QUANTIFYING DISTRIBUTIONAL MODEL RISK VIA OPTIMAL
TRANSPORT

Jose Blanchet

Karthyek Murthy

arXiv:1604.01446v2 [math.PR] 1 Jul 2017

Columbia University
Abstract. This paper deals with the problem of quantifying the impact of model misspecification
when computing general expected values of interest. The methodology that we propose is applicable in great generality, in particular, we provide examples involving path-dependent expectations
of stochastic processes. Our approach consists in computing bounds for the expectation of interest
regardless of the probability measure used, as long as the measure lies within a prescribed tolerance
measured in terms of a flexible class of distances from a suitable baseline model. These distances,
based on optimal transportation between probability measures, include Wasserstein’s distances as
particular cases. The proposed methodology is well-suited for risk analysis, as we demonstrate with
a number of applications. We also discuss how to estimate the tolerance region non-parametrically
using Skorokhod-type embeddings in some of these applications.
Keywords. Model risk, distributional robustness, transport metric, Wasserstein distances, duality, Kullback-Liebler divergences, ruin probabilities, diffusion approximations.
MSC 60G07, 60F99, and 62P05.

1. Introduction.
One of the most ubiquitous applications of probability
is the evaluation of performance or risk by
R
means of computations such as Ef (X) = f dP for a given probability measure P , a function
f , and a random element X. In classical applications, such as in finance, insurance, or queueing
analysis, X is a stochastic process and f is a path dependent functional.
The work of the modeler is to choose a probability model P which is both descriptive and, yet,
tractable. However, a substantial challenge, which arises virtually always, is that the model used,
P , will in general be subject to misspecification; either because of lack of data or by the choice of
specific parametric distributions.
The goal of this paper is to develop a framework to assess the impact of model misspecification
when computing Ef (X).
The importance of constructing systematic methods that provide performance estimates which
are robust to model misspecification is emphasized in the academic response to the Basel Accord
3.5, Embrechts et al. (2014): In its broadest sense, robustness has to do with (in)sensitivity to
underlying model deviations and/or data changes. Furthermore, here, a whole new field of research
is opening up; at the moment, it is difficult to point to the right approach.
The results of this paper allow the modeler to provide a bound for the expectation of interest
regardless of the probability measure used as long as such measure remains within a prescribed
tolerance of a suitable baseline model.
The bounds that we obtain are applicable in great generality, allowing us to use our results in
settings which include continuous-time stochastic processes and path dependent expectations in
various domains of applications, including insurance and queueing.
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from Norges Bank Investment Management and NSF grant CMMI
1436700.
1

2

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Let us describe the approach that we consider more precisely. Our starting point is a technique
that has been actively pursued in the literature (to be reviewed momentarily), which involves
considering a family of plausible models P, and computing distributionally robust bounds as the
solution to the optimization problem
(1)

sup
P ∈P

Z

f dP,

over all probability measures in P. The motivation, as mentioned earlier, is to measure the highest
possible risk regardless of the probability measure in P used. A canonical object that appears
naturally in specifying the family P is the neighborhood {P : d(µ, P ) ≤ δ}, where µ is a chosen
baseline model and δ is a non-negative tolerance level. Here, d is a metric that measures discrepancy
between probability measures, and the tolerance δ interpolates between no ambiguity (δ = 0) and
high levels of model uncertainty (δ large). The family of plausible models, P, can then be specified
as a single neighborhood (or) a collection of such plausible neighborhoods. In this paper, we choose
d in terms of a transport cost (defined precisely in Section 2), and analyze the solvability of (1)
and discuss various implications.
Being a flexible class of distances that include the popular Wasserstein distances as a special
case, transport costs allow easy interpretation in terms of minimum cost associated with transporting mass between probability measures, and have been widely used in probability theory and
its applications (see, for example, Rachev and Rüschendorf (1998a,b); Villani (2008); Ambrosio
and Caffarelli (2003) for a massive collection of classical applications and Barbour and Xia (2006);
Gozlan and Leonard (2016); Nguyen (2013); Wang and Guibas (2012); Fournier and Guillin (2014);
Canas and Rosasco (2012); Solomon et al. (2014); Frogner et al. (2015) for a sample of growing
list of new applications).
Relative entropy (or) Kullback-Liebler (KL) divergence, despite not being a proper metric,
has been the most popular choice for d, thanks to the tractability of (1) when d is chosen as
relative entropy or other likelihood based discrepancy measures (see Breuer and Csiszár (2013);
Lam (2013); Glasserman and Xu (2014); Atar et al. (2015) for the use in robust performance
analysis, and Hansen and Sargent (2001); Iyengar (2005); Nilim and El Ghaoui (2005); Lim and
Shanthikumar (2007); Jain et al. (2010); Ben-Tal et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2015); Jiang and Guan
(2015); Hu and Hong (2012); Bayraksan and Love (2015) and references therein for applications to
distributionally robust optimization). Our study in this paper is directly motivated to address the
shortcoming that many of these earlier works acknowledge: the absolute continuity requirement of
relative entropy; there can be two probability measures µ and ν that produce the same samples with
high probability, despite having the relative entropy between µ and ν as infinite. Such absolute
continuity requirements could be very limiting, particularly so when the models of interest are
stochastic processes defined over time. For instance, Brownian motion, because of its tractability in
computing path-dependent expectations, is used as approximation of piecewise linear or piecewise
constant processes (such as random walk). However, the use of the relative entropy would not be
appropriate to accommodate these settings because the likelihood ratio between Brownian motion
and any piecewise differentiable process is not well defined.
Another instance which shows the limitations of the KL divergence arises when using an Itô
diffusion as a baseline model. In such case, the region P contains only Itô diffusions with the same
volatility parameter as the underlying baseline model, thus failing to model volatility uncertainty.
The use of a distance d based on an optimal transport cost (or) Wasserstein’s distance, as we
do here, also allows to incorporate the use of tractable surrogate models such as Brownian motion.
For instance, consider a classical insurance risk problem in which the modeler has sufficient information on claim sizes (for example, in car insurance) to build a non-parametric reserve model.
But the modeler is interested in path-dependent calculations of the reserve process (such as ruin
probabilities), so she might decide to use Brownian motion based approximation as a tractable

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

3

surrogate model which allows to compute Ef (X) easily. A key feature of the Wasserstein’s distances, is that it is computed in terms of a so-called optimal coupling. So, the modeler can use
any good coupling to provide a valid bound for the tolerance parameter δ.
The use of tractable surrogate models, such as Brownian motion, diffusions, and reflected Brownian motion, etc., has enabled the analysis of otherwise intractable complex stochastic systems.
As we shall illustrate, the bounds that we obtain have the benefit of being computable directly in
terms of the underlying tractable surrogate model. In addition, the calibration of the tolerance
parameter takes advantage of well studied coupling techniques (such as Skorokhod embedding).
So, we believe that the approach we propose naturally builds on the knowledge that has been
developed by the applied probability community.
We summarize our main contributions in this paper below:
a) Assuming that X takes values in a Polish space, and using a wide range of optimal transport costs (that include the popular Wasserstein’s distances as special cases) we arrive at a dual
formulation for the optimization problem in (1), and prove strong duality – see Theorem 1.
b) Despite the infinite dimensional nature of the optimization problem in (1), we show that the
dual problem admits a one dimensional reformulation which is easy to work with. We provide
sufficient conditions for the existence of an optimizer P ∗ that attains the supremum in (1) – see
Section 5. Using the result in a), for upper semicontinuous f , we show how to characterize an
optimizer P ∗ in terms of a coupling involving µ and the chosen transport cost – see Remark 2 and
Section 2.4.
c) We apply our results to various problems such as robust evaluation of ruin probabilities using
Brownian motion as a tractable surrogate (see Section 3), general multidimensional first-passage
time probabilities (see Section 6.1), and optimal decision making in the presence of model ambiguity
(see Section 6.2).
d) We discuss a non-parametric method, based on a Skorokhod-type embedding, which allows
to choose δ (these are particularly useful in tractable surrogate settings discussed earlier). The
specific discussion of the Skorokhod embedding for calibration is given in Appendix A. We also
discuss how δ can be chosen in a model misspecification context, see the discussion at the end of
Section 6.1.
In a recent paper, Esfahani and Kuhn (2015), the authors also consider distributionally robust
optimization using a very specific Wasserstein’s distance. Similar formulations using Wasserstein
distance based ambiguity sets have been considered in Pflug and Wozabal (2007); Wozabal (2012)
and Zhao and Guan (2015) as well. The form of the optimization problem that we consider here
is basically the same as that considered in Esfahani and Kuhn (2015), but there are important
differences that are worth highlighting. In Esfahani and Kuhn (2015), the authors concentrate
on the specific case of baseline measure being empirical distribution of samples obtained from a
distribution supported in Rd , and the function f possessing a special structure. In contrast, we
allow the baseline measure µ to be supported on general Polish spaces and study a wide class of
functions f (upper semicontinuous and integrable with respect to µ). The use of the Skorokhod
embeddings that we consider here, for calibration of the feasible region, is also novel and not
studied in the present literature.
Another recent paper, Gao and Kleywegt (2016), (which is an independent contribution made
public a few days after we posted the first version of this paper in arXiv), presents a very similar
version of the strong duality result shown in this paper. One difference that is immediately apparent
is that the authors in Gao and Kleywegt (2016) concentrate on the case in which a specific cost
function c(·, ·) used to define transport cost is of the form c(x, y) = d(x, y)p , for some p ≥ 1 and
metric d(·, ·), whereas we only impose that c(·, ·) is lower semicontinuous. Allowing for general
lower semicontinuous cost functions that are different from d(x, y)p is useful, as demonstrated in
applications towards distributionally robust optimization and machine learning in Blanchet et al.

4

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

(2016). Another important difference is that, as far as we understand, the proof given in Gao and
Kleywegt (2016) appears to implicitly assume that the space S in which the random element of
interest X takes values is locally compact. For example, the proof of Lemma 2 in Gao and Kleywegt
(2016) and other portions of the technical development appear to use repeatedly that a closed norm
ball is compact. However, this does not hold in any infinite dimensional topological vector space1,
thus excluding important function spaces like C[0, T ] and D[0, T ] (denoting respectively the space
of continuous and càdlàg functions on interval [0, T ]), that are at the center of our applications.
As mentioned earlier, our focus in this paper is on stochastic process applications, whereas the
authors in Gao and Kleywegt (2016) put special emphasis on stochastic optimization in Rd .
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we shall introduce the assumptions and
discuss our main result, whose proof is given in Section 4. The proof is technical due to the level
of generality that is considered. More precisely, it is the fact that the cost functions used to define
optimal transport costs need not be continuous, and the random elements that we consider need not
take values in a locally compact space (like Rd ) which introduces technical complications, including
issues like measurability of a key functional appearing in the dual formulation. In preparation to
the proof, and to help the reader gain some intuition of the result, we present a one dimensional
example first, in Section 3. Then, after providing the proof of our main result in Section 4 and
conditions for existence of the worst-case probability distribution that attains the supremum in (1)
in Section 5, we discuss additional examples in Section 6.

2. Our Main Result.
In order to state our main result, we need to introduce some notation and define the optimal
transport cost between probability measures.
2.1. Notation and Definitions. For a given Polish space S, we use B(S) to denote the associated
Borel σ-algebra. Let us write P (S) and M (S), respectively, to denote the set of all probability measures and finite signed measures on (S, B(S)). For any µ ∈ P (S), let Bµ (S) denote the completion
of B(S) with respect to µ; the uniqueR extension of µ to Bµ (S) that is a probability measure is also
denoted by µ, and the measure µ in φdµ is to be interpreted as this extension defined on Bµ (S)
whenever φ : (S, B(S)) → (R, B(R)) is not measurable, but instead, φ : (S, Bµ (S)) → (R, B(R)) is
measurable. We shall use Cb (S) to denote the space of bounded continuous functions from S to R,
and Spt(µ) to denote the support of a probability measure µ. For any µ R∈ P (S) and p ≥ 1, Lp (dµ)
denotes the collection of Borel measurable functions h : S → R such that |h|p dµ < ∞. The universal σ−algebra is defined by U(S) = ∩µ∈P (S) Bµ (S). We use R = R∪{−∞, ∞} to denote the extended
real line, and mU (S; R) to denote the collection of measurable functions φ : (S, U(S)) → (R, B(R)).
As U(S) ⊆ Bµ (S) for every µ ∈ P (S), any φ ∈ mU (S; R) is also measurable when S and
R R are
equipped, respectively, with the σ-algebras Bµ (S) and B(R). Consequently, the integral φdµ is
well-defined for any non-negative φ ∈ mU (S; R). In addition, for any µ ∈ P (S), we say that µ is
concentrated on a set A ∈ Bµ (S) if µ(A) = 1.
Optimal transport cost. For any two probability measures µ1 and µ2 in P (S), let Π(µ1 , µ2 ) denote
the set of all joint distributions with µ1 and µ2 as respective marginals. In other words, the
set Π(µ1 , µ2 ) represents the set of all couplings (also called transport plans) between µ1 and µ2 .
Throughout the paper, we assume that
Assumption 1 (A1). c : S × S → R+ is a nonnegative lower semicontinuous function satisfying
c(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y.
1see, for example, Example 3.100 and Theorem 5.26 in Aliprantis and Border (1999)

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

5

Then the optimal transport cost associated with the cost function c is defined as,
Z

dc (µ1 , µ2 ) := inf
(2)
cdπ : π ∈ Π(µ1 , µ2 ) , µ1 , µ2 ∈ P (S).
Intuitively, the quantity c(x, y) specifies the cost of transporting unit mass from x in S to another
element y ofRS. Given a lower semicontinuous cost function c(x, y) and a coupling π ∈ Π(µ1 , µ2 ),
the integral cdπ represents the expected cost associated with the coupling (or transport plan) π.
For any non-negative lower semi-continuous cost function c, it is known that the ‘optimal transport
plan’ that attains the infimum in the above definition exists (see Theorem 4.1 of Villani (2008)),
and therefore, the optimal transport cost dc (µ1 , µ2 ) corresponds to the lowest transport cost that
is attainable among all couplings between µ1 and µ2 .
If the cost function c is symmetric (that is, c(y, x) = c(x, y) for all x, y), and it satisfies triangle
inequality, one can show that the minimum transportation cost dc (·, ·) defines a metric on the
space of probability measures. For example, if S is a Polish space equipped with metric d, then
taking the cost function to be c(x, y) = d(x, y), renders the transport cost dc (µ, ν) to be simply
the Wasserstein distance of first order between µ and ν. Unlike the Kullback-Liebler divergence
(or) other likelihood based divergence measures, the Wasserstein distance is a proper metric on
the space of probability measures. More importantly, Wasserstein distances do not restrict all the
probability measures in the neighborhoods such as {ν ∈ P (S) : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ} to share the same
support as that of µ (see, for example, Chapter 6 in Villani (2008) for properties of Wasserstein
distances).
2.2. Primal Problem. Underlying our discussion we have a Polish space S, which is the space
where the random elements of the given probability model µ ∈ P (S) takes values. Given δ > 0,
the objective, as mentioned in the Introduction, is to evaluate
Z

sup
f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ ,
for any function f that satisfies the assumption that
Assumption 2 (A2). f ∈ L1 (dµ) is upper semicontinuous.

R
As the integral f dν may equal ∞ − ∞ for some ν satisfying dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ, only for the purposes
of interpreting the supremum above, we let sup{∞, ∞ − ∞} = ∞2. The value of this optimization
problem provides a bound to the expectation of f, regardless of the probability measure used, as
long as the measure lies within δ distance (measured in terms of dc ) from the baseline probability
measure µ. In applied settings, µ is the probability measure chosen by the modeler as the baseline
distribution, and the function f corresponds to a risk functional (or) performance measure of
interest, for example, expected losses, probability of ruin, etc.
As the infimum in the definition of the optimal transport cost dc is attained for any given nonnegative lower semicontinuous cost function c (see Theorem 4.1 of Villani (2008)), we rewrite the
quantity of interest as below:

Z

Z
Z
[
I := sup
f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ = sup
f (y)dπ(x, y) : π ∈
Π(µ, ν),
cdπ ≤ δ ,
ν∈P (S)

2This is because, under the assumption that f ∈ L1 (dµ), for every probability measure ν such that d (µ, ν) ≤ δ
R −
R + 0
R c+
0
0

f dν, and
and
R − f0 dν = R∞, −one can identify a probability measure ν satisfying dc (µ, ν ) ≤ δ, f dν ≥0
f dν < ∞ = f dν; see Corollary 3 in Appendix RB for a simple construction of such a measure ν from measure
ν. Consequently, whenR computing the supremum of R
f dν, it is meaningful to restrict
R our attention to probability
R
measures ν satisfying f − dν < ∞, and interpret sup
f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ as sup{ f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ, f − dν <
∞}. The notation, sup{∞, ∞ − ∞} = ∞, simply facilitates this interpretation in this context.

6

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

which, in turn, is an optimization problem with linear objective function and linear constraints. If
we let


Z
Z
[
Π(µ, ν) : cdπ ≤ δ
I(π) := f (y)dπ(x, y) and Φµ,δ := π ∈
ν∈P (S)

for brevity, then

I = sup {I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }

(3)
is the quantity of interest.

2.2.1. The Dual Problem and Weak Duality. Define Λc,f to be the collection of all pairs (λ, φ) such
that λ is a non-negative real number, φ ∈ mU (S; R) and
φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y), for all x, y.

(4)

For every such (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f consider

J(λ, φ) := λδ +

Z

φdµ.

R
As f dµ is finite and φ ≥ f whenever φ satisfies (4), the integral in the definition of J(λ, φ) avoids
ambiguities such as ∞ − ∞ for any (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f . Next, for any π ∈ Φµ,δ and (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f , see that
Z
J(λ, φ) = λδ + φ(x)dπ(x, y)
Z

≥ λδ +
f (y) − λc(x, y) dπ(x, y)


Z
Z
= f (y)dπ(x, y) + λ δ − c(x, y)dπ(x, y)
Z
≥ f (y)dπ(x, y)
= I(π).

Consequently, we have


J := inf J(λ, φ) : (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f ≥ I.

(5)

Following the tradition in optimization theory, we refer to the above infimum problem that solves
for J in (5) as the dual to the problem that solves for I in (3), which we address as the primal
problem. Our objective in the next section is to identify whether the primal and the dual problems
have same value (that is, do we have that I = J?).
2.3. Main Result: Strong Duality Holds. Recall that the feasible sets for the primal and dual
problems, respectively, are:


Z
[
(6a)
Φµ,δ := π ∈
Π(µ, ν) :
cdπ ≤ δ and
ν∈P (S)

(6b)

Λc,f


:= (λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ mU (S; R), φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y ∈ S .

The corresponding primal and dual problems are
Z



Z
I := sup
f (y)dπ(x, y) : π ∈ Φµ,δ and J := inf λδ + φdµ : (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f
For brevity, we have identified the primal and dual objective functions as I(π) and J(λ, φ) respectively. As the identified primal and dual problems are infinite dimensional, it is not immediate
whether they have same value (that is, is I = J?). The objective of the following theorem is to
verify that, for a broad class of performance measures f, indeed I equals J.

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

7

Theorem 1. Under the Assumptions (A1) and (A2),
(a) I = J. In other words,


sup I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ = inf J(λ, φ) : (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f .
(b) For any λ ≥ 0, define φλ : S → R ∪ {∞} as follows:

φλ (x) := sup f (y) − λc(x, y) .
y∈S

There exists a dual optimizer of the form (λ, φλ ), for some λ ≥ 0. In addition, any feasible π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ
and (λ∗ , φλ∗ ) ∈ Λc,f are primal and dual optimizers, satisfying I(π ∗ ) = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ), if and only if

(8a)
f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) = sup f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z) , π ∗ a.s., and
z∈S
Z

∗
∗
λ
(8b)
c(x, y)dπ (x, y) − δ = 0.
As the measurability of the function φλ is not immediate, we establish that φλ ∈ mU (S; R) in
Section 4, where the proof of Theorem 1 is also presented. Sufficient conditions for the existence
of a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ , satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I, are presented in Section 5. For now, we are
content discussing the insights that can be obtained from Theorem 1.
Remark 1 (on the value of the dual problem). First, we point out the following useful characterization of the optimal value, I, as a consequence of Theorem 1:
(
"
#)

(9)
I = inf λδ + Eµ sup f (y) − λc(X, y)
,
λ≥0

y∈S

where the right hand side3 is simply a univariate reformulation of the dual problem. This characterization of I follows from the strong duality in Theorem 1 and the observation that J(λ, φλ ) ≤
J(λ, φ), for every (λ, φ) ∈ Λc,f . The significance of this observation lies in the fact that the only
probability measure involved in the right-hand side of (9) is the baseline measure µ, which is completely characterized, and is usually chosen in a way that it is easy to work with (or) draw samples
from. In effect, the result indicates that the infinite dimensional optimization problem in (3) is
easily solved by working on the univariate reformulation in the right hand side of (9).

Remark 2 (on the structure of primal optimal transport plan4). It is evident from the characterisation of an optimal measure π ∗ in Theorem 1(b) that if π ∗ exists, it is concentrated on
{(x, y) ∈ S × S : y ∈ arg maxz∈S {f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z)}} . Thus, a worst-case joint probability measure
π ∗ gets identified with a transportplan that transports mass from x to the optimizer(s) of the
local optimization problem supz∈S f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z) . According to the complementary slackness
conditions (8a) and (8b), such a transport plan π ∗ satisfies
R one of the following two cases:
Case 1: λ∗ > 0 : the transport plan π ∗ necessarily Rcosts cdπ ∗ = δ,
Case 2: λ∗ = 0 : the transport plan π ∗ satisfies cdπ ∗ ≤ δ (follows from primal feasibility of
π ∗ ) and f (y) equals the constant supz∈S f (z), π ∗ almost surely (follows from (8a) assuming that
arg maxz∈S f (z) exists). Recall from (9) that I = λ∗ δ + supz∈S {f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z)} = supz∈S f (z),
which is in agreement with the structure described for the primal optimizer here when λ∗ = 0. The
interpretation is that the budget for quantifying ambiguity, δ, is sufficiently large to move all the
probability mass to arg maxz∈S f (z), thus making I as large as possible.
3As φ (x) ≥ f (x), there is no ambiguity, such as the form ∞ − ∞, in the definition of integral R φ (x)dµ(x)
λ
λ
4In the literature of optimal transportation of probability measures, it is common to refer joint probability
R

measures alternatively as transport plans, and the integral
convention to allow easy interpretations.

cdπ as the cost of transport plan π. We follow this

8

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Remark 3 (On the uniqueness of a primal optimal transport plan). Suppose that there exists a
primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ and a dual optimizer (λ∗ , φλ∗ ) ∈ Λc,f satisfying I(π ∗ ) = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ) < ∞.
In addition, suppose that for µ−almost every x ∈ S, there is a unique y ∈ S that attains the
supremum in supy∈S {f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y)}. Then the primal optimizer π ∗ is unique because of the
following reasoning: For every x ∈ S, if we let T (x) denote the unique maximizer, arg max{f (y) −
λ∗ c(x, y)}, then it follows from Proposition 7.50(b) of Bertsekas and Shreve (1978) that the map
T : (S, U(S)) → (S, B(S)) is measurable. If (X, Y ) is a pair jointly distributed according to π ∗ , then
due to complementarity slackness condition (8a), we must have that Y = T (X), almost surely. As
any primal optimizer must necessarily assign entire probability mass to the set {(x, y) : y = T (x)}
(due to complementarity slackness condition (8a)), the primal optimizer is unique.
Remark 4 (on ε−optimal transport plans). Given ε > 0 and a dual optimal pair (λ∗ , φλ∗ ), any
πε ∈ Φµ,δ is ε−primal optimal if and only if


Z
Z

∗
∗
(10)
φλ∗ (x) − f (y) − λ c(x, y) dπε (x, y) + λ δ − cdπε ≤ ε,
where both the summands in the above expression are necessarily nonnegative. This follows trivially by substituting the following expressions for I and I(πε ) in I − I(πε ) ≤ ε.
Z
∗ ∗
∗
I = J(λ , φλ ) = λ δ + φλ∗ (x)dπε (x, y) and
Z
Z
Z

∗
∗
I(πε ) = f (y)dπε (x, y) =
f (y) − λ c(x, y) dπε (x, y) + λ
c(x, y)dπε (x, y).

As both the summands in (10) are nonnegative, for any πε ∈ Φµ,δ such that I(πε ) = πε (S × A) ≥
I − ε, we have,
Z
Z


ε +
φλ∗ (x) − f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) dπε (x, y) ≤ ε and
δ− ∗
(11)
≤ cdπε ≤ δ,
λ
where a+ := max{a, 0} for any a ∈ R.

Remark 5. If supy∈S f (y)/(1 + c(x, y)) = ∞ (for example, if f (y) grows to ∞ at a rate faster than
the rate at which the transport cost function c(x, y) grows) for every x in a set A ⊆ S such that
µ(A) > 0, then I = J = ∞. This is because,
for every λ ≥ 0 and x ∈ A, φλ (x) = supy∈S {f (y) −
R
λc(x, y)} = ∞, and consequently, λδ + φλ dµ = ∞ for very λ ≥ 0; therefore I = J = ∞ as a
consequence of Theorem 1. Requiring the objective f to not grow faster than the transport cost c
may be useful from a modeling viewpoint as it offers guidance in understanding
choices of transport
R
cost functions that necessarily yield ∞ as the robust estimate sup{ f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ}.

We next discuss an important special case of Theorem 1, namely, computing worst case probabilities. The applications of this special case, in the context of ruin probabilities, is presented in
Section 3 and Section 6.1. Other applications of Theorem 1, broadly in the context of distributionally robust optimization, are available in Esfahani and Kuhn (2015); Zhao and Guan (2015),
Gao and Kleywegt (2016) and Blanchet et al. (2016), and as well in Example 4 in Section 6.2 of
this paper.
2.4. Application of Theorem 1 for computing worst-case probabilities. Suppose that we
are interested in computing,
I = sup{P (A) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ},

(12)

where A is a nonempty closed subset of the Polish space S. Since A is closed, the indicator function
f (x) = 1A (x) is upper semicontinuous and therefore we can apply Theorem 1 to address (12). In
order to apply Theorem 1, we first observe that
+
sup {1A (y) − λc(x, y)} = 1 − λc(x, A) ,
y∈S

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

9

where c(x, A) := inf{c(x, y) : y ∈ A} is the lowest cost possible in transporting unit mass from
x to some y in the set A, and a+ denotes the positive part of the real number a. Consequently,
Theorem 1 guarantees that the quantity of interest, I, in (12), can be computed by simply solving,
n
h
+ io
I = inf λδ + Eµ 1 − λc(X, A)
(13)
.
λ≥0

If the infimum in the above expression for I is attained at λ∗ = 0, then merely by substituting
λ = 0 in λδ + Eµ [(1 − λc(X, A))+ ], we obtain I = 1. In addition,
due to complementary slackness
R
∗
∗
conditions (8a) and (8b), we have π (1A (y) = 1) = 1, and cdπ ≤ δ, for any optimal transport
plan π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying I = I(π ∗ ). Here, as f (x) = 1A (x), we have
Z
I(π) = 1A (y)dπ(x, y) = π(S × A),
π ∈ Φµ,δ .

Next, as we turn our attention towards the structure of an optimal transport plan when λ∗ > 0,
let us assume, for ease of discussion, that P rojA (x) := {y ∈ A : c(x, y) = c(x, A)} 6= ∅ for every
x ∈ S. Unless indicated otherwise, let us assume that λ∗ > 0 in the rest of this discussion. For
every x ∈ S and λ∗ > 0, observe that


if 0 ≤ c(x, A) < λ1∗ ,
P rojA (x)

arg max 1A (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) = P rojA (x) ∪ {x} if c(x, A) = λ1∗ ,

y∈S

{x}
otherwise.
Then, Part (b) of Theorem 1 allows us to conclude that, an optimal transport plan π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ
satisfying π ∗ (S × A) = I, if it exists, is concentrated on

 

1
1
∗
S = (x, y) : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ , y ∈ P roj A (x) ∪ (x, x) : c(x, A) ≥ ∗ .
λ
λ

Next, let ΠS ∗ (µ) denote the set of probability measures π with µ as marginal for the first component, and satisfying π(S ∗ ) = 1. In other words,

ΠS ∗ (µ) := π ∈ P (S × S) : π(A × S) = µ(A) for all A ∈ B(S), π(S ∗ ) = 1 .

Recall that c(x, x) = 0 for any x ∈ S, and c(x, y) = c(x, A) for any y ∈ P rojA (x). Therefore, for a
pair (X, Y ) distributed jointly according to some π ∈ ΠS ∗ (µ), it follows from the definition of the
collection ΠS ∗ (µ) that


if c(X, A) < 1/λ∗ ,
Eπ [c(X, A) | X] = c(X, A)
Eπ [c(X, Y ) | X] = Eπ [c(X, X) | X] = 0
if c(X, A) > 1/λ∗ ,


 
Eπ I (Y ∈ P rojA (X)) | X c(X, A) if c(X, A) = 1/λ∗ ,


almost surely. Then, as c(·, ·) is non-negative, Eπ c(X, Y ) = Eπ [Eπ [c(X, Y ) | X]] satisfies,








1
1
1
Eπ c(X, A); c(X, A) < ∗ ≤ Eπ c(X, Y ) ≤ Eπ c(X, A); c(X, A) < ∗ +Eπ c(X, A); c(X, A) = ∗ .
λ
λ
λ
RSince the marginal distribution of
R X is µ (refer the definiton of ΠS ∗ (µ) above), it follows that
cdπ = Eπ [c(X, Y )] satisfies c ≤ cdπ ≤ c, where
Z
Z
(14)
c :=
c(x, A)dµ(x) and c :=
c(x, A)dµ(x).
{x:c(x,A)< λ1∗ }

{x:c(x,A)≤ λ1∗ }

Further, as any optimal measure π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying π ∗ (S×A)
= I is a member of ΠS ∗ (µ), it follows
R
from the complementary slackness condition (8b) that cdπ ∗ has to equal δ whenever λ∗ > 0, and
consequently, c ≤ δ ≤ c, whenever a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying π ∗ (S × A) = I exists.
The observation that c ≤ δ ≤ c holds regardless of whether a primal optimizer exists or not, and
this is the content of Lemma 2 below, whose proof is provided towards the end of this section in
Subsection 2.4.1.

10

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Lemma 2. Suppose that Assumption (A1) is in force, and A is a nonempty closed subset of the
Polish space S. In addition, suppose that λ∗ ∈ (0, ∞) attains the infimum in (13). Then, c ≤ δ ≤ c.
On the other hand, if the infimum in (13) is attained at λ∗ = 0, then δ ≥ c = c.
If λ∗ > 0 and c = c = δ, any coupling in ΠS ∗ (µ) is primal optimal (because it satisfies the
complementary slackness conditions (8a) and (8b) in addition to the primal feasibility condition
that π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ ). In particular, one can describe a convenient optimal coupling π ∗ ∈ ΠS ∗ (µ)
satisfying I(π ∗ ) := π ∗ (S ×A) = I as follows: First, sample X with distribution µ, and let ξ : S → A
be any universally measurable map such that ξ(x) ∈ P rojA (x), µ-almost surely. We then write,




1
1
∗
Y = ξ(X) · I c(X, A) ≤ ∗ + X · I c(X, A) > ∗ ,
λ
λ
to obtain (X, Y ∗ ) distributed according to π ∗ . Such a universally measurable map ξ(·) always
exists, assuming that c(·, ·) is lower semicontinuous and that P roj A (x) is not empty5 for µ-almost
every x (see, for example, Proposition 7.50(b) of Bertsekas and Shreve (1978)). In this case,




1
1
∗
∗
I = π (S × A) = π (x, y) ∈ S × S : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ = µ x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ .
λ
λ

The second equality follows from the observation that for the described coupling (X, Y ∗ ) distributed
according to π ∗ , we have, Y ∗ ∈ A if and only if c(X, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ , almost surely.

The reformulation that I = µ(x : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ ) is extremely useful, as it re-expresses the
worst-case probability of interest in terms of the probability of a suitably inflated neighborhood,
{x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ }, evaluated under the reference measure µ, which is often tractable (see
Section 3 and 6.1 for some applications). However, as the reasoning that led to this reformulation
relies on the existence of a primal optimal transport plan, we use ε−optimal transport plans in
Theorem 3 below to arrive at the same conclusion. The proof of Theorem 3 is presented towards
the end of this section in Subsection 2.4.1.

Theorem 3. Suppose that Assumption (A1) is in force, and A is a nonempty closed subset of
the Polish space S. In addition, suppose that λ∗ ∈ [0, ∞) attains the infimum in (13), and the
quantities c, c, defined in (14) in terms of λ∗ , are such that c = c. Then,



1
(15)
sup P (A) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ = µ x : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ .
λ
Recall from Lemma 2 that λ∗ , if it is strictly positive, is such that δ ∈ (c, c). To arrive at the
characterization (15), we had assumed that the integral
Z
(16)
h(u) :=
c(x, A)dµ(x)
{x:c(x,A)≤u}

1/λ∗ ,

is continuous at u =
and consequently c = c. However, if this is not the case, for example,
because µ is atomic, then c < δ ≤ c. In this scenario, one can identify an optimal coupling by
randomizing between the extreme cases c and c. Remark 6 below provides a characterization of
the primal optimizer when c < δ ≤ c.

Remark 6. Suppose that λ∗ is such that c < δ ≤ c, and that all the assumptions in Theorem
3, except the condition that c = c = δ, are satisfied. Let Z be an independent Bernoulli random
variable with success probability, p := (δ − c)/(c − c). As before, sample X with distribution µ and
let ξ : S → A be any universally measurable map such that ξ(x) ∈ P rojA (x), µ-almost surely.
Then,






1
1
1
∗
Y := ξ(X) · I c(X, A) < ∗ + X · I c(X, A) > ∗ + (Z · ξ(X) + (1 − Z) · X) · I c(X, A) = ∗
λ
λ
λ
5The assumption that P roj (x) 6= ∅ holds, for example, when A is compact and nonempty (as c is lower semiA
continuous), or when c(x, ·) has compact sub-level sets for each x (recall that A is a closed set in the discussion)

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

11

is such that Pr((X, Y ∗ ) ∈ S ∗ ) = 1 (thus satisfying complementary slackness condition (8a)), and
Z
Z



∗
c(x, A)dµ(x) + Pr(Z = 1)
c(x, A)dµ(x) + 0 = c + p c − c = δ.
E c(X, Y ) =
{c(x,A)< λ1∗ }

{c(x,A)= λ1∗ }

This verifies the complementary condition (8b) as well, and hence the marginal distribution of Y ∗
in the coupling (X, Y ∗ ) attains the supremum in sup{P (A) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ}.
All the examples considered in this paper have the function h(u) as continuous, and hence
we have the characterization (15) which offers an useful reformulation for computing worst-case
probabilities. For instance, let us take the cost function c as a distance metric d (as in Wasserstein
distances), and let the baseline measure µ and the set A be such that h(·), defined in (16), is
continuous. Then (15) provides an interpretation that the worst-case probability P (A) in the
neighborhood of µ is just the same as µ(A1/λ∗ ), where Aε := y ∈ S : d(x, y) ≤ ε for some x ∈ A
denotes the ε-neighborhood of the set A. Thus, the problem of finding a probability measure with
worst-case probability P (A) in the neighborhood of measure µ amounts to simply searching for a
suitably inflated neighborhood of the set A itself. For example, if S = R, c(x, y) = |x − y|, then



1
sup P [a, ∞) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ = µ a − ∗ , ∞ ,
λ

for any µ ∈ B(R), where λ∗ is the solution to the univariate optimization problem in (13). Alternatively, due to Lemma 2, one can characterize 1/λ∗ as h−1 (δ) := inf{u ≥ 0 : h(u) ≥ δ}, where
h(u) is the monotonically increasing right-continuous function (with left limits) defined in (16).
If h(u) does not admit a closed-form expression, one approach is to obtain samples of X under
the reference measure µ, and either solve the sampled version of (13), or compute a Monte Carlo
approximation of the integral h(u) to identify the level 1/λ∗ as h−1 (δ) = inf{u : h(u) ≥ δ}.

2.4.1. Proofs of Lemma 2 and Theorem 3. We conclude this section with proofs for Lemma 2 and
(1)
(2)
Theorem 3. Given λ∗ ≥ 0 and n > 1, define Cn := Cn ∪ Cn , where




1
1
1
(1)
, y ∈ A, c(x, y) < c(x, A) + ∗
and
Cn := (x, y) ∈ S × S : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ 1 +
λ
n
λ n




1
1
1
(2)
Cn := (x, y) ∈ S × S : c(x, A) > ∗ 1 −
, y∈
/ A, c(x, y) < ∗
.
λ
n
λ n
In addition, define
Dn(1) := {(x, y) ∈ Cn : c(x, A) ≤ (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ } , Dn(2) := {(x, y) ∈ Cn : c(x, A) > (1 + 1/n)/λ∗ } ,


(3)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
and Dn := Cn \ Dn ∪ Dn . The above definitions yield, Cn = Dn = S × A, and Cn =
(2)

(3)

Dn = Dn = ∅, when λ∗ = 0.

Lemma 4. Suppose that Assumption (A1) is in force, and A is a nonempty closed subset of the
Polish space S. In addition, suppose that λ∗ ∈ [0, ∞) attains the infimum in (13). Then, there
exists
a collection of probability measures {πn : n > 1} ⊆ Φµ,δ such that πn (Cn ) ≥ 1 − 1/n,
R
(S×S)\Cn cdπn = 0, and I(πn ) := πn (S × A) ≥ I − 2/n.

Proof. Proof of Lemma 4. Since I := sup{π(S × A) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }, we consider a collection {π̃n : n >
1} ⊆ Φµ,δ such that I(π̃n ) ≥ I − 1/n2 . For every n > 1, if we let
o
n
+
Bn := (x, y) ∈ S × S : 1A (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) > 1 − λ∗ c(x, A) − 1/n ,

as a consequence of Markov’s inequality and the characterization (11) in Remark 4, we obtain,
Z

1
1/n2
1
π̃n (Bn ) ≥ 1 −
φλ∗ (x) − 1A (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) dπ̃n (x, y) ≥ 1 −
=1− .
n
1/n
n

12

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

For every n > 1, given a pair (X̃n , Ỹn ) jointly distributed with law π̃n , we define a new jointly
distributed pair (Xn , Yn ) defined as follows,
(
(X̃n , Ỹ )n
if (Xn , Yn ) ∈ Bn ,
(Xn , Yn ) :=
(X̃n , X̃n )
otherwise.
Our objective now is to show that the collection {πn : n > 1}, where πn := Law(Xn , Yn ), satisfies
the desired properties. We begin by verifying that πRn ∈ Φµ,δ here:
As π̃n ∈ Φµ,δ and X̃n := Xn ,
R
it is immediate that Law(Xn ) = µ. In addition, as cdπn = Bn cdπ̃n + 0, because c(x, x) = 0,
R
it follows from the non-negativity of c(·, ·) and cdπ̃n ≤ δ that πn R∈ Φµ,δ . Next, as Bn ⊆ Cn
for every n > 1, we have that πn (Cn ) ≥ πn (Bn ) ≥ 1 − 1/n, and (S×S)\Cn c(x, y)dπn (x, y) =
R
(S×S)\Cn c(x, x)dπn (x, y) = 0. Finally, for every n ≥ 1, I(πn ) ≥ I − 2/n is also immediate once we
observe that
I(πn ) = πn (S × A) ≥ πn ((S × A) ∩ Bn ) = π̃n ((S × A) ∩ Bn )
1
1
≥ π̃n (S × A) − π̃n ((S × S) \ Bn ) ≥ I − 2 − ,
n
n
thus verifying all the desired poperties of the collection {πn : n > 1}.



Proof.
Proof of Lemma 2. Consider a collection {πn : n > 1} ⊆ Φµ,δ such that πn (Cn ) ≥ 1 − 1/n,
R
π (S × A) ≥ I − 2/n. Such a collection exists because of
(S×S)\Cn cdπn = 0, and I(πn ) :=
R n
R
R
Lemma 4. We first observe that cdπn = Cn cdπn , because (S×S)\Cn cdπn = 0. Next, recalling
(i)

(i)

(i)

the definitions of subsets Dn , i = 1, 2, 3 introduced before stating Lemma 4, we use Dn ⊆ Cn ,
i = 1, 2, to observe that,
c(x, A) ≤ c(x, y) < c(x, A) + 1/(nλ∗ )

if (x, y) ∈ Dn(1) ,

0 ≤ c(x, y) < c(x, A) + 1/(nλ∗ )

if (x, y) ∈ Dn(3) .

0 ≤ c(x, y) < 1/(nλ∗ )

if (x, y) ∈ Dn(2) , and

R
R
Case 1: λ∗ > 0. Let us first restrict ourself to the case where λ∗ > 0. Then cdπn = Cn cdπn
can be bounded from above and below as follows:


Z
Z
Z
(2)
πn (Dn )
1
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) ≤ cdπn ≤
c(x, A) +
dπ
(x,
y)
+
.
n
(1)
(1)
(3)
nλ∗
nλ∗
Dn
Dn ∪Dn

Next, as λ∗ > 0 and I(πn ) = πn (S × A) ≥ I − 2/n, we use the second part of (11) to reason that
Z
Z
(17)
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) ≤ cdπn ≤ δ, and
(1)

Dn

(18)

1
≤
δ−
2nλ∗

Z



(2)
1
πn (Dn )
cdπn ≤
c(x, A) +
dπn (x, y) +
,
(3)
(1)
nλ∗
nλ∗
Dn ∪Dn
Z

for every n > 1. The next few steps are dedicated towards re-expressing the integrals in the left
hand side of (17) and right hand side of (18) in terms of c and c to obtain,


Z
Z
1
(19)
lim
c(x, A) +
c(x, A)dπn (x, y).
dπn (x, y) ≤ c and c ≤ lim
(1)
n→∞ D(1) ∪D(3)
nλ∗
n→∞ Dn
n
n
(1)

(3)

As every (x, y) ∈ Dn ∪ Dn satisfies c(x, A) ≤ (1 + 1/n)/λ∗ , we have


Z
Z
Z
1
c(x, A) +
dπn (x, y) ≤
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) =
c(x, A)dµ(x),
(1)
(3)
nλ∗
Dn ∪Dn
{x:c(x,A)≤(1+1/n)/λ∗ }
{x:c(x,A)≤(1+1/n)/λ∗ }

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

13

thus establishing the first inequality in (19) as a consequence of bounded convergence theorem.
(1)
Next, as {(x, y) ∈
/ Dn : c(x, A) < 1/λ∗ } is contained in the union of (S × S) \ Cn and {(x, y) ∈
Cn : (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ < c(x, A) < 1/λ∗ }, we obtain,
Z
Z

1
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) ≤
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) + ∗ πn (x, y) ∈
/ Dn(1) : c(x, A) < 1/λ∗
c :=
(1)
λ
Dn
{x:c(x,A)<1/λ∗ }
Z


1
≤
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) + ∗ πn (x, y) ∈ Cn : (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ ≤ c(x, A) < 1/λ∗ + πn (S × S) \ Cn
(1)
λ
D


Z n
 1
1
∗
∗
,
≤
c(x, A)dπn (x, y) + ∗ µ x ∈ S : (1 − 1/n)/λ ≤ c(x, A) < 1/λ +
(1)
λ
n
Dn
thus verifying the second inequality in (19). Now that we have verified both the inequalities in
(19), the conclusion that c ≤ δ ≤ c is automatic if we send n → ∞ in (17), (18) and use (19).
(i)

(i)

(1)

Case 2: When λ∗ = 0. It follows from the definitions of sets Cn and Dn that Cn =
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
Dn = S × A, and Cn = Dn = Dn = ∅ when λ∗ = 0. Recall Rthat Cn := Cn ∪ Cn and
πn ∈ Φµ,δ are such that πn (Cn ) = πn (S × A) ≥ 1 − 1/n. Let h− (u) := {x:c(x,A)<u} c(x, A)dµ(x) and
un := inf{u ≥ 0 :R µ(x : c(x,RA) ≤ u) ≥ 1−1/n}. As πn (S×A) ≥ 1−1/n and c(x, y) ≥ c(x, A) for any
x ∈ A, we have cdπn ≥ S×A c(x, A)dπn (x, y) ≥ h− (un ). Next, as µ(x : c(x, A) ≤ supn un ) = 1,
we have
Z
Z
Z
lim
(20)
cdπn ≥ lim h− (un ) = lim
c(x, A)(x)dµ(x) = c(x, A)dµ(x),
n→∞

n→∞

n→∞ {x:c(x,A)<u }
n

R
as a consequence of monotone
convergence
theorem.
Further,
as
cdπn ≤ δ for every n, it follows
R
from (20) that c = c = c(x, A)dµ(x) ≤ δ. This concludes the proof.

RProof. Proof of Theorem 3. Consider a collection {πn : n > 1} ⊆ Φµ,δ such that πn (Cn ) ≥ 1 − 1/n,
(S×S)\Cn cdπn = 0, and I(πn ) := πn (S × A) ≥ I − 2/n. Such a collection exists because of Lemma
(i)

4. Similar to the proof of Lemma 2, we recall the definitions of subsets Dn , i = 1, 2, 3 introduced
(i)
(i)
before stating Lemma 4, to observe that Dn ⊆ Cn , i = 1, 2, and consequently,

1A (y) = 1 if (x, y) ∈ Dn(1) , and 1A (y) = 0 if (x, y) ∈ Dn(2) .




(1)
(2)
As a result, πn Dn
≤ πn (S × A) ≤ πn (S × S) \ Dn . Combining this with the observation
that I − 2/n ≤ πn (S × A) ≤ I, we obtain,




2
(21)
πn Dn(1) ≤ I and πn (S × S) \ Dn(2) ≥ I − ,
n
for every n > 1. Similar to the proof of Lemma 2, the rest of the proof is dedicated towards proving





lim πn (S × S) \ Dn(2) ≤ µ x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ ≤ lim πn Dn(1) ,
(22)
n

n

(2)

/ Dn is such that
when c = c. The first inequality is immediate when we observe that every (x, y) ∈
c(x, A) ≤ (1 + 1/n)/λ∗ , and therefore,




lim πn (S × S) \ Dn(2) ≤ lim πn (x, y) : c(x, A) ≤ (1 + 1/n)/λ∗ = lim µ x : c(x, A) ≤ (1 + 1/n)/λ∗ ,
n

n

n

which equals µ(x : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ ), due to bounded convergence theorem. This verifies the first
(1)
inequality in (21). Next, as Dn := {(x, y) ∈ Cn : c(x, A) ≤ (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ }, the probability
πn ({(x, y) : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ }) equals,






πn Dn(1) + πn (x, y) ∈ Cn : (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ < c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ + πn (x, y) ∈
/ Cn : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ .

14

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Since πn (Cn ) ≥ 1 − 1/n and µ(x : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ ) = πn ({(x, y) : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ }) , we obtain that





πn Dn(1) ≥ µ x : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ − µ x : (1 − 1/n)/λ∗ < c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ − 1/n.


(1)
Further, as c = c, we have µ(x : c(x, y) = 1/λ∗ ) = 0, and therefore, limn πn Dn
≥ µ x :

∗
c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ , thus verifying the inequality in the right hand side of (22). Now that both the
inequalities in (22) are verified, we combine (21) with (22) to obtain that I = µ(x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤
1/λ∗ ).

3. Computing ruin probabilities: A first example.
In this section, we consider an example with the objective of computing a worst-case estimate of
ruin probabilities in a ruin model whose underlying probability measure is not completely specified.
As mentioned in the Introduction, such a scenario can arise for various reasons, including the lack
of data necessary to pin down a satisfactory model. A useful example to keep in mind would be the
problem of pricing an exotic insurance contract (for example, a contract covering extreme climate
events) in a way the probability of ruin is kept below a tolerance level.
Example 1. In this example, we consider the celebrated Cramer-Lundberg model, where a compound Poisson process is used to calculate ruin probabilities of an insurance risk/reserve process.
The model is specified by 4 primitives: initial reserve u, safety loading η > 0, the rate ν at which
claims arrive, and the distribution of claim sizes F with first and second moments m1 and m2
respectively. Then the stochastic process
R(t) = u + (1 + η)νm1 t −

Nt
X

Xi ,

i=1

specifies a model for the reserve available at time t. Here, Xn denotes the size of the n-th claim,
and the collection {X1 , X2 , . . .} is assumed to be independent samples from the distribution F.
Further, p̃ := (1 + η)νm1 is the rate at which a premium is received, and Nt is taken to be a
Poisson process with rate λ. Then one of the important problems in risk theory is to calculate the
probability


inf R(t) ≤ 0

ψ(u, T ) := Pr

t∈[0,T ]

that the insurance firm runs into bankruptcy before a specified duration T.

Despite the simplicity of the model, existing results in the literature do not admit simple methods
for the computation of ψ(u, T ) (see Asmussen and Albrecher (2010), Embrechts et al. (1997), Rolski
et al. (1999) and references therein for a comprehensive collection of results). In addition, if the
historical data is not adequately available to choose an appropriate distribution for claim sizes,
as is typically the case in an exotic insurance situation, it is not uncommon to use a diffusion
approximation
√
RB (t) := u + (1 + η)νm1 t − (νm1 t + νm2 B(t))
= u + ηνm1 t −

√

νm2 B(t)

that depends only on first and second moments of the claim size distribution F. Here, the stochastic
process (B(t) : 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) denotes the standard Brownian motion, and
(
)

√
ψB (u, T ) := Pr sup
νm2 B(t) − ηνm1 t ≥ u ,
t∈[0,T ]

is to serve as a diffusion approximation based substitute for ruin probabilities ψ(u, T ). See the
seminal works of Iglehart and Harrison (Iglehart (1969); Harrison (1977)) for a justification and

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

15

some early applications of diffusion approximations in computing insurance ruin. Such diffusion approximations have enabled approximate computations of various path-dependent quantities, which
may be otherwise intractable. However, as it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the Brownian approximation of ruin probabilities, in this example, we use the framework developed in Section 2 to
compute worst-case estimates of ruin probabilities over all probability measures in a neighborhood
around the baseline Brownian motion B(t) driving the ruin model RB (t).
For this purpose, we identify the Polish space where the stochastic processes of our interest
live as the Skorokhod space S = D([0, T ], R) equipped with the J1 topology. In other words,
S = D([0, T ], R) is simply the space of real-valued right-continuous functions with left limits (rcll)
defined on the interval [0, T ], equipped with the J1 -metric dJ1 . Please refer Lemma 11 in Appendix
B for an expression of dJ1 and Chapter 3 of Whitt (2002) for an excellent exposition on the
space D([0, T ], R). Next, we take the transportation cost (corresponding to p-th order Wasserstein
distance) as

p
c(x, y) = dJ1 (x, y)
x, y ∈ S,
for some p ≥ 1, and the baseline measure µ as the probability measure induced in the path space
by the Brownian motion B(t). In addition, if we let



√
Au := x ∈ S : sup
νm2 x(t) − νm1 t ≥ u ,
t∈[0,T ]

then the following observations are in order: First, the Brownian approximation for ruin probability
ψB (u, T ) equals µ(Au ). Next, the set Au is closed (verified in Lemma 10 in Appendix B), and hence
the function 1Au (·) is upper semicontinuous. Further, it is verified in Lemma 11 in Appendix B
that
!p

√
(23)
, for x ∈
/ Au .
νm2 x(t) − ηνm1 t
c(x, Au ) := inf{c(x, y) : y ∈ Au } = u − sup
t∈[0,T ]

As h(s) = Eµ [c(X, A); c(X, Au ) ≤ s] is continuous, for any given δ > 0, it follows from Theorem 3
that


1
ψrob (u, T ) := sup{P (Au ) : dc (P, µ) ≤ δ} = µ x ∈ S : c(x, Au ) ≤ ∗ ,
(24)
λ
where, the level 1/λ∗ is identified as h−1 (δ) = inf{s ≥ 0 : h(s) ≥ δ}. As c(x, Au ) admits a simple
form as in (23), following (24), the problem of computing ψrob (u, T ) becomes as elementary as
(
 1/p )

√
1
(25)
ψrob (u, T ) = Pr sup
νm2 Bt − ηνm1 t > u −
= ψB (ũ, T ),
λ∗
t∈[0,T ]

with ũ := u − (λ∗ )−1/p . Thus, the computation of worst-case ruin probability remains the problem
of evaluating the probability that a Brownian motion with negative drift crosses a positive level,
ũ, smaller than the original level u. In other words, the presence of model ambiguity has manifested itself only in reducing the initial capital to a new level ũ. Apart from the tractability, such
interpretations of the worst-case ruin probabilities in terms of level crossing a modified ruin set is
an attractive feature of using Wasserstein distances to model distributional ambiguities.
Numerical illustration: To make the discussion concrete, we consider a numerical example
where T = 100, ν = 1, p = 2, and the safety loading η = 0.1. The claim sizes are taken from a
distribution F that is not known to the entire estimation procedure. Our objective is to compute
the Brownian approximation to the ruin probability ψB (u, T ) = µ(Au ), and its worst-case upper bound ψrob (u, T ) := sup P (Au ) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ . The estimation methodology is data-driven
in the following sense: we derive the estimates of moments m1 , m2 and δ from the observed realizations {X1 , . . . , XN } of claim sizes. While obtaining estimates for moments m1 and m2 are
straightforward, to compute δ, we use the claim size samples {X1 , . . . , XN } to embed realizations

16

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

of compound Poisson risk process in a Brownian motion, as in Khoshnevisan (1993). Specific details of the algorithm that estimates δ can be found in Appendix A. The estimate of δ obtained is
such that the compensated compound Poisson process of interest that models risk in our setup lies
within the δ-neighborhood {P : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ} with high probability. Next, given the knowledge of
Lagrange multiplier λ∗ , the evaluation of ψB (u, T ) and ψrob (u, T ) = ψB (ũ, T ) (with ũ = u − 1/λ∗ )
are straightforward, because of the closed-form expressions for level crossing probabilities of Brownian motion. Computation of λ∗ is also elementary, and can be accomplished in multiple ways.
We resort to an elementary sample average approximation scheme that solves for λ∗ . The estimates of Brownian approximation to ruin probability ψB (u, T ) and the worst-case ruin probability
ψrob (u, T ), for various values of u, are plotted in Table 1. To facilitate comparison, we have used a
large deviation approximation of the ruin probabilities ψLD (u, T ) that satisfy ψLD (u, T ) ∼ ψ(u, T ),
as u → ∞, as a common denominator to compare magnitudes of the Brownian estimate ψB (u, T )
and the worst-case bound ψrob (u, T ). In particular, we have drawn samples of claim sizes from the
Pareto distribution 1 − F (x) = 1 ∧ x−2.2 . While the Brownian approximation ψB (u, T ) remarkably
underestimates the ruin probability ψ(u, T ), the worst-case upper bound ψrob (u, T ) appears to
yield estimates that are conservative, yet of the correct order of magnitude.
Table 1. Comparison of ruin probability estimate ψB (u, T ) and the worst-case
upper bound ψrob (u, T ): Example 1. The denominator ψLD (u, T ) is such that
ψLD (u, t)/ψ(u, T ) → 1, as u → ∞.
u

ψB (u, T )

50 5.18 × 10−2
100 4.26 × 10−4
150 4.36 × 10−7
200 5.05 × 10−11
250 6.75 × 10−16

ũ

28.23
50.78
62.76
69.40
74.29

ψrob (u, T )

ψB (u,T )
ψLD (u,T )

0.2294
3.32
4.88 × 10−2 1.07 × 10−1
1.84 × 10−2 2.52 × 10−4
1.02 × 10−2 5.35 × 10−8
6.50 × 10−3 1.15 × 10−12

ψrob (u,T )
ψLD (u,T )

14.71
12.28
10.65
10.80
10.98

For further discussion on this toy example, let us say that an insurer paying for the claims distributed according to Xi has a modest objective of keeping the probability of ruin before time T
at a level below 0.01. The various combinations of initial capital u and safety loading factors η
that achieve this objective are shown in Figure 1. While the (η, u) combinations that work for the
Brownian approximation model is drawn in red, the corresponding (η, u) combinations that keep
ψrob (u, T ) ≤ 0.01 is shown in blue.
A discussion on regulatory capital requirement. For the safety loading η = 0.1 we have
considered, the Brownian approximation model RB (t) requires that the initial capital u be at least
60 to achieve ψB (u, T ) ≤ 0.01. On the other hand, to keep the robust ruin probability estimates
ψrob (u, T ) below 0.01, it is required that u ≈ 200, roughly 3 times more than the capital requirement of the Brownian model. From the insurer’s point of view, due to the model uncertainty the
contract is faced with, it is not uncommon to increase the premium income (or) initial capital by
a factor of 3 or 4 (referred as “hysteria factor”, see Embrechts et al. (1998), Lewis (2007)). This
increase in premium can be thought of as a guess for the price for statistical uncertainty. Choosing higher premium and capital (larger η and u), along the blue curve in Figure 1, as dictated
by the robust estimates of ruin probabilities ψrob (u, T ), instead provides a mathematically sound
way of doing the same. Unlike the Brownian approximation model, the blue curve demonstrates
that one cannot decrease the probability of ruin by arbitrarily increasing the premium alone, the
initial capital also has to be sufficiently large. This prescription is consistent with the behaviour of
markets with heavy-tailed claims where, in the absence of initial capital, a few initial large claims
that occur before enough premium income gets accrued are enough to cause ruin. The minimum

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

17

200

Capital requirement u

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Safety loading η

Figure 1. Safety loading vs capital requirement for the Brownian model RB (t)
(in red) and its robust counterpart (in blue) in Example 1. The objective is to keep
the probability of ruin below 0.01.
capital requirement u prescribed according to the worst-case estimates ψrob (u, T ) can be thought
of as the regulatory minimum capital requirement.
Remark 7. Defining the candidate set of ambiguous probability measures via KL-divergence (or)
other likelihood based divergence has been the most common approach while studying distributional robustness (see, for example, Hansen and Sargent (2001); Ben-Tal et al. (2013); Breuer and
Csiszár (2013)). This would not have been useful in this setup, as the compensated Poisson process
that models risk is not absolutely continuous with respect to Brownian motion. In general, it is
normal to run into absolute continuity issues when we deal with continuous time stochastic processes. In such instances, as demonstrated in Example 1, modeling via optimal transport costs (or)
Wasserstein distances not only offers a tractable alternative, but also yields insightful equivalent
reformulations.
4. Proof of the duality theorem.
4.1. Duality in compact spaces. We prove Theorem 1 by first proving the following progressively strong duality results in Polish spaces S that are compact. Proofs of all the technicalities
that are not central to the argument are relegated to Appendix B.
Proposition 5. Suppose that S is a compact Polish space, and f : S → R satisfies Assumption
(A2). In addition to satisfying Assumption (A1), suppose that c : S × S → R+ is continuous. Then
I = J, and a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I exists.
Proposition 6. Suppose that S is a compact Polish space, f : S → R satisfies Assumption (A2),
and c : S × S → R+ satisfies Assumption (A1). Then I = J, and a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ
satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I exists.
As in the proof of the standard Kantorovich duality in compact spaces in Villani (2003), we use
Fenchel duality theorem (see Theorem 1 in Chapter 7, Luenberger (1997)) to prove Proposition 5.
However, the similarity stops there, owing to the reason that the set of primal feasible measures Φµ,δ
is not tight when S is non-compact (contrast this with Kantorovich duality, where the collection of
feasible measures Π(µ, ν), the set of all joint distributions between any two probability measures
µ and ν, is tight).
Proof of Proposition 5. As a preparation for applying Fenchel duality theorem, we first let X =
Cb (S × S), and identify X ∗ = M (S × S) as its topological dual. Here, the spaces X and X ∗ ,
representing the vector space of bounded continuous functions and finite Borel measures on S × S,
respectively, are equipped with the supremum and total variation norms. The fact that X ∗ is the

18

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

dual space of X is a consequence of Riesz representation theorem (see, for example, Rudin (1986)).
Next, let C be the collection of all functions g in X that are of the form
g(x, y) = φ(x) + λc(x, y),

for all x, y,

for some φ ∈ Cb (S) and λ ≥ 0. In addition, let D denote the collection of all functions g in X that
satisfy g(x, y) ≥ f (y), for every x, y. Every g in the convex subset C is defined by the pair (λ, φ),
which, in turn, can be uniquely identified by,
φ(x) = g(x, x)

and

λ=

g(x, y) − φ(x)
,
c(x, y)

for some x, y in S such that c(x, y) 6= 0. Keeping this invertible relationship in mind, define the
functionals Φ : C → R and Γ : D → R as below:
Z
Φ(g) := λδ + φdµ and Γ(g) := 0.
Evidently, the functional Φ is convex, Γ is concave, and we are interested in


(26) inf Φ(g) − Γ(g) = inf J(λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ Cb (S), φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y .
g∈C∩D

The next task is to identify the conjugate functionals Φ∗ , Γ∗ and their respective domains C ∗ , D∗
as below:
(
)


Z

Z
∗
∗
∗
∗
C = π ∈ X : sup
gdπ > −∞ .
gdπ − Φ(g) < ∞ and D = π ∈ X : inf
g∈D

g∈C

The conjugate functionals Φ∗ : C ∗ → R and Γ∗ : D∗ → R are defined accordingly as,
Z

Z
∗
∗
Φ (π) := sup
gdπ − Φ(g)
and Γ (π) := inf
gdπ.
g∈D

g∈C

First, to determine C ∗ , we see that for every π ∈ M (S × S),
Z

Z


Z

sup
gdπ − Φ(g) =
sup
φ(x) + λc(x, y) dπ(x, y) − λδ + φ(x)dµ(x)
g∈C

(λ,φ) ∈ R+ ×Cb (S)

=

sup
(λ,φ) ∈ R+ ×Cb (S)

(
0
=
∞

 Z
 Z


λ
c(x, y)dπ(x, y) − δ + φ(x) dπ(x, y) − dµ(x) ,

R
if cdπ ≤ δ and π(A × S) = µ(A) for all A ∈ B(S),
otherwise.

Therefore,


Z
∗
C = π ∈ M (S × S) : cdπ ≤ δ, π(A × S) = µ(A) for all A ∈ B(S)

and

Φ∗ (π) = 0

R
Next, to identify D∗ , we show in Lemma 15 in Appendix B that inf g∈D gdπ = −∞ if a measure
π ∈ M (S × S) is not non-negative. On the other hand, if π ∈ M (S × S) is non-negative, then
Z
 Z
inf
g(x, y)dπ(x, y) : g(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y = f (y)dπ(x, y).
This is because, f being an upper semicontinuous function that is bounded from above, it can be
approximated pointwise by a monotonically decreasing sequence of continuous functions6. Then
6Let f : X → R be an upper semicontinuous function, that is bounded from above, defined on a Polish space X. If
d(·, ·) is a function that metrizes the Polish space X, then, for instance, the choice fn (x) = supy∈X {f (y) − nd(x, y)}
is continuous, and satisfies fn ↓ f pointwise

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

19

the above equality follows as a consequence of monotone convergence theorem. As a result,


Z
Z
∗
∗
D = π ∈ M+ (S × S) : f (y)dπ(x, y) > −∞
and Γ (π) = f (y)dπ(x, y).

R
R
R
∗ ∩D ∗ = {π ∈ ∪
Then, Γ∗ (π)−Φ∗ (π) = f (y)dπ(x, y)
on
C
Π(µ,
ν)
:
cdπ
≤
δ,
f (y)dπ(x, y) >
ν∈P
(S)
R
R
−∞}. As I is defined to equal sup{ f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ, f dν > −∞}, it follows that

(27)
sup Γ∗ (π) − Φ∗ (π) : π ∈ C ∗ ∩ D∗ = I.
As the set C ∩ D contains points in the relative interiors of C and D (consider, for example, the
candidate h(x, y) = c(x, y) + supx∈S f (x) where supx∈S f (x) < ∞ because f is upper semicontinuous and S is compact) and the epigraph of the function Γ has non-empty interior, it follows as a
consequence of Fenchel’s duality theorem (see, for example, Theorem 1 in Chapter 7, Luenberger
(1997)) that


inf Φ(g) − Γ(g) = sup Γ∗ (π) − Φ∗ (π) : π ∈ C ∗ ∩ D∗ ,
g∈C∩D

where the supremum in the right is achieved by some π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ . In other words (see (26) and (27)),


inf J(λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ Cb (S), φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y = max I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ =: I.

As Cb (S) ⊆ mU (S; R), it follows from the definition of J that

J ≤ inf J(λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ Cb (S), φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y = I.

However, due to weak duality (5), we have J ≥ I. Therefore, J = I = max{I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }.



Proof of Proposition 6. First, observe that c is a nonnegative lower semicontinuous function defined
on the Polish space S ×S. Therefore, we can write c = supn cn , where (cn : n ≥ 1) is a nondecreasing
sequence of continuous cost functions cn : S × S → R+ .7 With cn as cost function, define the
corresponding primal and dual problems,
In = sup I(π)

and

Jn =

π∈Φn
µ,δ

inf

J(λ, φ).

(λ,φ)∈Λcn ,f

Here, the feasible sets Φnµ,δ and Λnc,f are obtained by suitably modifying the cost function in sets
Φµ,δ and Λc,f (defined in (6a) and (6b)) as below:


Z
[
n
Φµ,δ := π ∈
Π(µ, ν) :
cn dπ ≤ δ and
ν∈P (S)



Λcn ,f := (λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ mU (S; R), φ(x) + λcn (x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y ∈ S .
As the cost functions cn are continuous, due to Proposition 5, there exists a sequence of measures
(πn : n ≥ 1) such that
(28)

I(πn ) = In = Jn .

As S is compact, the set (πn : n ≥ 1) is automatically tight, and due to Prokhorov’s theorem,
there exists a subsequence (πnk : k ≥ 1) weakly converging to some π ∗ ∈ P (S × S). First, we check
that π ∗ is feasible:
Z
Z
Z
Z
cdπ ∗ = lim cn dπ ∗ = lim cn dπ ∗ = lim lim cn dπnk ,
n

n

n

k

where the second and third equalities, respectively, are consequences of monotone convergence and
weak convergence. In addition, since (cn : n ≥ 1) is a nondecreasing sequence of functions,
Z
Z
lim cn dπnk ≤ lim cnk dπnk ≤ δ.
k

k

7For instance, one can choose c (x, y) = inf
n
x̃,ỹ∈S {c(x̃, ỹ) + nd((x, y), (x̃, ỹ))} , where the function d metrizes the
Polish space S × S. Then cn (·, ·) is continuous, and satisfies cn (x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y.

20

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

R
R
Therefore,
cdπ ∗ ≤ δ. Again
as a simple consequence of weak convergence, we have g(x)dπ ∗ (x, y) =
R
R
limn g(x)dπnk (x, y) = g(x)dµ(x), for every g ∈ Cb (S). Therefore, π ∗ ∈ Φµ, δ , and is indeed feasible. Next, as f is upper semicontinuous and S is compact, f is bounded from above. Then, due
to the weak convergence πnk ⇒ π ∗ , the objective function I(π ∗ ) satisfies
Z
Z
∗
∗
I(π ) = f dπ ≥ lim f dπnk = lim I(πnk ) = lim Jnk ,
k

k

k

because I(πnk ) = Jnk as in (28). Further, as cn ≤ c, it follows that Λcn ,f is a subset of Λc,f and
hence Jn ≥ J, for all n. As a result, we obtain,
I(π ∗ ) ≥ lim Jnk ≥ J.
k

Since I never exceeds J (see (5)), it follows that I(π ∗ ) = I = J.



4.2. A note on additional notations and measurability. Given that we have established
duality in compact spaces, the next step is to establish the same when S is not compact. For this
purpose, we need the following additional notation. For any probability measure π ∈ P (S × S), let
Sπ := Spt(πX ) ∪ Spt(πY ),
where Spt(πX ) and Spt(πY ) denote the respective supports of marginals πX (·) := π( · × S) and
πY (·) := π(S × · ). As every probability measure defined on a Polish space has σ-compact support,
the set Sπ ×Sπ , which is a subset of S×S, is σ-compact. As we shall see in the proof of Proposition 7,
Sπ × Sπ can be written as the union of an increasing sequence of compact subsets (Sn × Sn : n ≥ 1).
It will then be easy to make progress towards strong duality in noncompact sets such as Sπ × Sπ
by utilizing the strong duality results derived in Section 4.1 (which are applicable for compact sets
Sn × Sn ) via a sequential argument; this is accomplished in Section 4.3 after introducing additional
notation as follows. For any closed K ⊆ S, let

(29)
Λ(K × K) := (λ, φ) : λ ≥ 0, φ ∈ mU (K; R), φ(x) + λc(x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y ∈ K ,

where mU (K; R) is used to denote the collection of measurable functions φ : (K, U(K)) → (R, B(R)),
with U(K) denoting the universal σ−algebra of the Polish space K. With this notation, the dual
feasible set Λc,f is nothing but
 Λ(S ×S). The next issue we address is the measurability of functions
of the form φλ (x) = supy∈S f (y) − λc(x, y) . For any u ∈ R,

φλ (x) > u = Proj1 ({(x, y) ∈ S × S : f (y) − λc(x, y) > u}) ,
which is analytic, because projections Proji (A) := {xi ∈ S : (x1 , x2 ) ∈ A}, i = 1, 2, of any
Borel measurable set A are analytic (see, for example, Proposition 7.39 in Bertsekas and Shreve
(1978)). As analytic subsets of S lie in U(S) (see Corollary 7.42.1 in Bertsekas and Shreve (1978)),
the function φλ (x) : (S, U(S)) → (R, B(R)) is measurable (that is, universally measurable; refer
Chapter 7 of Bertsekas and Shreve (1978) for an introduction to universal measurability and
analytic sets).
4.3. Extension of duality to non-compact spaces. Proposition 7, presented below in this
section, is an important step towards extending the strong duality results proved in Section 4.1 to
non-compact sets.
Proposition 7. Suppose that Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. Let π ∈ P (S × S) be a
probability
measure satisfying
R
(a) R c(x, y)dπ(x, y) < ∞,
(b) f (y)dπ(x, y) ∈ (−∞, ∞), and
(c) π(A × S) = µ(A) for every A ∈ B(S). Then
inf

(λ,φ)∈Λ(Sπ ×Sπ )

J(λ, φ) ≤ I

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

21

Proof of Proposition 7. As any Borel probability measure on a Polish space is concentrated on a σcompact set (see Theorem 1.3 of Billingsley (1999)), the sets Spt(πX ) and Spt(πY ) are σ-compact,
and therefore Sπ × Sπ is σ-compact as well. Then, by the definition of σ-compactness, the set
Sπ × Sπ can be written as the union of an increasing sequence of compact subsets (Cn : n ≥ 1)
of Sπ × Sπ . If we let Sn to be the union of the projections of Cn over its two coordinates, then
it follows that (Sn × Sn : n ≥ 1) is anR increasing sequenceR of subsets of Sπ × Sπ satisfying
Spt(π) ⊆ Sπ × Sπ = ∪n≥1 (Sn × Sn ). As |f (y)|dπ(x, y) and c(x, y)dπ(x, y) are finite, one can
pick the increasing sequence (Sn × Sn : n ≥ 1) with Sπ × Sπ = ∪n≥1 (Sn × Sn ) to be satisfying,
1
pn := π(Sn × Sn ) ≥ 1 − ,
(30a)
n
Z
δ
c(x, y)1(Sn ×Sn )c dπ(x, y) ≤
(30b)
and
n
Z
1
(30c)
|f |(y)1(Sn ×Sn )c dπ(x, y) ≤ ,
n
c
where (Sn × Sn ) := (S × S) \ (Sn × Sn ), and δ ∈ (0, ∞) is introduced while defining the primal
feasibility
set Φµ,δ (recall that I := sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }) and the dual objective J(λ, φ) =
R
λδ + φdµ in Section 2.2. Having chosen the compact subsets (Sn : n ≥ 1), define a joint
probability measure πn ∈ P (Sn × Sn ) and its corresponding marginal µn ∈ P (Sn ) as below:

π · ∩ (Sn × Sn )
and µn (·) = πn ( · × Sn ),
πn (·) =
pn
for every n ≥ 1. Additionally, let δn := δ(1 − 1/n). For every n ≥ 1, these new definitions can
be used to define “restricted” primal and dual optimization problems In and Jn supported on the
compact set Sn × Sn :
Z

Z
[
In := sup
f (y)γ(dx, dy) : γ ∈
Π(µn , ν), c(x, y)dγ(x, y) ≤ δn and
(31)
(32)



Jn := inf λδn +

Z

ν∈P (Sn )


φdµn : (λ, φ) ∈ Λ(Sn × Sn ) .

To comprehend (32), refer the definition of Λ(·) in (29). As Sn is compact, due to the duality result
in Proposition 6, we know that there exists a γn∗ ∈ P (Sn × Sn ) that is feasible for optimization of
In and satisfies
Z
(33)
f (y)γn∗ (dx, dy) = In = Jn .

Using this optimal measure γn∗ , one can, in turn, construct a measure π̃ ∈ P (S × S) by stitching
it together with the residual portion of π as below:


π̃(·) = pn γn∗ · ∩ (Sn × Sn ) + π · ∩ (Sn × Sn )c .

Having tailored a candidate measure π̃ ∈ P (S × S), next we check its feasibility that π̃ ∈ Φµ,δ as
follows: Since γn∗ ∈ Π(µn , ν) for some ν ∈ P (Sn ), it is easy to check, as below, that π̃ has µ as its
marginal for the first component: first, it follows from the definition of π̃ that
π̃( · × S) = pn γn∗ (( · ∩ Sn ) × Sn ) + π(( · × S) ∩ (Sn × Sn )c )
= pn µn ( · ∩ Sn ) + π(( · × S) ∩ (Sn × Sn )c ).

As µn (·) = π( · × Sn )/pn , it follows that pn µn ( · ∩ Sn ) = π(( · × S) ∩ (Sn × Sn )), and consequently,
π̃( · × S) = π(( · × S) ∩ (Sn × Sn )) + π(( · × S) ∩ (Sn × Sn )c ) = π( · × S) = µ(·).

Therefore, π̃ ∈ Π(µ, ν) for some ν ∈ P (S). Further, as γn∗ is a feasible solution for the optimization
problem in (31),
Z
Z
Z
δ
∗
cdπ̃ = pn cdγn +
cdπ ≤ δn + ,
n
Sn ×Sn
(Sn ×Sn )c

22

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

which does not exceed δ. To see this, refer (30b) and recall that δn := δ(1 − 1/n). Therefore, the
stitched measure π̃ is primal feasible, that is π̃ ∈ Φµ,δ . Consequently,
Z
Z
Z
∗
I ≥ I(π̃) = f (y)dπ̃(x, y) = pn f (y)dγn (x, y) + f (y)1(Sn ×Sn )c dπ(x, y).

As Sn is chosen to satisfy (30c), we have I ≥ pn In − n−1 . Therefore, it is immediate from (33) that
 


1
1 −1
(34)
I+
,
Jn ≤ 1 −
n
n
which, if I < ∞, is a useful upper bound for all of Jn , n ≥ 1. See that the statement of Proposition
7 already holds when I equals ∞. Therefore, let us take I to be finite. Next, given n ≥ 1 and
ε > 0, take an ε-optimal solution (λn , φn ) for Jn : that is, (λn , φn ) ∈ Λ(Sn × Sn ) and
Z
λn δn + φn dµn ≤ Jn + ε.

For any pair (λn , φ) that belongs to Λ(Sn × Sn ), we have from the definition of Λ(Sn × Sn ) that
φ(x) is larger than supz∈Sn {f (z) − λn c(x, z)}, for every x ∈ Sn .
Z

λn δn +
sup f (z) − λn c(x, z) dµn (x) ≤ Jn + ε,
z∈Sn

for every n. As µn (·) = π(· × Sn )/pn , combining the above expression with (34) results in


Z

1Sn (x)1Sn (y)
lim λn δn +
sup f (z) − λn c(x, z)
(35)
dπ(x, y) ≤ I + ε.
n→∞
pn
z∈Sn

Since c(x, x) = 0, the integrand admits f (x) as a lower bound on Sn × Sn ; further, as f ∈ L1 (dµ),
−f − (x) serves as a common integrable lower bound for all n ≥ 1. This has two consequences:
First, because of the finite upper bound in (35), limn λn and limn λn are finite (recall that λn ≥ 0
as well), and there exists a subsequence (λnk : k ≥ 1) such that λnk → λ∗ , as k → ∞, for some
λ∗ ∈ [0, ∞). The second consequence of the existence of a common integrable lower bound is that
we can apply Fatou’s lemma in (35) along the subsequence (nk : k ≥ 1) to obtain
!
Z
1Snk (x)1Snk (y)

sup f (z) − λn c(x, z)
dπ(x, y)
I + ε ≥ lim λnk δnk +
pnk
z∈Snk
k→∞
Z

∗
≥λ δ+
sup
f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z) dπ(x, y)
Sπ ×Sπ z∈∪k Snk

= λ∗ δ +

Z


sup f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z) dµ(x).

S z∈Sπ

Here, we have used that δn → δ, pn → 1 as n → ∞, ∪n≥1 Sn = ∪k≥1 Snk = Sπ , and the fact that
π is supported on a subset of Sπ × Sπ . The fact that limk supz∈Sn {f (z) − λnk c(x, z)} is at least
k
supz∈∪k Sn {f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z)}, for every x ∈ S, is carefully checked in Lemma 16, Appendix B. If
k

we let φ∗ (x) := supy∈Sπ f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) , then (λ∗ , φ∗ ) ∈ Λ(Sπ × Sπ ), and as ε > 0 is arbitrary,
it follows from the above inequality that J(λ∗ , φ∗ ) ≤ I. This completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1(a). If I = ∞, then as I never exceeds J, J equalsR ∞ as well, and there is
nothing to prove. Next, consider the case where I is finite: that is, I ∈ [ f dµ, ∞). Let E denote
the convex set of probability measures π ∈ P (S × S) that satisfy conditions (a)-(c) of Proposition
7. Then, due to Proposition 7, for every π ∈ E,
(
)


Z
Z

I≥
inf
λδ + φ(x)dµ(x) ≥ inf λδ +
sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x) .
(λ,φ)∈Λ(Sπ ×Sπ )

λ≥0

y∈Sπ

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

For any π ∈ E and λ ≥ 0, define
T (λ, π) := λδ +

Z

23


sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x).

y∈Sπ

R
As c(x,
R x) = 0, it is easy to see that T (λ, π) ≥ λδ + f dµ. Since T (λ, π) > I for every λ > λmax :=
(I − f dµ)/δ, one can rather restrict attention to the compact subset [0, λmax ], as follows:
I≥

(36)

inf

T (λ, π).

λ∈[0,λmax ]

Being a pointwise supremum of a family of affine functions, supy∈Sπ {f (y) − λc(x,
R y)} is a lower
semicontinuous with respect to the variable λ. Further, recall that T (λ, π) ≥ λδ + f dµ. Thus, for
any λn → λ, due to Fatou’s lemma,
Z
lim T (λn , π) ≥ λδ + lim sup {f (y) − λn c(x, y)} dµ(x)
n→∞
n y∈Sπ
Z
≥ λδ +
sup {f (y) − λc(x, y)} dµ(x) = T (λ, π),
y∈Sπ

which means that T (λ, π) is lower semicontinuous in λ. Along with this lower semicontinuity, for
every fixed π, T (λ, π) is also convex in λ. In addition, for any α ∈ (0, 1) and π1 , π2 ∈ E,
Z

T (λ, απ1 + (1 − α)π2 ) = λδ +
sup
f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x)
(

y∈Sαπ1 +(1−α)π2

≥ max λδ +
i=1,2

Z

)

sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x) ≥ αT (λ, π1 ) + (1 − α)T (λ, π2 ).

y∈Sπi

Therefore, T (λ, π) is a concave function in π for every fixed λ. One can apply a standard minimax
theorem (see, for example, Sion (1958)) to conclude
sup

inf

T (λ, π) =

π∈E λ∈[0,λmax ]

inf

This observation, in conjunction with (36), yields
(
I ≥ sup

inf

T (λ, π) =

π∈E λ∈[0,λmax ]

sup T (λ, π).

λ∈[0,λmax ] π∈E

inf

λδ + sup

λ∈[0,λmax ]

π∈E

Z



sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x)

y∈Sπ

)

Lemma 8 below is the last piece of technicality that completes the proof of Part (a) of Theorem 1.
Lemma 8. Suppose that Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. Then, for any λ ≥ 0,
Z
Z


sup
sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x) = sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x).
π∈E

y∈Sπ

y∈S

If Lemma 8 holds, then it is automatic that
(
)
Z

I≥
inf
λδ + sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x) ≥ J,
λ∈[0,λmax ]

y∈S

which will complete the proof of Part (a) of Theorem 1.

Proof. Proof of Lemma 8. For brevity, let g(x, y) := f (y) − λc(x, y) and φλ (x) := supy∈S g(x, y).
For any n ≥ 1 and k ≤ n2 , define the sets,
Ak,n := {(x, y) ∈ S × S : (k − 1)/n ≤ g(x, y) ≤ k/n}

and Bk,n := Proj1 (Ak,n ) \ ∪j>k Proj1 (Aj,n ) .

Here, recall that for any A ⊂ S × S, Proj1 (A) = {x1 : (x1 , x2 ) ∈ A}. The sequence (Bk,n : k ≤ n2 )
also admits the following equivalent backward recursive definition,

Bn2 ,n = Proj1 An2 ,n , and Bk,n = Proj1 (Ak,n ) \ ∪j>k Bj,n for k < n2 ,

24

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

that renders the collection (Bk,n : k ≤ n2 ) disjoint. As the function g is upper semicontinuous, it
is immediate that the sets Ak,n are Borel measurable and their corresponding projections Bk,n are
analytic subsets of S. Then, due to Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem8, there exists, for each
k ≤ n2 such that Ak,n 6= ∅, an universally measurable function γk (x) : Proj1 (Ak,n ) → S such that
(x, γk (x)) ∈ Ak,n , or, in other words,
k
k−1
≤ g(x, γk (x)) ≤ .
n
n

(37)

Next, let us define the function Γn : S → S as below:
(
γk (x),
if x ∈ Bk,n for some k ≤ n2
Γn (x) =
x,
otherwise .
This definition is possible because Bk,n ⊆ Proj1 (Ak,n ), and the collection (Bk,n : k ≤ n2 ) is disjoint.
As each γk is universally measurable, the composite function Γn (x) is universally measurable as
well, and satisfies that
sup {g(x, y) : g(x, y) ≤ n, y ∈ S} −

1
≤ g(x, Γn (x)) ≤ f (x) ∨ n,
n

for each x. Both sides of the inequality above can be inferred from (37) after recalling that g(x, x) =
f (x) − λc(x, x) = f (x). Letting n → ∞, we see that
φλ (x) := sup{g(x, y) : y ∈ S} ≤ lim g(x, Γn (x)) ≤ ∞.

(38)

n

Next, define the family of probability measures (πn : n ≥ 1) as below:
dπn (x, y) := dµ(x) × dδΓn (x) (y),
with δa (·) representing the dirac measure centred at a ∈ S. As g(x, y) ≤ f (x) ∨ n, πn almost surely,
we have that the functions c(x, y) and f (y) are integrable with respect to πn . This means that
πn ∈ E (here, recall that E is the set of probability measures satisfying conditions (a)-(c) in the
statement of Proposition 7). Further, as Sπn ⊇ Spt(µ),

sup g(x, y) = sup f (y) − λc(x, y) ≥ f (x) − λc(x, x) = f (x), for all x, µ a.s.,
y∈Sπn

y∈Sπn

which is integrable with respect to the measure µ. Therefore, due to Fatou’s lemma,
Z
Z
lim
sup g(x, y)dµ(x) ≥
lim sup g(x, y)dµ(x)
n→∞

y∈Sπn

≥

Z

n→∞ y∈Sπn

lim g(x, Γn (x))dµ(x) ≥

n→∞

Z

φλ (x)dµ(x),

where the last inequality follows from (38). Since πn is a member of set E, for every n, it is then
immediate that
Z
Z
Z
sup
sup g(x, y)dµ(x) ≥ lim
sup g(x, y)dµ(x) ≥ φλ (x)dµ(x).
π∈E

Thus, sup
π∈E

n→∞

y∈Sπ

Z



y∈Sπn

sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x) ≥

y∈Sπ

Z


sup f (y) − λc(x, y) dµ(x).
y∈S

As Sπ ⊆ S, for every π ∈ E, the inequality in the reverse direction is trivially true. This completes
the proof of Lemma 8.

8See, for example, Chapter 7 of Bertsekas and Shreve (1978) for an introduction to analytic subsets and Jankov-von
Neumann measurable selection theorem

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

25

Proof of Theorem 1(b). To summarize, in the proof of Part (a) of Theorem 1, we established
that


Z
I = inf λδ + φλ (x)dµ(x) ,
λ≥0

where φλ (x) := supRy∈S {f (y) − λc(x, y)} is lower-semicontinuous in λ, and is bounded by f (x) from
below. Recall that f dµ is finite. If we let
Z
g(λ) := λδ + φλ (x)dµ(x),

then due to a routine application of Fatou’s lemma, we have that limn→∞ g(λn ) ≥Rg(λ), whenever
λn → λ. In other words, g(·) is lower semicontinuous. In addition, as g(λ) ≥ λδ + f (x)dµ(x), we
have that g(λ) → ∞ if λ → ∞. This means that the level sets {λ ≥ 0 : g(λ) ≤ u} are compact
for every u, and therefore, g(·) attains its infimum. In other words, there exists a λ∗ ∈ [0, ∞) such
that
Z
I = λ∗ δ + φλ∗ (x)dµ(x).

Thus, we conclude that a dual optimizer of the form (λ∗ , φλ∗ ) always exists. Next, if the primal
optimizer π ∗ satisfying I = I(π ∗ ) also exist, then
Z
Z
∗
∗
f (y)dπ (x, y) = λ δ + φλ∗ (x)dµ(x),

which gives us complementary slackness conditions (8a) and (8b), as a consequence of equality
getting enforced in the following series of inequalities:
Z
Z
Z
 ∗
∗
∗
∗
c(x, y)dπ ∗ (x, y)
f (y)dπ (x, y) =
f (y) − λ c(x, y) dπ (x, y) + λ
Z
Z
∗
∗
c(x, y)dπ ∗ (x, y)
≤ φλ∗ (x)dπ (x, y) + λ
Z
≤ φλ∗ (x)dµ(x) + λ∗ δ.
Alternatively, if the complementary slackness conditions (8a) and (8b) are satisfied by any π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ
and (λ∗ , φ∗λ ) ∈ Λc,f , then automatically,
Z
Z
Z
 ∗
∗
∗
∗
f (y)dπ (x, y) =
f (y) − λ c(x, y) dπ (x, y) + λ
c(x, y)dπ ∗ (x, y)
Z

= sup f (z) − λ∗ c(x, z) dπ ∗ (x, y) + λ∗ δ
z∈S
Z
= φλ∗ (x)dµ(x) + λ∗ δ = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ),

thus proving that π ∗ and (λ∗ , φλ∗ ) are, respectively, the primal and dual optimizers. This completes
the proof of Theorem 1.

5. On the existence of a primal optimal transport plan.
Unlike the well-known Kantorovich duality where an optimizer that attains the infimum in
(2) exists if the transport cost function c(·, ·) is nonnegative and lower semicontinuous (see, for
example, Theorem 4.1 in Villani (2008)), a primal optimizer π ∗ satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I = J need not
exist for the primal problem, I = sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }, that we have considered in this paper. The
feasible set for the problem (2) in Kantorovich duality, which is the set of all joint distributions
Π(µ, ν) with given µ and ν as marginal distributions, is compact in the weak topology. On the
other hand, the primal feasibility set Φµ,δ , for a given µ and δ > 0, that we consider in this paper
is not necessarily compact, and the existence of a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ , satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I,

26

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

is not guaranteed. Example 2 below demonstrates a setting where there is no primal optimizer
π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I even if the transport cost c(·, ·) is chosen as a metric defined on the
Polish space S.
Example 2. Consider S = R. Let µ = δ{0} , the dirac measure at 0, be the reference measure
defined on (R, B(R)). Let f (x) = (1 − exp(−x))+ and c(x, y) = |x − y|/(1 + |xR − y|) for all x, y ∈ R.
The primal problem of interest is I = sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ }, where I(π) := f (y)dπ(x, y), for the
choice δ = 2. We first argue that I = 1 here: As f (x) ≤ 1 for every x ∈ R, we have I ≤ 1. For
λ ≥ 0, recall the definition φλ (x) := supy∈R {f (y) − λc(x, y)}. As Assumptions (A1) and (A2) hold,
an application of Theorem 1(a) results in,


Z

I = inf λδ + φλ (x)dµ(x) = inf 2λ + φλ (0)
λ≥0
λ≥0
(


)

y
y
−y
−y
= inf 2λ + sup 1 − e − λ
≥ sup inf 1 − e + 2λ − λ
= 1.
λ≥0
1+y
1+y
y≥0
y≥0 λ≥0
Since we had already verified that I ≤ 1, the above lower bound results in I = 1, with the infimum
being
attained at λ∗ = 0. However, as f (x) < 1 for every x ∈ R, it is immediate that I(π) =
R
f (y)dπ(x, y) is necessarily smaller than 1 for all π ∈ Φµ,δ . Therefore, there does not exist a primal
optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ such that I(π ∗ ) = I. A careful examination of Part (b) of Theorem 1 also results
in the same conclusion: A primal optimizer, if it exists, is concentrated on {(x, y) : x ∈ S, y ∈
arg max{f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y)}}, which is empty in this example, because arg max{f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y)} =
arg maxy≥0 {1 − exp(−y) − 0 × c(x, y)} = ∅, for every x ∈ S.

Recall from Proposition 6 that a primal optimizer always exists whenever the underlying Polish
space S is compact. In the absence of compactness of S, Proposition 9 below presents additional
topological properties (P-Compactness) and (P-USC) under which a primal optimizer exists.
Corollary 1, that follows Proposition 9, discusses a simple set of sufficient conditions for which
these properties listed in Proposition 9 are easily verified.


Additional notation. Define Φ0µ,δ := π ∈ Φµ,δ : π (x, y) ∈ S × S : f (x) ≤ f (y) = 1 . For every
π ∈ Φµ,δ , it follows from Lemma 17 in Appendix B that there exists π 0 ∈ Φ0µ,δ such that I(π 0 ) ≥
I(π), whenever I(π) is well-defined. As a result,
I := sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φµ,δ } = sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φ0µ,δ }.
Throughout this section, we assume that (λ∗ , φλR∗ ) ∈ Λc,f is a dual-optimal pair satisfying
I = J = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ) < ∞. As J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ) = λ∗ δ + φλ∗ dµ < ∞, it follows that φλ∗ (x) < ∞,
µ−almost surely.

Proposition 9. Suppose that the Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. In addition, suppose
that the functions c(·, ·) and f (·) are such that the following properties are satisfied:

Property 1 (P-Compactness). For any ε > 0,
 there exists a compact Kε ⊆ S such that µ(Kε ) >
1 − ε, and the closure cl(Γε ) of the set, Γε := (x, y) ∈ Kε × S : f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) ≥ φλ∗ (x) − γ , is
compact, for some γ ∈ (0, ∞).

Property 2 (P-USC). For every collection {πn : n ≥ 1} ⊆ Φ0µ,δ such that πn ⇒ π ∗ for some
π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ , we have limn I(πn ) ≤ I(π ∗ ).
Then there exists a primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I = J = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ).

It is well-known that upper semicontinuous functions defined on compact sets attain their supremum. As Property 1 (P-Compactness) and Property 2 (P-USC), respectively, enforce a specific
type of compactness and upper semicontinuity requirements that are relevant to our setup, we use
the suggestive labels (P-Compactness) and (P-USC), respectively, to identify Properties 1 and
2 throughout the rest of this section.

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

27

Proof. Proof of Proposition 9. As I = sup{I(π) : π ∈ Φ0µ,δ }, consider a collection {πn : n ≥ 1} ⊆
Φ0µ,δ such that I(πn ) ≥ I − 1/n. We first show that Property (P-Compactness) guarantees the
existence of a weakly convergent subsequence (πnk : k ≥ 1) of (πn : n ≥ 1) satisfying πnk ⇒ π ∗ , for
some π ∗ ∈ Φ0µ,δ .
Step 1 (Verifying tightness of (πn : n ≥ 1)): As I(πn ) ≥ I − n−1 , it follows from (11) that


Z
Z

1
1
∗
∗
φλ∗ (x) − f (y) + λ c(x, y) dπn (x, y) ≤
(39)
and λ δ − cdπn ≤ .
n
n

for every n ≥ 1. For any a > 0, Markov’s inequality results in,
Z

 1

∗
πn (x, y) ∈ S × S : f (y) − λ c(x, y) < φλ∗ (x) − a ≤
φλ∗ (x) − f (y) + λ∗ c(x, y) dπn (x, y),
a

which is at most 1/(na). Then, given any ε > 0 and for the choice a = γ specified in (PCompactness), it follows from union bound that πn ((S × S) \ Γε/2 ) is at least,




 ε
1
(x, y) : x ∈
/ Kε/2 , y ∈ S + πn (x, y) ∈ Kε/2 × S : f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) < φλ∗ (x) − γ ≤ +
,
2 nγ

because πn ( (x, y) : x ∈
/ Kε/2 , y ∈ S ) = µ(S \ Kε/2 ) ≤ ε/2. Consequently, πn (Γε/2 ) ≥ 1 − ε/2 −
1/(nγ). As the closure of Γε/2 is compact for the choice of γ in (P-Compactness), we have
cl(Γε/2 ) is a compact subset of S × S for given ε > 0. Therefore, for all n ≥ 2ε−1 γ −1 , we obtain
that πn (cl(Γε )) ≥ 1 − ε for any given ε > 0, thus rendering that the collection {πn : n ≥ 1} is tight.

πn

Then, as a consequence of Prokhorov’s theorem, we have a subsequence (πnk : k ≥ 1) such that
πnk ⇒ π ∗ for some π ∗ ∈ P (S × S).

∗
Step 2 (Verifying π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ ): As πnk ( · × S)
R = µ(·),∗we obtain π (·R × S) = µ(·) as a consequence
R
∗
of the weak convergence πnk ⇒ π (see that g(x)dπ (x, y) = limk g(x)dπn (x, y) = g(x)dµ(x)
for all g ∈ Cb (S)). Further, as c is a nonnegative lower semicontinuous function, it follows from a
version of Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging
(see Theorem 1.1 in Feinberg et al.
R probabilities
R
(2014) and references therein) that δ ≥ limk cdπnk ≥ cdπ ∗ . Therefore, π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ .

Step 3 (Verifying optimality of π ∗ ): As Property (P-USC) guarantees that limk I(πnk ) ≤ I(π ∗ ),
we obtain I = limk I(πnk ) ≤ I(π ∗ ), thus yielding I(π ∗ ) = I. The fact that I = J = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ )
follows from Theorem 1.

The following assumptions imposing certain growth conditions on the functions c(·, ·) and f (·)
provide a simple set of sufficient conditions required to verify properties (P-Compactness) and
(P-USC) stated in Proposition 9.
Assumption 3 (A3). There exist a nondecreasing function g : R+ → R+ satisfying g(t) ↑ ∞ as
t → ∞, and a positive constant C such that c(x, y) ≥ g(kx − yk) whenever kx − yk > C.
Assumption 4 (A4). There exist an increasing function h : R+ → R+ satisfying h(t) ↑ ∞ as
f (y)−f (x)
t → ∞, and a positive constant Ksuch that supx,y∈S 1+h(kx−yk)
≤ K. In addition, given ε > 0,
there exists a positive constant Cε such that f (y) − f (x) ≤ ε(1 + c(x, y)), for every x, y ∈ S such
that kx − yk > Cε .

The growth condition imposed in Assumption (A4) is similar to the requirement that the growth
rate parameter κ, defined in Gao and Kleywegt (2016), be equal to 0.
Corollary 1. Let S be locally compact when equipped with the topology induced by a norm k · k
defined on S. Suppose that the functions c and f satisfy Assumptions (A1) - (A4). Then, whenever
the dual optimal pair (λ∗ , φλ∗ ) satisfying J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ) = J < ∞ is such that λ∗ > 0, there exists a
primal optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I = J = J(λ∗ , φλ∗ ).

28

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Proof. We verify the properties (P-Compactness) and (P-USC) in the statement of Proposition
9 in order to establish the existence of a primal optimizer.
Step 1 (Verification of (P-Compactness)): As any Borel probability measure on a Polish space
is tight, there exists a compact Kε ⊆ S such that µ(Kε ) ≥ 1 − ε, for any ε > 0. Let aε :=
supx∈Kε kxk. Given ε0 > 0, it follows from Assumption (A4) that there exists Cε0 large enough
satisfying f (y) − f (x) ≤ ε0 c(x, y) for all x, y such that ky − xk > Cε0 . Then, for any x ∈ Kε
and γ > 0, f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) < f (x) − γ when ky − xk > C ∨ Cε0 is large enough such that
g(kx−yk) ≥ γ/(λ∗ −ε0 ); this is because, f (y)−f (x)−λ∗ c(x, y) < (ε0 −λ∗ )c(x, y) ≤ (ε0 −λ∗ )g(kx−yk)
when ε0 < λ∗ and kx − yk > C ∨ Cε0 . In particular, if kyk > cε := C ∨ Cε0 + aε + g −1 (γ/(λ∗ − ε0 )),
we have f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) < f (x) − γ for every x ∈ Kε . As φλ∗ (x) ≥ f (x), it follows that,

Γε := (x, y) ∈ Kε × S : f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y) ≥ φλ∗ (x) − γ ⊆ {(x, y) : x ∈ Kε , kyk ≤ cε } ,
is a compact subset of S × S. Therefore, cl(Γε ) is compact as well, thus verifying Assumption (A3)
in the statement of Proposition 9.
Step 2 (Verification of P-USC). Let {πn : n ≥ 1} ⊆ Φ0µ,δ be such that πn ⇒ π ∗ for some π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ .
Our objective is to show that
Z
Z
(40)
lim I(πn ) = lim f (y)dπn (x, y) ≤ f (y)dπ ∗ (x, y) = I(π ∗ )
n

n

While (40) follows directly from the properties of weak convergence when f is bounded upper
semicontinuous, an additional asymptotic uniform integrability condition that,
Z
|f (y)|dπn (x, y) = 0,
lim sup
M →∞ n

|f (y)|>M

is sufficient to guarantee (40) in the absence of boundedness (see, for example, Corollary 3 in Zapala
(2008)). In order to demonstrate this asymptotic uniform integrability property, we proceed as
follows: Given ε > 0, Assumption (A4) guarantees that f (y) − f (x) ≤ εc(x, y) for every x, y
satisfying kx − yk > Cε . Let A1 , A2 and B(M ) be subsets of S × S defined as follows:
A1 := {(x, y) : kx − yk > Cε }, A2 := (S × S) \ A1 , and B(M ) := {(x, y) : |f (y)| > M } for M > 0.

As πn ((x, y) : f (x) ≤ f (y)) = 1 for every n (recall that πn ∈ Φ̃µ,δ ), it follows from the growth
conditions in Assumption (A4) that
Z
Z
Z
|f (y) − f (x)|dπn (x, y) ≤ ε
(1 + c(x, y))dπn (x, y) + K
(1 + h(kx − yk)dπn (x, y).
A1

A2

Further, as any (x, y) ∈ A2 satisfies kx − yk ≤ Cε , it follows from the nondecreasing nature of h(·)
that h(kx − yk)
R ≤ h(Cε ) < ∞, for every for every (x, y) ∈ A2 . Combining this observation with
the fact that cdπn ≤ δ, we obtain,
Z
|f (y) − f (x)|dπn (x, y) ≤ ε(1 + δ) + K(1 + h(Cε ))πn (A3 ∩ B(M ) ).
B(M )

As |f | = f + 2f − , it follows from Markov’s inequality that, πn (B(M ) ) = πn (y : |f (y)| > M ) is at
most,
Z

Z
Z
1
1
−
|f (y)|dπn (x, y) =
f (y)dπn (x, y) + 2 f (y)dπn (x, y) .
M
M
Since πn ((x, y)R : f (x) ≤ f (y)) =R 1, we have f − (x)R ≥ f − (y), πn -almost surely, for every n.
Consequently, f − (y)dπn (x, y) ≤ f − (x)dπn (x, y) = f − (x)dµ(x), and therefore,


Z

1
sup πn B(M ) ≤
I + 2 f − dµ ,
M
n
R −
where I = J < ∞, and f dµ < ∞. As a result, we obtain


Z
Z
K
−
(41)
(1 + h(Cε )) I + 2 f dµ .
sup
|f (y) − f (x)|dπn (x, y) ≤ ε(1 + δ) +
M
n
B(M )

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

29

R
R
R
Further, as |f (x)|dπn (x,Ry) = |f (x)|dµ(x) is finite and supn πn (B(M ) ) ≤ M −1 (I +2 f − dµ) → 0
when M → ∞, we have B |f (x)|dµ(x) → 0 as M → ∞. Consequently, letting M → ∞ and
(M )
ε → 0 in (41), we obtain
Z
Z
Z
lim sup
|f (y)|dπn (x, y) ≤ lim sup
|f (x)|dµ(x) = 0,
|f (y) − f (x)|dπn (x, y) + lim

M →∞ n

M →∞ n

{|f (y)|>M }

M →∞ B
(M )

B(M )

thus verifying the desired uniform integrability property. This observation, in conjunction with the
upper semicontinuity of f and weak convergence πn ⇒ π ∗ , results in (40). As all the requirements
stated in Proposition 9 are verified, a primal optimizer satisfying I(π ∗ ) = I exists.

Remark 8. In addition to the assumptions made in Corollary 1, suppose that c(x, y) is a convex
function in y for every x ∈ S, and f is a concave function. Then, due to Corollary 1, a primal
optimizer π ∗ ∈ Φµ,δ exists. Further, as the supremum in supy∈S {f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y)}, is attained at a
unique maximizer for every x ∈ S, it follows from Remark 3 that the primal optimizer π ∗ is unique.
6. A few more examples.
6.1. Applications to computing general first passage probabilities. Computing probabilities of first passage of a stochastic process into a target set of interest has been one of the central
problems in applied probability. The objective of this section is to demonstrate that, similar to
the one dimensional level crossing example in Section 3, one can compute general worst-case probabilities of first passage into a target set B by simply computing the probability of first passage of
the baseline stochastic process into a suitably inflated neighborhood of set B. The goal of such a
demonstration is to show that the worst-case first passage probabilities can be computed with no
significant extra effort.
Example 3. Let R(t) = (R1 (t), R2 (t)) ∈ R2 model the financial reserve, at time t, of an insurance
firm with two lines of business. Ruin occurs if the reserve process Rt hits a certain ruin set B
within time T > 0. In the univariate case, the ruin set is usually an interval of the form (−∞, 0)
or its translations (as in Example 1). However, in multivariate cases, the ruin set B can take a
variety of shapes based on rules of capital transfers between the different lines of businesses. For
example, if capital can be transferred between the two lines without any restrictions, a natural
choice is to declare ruin when the total reserve R1 (t) + R2 (t) becomes negative. On the other hand,
if no capital transfer is allowed between the two lines, ruin is declared immediately when either
R1 (t) or R2 (t) becomes negative. In this example, let us consider the case where the regulatory
requirements allow only β ∈ [0, 1] fraction of reserve, if positive, to be transferred from one line of
business to the other. Such a restriction will result in a ruin set of the form


B := (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : βx1 + x2 ≤ 0 ∪ (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : βx2 + x1 ≤ 0 .

It is immediately clear that capital transfer is completely unrestricted when β = 1 and altogether
prohibited when β = 0. The intermediate values of β ∈ (0, 1) softly interpolates between these two
extreme cases. Of course, one can take the fraction of capital transfer allowed from line 1 to line 2
to be different from that allowed from line 2 to line 1, and various other modifications. However,
to keep the discussion simple we focus on the model described above, and refer the readers to Hult
and Lindskog (2006) for a general specification of ruin models allowing different rules of capital
transfers between d lines of businesses.
As in Example 1, we take the space in which the reserve process (R(t) : 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) takes values
to be S = D([0, T ], R2 ), the set of all R2 -valued right continuous functions with left limits defined
on the interval [0, T ]. The space S, again, as in Example 1, is equipped with the standard J1 -metric
(see Chapter 3 of Whitt (2002)), and consequently, the cost function
!
(42)

c(x, y) = inf

λ∈Λ

sup ||x(t) − y(λ(t))||22 + sup |λ(t) − t| ,

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

x, y ∈ S

30

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

is continuous. Here, ||x||2 = (|x1 |2 + |x2 |2 |)1/2 is the standard Euclidean norm for x = (x1 , x2 ) in
R2 , and Λ is the set of all strictly increasing functions λ : [0, T ] → [0, T ] such that both λ and
λ−1 are continuous. Let µ ∈ P(S) denote a baseline probability measure that models the reserve
process R(t) in the path space. Given δ > 0, our objective is to characterize the worst-case first
passage probability, sup{P (x(t) ∈ B for some t ∈ [0, T ]) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ}, of the reserve process
hitting the ruin set B. As the set {x ∈ S : x(t) ∈ B for some t ∈ [0, T ]} is not closed, we consider
its topological closure

 

A := x ∈ S : inf (βx1 (t) + x2 (t)) ≤ 0 ∪ x ∈ S : inf (x1 (t) + βx2 (t)) ≤ 0 ,
t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

which, apart from the paths that hit ruin set B, also contains the paths that come arbitrarily
close to B without hitting B due to the presence of jumps; the fact that A is the desired closure
is verified in Lemma 13 and Corollary 2 in Appendix B. Further, it is verified in Lemma 14 in
Appendix B that


2
2
1
c(x, A) =
inf βx1 (t) + x2 (t) ∧ inf βx2 (t) + x1 (t)
,
1 + β 2 t∈[0,T ]
t∈[0,T ]
If the reference distribution µ(·) is such that h(u) := Eµ [c(X, A); c(X, A) ≤ u] is continuous, then

(43)
sup{P (x(t) ∈ B for some t ∈ [0, T ]) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ} ≤ sup P (A) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ


1
= µ x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ ∗ ,
λ

as an application of Theorem 3; here, as in Section 2.4, 1/λ∗ = h−1 (δ) := inf{u ≥ 0 : h(u) ≥ δ}.
Following the expression for c(x, A) in Lemma 14, we also have that {x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ }
equals
(44)
(
) (
)
r
r
1 + β2
1 + β2
x ∈ S : inf (βx1 (t) + x2 (t)) ≤
∪ x ∈ S : inf (x1 (t) + βx2 (t)) ≤
.
λ∗
λ∗
t∈[0,T ]
t∈[0,T ]
p
Next, if we let c∗ = (1 + β 2 )/λ∗ and

 

(45)
A(c) = x ∈ S : inf (βx1 (t) + x2 (t)) ≤ c ∪ x ∈ S : inf (x1 (t) + βx2 (t)) ≤ c
t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

as a family of sets parameterized by c ∈ R, then it follows from (44) that


(46)
sup{P A(0) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ} = µ A(c∗ ) ;

in words, the worst-case probability that the reserve process hits (or) comes arbitrarily close to the
ruin set B is simply equal to the probability under reference measure µ that the reserve process
hits (or) comes arbitrarily close to an inflated ruin set B(c∗ ) , where for any c ∈ R we define


B(c) := (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : βx1 + x2 ≤ c ∪ (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : βx2 + x1 ≤ c .

This conclusion is very similar to (25) derived for 1-dimensional level crossing in Section 3. The
original ruin set B = B(0) and the suitably inflated ruin set B(c∗ ) are respectively shown in the
Figures 2(a) and (b).
Next, as an example, let us take the reserve process satisfying the following dynamics as our
baseline model:
dR(t) = ub + mdt + ΣdB(t),
where m ∈ R2− is the drift vector with negative components, Σ is a 2 × 2 positive definite covariance
matrix, and (B(t) : 0 ≤ t ≤ T ) a 2-dimensional standard Brownian motion. The real number u
denotes the total initial capital and b = (b1 , b2 ) ∈ R2+ such that b1 + b2 = 1 denotes the proportion
of initial capital set aside for the two different lines of businesses. The probability measure induced
in the path space by the process R(t) is taken as the baseline measure µ. Further, for purposes

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

31

Figure 2. Comparison of computation of ruin under baseline measure (in Fig(a))
and worst-case ruin (in Fig(b))

v
u
u
u
t

0

1+β 2
λ∗

0

Inflated ruin set B(c∗)

Ruin set B
(a) Computation of ruin under baseline measure

(b) Computation of worst-case ruin using the
baseline measure

of numerical illustration, we take m = [−0.1, −0.1], b = [0.5, 0.5] and Σ = I2 , the 2 × 2 identity
matrix. Our aim is to find total initial capital u such that sup{P (A(0) ) : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ} ≤ 0.01
(recall the definition of the ruin event A(0) in 45). This is indeed possible due to the equivalent
characterization in (46), and the resulting capital requirement for various values of δ are displayed
in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Capital requirement for various values of δ. The capital requirement is
calculated to keep the worst-case probability of ruin under 0.01
75

Total capital requirement

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
0

20

40

60

80

100

δ
It may also be useful to note that one may as well choose S = C([0, T ], R2 ), the space of
continuous functions taking values in R2 , as the underlying space to work with if the modeler
decides to restrict the distributional ambiguities to continuous stochastic process; in that case, the
first passage set {x ∈ S : x(t) ∈ B for some t ∈ [0, T ]} itself is closed, and the inequality in (43)
holds with equality.
As a final remark, if the modeler believes that model ambiguity is more prevalent in one line
of business over other, she can perhaps quantify that effect by instead choosing ||x||2 = (|x1 |2 +
α|x2 |2 )1/2 , for x = (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 in the cost function c(x, y) defined in (42). This would penalise

32

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

moving probability mass in one direction more than the other and result in the ruin set being
inflated asymmetrically along different directions. We identify studying the effects of various
choices of cost functions, the corresponding δ and the appropriateness of the resulting inflated ruin
set for real world ruin problems as an important direction towards applying the proposed framework
in quantitative risk management. For example, suppose that the regulator has interacted with the
insurance company, and both the company and the regulator have negotiated a certain level of
capital requirement multiple times in the past. Then the insurance company can calibrate δ from
these previous interactions with the regulator. That is, find the value of δ which implies that
the negotiated capital requirement in a given past interaction is necessary for the bound on ruin
probability to be lesser than a fixed (regulatory driven) acceptance level (for instance, we use 0.01
as the acceptance level for ruin probability in our earlier numerical illustration in this example). An
appropriate quantile of these ‘implied’ δ values may be used to choose δ based on risk preference.
6.2. Applications to ambiguity-averse decision making. In this section, we consider a stochastic optimization problem in the presence of model uncertainty. It has been of immense interest
recently to search for distributionally robust optimal decisions, that is, to find a decision variable
b that solves
OPT = inf sup E [f (X, b)] .
b∈B P ∈P

Here, f is a performance/risk measure that depends on a random element X and a decision variable
b that can be chosen from an action space B. The solution to the above problem minimizes worstcase risk over a family of ambiguous probability measures P. Such an ambiguity-averse optimal
choice is also referred as a distributionally robust choice, because the performance of the chosen
decision variable is guaranteed to be better than OPT irrespective of the model picked from the
family P.
There has been a broad range of ambiguity sets P that has been considered: For examples,
refer Delage and Ye (2010); Goh and Sim (2010); Wiesemann et al. (2014) for moment-based
uncertainty sets, Hansen and Sargent (2001); Iyengar (2005); Nilim and El Ghaoui (2005); Lim and
Shanthikumar (2007); Jain et al. (2010); Ben-Tal et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2015); Jiang and Guan
(2015); Hu and Hong (2012); Bayraksan and Love (2015) for KL-divergence and other likelihood
based uncertainty sets, Pflug and Wozabal (2007); Wozabal (2012); Esfahani and Kuhn (2015);
Zhao and Guan (2015); Gao and Kleywegt (2016) for Wasserstein distance based neighborhoods,
Erdoğan and Iyengar (2006) for neighborhoods based on Prokhorov metric, Bandi et al. (2015);
Bandi and Bertsimas (2014) for uncertainty sets based on statistical tests and Ben-Tal et al. (2009);
Bertsimas and Sim (2004) for a general overview. As most of the works mentioned above assume the
random element X to be Rd -valued, it is of our interest in the following example to demonstrate
the usefulness of our framework in formulating and solving distributionally robust optimization
problems that involve stochastic processes taking values in general Polish spaces as well.

Example 4. We continue with the insurance toy example considered in Section 3. In practice, as
the risk left to the first-line insurer is too large, reinsurance is usually adopted. In proportional
reinsurance, one of the popular forms of reinsurance, the insurer pays only for a proportion b
of the incoming claims, and a reinsurer pays for the remaining 1 − b fraction of all the claims
received. In turn, the reinsurer receives a premium at rate pr = (1 + θ)(1 − b)νcm1 from the
insurer. Here, θ > η, otherwise, the insurer could make riskless profit by reinsuring the whole
portfolio. The problem we consider here is to find the reinsurance proportion b that minimises
the expected maximum loss that happens within duration T. In the extensive line of research
that studies optimal reinsurance proportion, diffusion models have been particularly recommended
for tractability reasons (see, for example Hojgaard and Taksar (1998); Schmidli (2001)). As in
√
Example 1, if we take νm2 B(t) + νm1 t to be the diffusion process that approximates the arrival

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

33

of claims, then

√
Lb (t) := pr t + b νm2 B(t) + νm1 t − pt

√
= b νm2 B(t) − bθ − (θ − η) νm1 t

is a suitable model for losses made by the firm. Here, pr = (1 + θ)(1 − b)νm1 is the rate of payout
for the reinsurance contract, and p = (1 + η)νm1 is the rate at which a premium income is received
by the insurance firm. The quantity of interest is to determine the reinsurance proportion b that
minimises the maximum expected losses,


(47)
L := inf E max Lb (t) .
b∈[0,1]

t∈[0,T ]

However, as we saw in Example 1, conclusions based on diffusion approximations can be misleading.
Following the practice advocated by the rich literature of robust optimization, we instead find a
reinsurance proportion b that performs well against the family of models specified by P := {P :
dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ}. In other words, we attempt to solve for
"
#

L0 := inf sup EP sup a2 (b)X(t) − a1 (b)t ,
b∈[0,1] P ∈P

t∈[0,T ]

√
where X is a random element in space D[0, T ] following measure P, a2 (b) := b νm2 and a1 (b) :=
(bθ − (θ − η))νm1 . Here, as in Section 2.4, we have taken S = D[0, T ] and

2
c(x, y) = dJ1 (x, y) .

For x ∈ D[0, T ], if we take
f (x, b) := sup
t∈[0,T ]


a2 (b)x(t) − a1 (b)t

and

φλ,b (x) := sup {f (y, b) − λc(x, y)} ,
y∈S

then due to the application of Theorem 1, we obtain
0

L = inf sup {EP [f (X, b)] : dc (µ, P ) ≤ δ} = inf inf

b∈[0,1] λ≥0

b∈[0,1]



λδ +

Z



φλ,b (x)dµ(x) ,

To keep this discussion terse, it is verified in Lemma 12 in Appendix B that the inner infimum
evaluates simply to
"
#
√

E sup a2 (b)B(t) − a1 (b)t + a2 (b) δ.
t∈[0,T ]

As a result,
(48)

0

L = inf
b∈[0,1]

( "
E

sup
t∈[0,T ]

a2 (b)B(t) − a1 (b)t



#

√
+ a2 (b) δ

)

,

which is an optimization problem that involves the same effective computational effort as the
non-robust counterpart in (47). For the specific numerical values employed in Example 1, if we
additionally take the new parameter θ = 0.3, the Brownian approximation model evaluates to the
optimal choice b = 0.66 and the corresponding loss L = 17.63, whereas the robust counterpart in
(48) evaluates to worst-case L0 = 28.86 for the ambiguity-averse optimal choice b = 0.42. For a
collection of various other examples of using Wasserstein based ambiguity sets in the context of
distributionally robust optimization, refer Esfahani and Kuhn (2015); Zhao and Guan (2015) and
Gao and Kleywegt (2016).

34

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Acknowledgments.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees whose valuable suggestions have been
immensely useful in supplementing the proof of the strong duality theorem with crisp arguments
at various instances. The authors would also like to thank Garud Iyengar and David Goldberg
for helpful discussions, and Rui Gao for providing a comment that led us to add Remark 6 in the
paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge support from Norges Bank Investment Management
and NSF grant CMMI 1436700.

References
C. Aliprantis and K. Border. Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide. Studies in
Economic Theory. Springer, 1999. ISBN 9783540658542. URL https://books.google.com/
books?id=6jjY2Vi3aDEC.
C. D. Aliprantis and O. Burkinshaw. Principles of Real Analysis. Gulf Professional Publishing,
1998.
L. Ambrosio and L. A. Caffarelli. Optimal transportation and applications: Lectures given at the
CIME summer school 2001. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
S. Asmussen and H. Albrecher. Ruin probabilities. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2010.
ISBN 978-981-4282-52-9; 981-4282-52-9. doi: 10.1142/9789814282536. URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1142/9789814282536.
R. Atar, K. Chowdhary, and P. Dupuis. Robust bounds on risk-sensitive functionals via Rényi
divergence. SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif., 3(1):18–33, 2015. ISSN 2166-2525. doi: 10.
1137/130939730. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/130939730.
C. Bandi and D. Bertsimas. Robust option pricing. European J. Oper. Res., 239(3):842–853, 2014.
ISSN 0377-2217. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.002. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2014.06.002.
C. Bandi, D. Bertsimas, and N. Youssef. Robust queueing theory. Operations Research, 63(3):676–
700, 2015. doi: 10.1287/opre.2015.1367. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2015.1367.
A. D. Barbour and A. Xia. On Stein’s factors for poisson approximation in wasserstein distance. Bernoulli, 12(6):943–954, 2006. ISSN 13507265. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/
25464848.
G. Bayraksan and D. K. Love. Data-driven stochastic programming using phi-divergences. The
Operations Research Revolution, pages 1–19, 2015.
A. Ben-Tal, L. El Ghaoui, and A. Nemirovski. Robust optimization. Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics. Princeton University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-691-14368-2. doi: 10.1515/
9781400831050. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400831050.
A. Ben-Tal, D. den Hertog, A. D. Waegenaere, B. Melenberg, and G. Rennen. Robust solutions of
optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science, 59(2):341–357,
2013. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1641. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1641.
D. P. Bertsekas and S. E. Shreve. Stochastic optimal control: The discrete time case. Academic
Press New York, 1978.
D. Bertsimas and M. Sim. The price of robustness. Oper. Res., 52(1):35–53, 2004. ISSN 0030-364X.
doi: 10.1287/opre.1030.0065. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.
P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, 1999. ISBN 0-471-19745-9.
doi: 10.1002/9780470316962. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470316962.
J. Blanchet, Y. Kang, and K. Murthy. Robust wasserstein profile inference and applications to
machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05627, 2016.
T. Breuer and I. Csiszár. Measuring distribution model risk. Mathematical Finance, 2013. ISSN
1467-9965. doi: 10.1111/mafi.12050. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12050.
G. Canas and L. Rosasco. Learning probability measures with respect to optimal transport metrics.
In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2492–2500, 2012.

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

35

E. Delage and Y. Ye. Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Oper. Res., 58(3):595–612, 2010. ISSN 0030-364X. doi:
10.1287/opre.1090.0741. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0741.
P. Embrechts, C. Klüppelberg, and T. Mikosch. Modelling extremal events. Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1997. ISBN 3-540-60931-8. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33483-2. URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-33483-2.
P. Embrechts, S. Resnick, and G. Samorodnitsky. Living on the edge. Risk, 11(1):96–100, 1998.
P. Embrechts, G. Puccetti, L. Rschendorf, R. Wang, and A. Beleraj. An academic response to
basel 3.5. Risks, 2(1):25–48, 2014. ISSN 2227-9091. doi: 10.3390/risks2010025. URL http:
//www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/2/1/25.
E. Erdoğan and G. Iyengar. Ambiguous chance constrained problems and robust optimization.
Math. Program., 107(1-2, Ser. B):37–61, 2006. ISSN 0025-5610. doi: 10.1007/s10107-005-0678-0.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10107-005-0678-0.
P. M. Esfahani and D. Kuhn. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the
Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1505.05116, 2015.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, and N. V. Zadoianchuk. Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging
probabilities. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 58(4):683–689, 2014.
N. Fournier and A. Guillin. On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical
measure. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3):707–738, 2014. ISSN 1432-2064. doi:
10.1007/s00440-014-0583-7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00440-014-0583-7.
C. Frogner, C. Zhang, H. Mobahi, M. Araya-Polo, and T. A. Poggio. Learning with a Wasserstein
loss. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 28, 2015.
R. Gao and A. J. Kleywegt. Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein
distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02199v1, 2016.
P. Glasserman and X. Xu. Robust risk measurement and model risk. Quantitative Finance,
14(1):29–58, 2014. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2013.822989. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14697688.2013.822989.
J. Goh and M. Sim. Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Oper.
Res., 58(4, part 1):902–917, 2010. ISSN 0030-364X. doi: 10.1287/opre.1090.0795. URL http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0795.
N. Gozlan and C. Leonard. Transport inequalities. A survey. Markov Processes and Related Fields,
16(4):707–738, 2016. ISSN 635-736.
L. P. Hansen and T. J. Sargent. Robust control and model uncertainty. The American Economic
Review, 91(2):pp. 60–66, 2001. ISSN 00028282. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2677734.
J. Harrison. Ruin problems with compounding assets. Stochastic Processes and their Applications,
5(1):67 – 79, 1977. ISSN 0304-4149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4149(77)90051-5. URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304414977900515.
B. Hojgaard and M. Taksar. Optimal proportional reinsurance policies for diffusion models. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1998(2):166–180, 1998. doi: 10.1080/03461238.1998.10414000. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03461238.1998.10414000.
Z. Hu and L. J. Hong. Kullback-leibler divergence constrained distributionally robust optimization.
Available on optimization online, 2012.
H. Hult and F. Lindskog. Heavy-tailed insurance portfolios: buffer capital and ruin probabilities.
Technical report, Cornell University, 2006.
D. L. Iglehart. Diffusion approximations in collective risk theory. Journal of Applied Probability,
6(2):285–292, 1969. ISSN 00219002. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211999.
G. N. Iyengar. Robust dynamic programming. Mathematics of Operations Research, 30(2):257–280,
2005.
A. Jain, A. E. B. Lim, and J. G. Shanthikumar. On the optimality of threshold control in queues
with model uncertainty. Queueing Systems, 65(2):157–174, 2010. ISSN 1572-9443. doi: 10.1007/
s11134-010-9172-3. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11134-010-9172-3.

36

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

R. Jiang and Y. Guan. Data-driven chance constrained stochastic program. Mathematical
Programming, pages 1–37, 2015. ISSN 1436-4646. doi: 10.1007/s10107-015-0929-7. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10107-015-0929-7.
D. Khoshnevisan. An embedding of compensated compound poisson processes with applications
to local times. Ann. Probab., 21(1):340–361, 01 1993. doi: 10.1214/aop/1176989408. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176989408.
H. Lam. Robust sensitivity analysis for stochastic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.0326, 2013.
M. Lewis. In nature’s casino. The New York Times Magazine, page 626, Aug 2007.
A. E. Lim and J. G. Shanthikumar. Relative entropy, exponential utility, and robust dynamic
pricing. Operations Research, 55(2):198–214, 2007.
D. G. Luenberger. Optimization by vector space methods. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
X. Nguyen. Convergence of latent mixing measures in finite and infinite mixture models. Ann.
Statist., 41(1):370–400, 02 2013. doi: 10.1214/12-AOS1065. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1214/12-AOS1065.
A. Nilim and L. El Ghaoui. Robust control of Markov decision processes with uncertain transition
matrices. Oper. Res., 53(5):780–798, 2005.
G. Pflug and D. Wozabal. Ambiguity in portfolio selection. Quant. Finance, 7(4):435–442,
2007. ISSN 1469-7688. doi: 10.1080/14697680701455410. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14697680701455410.
S. T. Rachev and L. Rüschendorf. Mass Transportation Problems. Volume I: Theory. Springer
Science & Business Media, 1998a.
S. T. Rachev and L. Rüschendorf. Mass Transportation Problems. Volume II: Applications.
Springer Science & Business Media, 1998b.
T. Rolski, H. Schmidli, V. Schmidt, and J. Teugels. Stochastic processes for insurance and finance.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1999. ISBN 0-471-95925-1. doi: 10.1002/9780470317044. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470317044.
W. Rudin. Real and complex analysis (3rd). McGraw-Hill Inc, 1986.
H. Schmidli. Optimal proportional reinsurance policies in a dynamic setting. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2001(1):55–68, 2001. doi: 10.1080/034612301750077338. URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/034612301750077338.
M. Sion. On general minimax theorems. Pacific J. Math., 8(1):171–176, 1958. URL http:
//projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1103040253.
J. Solomon, R. Rustamov, L. Guibas, and A. Butscher. Wasserstein propagation for semisupervised learning. In Proceedings of The 31st International Conference on Machine Learning,
pages 306–314, 2014.
C. Villani. Topics in optimal transportation. American Mathematical Soc., 2003.
C. Villani. Optimal transport: old and new. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
F. Wang and L. J. Guibas. Supervised earth movers distance learning and its computer vision
applications. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2012, pages 442–455. Springer, 2012.
Z. Wang, P. W. Glynn, and Y. Ye. Likelihood robust optimization for data-driven problems.
Computational Management Science, pages 1–21, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s10287-015-0240-3. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10287-015-0240-3.
W. Whitt. Stochastic process limits. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002. ISBN 0-387-95358-2.
W. Wiesemann, D. Kuhn, and M. Sim. Distributionally robust convex optimization. Oper. Res.,
62(6):1358–1376, 2014. ISSN 0030-364X. doi: 10.1287/opre.2014.1314. URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1287/opre.2014.1314.
D. Wozabal. A framework for optimization under ambiguity. Ann. Oper. Res., 193:21–47,
2012. ISSN 0254-5330. doi: 10.1007/s10479-010-0812-0. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-010-0812-0.
A. M. Zapala. Unbounded mappings and weak convergence of measures. Statistics & Probability
Letters, 78(6):698 – 706, 2008. ISSN 0167-7152. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2007.09.033.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167715207003203.

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

37

C. Zhao and Y. Guan. Data-driven risk-averse stochastic optimization with Wasserstein metric.
Available on Optimization Online, 2015.
Appendix A. Brownian embeddings for the estimation of δ in Example 1
Recall that the definition of optimal transport cost between two probability measures µ and ν,
denoted by dc (µ, ν), involves computing the minimum expected cost over all possible couplings
between µ and ν (see Section 2.1 for a definition). Though it may not always be possible to
identify the optimal coupling (with the lowest expected cost) between µ and ν, one can perhaps
employ a ‘good’ coupling to derive an upper bound on dc (µ, ν). In this section, we describe one
such coupling, popularly referred as Skorokhod embedding, between the risk process R(t) and its
Brownian motion based diffusion approximation RB (t) in Example 1. More specifically, we ‘embed’
the compensated compound Poisson process
!
Nt
X
1
Z(t) = √
Xi − m1 t
m2
i=1

in a Brownian motion B(t) to obtain a coupling between the risk processes R(t) and RB (t) in order
to choose a δ in Example 1. Here, the symbols m1 and m2 denote the first and second moments
of claim sizes Xi , and Nt is a unit rate Poisson process. Please refer Example 1 in Section 3 for
a thorough review of notations. The procedure is data-driven in the sense that we do not assume
the knowledge of the distribution of claim sizes Xi . Instead, we simply assume access to an oracle
that provides independent realizations of claim sizes {X1 , X2 , . . .}. Given this access to claim size
information, Algorithm 1 below specifies the coupling that embeds the process Z(t) in Brownian
motion B(t).

Algorithm 1 To embed the process (Z(t) : t ≥ 0) in Brownian motion (B(t) : t ≥ 0)
Given: Brownian motion B(t), moment m1 and independent realizations of claim sizes X1 , X2 , . . .
Initialize τ0 := 0 and Ψ0 := 0. For j ≥ 1, recursively define,


τj+1 := inf s ≥ τj : sup Br − Bs = Xj+1 , and Ψj := Ψj−1 + Xj .
τj ≤r≤s

Define the auxiliary processes
X
X
S̃(t) :=
sup B(s)1 (τj ≤ t < τj+1 ) and Ñ (t) :=
Ψj 1(τj ≤ t < τj+1 ).
j>0 τj ≤s≤t

j≥0

Let A(t) := Ñ (t) + S̃(t), and identify the time change σ(t) := inf{s : A(s) = m1 t}. Next, take
the time changed version Z(t) := S̃(σ(t)).
Replace Z(t) by −Z(t) and B(t) by −B(t).
Algorithm 1 is a brief description of the coupling developed in Khoshnevisan (1993), where it
is also proved that the process Z(t) output by the construction is indeed the desired compound
Poisson process ‘closely’ coupled with the Brownian motion B(t). Figure 4 below shows a typical
coupled path output by Algorithm 1. Several independent replications of such coupled paths are
used to simulate the coupled risk processes R(t) and RB (t) in Example 1, and δ is chosen as
prescribed by the confidence intervals (obtained due to a straightforward application of central
limit theorem) for the empirical average cost of the simulated coupling.
Appendix B. Some technical proofs
In this section, we first state and prove all the technical results that are utilized in Examples
1, 3 and 4. Then we prove Lemma 15 and 16, which are technical results used in Section 4 to

38

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

Figure 4. A coupled path output by Algorithm 1
Coupled processes B (t) and Z (t)

5
B(t)
Z(t)

0
−5
−10
−15
−20
−25
−30
0

5

10

15

20

25

Time t

complete the proof of Theorem 1. We conclude the section with Lemma 17 and Corollary 3 that
add more clarity to the notation,
Z

Z

Z
−
sup
f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ := sup
(49)
f dν : dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ, f dν < ∞
adopted while defining the primal problem I in Section 2.2.

B.1. Technical results used in Examples 1 and 4. For the results (Lemma 10, 11 and 12)
stated and proved in this section, let S = D([0, T ], R) be equipped with the J1 -topology, and define
(
)
Au :=

x ∈ D([0, T ], R) : sup x(t) ≥ u ,
t∈[0,T ]

u ∈ R.

Lemma 10. For every u ∈ R, the set Au is closed.
Proof. Pick any x ∈
/ Au , and let ε := (u − supt∈[0,T ] x(t))/2. As supt∈[0,T ] x(t) < u, ε is strictly
positive. Then, for every y ∈ S such that dJ1 (x, y) < ε, we have that
sup y(t) ≤ sup x(t) + dJ1 (x, y) ≤ sup x(t) + ε,

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

which, in turn, is smaller than u because of the way ε is chosen. Thus, {y ∈ S : dJ1 (x, y) < ε} is a
subset of S \ Au , and hence S \ Au is open. This automatically means that the set Au is closed. 
Lemma 11. Let c(x, y) = dJ1 (x, y), for x, y in D([0, T ], R). For any u ∈ R, c(x, Au ) := inf{c(x, y) :
y ∈ Au } is given by
c(x, Au ) = u − sup x(t),
t∈[0,T ]

for every x ∈
/ Au .
Proof. Given ε > 0, let z(t) := x(t) + inf t∈[0,T ] (u − x(t)) + ε, for all t ∈ [0, T ]. As z ∈ Au , it is
immediate from the definition of c(x, Au ) that
(50)

c(x, Au ) ≤ dJ1 (x, z) ≤ sup |z(t) − x(t)| = inf (u − x(t)) + ε = u − sup x(t) + ε.
t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

Next, let Λ be the set of strictly increasing functions λ mapping the interval [0, T ] onto itself, such
that both λ and λ−1 are continuous. Also, let e be the identity map, that is, e(t) = t, for all t in
[0, T ]. Then,

dJ1 (x, y) := inf ||x − y ◦ λ||∞ + ||λ − e||∞ ,
λ∈Λ

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

39

where ||z||∞ = supt∈[0,T ] |z(t)|, for any z in S. Since c(x, y) = dJ1 (x, y), we have

c(x, Au ) = inf inf ||x − y ◦ λ||∞ + ||λ − e||∞ .
y∈Au λ∈Λ

Next, as y ◦ λ ∈ Au for any y ∈ Au , it is immediate that one can restrict to λ = e without loss of
generality, and subsequently, the inner infimum is not necessary. In other words, for any ε > 0,
c(x, Au ) = inf ||x − y||∞ = inf
y∈Au

≥ inf

y∈Au

sup |x(t) − y(t)|

y∈Au t∈[0,T ]

inf

!

y(t) − sup x(t)

t∈[0,T ]:yt >u−ε

t∈[0,T ]

≥ u − sup x(t) − ε.
t∈[0,T ]

As ε is arbitrary, this observation, when combined with (50), concludes the proof of Lemma 11.



Lemma 12. Let c(x, y) = d2J (x, y) for x, y in D([0, T ], R). Given nonnegative constants a1 , a2 and
1
λ, define the functions,

f (x) = sup a2 x(t) − a1 t and φλ (x) = sup {f (y) − λc(x, y)} ,
y∈S

t∈[0,T ]

for every x ∈ S. Then, for any δ > 0,

 Z
Z
√
inf λδ + φλ (x)dµ(x) = f (x)dµ(x) + a2 δ.
λ≥0

Proof. Fix any x ∈ S and λ > 0. For any positive constant b, as y(t) = x(t) + b is also a member
of S, it follows from the definition of φλ (x) that
(
)
(
)


2
2
sup a2 y(t) − a1 t − λdJ (x, y) = sup
sup a2 (x(t) + b) − a1 t − λb .
φλ (x) ≥ sup
y:y=x+b

1

t∈[0,T ]

b ≥ 0

t∈[0,T ]

b ≥ 0

As the function a2 b − λb2 is maximized at b = a2 /2λ, the above lower bound simplifies to
φλ (x) ≥ f (x) +

(51)

a22
.
4λ

To obtain an upper bound, we first observe from the definition of the metric dJ1 that
n
2 o
φλ (x) = sup inf f (y) − λ ||x − y ◦ ν||∞ + ||ν − e||∞
,
y∈S ν∈Λ

where the quantities Λ and e are defined as in the proof of Lemma 11. Again, as y ◦ ν lies in S,
for every time change ν ∈ Λ, one can take ν = e without loss of generality. Consequently,


φλ (x) = sup f (y) − λ||x − y||2∞ = sup f (x + z) − λ||z||2∞ ,
y∈S

z∈S

where we have also changed the variable from y − x to z. In particular,
(
)

2
φλ (x) = sup sup a2 (x(t) + z(t)) − a1 t − λkzk∞
z∈S

≤ sup
z∈S

t∈[0,T ]

(

sup

t∈[0,T ]


a2 x(t) − a1 t + a2 sup z(t) − λkzk2∞

= f (x) + sup a2 kzk∞ −
z∈S

t∈[0,T ]

λkzk2∞



,

)

40

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

which, in turn, is maximized for ||z|| = a2 /2λ. Combining this upper bound with the lower bound
in (51), we obtain that φλ (x) R= f (x) + a22 /4λ. Next, it is a straightforward
exercise in calculus to
√
∗
verify that the function λδ + φλ dµ is minimized at λ = a2 /2 δ, and subsequently,

 Z
Z
√
inf λδ + φλ dµ = f dµ + a2 δ.
λ≥0

This completes the proof.





B.2. Proofs of results used in Section 6.1. For the results (Lemma 13, 14 and Corollary 2)
stated and proved in this section, let S = D([0, T ], R2 ) be equipped with the J1 -topology induced
by the metric
(
)
dJ1 (x, y) = inf

λ∈Λ

sup max |xi (t) − yi (λ(t))| + sup |λ(t) − t| ,

t∈[0,T ] i=1,2

t∈[0,T ]

where the set Λ, as in Lemma 3, is the set of strictly increasing functions λ mapping the interval
[0, T ] onto itself, such that both λ and λ−1 are continuous.
Lemma 13. For a given vector a = (a1 , a2 ) with a1 , a2 ≥ 0 and a1 a2 > 0,



T
T
cl {x ∈ S : a x(t) ≤ 0 for some t ∈ [0, T ]} = x ∈ S : inf a x(t) ≤ 0 .
t∈[0,T ]

Proof. We first show that the set C := {x ∈ S : inf t∈[0,T ] aT x(t) ≤ 0} is closed by showing that its
complement is open. Given any x ∈
/ C, let ε := inf t∈[0,T ] aT x(t) > 0. Then, for every y ∈ S such
that dJ1(x, y) < ε/(2a1 + 2a2 ), we have that
inf yi (t) ≥ inf xi (t) − dJ1(x, y) > inf xi (t) −

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

ε
,
2(a1 + a2 )

for i = 1, 2. Further, as a1 , a2 are non-negative, we obtain that
inf aT y(t) ≥ inf aT x(t) − (a1 + a2 )

t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

ε
> 0.
2(a1 + a2 )

Thus, for every x ∈ S \ C, we can find an ε > 0 such that {y ∈ S : dJ1(x, y) < ε/(2a1 + 2a2 )} is a
subset of S \ C, and hence S \ C is open. Therefore, C is closed.
Letting D := {x ∈ S : aT x(t) ≤ 0 for some t ∈ [0, T ]}, the remaining task is to show that for
every ε > 0 and x ∈ C, there exists y ∈ D such that dJ1(x, y) < ε. For any given ε > 0 and
x ∈ C, we first see that there exists t0 ∈ [0, T ] such that aT x(t0 ) < ε(a1 + a2 )/2; such a t0 exists
for every x ∈ C because inf t∈[0,T ] aT x(t) ≤ 0. Then (y(t) = (y1 (t), y2 (t)) : t ∈ [0, T ]) defined as
yi (t) = xi (t) − ε, i = 1, 2 lies in D because aT y(t0 ) = aT x(t0 ) − (a1 + a2 )ε < 0. Therefore, every x
in C is a closure point of D. Therefore, cl(D) = C.


Corollary 2. Let B = {(x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : βx1 + x2 ≤ 0} ∪ {(x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 : x1 + βx2 ≤ 0} for some
β ≥ 0. Then cl ({x ∈ S : x(t) ∈ B for some t ∈ [0, T ]}) equals A1 ∪ A2 , where
(52)
A1 :=






x ∈ S : inf (βx1 (t) + x2 (t)) ≤ 0 and A2 := x ∈ S : inf (x1 (t) + βx2 (t)) ≤ 0 .
t∈[0,T ]

t∈[0,T ]

Proof. It follows from Lemma 13 that cl ({x ∈ S : βx1 (t) + x2 (t) ≤ 0 for some t ∈ [0, T ]}) = A1
and cl ({x ∈ S : x1 (t) + βx2 (t) ≤ 0 for some t ∈ [0, T ]}) = A2 . Then the statement to verify follows
from the fact that the closure of the union of two sets equals the union of closures of those two
sets.


QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

41

Lemma 14. For x, y ∈ D([0, T ], R2 ), let c(x, y) be defined as in (42). Let A = A1 ∪ A2 , where A1
and A2 are defined as in (52), and β ≥ 0. Then for x ∈ S \ A,


2
2
1
c(x, A) =
inf βx1 (t) + x2 (t) ∧ inf x1 (t) + βx2 (t)
,
1 + β 2 t∈[0,T ]
t∈[0,T ]

and for λ∗ ≥ 0, {x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ 1/λ∗ } equals
) (
)
(
r
r
1 + β2
1 + β2
∪ x ∈ S : inf (x1 (t) + βx2 (t)) ≤
x ∈ S : inf (βx1 (t) + x2 (t)) ≤
λ∗
λ∗
t∈[0,T ]
t∈[0,T ]

/ A1 . Given
/ A1 and ε > 0,
Proof. Let us focus on determining c(x, A1 ) = inf y∈A1 c(x, y) for x ∈
p x∈
we first define x̃ε (t) := x(t) − (b + ε)u, where b := inf t∈[0,T ] (βx1 (t) + x2 (t))/ 1 + β 2 > 0 and u is
the unit vector (in `2 -norm) along the direction [β, 1]. As
p
β x̃ε,1 (t) + x̃ε,2 (t) = βx1 (t) + x2 (t) − (b + ε) 1 + β 2 ≤ 0 for some t ≤ T,
we have x̃ε := (x̃ε,1 , x̃ε,2 ) ∈ A1 . As a result,
(53)

c(x, A1 ) ≤ c(x, x̃ε ) = k(b + ε)uk22 =

βx1 (t) + x2 (t)
p
inf
+ε
t∈[0,T ]
1 + β2

!2

for x ∈
/ A1 . Next, using the same line of reasoning as in the proof of Lemma 11, one can restrict
to time changes λ(t) = t in the computation of lower bound. Then,
c(x, A1 ) = inf

sup ||x(t) − y(t)||22 ≥ inf

y∈A1 t∈[0,T ]

sup

y∈A1 t:βy1 (t)+y2 (t)≤ε

||x(t) − y(t)||22 ,

for any ε > 0. For z ∈ R2 , if we let gε (z) = inf {y∈R2 :βy1 +y2 ≤ε} ||z − y||22 , then
c(x, A1 ) ≥ inf

sup

y∈A1 t:βy1 (t)+y2 (t)≤ε

gε (x(t)).

Next, for z = (z1 , z2 ) such that βz1 + z2 > ε, observe that gε (z) = (βz1 + z2 − ε)2 /(1 + β 2 ).
Therefore,
(βx1 (t) + x2 (t) − ε)2
(βx1 (t) + x2 (t) − ε)2
≥
inf
y∈A1 t:βy1 (t)+y2 (t)≤ε
1 + β2
1 + β2
t∈[0,T ]

c(x, A1 ) ≥ inf

sup

for every ε small enough. As ε can be arbitrarily small, combining the upper bound in (53) with
the above lower bound results in
2
βx1 (t) + x2 (t)
c(x, A1 ) = inf
for x ∈
/ A1 .
1 + β2
t∈[0,T ]
Consequently, {x ∈ S : c(x, A1 ) ≤ 1/λ∗ } = A1 ∪ {x ∈ S : c(x, A1 ) ∈ (0, 1/λ∗ )}, which is simply,
(
)
r

1 + β2
x ∈ S : inf βx1 (t) + x2 (t) ≤
for x ∈
/ A1 .
λ∗
t∈[0,T ]
Similarly, one can show that c(x, A2 ) = inf t∈[0,T ] (x1 (t) + βx2 (t))2 /(1 + β 2 ) and a similar expression
as above for {x ∈ S : c(x, A2 ) ≤ 1/λ∗ }. As A = A1 ∪ A2 , it is immediate that c(x, A) = c(x, A1 ) ∧
c(x, A2 ) and {x ∈ S : c(x, A) ≤ λ1∗ } is the union of two sets {x ∈ S : c(x, Ai ) ≤ 1/λ∗ }, i = 1, 2,
thus verifying both the claims.



42

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

B.3. Technical results used in Section 4 to complete the proof of Theorem 1.
Lemma 15. Let S × S be a Polish space that is compact, and f : S → R is upper semicontinuous.
Suppose that π ∈ M (S × S), with the Jordan decomposition π = π + − π − comprising positive
measures π + and π − , is such that π + (A) = 0 < π − (A) < ∞ for some A ∈ B(S × S). Then,
Z

inf
gdπ : g ∈ Cb (S × S), g(x, y) ≥ f (y) = −∞.
Proof. We first observe that if π is not As any finite Borel measure on a Polish space is regular,
there exists a compact set Kε and an open set Oε such that Kε ⊆ A ⊆ Oε and
π − (Oε ) − ε ≤ π − (A) ≤ π − (Kε ) + ε,

and

π + (Oε ) ≤ ε,

for any given ε > 0 (see Lemma 18.5 in Aliprantis and Burkinshaw (1998)). Further, as S × S is
compact, Urysohn’s lemma (see, for example, Theorem 10.8 in Aliprantis and Burkinshaw (1998))
guarantees us the existence of a continuous function h : S × S → [0, 1] such that h(x, y) = 1
for all Rx ∈ Kε and h(x, y) = 0 for all x ∈
/ Oε . In that case, choosing ε < π − (A)/2, we have
inf n≥1 gn dπ = −∞ for the sequence of continuous functions gn (x, y) = nh(x, y) + supx∈S f (x).
This is because, supx∈S f (x) < ∞ (recall that f is upper semicontinuous and S is compact), and
Z
Z
Z
+
hdπ = hdπ − hdπ − ≤ π + (Oε ) − π − (Kε ) ≤ 2ε − π − (A) < 0
R
R
when ε < π − (A)/2. As gn (x, y) ≥ f (y) for all x, y in S, it follows that inf g∈D gdπ ≤ inf n gn dπ =
−∞ as well, whenever there exists A such that π − (A) > 0.


Lemma 16. Suppose that Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. Let (Sn : n ≥ 1) be an
increasing sequence of subsets of S, and (λn : n ≥ 1) be a real-valued sequence satisfying λn → λ∗ ,
for some λ∗ ≥ 0, as n → ∞. Then for any x ∈ S,

lim sup f (y) − λn c(x, y) ≥ sup {f (y) − λ∗ c(x, y)} .
n y∈Sn

y∈∪n Sn

Proof. Pick any x ∈ S. For brevity, let g(y, λ) := f (y) − λc(x, y) (hiding the dependence on the
fixed choice x ∈ S) and λ̄m := supk≥m λk . The observations that
(A) g(y, λ) is a non-increasing function in λ, and
(B) supy∈Sn g(y, λ) ≤ supy∈Sn+1 g(y, λ) for n ≥ 1,
will be used repeatedly throughout this proof. While Observation (A) follows from the fact that
Sn ⊆ Sn+1 , Observation (B) is true because c(·, ·) is non-negative. The quantity of interest,

lim sup f (y) − λn c(x, y) = sup inf sup g(y, λm ) ≥ sup inf sup g(y, λm ) ≥ sup sup inf g(y, λm ),
n>0 m≥n y∈Sm

n y∈Sn

n>0 m≥n y∈Sn

n>0 y∈Sn m≥n

where the first inequality follows from Observation (B), and the second inequality from the exchange
of inf and sup operations. As inf m≥n g(y, λm ) = f (y) − (supm≥n λm )c(x, y) = g(y, λ̄n ), we obtain

(54)
lim sup f (y) − λn c(x, y) ≥ sup sup g(y, λ̄n ) = sup g(y, λ∗ ),
n y∈Sn

n>0 y∈Sn

y∈∪n Sn

where the rest of this proof is devoted to justify the last equality in (54): As supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) is
non-decreasing in n, it is immediate that supn supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) ≤ ḡ := supy∈∪n Sn g(y, λ∗ ). To show
that supn supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) indeed equals ḡ, we use Ŝ to denote Ŝ := ∪n Sn , and consider distinct
cases:
Case 1: ḡ < ∞. If ḡ is finite, then there exists yε ∈ Ŝ such that g(yε , λ∗ ) ≥ ḡ − ε/2 for any
ε > 0. Further, as g(yε , λ) is continuous in λ, there exists n0 large enough such that g(yε , λ̄n ) ≥
g(yε , λ∗ ) − ε/2, and consequently, g(yε , λ̄n ) ≥ ḡ − ε, for all n ≥ n0 . Therefore, for all n > n0
satisfying yε ∈ Sn , it follows that supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) ≥ g(yε , λ̄n ) ≥ ḡ − ε. Since ε is arbitrary, we
obtain supn supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) = ḡ whenever ḡ is finite.

QUANTIFYING MODEL RISK

43

Case 2: ḡ = ∞. If ḡ = supy∈Ŝ g(y, λ∗ ) = ∞, then there exists a strictly increasing subsequence
(nk : k ≥ 1) of natural numbers such that supy∈Ŝ g(y, λ̄nk ) > k for all k (this is because, being a
pointwise supremum of family of continuous functions of λ, supy∈Ŝ g(y, λ) is a lower semicontinuous
function of λ). Next, as supy∈Ŝ g(y, λ̄nk ) > k, there exists a sequence (yk : k ≥ 1) comprising

elements of Ŝ such that g(yk , λ̄nk ) ≥ k/2 for all k ≥ 1. As (Sn : n ≥ 1) is a sequence of sets
increasing to Ŝ, one can identify a strictly increasing subsequence (mk : k ≥ 1) of natural numbers
such that yk ∈ Smk and consequently, supy∈Sm g(y, λ̄nk ) ≥ k/2 for all k ≥ 1. Next, if we let
k
lk = nk ∨ mk , then λ̄lk ≤ λ̄nk , Smk ⊆ Slk , and it follows from Observations (A) and (B) that
supy∈Sl g(y, λ̄lk ) ≥ k/2 as well. This results in a non-decreasing sequence (lk : k ≥ 1) with
k
lk → ∞ such that supy∈Sl g(y, λ̄lk ) ≥ k/2, thus yielding supn supy∈Sn g(y, λ̄n ) = ∞ = ḡ.
k

The proof is complete because supy∈∪n Sn g(y, λ∗ ) in (54) is the desired right hand side. 



B.4. A technical result to add clarity to the notation (49).
Lemma 17. Suppose that Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. Then, for every π ∈ Φµ,δ ,
there exists a π 0 ∈ Φµ,δ such that π 0 is concentrated on {(x, y) ∈ S × S : f (y) ≥ f (x)}, along with
satisfying,
Z
Z
Z
Z
(55)
f + (y)dπ 0 (x, y) ≥ f + (y)dπ(x, y) and
f − (y)dπ 0 (x, y) ≤ f − (x)dµ(x).
Further,

R

f (y)dπ 0 (x, y) ≥

R

f (y)dπ(x, y), whenever the integral

R

f (y)dπ(x, y) is well-defined.

Proof. Let (X, Y ) be jointly distributed according to π. Using (X, Y ), let us define a new jointly
distributed pair (X 0 , Y 0 ), with joint distribution denoted by π 0 , as follows:
(56)

X 0 := X

and

Y 0 := Y I (f (X) ≤ f (Y )) + XI (f (X) > f (Y )) ,

where I(·) denotes the indicator function. As X 0 = X, the marginal distribution of X 0 is µ. Further,
it follows from the definition of (X 0 , Y 0 ) in (56) that
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
cdπ =
c(x, y)dπ(x, y) +
c(x, x)dπ(x, y) =
c(x, y)dπ(x, y),
{f (x)≤f (y)}

{f (x)>f (y)}

{f (x)≤f (y)}

R
0
Rbecause c(x, x) = 0 for every x in S. In addition, as c(·, ·) is non-negative, it follows that cdπ ≤
cdπ ≤ δ. Therefore, π ∈ Φµ,δ . Next,
Z
Z
Z
f + (y)dπ 0 (x, y) =
f + (y)dπ(x, y) +
f + (x)dπ(x, y)
{f (x)≤f (y)}
{f (x)>f (y)}
Z
Z
=
f + (y)dπ(x, y) +
f + (x)dπ(x, y)
+
+
+
+
{f (x)≤f (y)}
{f (x)>f (y)}
Z
Z
Z
+
+
≥
f (y)dπ(x, y) +
f (y)dπ(x, y) = f + (y)dπ(x, y),
and
{f + (x)≤f + (y)}
{f + (x)>f + (y)}
Z
Z
Z
−
0
−
f (y)dπ (x, y) =
f (y)dπ(x, y) +
f − (x)dπ(x, y)
{f (x)≤f (y)}
{f (x)>f (y)}
Z
Z
=
f − (y)dπ(x, y) +
f − (x)dπ(x, y)
−
−
−
−
{f (x)≥f (y)}
{f (x)<f (y)}
Z
Z
Z
Z
−
−
−
≤
f (x)dπ(x, y) +
f (x)dπ(x, y) = f (x)dπ(x, y) = f − dµ,
{f − (x)≥f − (y)}

{f − (x)<f − (y)}

44

BLANCHET AND MURTHY

R
R
R
As f − dµ < ∞, f (y)dπ 0 (x, y) is always well-defined. Further, when f (y)dπ(x, y) is also well
defined, it is immediate from the definition of π 0 that,
Z
Z
Z
0
f (x)dπ(x, y)
f (y)dπ(x, y) +
f (y)dπ (x, y) =
{f (x)>f (y)}
{f (x)≤f (y)}
Z
Z
Z
≥
f (y)dπ(x, y) +
f (y)dπ(x, y) = f (y)dπ(x, y),
{f (x)≤f (y)}

{f (x)>f (y)}

thus verifying all the claims made in the statement.



Corollary
3. Suppose that Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are in force. Let ν ∈ P (S) be such that
R −
f dν = ∞ and dc (µ,
measure µ ∈ P (S). Then there exists
R ν) ≤ δ for
R a givenR reference probability
R
ν 0 ∈ P (S) such that f + dν 0 ≥ f + dν, f − dν 0 < ∞ = f − dν, and dc (µ, ν 0 ) ≤ δ.

Proof. Let π ∈ Π(µ, ν) be anR optimal coupling that attains the infimum in the definition of dc (µ, ν);
in other words, dc (µ, ν) = cdπ (such an optimal coupling π always exists because of the lower
semicontinuity of c(·, ·), see Theorem 4.1 in Villani (2008)). Since dc (µ, ν) ≤ δ and π(· × S) = µ(·),
we have that π ∈ Φµ,δ . Then, according to Lemma 17, there exists π 0 ∈ Φµ,δ satisfying (55).
Consequently,
distribution
by ν 0 (·)
π 0 (S × ·) satisfies dc (µ, ν 0 ) ≤ δ, along
R + 0 the
R marginal
R − 0 R defined
R :=
+
−
−
with f dν ≥ f dν and f dν ≤ f dµ < ∞ = f dν.

Columbia University, Department of Industrial Engineering & Operations Research, S. W. Mudd
Building, 500 W 120th St., New York, NY 10027, United States.
E-mail address: {jose.blanchet, karthyek.murthy}@columbia.edu

