @xmath734a.s . holds for @xmath820 hence @xmath821 fulfills statement @xmath777 completing the proof . [ kreinmilman ] let @xmath740 be nonvoid for @xmath741 such that @xmath742\mid f\in m_{j}\}$ ] is a thin subset of @xmath705 for @xmath743 with @xmath744 and any @xmath745    then for any @xmath822 there exist @xmath754 and @xmath823 @xmath824 such that @xmath825 = 0\quad\mbox{for}~\varphi_{i}\in m_{i}~\mbox{with}~i = 1,\dots , m,\ ] ] and @xmath826    let us fix any @xmath827 and let @xmath747 denote the set consisting of all @xmath828 where @xmath829 such that @xmath749 = { \mathbb{e}}\left[f_{i}\cdot \varphi_{i}\right]$ ] for @xmath830 by proposition [ kreinmilmanallgemein ] , we may select an extreme point @xmath748 of @xmath752 and some @xmath754 such that @xmath831 @xmath734a.s . holds for @xmath751 then @xmath832 and @xmath724 are as required . [ dichtheit ] if @xmath833 is atomless for every @xmath707 then @xmath834 is the @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})-$]closure of @xmath835    let @xmath746 be arbitrary . consider the subsets @xmath836 < \varepsilon~\mbox{for}~f\in m_{i}\},\ ] ] where @xmath540 and @xmath837 any nonvoid , finite subset of @xmath838 the sets @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } u_{i\varepsilon}(m_{i})$ ] constitute a basis of the @xmath517{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } \sigma(l^{\infty}_{i},l^{1}_{i})-$]neighbourhoods of @xmath839 so let us select any @xmath840 and nonvoid finite subsets @xmath837 of @xmath705 for @xmath751    let @xmath743 with @xmath841 and @xmath745 then the set consisting of all @xmath842 $ ] with @xmath843 is a nonvoid finite subset of @xmath844 in particular it is thin because @xmath833 is assumed to be atomless ( cf . * lemma 2 ) ) . hence we may apply proposition [ kreinmilman ] to select some @xmath754 satisfying @xmath845 = 0 $ ] for @xmath846 and @xmath847 this means @xmath848{$\scriptstyle i=1 $ } } \put(5.00,18.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\scriptstyle m$ } } \end{picture } } } u_{i\varepsilon}(m_{i}),\ ] ] and completes the proof . the authors would like to thank alexander schied and mikhail urusov for fruitful discussions and helpful remarks .    0 anantharaman , r. ( 2012 ) . _ thin subspaces of @xmath849_. quaestiones mathematicae * 35 * , 133  143 . andersen , l. and broadie , m. ( 2004 ) . _ a primal - dual simulation algorithm for pricing multidimensional american options . _ management sciences , * 50*(9 ) , 1222 - 1234 . ankirchner , s. and strack , p. ( 2011 ) . _ skorokhod embeddings in bounded time . _ stochastics and dynamics * 11 * , 215226 . baxter , j. r. and r. v. chacon ( 1977 ) . _ compactness of stopping times . _ z. wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw . gebiete * 40 * , 169  181 . bayraktar , e. , karatzas , i. and yao , s. ( 2010 ) . _ optimal stopping for dynamic convex risk measures . _ illinois j. math . * 54 * , 1025  1067 . bayraktar , e. and yao , s. ( 2011 ) . _ optimal stopping for non - linear expectations . _ stochastic process . appl . * 121 * , 185  211 . bayraktar , e. and yao , s. ( 2011 ) . _ optimal stopping for non - linear expectations . _ stochastic process . * 121 * , 212  264 . belomestny , d. ( 2013 ) . _ solving optimal stopping problems by empirical dual optimization . _ annals of applied probability , * 23*(5 ) , 19882019 . ben - tal , a. and teboulle , m. ( 1987 ) . _ penalty functions and duality in stochastic programming via @xmath850divergence functionals research * 12 * , 224  240 . ben - tal , a. and teboulle , m. ( 2007 ) . _ an old - new concept of convex risk measures : the optimized certainty equivalent finance * 17 * , 449  476 . biagini , s. and frittelli , m. ( 2008 ) . _ a unified framework for utility maximization problems : an orlicz space approach . _ annals of applied probability * 18 * , 929  966 . borwein , j. m. and zhuang , d. ( 1986 ) . _ on fan s minimax theorem . _ mathematical programming * 34 * , 232 - 234 . cheng , x. and riedel , f. ( 2013 ) . _ optimal stopping under ambiguity in continuous time . _ math . * 7 * , 29  68 . cheridito , p. and li , t. ( 2009 ) . _ risk measures on orlicz hearts . _ mathematical finance * 19 * , 189214 . edgar , g. a. , millet , a. and sucheston , l. ( 1981 ) . on compactness and optimality of stopping times , _ lnm 939 _ , springer , 36 - 61 . edgar , g.a . and sucheston , l. ( 1992 ) . _ stopping times and directed processes_. cambridge university press , cambridge . edwards , d. a. ( 1987 ) . _ on a theorem of dvoretsky , wald , and wolfowitz concerning liapunov measures_. glasgow math . j. * 29 * , 205  220 . fan , k. ( 1953 ) . _ minimax theorems_. proc . u. s. a. * 39 * , 42 - 47 . floret , k. ( 1978 ) . weakly compact sets , _ lnm 801 _ , springer . fllmer , h. and a. schied ( 2010 ) . _ stochastic finance_. de gruyter , berlin , new york ( 3rd . ed . ) . fllmer , h. and i. penner ( 2006 ) . _ convex risk measures and the dynamics of their penalty functions _ , statistics decisions * 24 * , 6196 . haugh , m. b. and kogan , l. ( 2004 ) . _ pricing american options : a duality approach_. oper . 52 * , 258  270 . kaina , m. and rschendorf , l. ( 2009 ) . _ on convex risk measures on @xmath53spaces_. math . methods oper . 69 * , 475  495 . kingman , j. f. c. and robertson , a. p. ( 1968 ) . _ on a theorem of lyapunov_. j. london math . soc . * 43 * , 347  351 . krtschmer , v. and schoenmakers , j. ( 2010 ) . _ representations for optimal stopping under dynamic monetary utility functionals_. siam j. financial math . * 1 * , 811832 . khn , z. and rsler , u. ( 1998 ) . _ a generalization of lyapunov s convexity theorem with applications in optimals stopping_. proceedings of the american mathematical society * 126 * , 769  777 . kupper , m. and schachermayer , w. ( 2009 ) . _ representation results for law invariant time consistent functions_. math . econ * 2 * , 189  210 . peng , s. ( 1997 ) . backward sde and related g - expectations , in : el karoui , n. and mazliak , l. ( eds . ) , backward stochastic differential equations , pitman res . notes math . 364 , longman , harlow , 1997 , pp . 141 - 159 . riedel , f. ( 2009 ) . _ optimal stopping with multiple priors_. econometrica , * 77*(3 ) , 857 - 908 . rockafellar , r.t . and wets , j - b . ( 1998 ) . _ variational analysis _ , springer , berlin / heidelberg . rogers , l. c. g. ( 2002 ) . _ monte carlo valuation of american options_. mathematical finance * 12 * , 271  286 . witting , h. and mller - funk , u. ( 1995 ) . _ mathematische statistik ii , _ teubner , stuttgart . xu , z. q. and zhou , x. y. ( 2013 ) . _ optimal stopping under probability distortion_. annals of applied probability * 23 * , 251  282 .
Abstract:

Answer: in this work we consider optimal stopping problems with conditional convex risk measures of the form @xmath0- { \mathbb{e}}\left[\phi\left(\frac{d{\mathrm{q}}}{d{\mathrm{p}}}\right)\big|{\mathcal f}_{t}\right]\right ) , \ ] ] where @xmath1 $ ] is a lower semicontinuous convex mapping and @xmath2 stands for the set of all probability measures @xmath3 which are absolutely continuous w.r.t . a given measure @xmath4 and @xmath5 on @xmath6 here the _ model uncertainty risk _ depends on a ( random ) divergence @xmath7 $ ] measuring the distance between a hypothetical probability measure we are uncertain about and a reference one at time @xmath8 let @xmath9}$ ] be an adapted nonnegative , right - continuous stochastic process fulfilling some proper integrability condition and let @xmath10 be the set of stopping times on @xmath11 $ ] , then without assuming any kind of time - consistency for the family @xmath12 we derive a novel representation @xmath13\right\},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which makes the application of the standard dynamic programming based approaches possible . in particular , we generalize the additive dual representation of rogers , @xcite to the case of optimal stopping under uncertainty . finally , we develop several monte carlo algorithms and illustrate their power for optimal stopping under average value at risk .