arXiv:1803.02415v1 [econ.EM] 6 Mar 2018

Almost Sure Uniqueness of a Global Minimum
Without Convexity∗
Gregory Cox†
Columbia University
First Version: March 26, 2016
This Version: March 6, 2018
Abstract
This paper provides a theorem for the set of global minimizers, the argmin,
of a random objective function to be unique almost surely. The usual way to get
uniqueness is to assume the function is strictly quasiconvex and the domain is
convex. Outside of a few special cases, verifying uniqueness without convexity
has not been done and is often just assumed. The main result of this paper
establishes uniqueness without assuming convexity by relying on an easy-toverify nondegeneracy condition. The main result of this paper has widespread
application beyond econometrics. Six applications are discussed: uniqueness of
M-estimators, utility maximization with a nonconvex budget set, uniqueness of
the policy function in dynamic programming, envelope theorems, limit theory
in weakly identified models, and functionals of Brownian motion.

Keywords: global optimization, nonconvex optimization
∗

A previous version of this paper was circulated under the title “Generic Uniqueness of a Global
Minimum.” The author gratefully acknowledges help from conversations with Donald Andrews,
Xiaohong Chen, Yuichi Kitamura, Ivana Komunjer, Simon Lee, Adam McCloskey, José Luis Montiel
Olea, Serena Ng, Bernard Salanié, Tobias Salz, and Ming Yuan.
†
Department of Economics, Columbia University, 1012 International Affairs Building, 420 West
118th St., New York, NY 10027 (gfc2106@columbia.edu)

1

1

Introduction

This paper establishes the argmin of a random objective function to be unique almost
surely.1 The task of finding the argmin of a random function is a very general problem,
and evaluating whether the argmin is unique is important in many applications. The
main result of this paper, Theorem 1, holds under very weak conditions. In particular,
it allows for nonconvexity, both of the objective function and of the domain.
The usual argument for uniqueness of the argmin relies on convexity assumptions.
Without convexity, it is difficult to guarantee uniqueness of the argmin. At the
same time, there is a popular intuition that multiple global minimizers occurring
with positive probability requires a degenerate random function, in some sense. By
considering almost sure uniqueness and relying on a type of nondegeneracy condition,2
Theorem 1 provides a systematic way to relax convexity conditions.
Intuitively, the proof of Theorem 1 eliminates potential global minimizers occurring at distinct points. If the first order condition is nonzero, then we can eliminate
that point as a global minimizer. The novel idea is recognizing that we can do the
same thing for derivatives with respect to z, a random vector. If the difference of the
derivatives at two distinct points with respect to z is nonzero, then the probability
of two global minimizers occurring in neighborhoods of those two points is zero.3
This novel idea is very useful because the derivative with respect to z is often more
tractable than the derivative with respect to the domain of optimization.
At this level of generality, there are not many papers that seek to verify uniqueness
of the argmin of a function without convexity. The closest is an approach based on
a “Mountain Pass Lemma.” This applies if the Hessian of the objective function is
positive definite whenever the gradient is zero. The intuition is that between any two
minimizers there must exist a local maximum or saddle point. While this condition
is sufficient in one dimension, Tarone and Gruenhage (1975) give a counterexample
in multiple dimensions. A variety of papers, including Mäkeläinen, Schmidt, and
Styan (1981), Demidenko (2008), and Mascarenhas (2010) supplement the Hessian
condition with additional regularity conditions to prove uniqueness of the minimizer.
1

Existence of a minimizer is not considered in this paper. The arguments used to prove existence
are different from those used to prove uniqueness. Thus, the phrase “the argmin is unique” should
be interpreted to mean the argmin does not contain two or more points.
2
See Assumption Generic in Section 2 and the remarks that follow it.
3
See Lemma 4 in Section 3.

2

This approach has two disadvantages. First, it has narrow scope. The conclusion
of the Mountain Pass Lemma is that the local minimizer is unique. This implies that
this approach does not work for any function with multiple local minimizers, but a
unique global minimizer. Second, the Hessian condition can be difficult to verify if the
derivatives of the objective function are intractable. In contrast, Theorem 1 applies
to functions with multiple local minimizers, and the assumptions of Theorem 1 are
easy to verify.
Theorem 1 has applications to a variety of fields in economics and, more broadly,
optimization. In this paper, six applications are discussed.4
(1) M-estimators minimize a random objective function. The objective function
is usually nonconvex and the estimator may be difficult to calculate numerically. The
literature has proved uniqueness of an M-estimator for a nonconvex objective function
only in isolated cases. More generally, Theorem 1 guarantees the estimator is unique
with probability 1, including a new result for uniqueness of the maximum likelihood
estimator in a finite mixture model.
(2) A utility maximizing consumer with a nonconvex budget set may not choose a
single-valued demand correspondence, even with strictly concave preferences. In addition, nonconvexity may lead to a value function that is not differentiable and violate
Roy’s identity. Theorem 1 can be used to verify single-valued demand almost surely
with respect to a distribution of individual heterogeneity in preference parameters.
(3) Many dynamic programming problems in economics contain nonconcave aspects, such as fixed adjustment costs. The policy function is an object of interest in
many settings, and uniqueness of the policy function is an important condition for
policy function iteration to converge, a common way to solve dynamic programming
problems. Theorem 1 provides the first general way to verify uniqueness of the policy
function that does not require concavity.
(4) Envelope Theorems establish differentiability of the value function, together
with a formula for the derivative. Under weak conditions, the value function is directionally differentiable. In the proof of the envelope theorem, uniqueness of the argmin
is used to get the directional derivatives to coincide. Thus, Theorem 1 can be used
in a key step in the proof of the envelope theorem.
(5) In weakly identified models, limit theory for an estimator relies on uniqueness
of the argmin of a random function. This is stated as an assumption that can be
4

See Section 4 for the literature related to each application.

3

difficult to verify. Theorem 1 reduces this assumption to two easily verified conditions:
a generic identification condition and a rank condition. Examples are given that
demonstrate the importance of these two conditions.
(6) Many random objective functions can be written as a functional of Brownian
motion. Theorem 1 accommodates both the infinite dimensionality and nondifferentiability aspects of Brownian motion. For example, Theorem 1 provides a new proof
that Chernoff’s distribution is well-defined.
Section 2 states Theorem 1. Section 3 provides intuition and states lemmas for
the proof of Theorem 1. Section 4 discusses the applications. Section 5 concludes.
An appendix contains the proofs.

2

Statement of Theorem 1

This paper studies minimizers of an objective function, t 7→ Q(t, z), where z is random. The following assumption eliminates mass points in the distribution of z.
Assumption Absolute Continuity. Let z be an absolutely continuous random dz vector with distribution P . Let Z ⊂ Rdz be a measurable set such that P (z ∈ Z) = 1.
Remark:
1. The finite dimensionality of z is not restrictive. Infinite dimensional sources of
randomness can be accommodated by focusing on a finite dimensional marginal
distribution, and conditioning on the remainder. Section 4.6 illustrates this in
an application in which the randomness is Brownian motion.
Assumption Manifold. Let T = ∪j∈J Tj be a disjoint union of finitely or countably

many second-countable Hausdorff manifolds, possibly with boundary or corner.
Remarks:
1. t ∈ T is the domain over which Q(t, z) is minimized.

2. Using manifolds, possibly with boundaries or corners, is a flexible way to allow
for a variety of shapes to be minimized over. This is important because many
applications require irregularly shaped T . In the utility maximization application in Section 4.2, T is the budget set, which may have nonlinearities or kink
points. In the weak identification application in Section 4.5, T is the identified
set, which may have an irregular shape due to bounds.
4

3. Tj is a manifold with boundary or corner if each point, t ∈ Tj , is locally diffeomorphic5 to a neighborhood in Rm × Rn+ , where R+ denotes the nonnegative
reals. For every t ∈ Tj , the number m+n is the same and denotes the dimension
of the manifold, dTj .

4. Each Tj is locally Euclidean, so, to simplify notation, we identify Tj with the
Euclidean space, understanding that this holds with respect to the local coordinate system. For example, if u is the coordinate map, we write t + s to indicate
u(u−1(t) + u−1(s)), and the derivative of f (t) taken with respect to t indicates
a derivative taken with respect to the coordinates, v ∈ U, of the composition,
f (u(v)).
To accommodate the possibility of a nondifferentiable objective function in some
directions, we write the local neighborhoods as subsets of Rm1 × Rn+1 × Rm2 × Rn+2 .
Then, for each t ∈ Tj , write t = (t1 , t2 ), where t1 ∈ Rm1 × Rn+1 are the differentiable

directions and t2 ∈ Rm2 × Rn+2 are the nondifferentiable directions. This rewriting
assumes that Tj is locally a product space between the differentiable directions and

the nondifferentiable directions. Let A(t1 ) denote the tangent cone to Rm1 × Rn+1 at
the point t1 .6
Assumption Continuous Differentiability.
(a) Q(t, z) is a continuous function of t and z.
(b) For every z ∈ Z and t ∈ T , Q(t, z) is differentiable with respect to z, and the
derivative is continuous with respect to t and z.

(c) For every z ∈ Z, t ∈ T , and ∆ ∈ A(t1 ), Q(t1 , t2 , z)7 is differentiable with respect
to t1 in the direction ∆, and the derivative is continuous with respect to (t, z).
Remark:
1. Part (c) allows for nondifferentiability of the objective function in the t2 direction. See Section 4.6 for an application with nondifferentiability.
5

A diffeomorphism is a continuously differentiable function with a continuously differentiable
inverse.
6
The tangent cone of t1 to a set K is the closure of the union of all rays that start at t1 and
intersect K.
7
To simplify notation, we often write Q(t1 , t2 , z) instead of Q((t1 , t2 ), z).

5

Let Ξ = {(t, s, z) : z ∈ Z, t, s ∈ T, and t 6= s}. Let ξ(t, s, z) = Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)
be defined on Ξ.
Assumption Generic. Assume ξ(t, s, z) is a generic function over Ξ. That is, for
every (t, s, z) ∈ Ξ, at least one of the following is true:
(a) ξ(t, s, z) 6= 0,
(b) there exists ∆ ∈ A(t1 ) such that

d
ξ(t1 + h∆, t2 , s, z)|h=0 < 0,
dh

(c) there exists ∆ ∈ A(s1 ) such that

d
ξ(t, s1 + h∆, s2 , z)|h=0 > 0, or
dh

(d)

d
ξ(t, s, z) 6= 0.
dz

Remarks:
1. The key to Assumption Generic is condition (d). Often, derivatives with respect to z are more tractable than derivatives with respect to t. In the applications, the general strategy for verifying Assumption Generic is to show that
d
d
Q(t, z) = Q(s, z) implies t = s.
dz
dz
2. For interior points, t or s, conditions (b) and (c) are related to first order
conditions for optimality. If the derivative with respect to t is nonzero, then
t not a global minimizer, and condition (b) is satisfied for some ∆. These
conditions can be augmented with conditions on second derivatives to allow
saddle points and local maximizers.
3. Assumption Generic is a standard condition in differential topology. It is also
called transversality or regularity. Intuitively, a function is generic if, whenever
its value hits zero, it crosses zero (or is transverse to zero) with a nonzero
derivative. In this context, Assumption Generic says that, whenever Q(t, z) =
Q(s, z), then one of the derivatives must not be equal, either with respect to t1 ,
s1 , or z. Furthermore, Assumption Generic is satisfied generically, in the sense
of the transversality theorem.8

8

See Guillemin and Pollack (1974), Section 2.3.

6

4. Assumption Generic makes precise the type of degeneracy needed for a random function to have multiple global minimizers with positive probability.
Specifically, for interior t and s and no nondifferentiable directions, Assumption Generic is a system of n + 1 equations in n unknowns. We can expect
an arbitrarily chosen function, ξ, to have zero solutions, satisfying Assumption
Generic.
5. Assumption Generic is useful in a wide variety of fields. A version of Assumption
Generic is used to prove uniqueness of equilibria in a generic economy.9
Theorem 1. Under Assumptions Absolute Continuity, Manifold, Continuous Differentiability, and Generic, the argmin of Q(t, z) over t ∈ T is unique almost surely-z.
Remarks:
1. Intuitively, the proof of Theorem 1 eliminates potential global minimizers occurring at distinct points. Each condition in Assumption Generic eliminates
t 6= s as simultaneous global minimizers of Q(t, z) with positive probability. If,
with probability 1, all simultaneous global minimizers t 6= s are eliminated, we
can conclude that the argmin contains two or more points with probability zero.
Section 3 discusses this intuition in more detail.

2. Theorem 1 is related to the transversality theorem.10 One difference is which
derivatives on the boundary are permitted. The transversality theorem assumes that both the interior manifold and the boundary manifold are transversal, which implies that the derivatives at boundary points are only taken along
the boundary. In contrast, Assumption Generic allows derivatives at boundary
points to be taken into the interior. This generates a new boundary complication, discussed and solved in Section 3.3.

3

Intuition for the Proof of Theorem 1

This section gives intuition for the proof of Theorem 1. The first subsection reduces
the global problem to a local problem, the second subsection states lemmas for the
9
10

See Section 17.D in Mas-Colell, Whinston, and Green (1995).
See Guillemin and Pollack (1974), Section 2.3.

7

local problem, and the third subsection discusses and solves a boundary complication.
All proofs are in the appendix.

3.1

Global to Local

The uniqueness of a global minimizer is a global condition. In order to verify it, we
reduce the problem to a local problem. Lemma 1 reduces from possibly noncompact
T and Z to compact subsets. Lemma 2 provides a condition to cover these compact

sets with neighborhoods.
The following lemma allows a reduction from minimization over all of T to minimization over compact subsets, K ∈ Kj . We impose the following assumption, stating
the properties of Kj , and, in the proof of Theorem 1, construct Kj that satisfy it.
Since Tj is second-countable, we can let Uj denote a countable atlas for Tj .
Assumption K. For every j ∈ J, Kj satisfies the following conditions.
(a) Kj is a countable collection of compact subsets of Tj .
(b) For every K ∈ Kj , there exist U ∈ Uj such that K ⊂ U.
(c) For every K ∈ Kj , K = K1 × K2 , where K1 = B1 ∩ Λ, B1 is a closed ball in
Rm1 +n1 with center t̄1 and radius r1 , K2 is a compact subset of Rm2 × Rn+2 , and
Λ = A(t̄1 ), a closed convex cone with vertex t̄1 .

(d) For every K ∈ Kj , where K = B1 ∩ Λ × K2 , let K 1/2 = B1 (t̄1 , r1 /2) ∩ Λ × K2 ,

where B1 (x, r) denotes the closed ball with center x and radius r. Assume for
every t, s ∈ Tj , there exist K, C ∈ Kj , disjoint, such that t ∈ K 1/2 and s ∈ C 1/2 .

Remarks:
1. Condition (c) imposes special structure on K. If Tj does not have a boundary
or corner, then Λ = Rm1 +n1 . If K includes a boundary or corner of Tj , then, as
constructed in the proof of Theorem 1, Λ is an orthant of Rm1 +n1 .
2. The notation, K 1/2 , denotes the fact that K has been shrunk in the differentiable
direction by a factor of 1/2. Condition (d) is similar to a Hausdorff condition
on Tj with respect to neighborhoods defined by Kj . It is used when dealing
with the boundary complication in Section 3.3.
8

3. Assumption K is assumed throughout the rest of this section and the proofs of
the lemmas. In the proof of Theorem 1, we construct Kj satisfying Assumption K.
For the first lemma, we consider j1 , j2 ∈ J, which may be the same. Let K ∈ Kj1

and C ∈ Kj2 be disjoint. We are interested in two things: (1) whether the minimum
value of Q(t, z) over K is equal to the minimum value over C, and (2) whether the
minimum is achieved on K 1/2 and C 1/2 . To deal with these, define the value function,
V (K, z) = inf Q(t, z).
t∈K

Notice that Q(t, z) achieves its minimum over K in K 1/2 if and only if V (K, z) =
V (K 1/2 , z). With this notation, Lemma 1 shows that the value of the minimum
occurring in K 1/2 and C 1/2 of disjoint compact sets, K and C, being different is
sufficient for the argmin to be unique almost surely.
Lemma 1. Suppose that {Zk }∞
k=1 is a sequence of compact subsets of Z such that
P (Zk ) → 1 as k → ∞, and suppose that for every k ∈ N, for every j1 , j2 ∈ J, for
every K ∈ Kj1 and C ∈ Kj2 such that K ∩ C = ∅,

P {z ∈ Zk |V (T, z) = V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z)} = 0.

Then, the argmin of Q(t, z) over t ∈ T is unique almost surely.

The condition in Lemma 1 is still not local. Lemma 2 reduces this condition to
a local condition by finding neighborhoods of t, s, and z that can be used to cover
these compact sets such that an appropriate probability is zero.
Lemma 2. Fix Zk ⊂ Z, compact, fix j1 , j2 ∈ J, and fix K ∈ Kj1 and C ∈ Kj2 such
that K ∩ C = ∅. Suppose, for every z̄ ∈ Zk and for every (t, s) ∈ K × C, there exist
neighborhoods, Nt,s,z̄ , Mt,s,z̄ , and Wt,s,z̄ of t, s, and z̄, respectively, such that
P ({z ∈ Wt,s,z̄ | V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (Nt,s,z̄ , z)

Then,


= V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z) = V (Mt,s,z̄ , z)} = 0.


P {z ∈ Zk |V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z)} = 0.
9

(3.1)

3.2

The Local Problem

For the rest of this section, fix j1 , j2 ∈ J, K ∈ Kj1 , C ∈ Kj2 such that K ∩ C = ∅,

t ∈ K, s ∈ C, and z̄ ∈ Zk . We state lemmas that are useful for showing the existence
of neighborhoods, N, M, and W , that satisfy (3.1), using properties of Q(t, z̄) that
follow from Assumption Generic. Assumption Generic implies one of three conditions.
1. Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄), which occurs if ξ(t, s, z̄) 6= 0,
2.

d
d
d
Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄), which occurs if
ξ(t, s, z̄) 6= 0, and
dz
dz
dz

d
3. there exists a ∆ ∈ A(t1 ) such that
Q(t1 + h∆, t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0, which occurs if
dh
d
ξ(t1 + h∆, t2 , s, z̄)|h=0 < 0, and symmetrically for s.
dh
Lemmas 3, 4, and 5, below, show the existence of neighborhoods that satisfy (3.1) for
each of these cases, respectively.
Lemma 3. If Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄), then there exist neighborhoods, N, M, and W, so that
{z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (M, z)} = ∅.
Lemma 3 follows from the intuitive notion that if the value of Q(t, z̄) is far from
the value of Q(s, z̄), then the value of V (N, z) is far from the value of V (M, z), for
small enough neighborhoods of t, s, and z̄.
Lemma 4. If

d
d
Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄),
dz
dz
then there exist neighborhoods, N, M, and W , so that
P ({z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (M, z)}) = 0.
The fact that Lemma 4 holds for neighborhoods of t and s is surprising. It relies
on a type of mean value bound for secants of the value function.11 The intuition is:
if, in some z-direction, the derivative of Q(t, z̄) is always less than the derivative of
Q(s, z̄), then any secants of V (N, z̄) and V (M, z̄) share that property, for sufficiently
small neighborhoods, N and M. Thus, V (N, z̄) is always increasing or decreasing
11

Despite the fact that the value function may not be differentiable with respect to z.

10

at a rate which is less than the rate at which V (M, z̄) is increasing or decreasing.
Thus, they cannot cross more than once, and the set of crossing points must have
probability zero.
The next lemma uses the first order conditions for optimality of t or s. Without
loss of generality, consider just t ∈ K, where K = K1 × K2 and K1 = B1 ∩ Λ. Let

CK1 (t1 ) denote the tangent cone to K1 at the point t1 .
Lemma 5. If there exists a ∆ ∈ CK1 (t1 ) such that

d
Q(t1 + h∆, t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0,
dh
then there exist neighborhoods of t and z̄, N and W, such that
{z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (K, z)} = ∅.
Lemma 5 uses the intuitive notion that if t is not a relative minimum of Q(t, z̄),
then it is not a minimum of Q(t, z̄) over K, and it can be bounded away from the
minimum in a neighborhood of z̄.

3.3

Dealing with the Boundary

Lemmas 3 - 5 are useful for most cases. However, there is a gap in the conditions that
the lemmas cover and the conditions in Assumption Generic. Specifically, if CK1 (t1 )
d
Q(t1 + h∆, t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0 may not
is a strict subset of A(t1 ), then the ∆ satisfying
dh
belong to CK1 (t1 ). This complication occurs when t1 is on the boundary of B1 .
If Lemmas 3 - 5 do not apply to t ∈ K, then t is called a problem point. Formally,
problem points are defined by the following conditions. Let ∆∗ = t1 − t̄1 .
Definition. t ∈ K is a problem point for z̄ over K if the following hold.
(a) Q(t, z̄) = V (K, z̄).
˜ t2 , z̄)|h=0 ≥ 0.
˜ ∈ CK1 (t1 ), d Q(t1 + h∆,
(b) For all ∆
dh
d
Q(t1 + h∆∗ , t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0.
dh
It follows from Assumption K, part (c), that ∆∗ always belongs to A(t1 ). ∆∗
belongs to CK1 (t1 ) if t1 is on the interior of B1 . Thus, in order for conditions (b)
(c)

11

∆∗

Λ

t1

B1
K1

t̄1

Figure 1: A problem point.
and (c) in the definition of a problem point to be compatible, t1 must belong to the
boundary of B1 . A problem point is illustrated in Figure 1.
Neighborhoods of a problem point satisfying (3.1) may not be available. The
following two lemmas provide a solution. Lemma 6 proves the existence of neighborhoods if there does not exist a minimizer of Q(t, z̄) over K on the interior of B1 . To
satisfy equation (3.1) using Lemma 6, we can take N and M to be all of K or C.
Lemma 6. Fix j ∈ J, K ∈ Kj and suppose z̄ ∈ Z is such that Q(t, z̄) contains no
minimizer over K with t1 ∈ int(B1 ). Then, there exists a neighborhood of z̄, W , such
that

{z ∈ W |V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z)} = ∅.
The fact that a problem point and a minimizer on the interior of B1 take the exact
same value seems unlikely. If one could change the radius of B1 by a little bit, this
would not happen because the value at the boundary would be different. This gives
the intuition for Lemma 7. For every η ∈ (0, 1) and for every K ∈ Kj , let K η denote
B1 (t̄1 , ηr1 ) ∩ Λ × K2 . This notation denotes the fact that K has been shrunk in the
differentiable direction by a factor of η. Also, for every η ∈ (0, 1), let

Ωη = {z ∈ Z|V (K η , z) = Q(t∗ , z) for some t∗ with t∗1 ∈ int(B1 (t̄1 , ηr))
and there exists a problem point for z over K η }.
12

Lemma 7. For every j ∈ J and K ∈ Kj , there exists an η ∗ ∈ (1/2, 1) such that
P (Ωη∗ ) = 0.
Lemma 7 is very different from Lemmas 3 - 6. Instead of proving the existence of
neighborhoods that satisfy (3.1), Lemma 7 proves that, if we can adjust the radius
of B1 by a small amount, we can always choose K in such a way that the probability
of a problem point occurring simultaneously with an interior minimizer is zero. This
avoids the boundary complication, confining it to a negligible set.
Together, Lemmas 1 - 7 provide the intuition for how Assumption Generic is used,
as well as the basic structure for the proof of Theorem 1.

4

Applications

4.1

Nonconvex M-estimation

Theorem 1 can be applied to estimation methods that minimize a random objective
function, also known as M-estimation. In this case, Q is the negative of the likelihood
or some other objective function, T is the parameter space, and z is the sample. These
optimization problems are known to be nonconvex in general. Whenever Q satisfies
Assumption Generic, Theorem 1 guarantees the estimator is well-defined and unique
with probability 1.
Uniqueness of the argmin is an important property in M-estimation, for a variety of
reasons.12 Finding the global minimum is a very hard problem numerically, and there
are many algorithms, such as multi-start or branch-and-bound, that are designed to
find the global minimum. For all of these, uniqueness of the argmin is important
for a well-defined convergence criterion. At the same time, uniqueness is a property
that is often difficult to verify numerically because the objective function can be very
flat or contain many local minimizers in a neighborhood of the global minimizer.
Also, uniqueness is important for replication and communication in research. If a
replication study calculates a different value of an M-estimator, the study may come
to a different conclusion than the original. In addition, Hillier and Armstrong (1999)
provide a formula for the exact density of the maximum likelihood estimator, under
the assumption that it is unique, among other regularity conditions. For these reasons,
12

Uniqueness of an M-estimator is not necessary for asymptotic results, such as consistency.
Rather, it is the finite sample property that the estimator is a point, a desirable property in itself.

13

it is useful to have a theorem that provides an analytic guarantee that the argmin is
unique almost surely.
A lot of effort has been put into verifying uniqueness of the argmin in isolated
cases of nonconvex objective functions. These examples include the truncated normal
likelihood,13 the Cauchy likelihood,14 the Weibull likelihood,15 the Tobit model,16 random coefficient regression models,17 mixed proportional hazard models,18 k-monotone
densities,19 estimating a covariance matrix with a Kronecker product structure,20 and
a variety of nonparametric mixture models.21 All of these examples require specific
knowledge about the structure of the objective function.
The mixture model is an important example because of its widespread use and
the presence of many local minimizers. The cases where uniqueness has been verified,
such as in Lindsay (1983a), are for nonparametric mixture models, where the number
of mixture components, J, is allowed to be as large as necessary to maximize the
likelihood. In some cases, this can be as large as n/2, or half of the sample size. This
contrasts with finite mixture models, where the number of mixture components is
fixed and assumed known. To the author’s knowledge, uniqueness of the maximum
likelihood estimator has not been verified in finite mixture models. Corollary 1, below,
uses Theorem 1 to verify uniqueness of the maximum likelihood estimator for a finite
mixture of normals.
The mixture of normals assumes the sample, {zi }ni=1 , is drawn iid from a continuous distribution with a density, f0 (z), that is approximated by a mixture density,
f (z; τ, µ), where τ is a J-vector of weights and µ is a J-vector of means. The mixture
density satisfies:
J
X
τj φ(z − µj ),
f (z; τ, µ) =
j=1

where φ(z) is the standard normal density. The weights, τj , are assumed to be
13

See Orme (1989) and Orme and Ruud (2002).
See Copas (1975).
15
See Cheng and Chen (1988).
16
See Olsen (1978) and Wang and Bice (1997).
17
See Mallet (1986).
18
See Huh, Postert, and Sickles (1998).
19
See Seregin (2010).
20
See Roś, Bijma, Munck, and Gunst (2016) and Soloveychik and Trushin (2016).
21
See Simar (1976), Hill, Saunders, and Laud (1980), Lindsay (1981, 1983a, 1983b, 1995), Jewell
(1982), Lindsay, Clogg, and Grego (1991), Lindsay and Roeder (1993), and Wood (1999).
14

14

positive and sum to 1. The means, µj , are assumed to be strictly increasing: µ1 <
µ2 < ... < µJ . These assumptions are necessary to ensure that the components can
be separately identified. In this case, the parameter to be optimized is (τ, µ), while
the random vector is the full sample, z = (z1 , ..., zn ). We can write the negative of
the log-likelihood as:
n
X
Q(τ, µ, z) = −
log f (zi ; τ, µ).
i=1

Corollary 1. If J ≤
surely-z.

√

n, then the argmin of Q(τ, µ, z) over (τ, µ) is unique almost

Remarks:
√
1. The assumption that J ≤ n is very weak. Practical uses of finite mixture
models require very few components relative to the sample size.
2. The proof of Corollary 1 verifies condition (d) in Assumption Generic by taking
d
d
Q(τ, µ, zi ) =
Q(ς, ν, zi ) for
derivatives with respect to z and arguing that
dz
dz
all i = 1, ..., n implies τ = ς and µ = ν.
3. Corollary 1 does not require the model to be correctly specified. The proof only
requires that zi is continuously distributed.
4. Corollary 1 illustrates how Theorem 1 can be used to verify uniqueness of Mestimators. It is stated for a mixture of normals, but the proof also covers
any mixture of a 1-parameter exponential family. In addition, Corollary 1 can
be extended to any mixture of a p-parameter exponential family, including a
mixture of normals with unknown variance.

4.2

Utility Maximization with a Nonconvex Budget Set

A nonconvex budget set introduces many problems for the standard utility maximization framework. Even with strictly concave preferences, the demand correspondence
may not be single-valued. Single-valued demand is an important condition in utility
maximization. For example, without convexity, Hausman and Newey (2016) assume
single-valued demand in order to derive welfare formulas with unrestricted heterogeneity. In addition, Szabó (2015) truncates the support of heterogeneity so that
demand is single-valued in order to consider well-defined counterfactual experiments.
15

The most common type of nonconvex budget set is a piecewise linear budget set,
which can occur due to decreasing block-rate pricing.22 Decreasing block-rate pricing
implies nonconvexity in the budget set, and therefore the demand correspondence may
not be single-valued. This is especially relevant when the pricing schedule is set by a
monopolist such that the optimal schedule makes the consumers indifferent between
blocks. If there are only finitely many types of consumers, this occurs whenever an
incentive compatibility constraint is binding for the problem of the monopolist.23
Burtless and Hausman (1978) analyze a government subsidy program that induces a nonconvex kink in the budget set.24 Their approach specifies a constant
income elasticity functional form for indirect utility. Burtless and Hausman (1978)
use the specified functional form together with the assumption that the income elasticity is heterogeneous across the population with a continuous distribution to verify
that the supply correspondence25 is single-valued.26 Single-valued supply implies differentiability of the indirect utility function, and consequently, Roy’s identity.27 They
use Roy’s identity to write labor supply as a function of preference parameters, which
they estimate by maximum likelihood.
We generalize Burtless and Hausman (1978), allowing more flexible functional
forms for the indirect utility function by using Theorem 1 to verify that demand is
single-valued. Suppose the budget set is defined by decreasing block-rate pricing with
J blocks. Each block is associated with a price, pj , and a “virtual income,” yj .28 The
budget set can be written as the union of J linear budget sets.
22

See Moffitt (1986) for an exposition of piecewise linear budget sets. A closely related literature
is that of discrete/continuous models, where nonconvex budget sets can also occur. See Hanemann
(1984) and Hausman (1985) for an exposition of discrete/continuous models as well as a survey of
examples. More recently, Dalton (2014) and Kowalski (2015) allow for nonconvex piecewise linear
budget set when analyzing the market for health insurance.
23
For a discussion of the problem of the monopolist in setting price schedules, see Varian (1989)
and Wilson (1993).
24
Blundell, MaCurdy, and Meghir (2007) survey the literature on labor supply models, including
approaches that account for nonconvex budget sets.
25
In the market for labor, the consumer chooses supply rather than demand.
26
Another approach to verifying single-valued demand used in discrete/continuous models is to
assume each consumer has a full set of continuously distributed choice-specific tastes, which is
additively separable with the characteristics of that choice. This is done in nested logit models, for
example. In contrast, Corollary 2 allows non-additively separable specifications of heterogeneity.
27
See Section 4.4, on envelope theorems. Roy’s identity is the key equation for estimating preference parameters from demand functions. See Chapter 3 of Mas-Colell, Whinston, and Green
(1995).
28
Virtual income, yj , is the value of the bundle if the price, pj , is the same for all quantities, as
defined in Burtless and Hausman (1978).

16

Suppose the indirect utility function, conditional on the j th linear budget set
takes the form vj (pj , yj , α, βi ), where α is a vector of preference parameters and βi is a
vector of individual specific tastes, assumed to be finite dimensional and continuously
distributed.29 Denote the conditional demand correspondence by xj (pj , yj , α, βi ). The
overall indirect utility function can be written as:
v ∗ (p, y, α, βi) = max vj (pj , yj , α, βi ).
j=1,...,J

Denote the overall demand correspondence by x∗ (p, y, α, βi). The following corollary
gives sufficient conditions for the overall demand correspondence to be single-valued
almost surely.
Corollary 2. Assume the following conditions.
(a) For every j = 1, ..., J, the conditional demand correspondence, xj (pj , yj , α, βi ),
is almost surely single-valued.
(b) For every j = 1, ..., J, vj (pj , yj , α, βi ) is continuously differentiable with respect
to βi .
(c) For every j1 , j2 = 1, ..., J such that j1 6= j2 ,
d
d
vj1 (pj1 , yj1 , α, βi ) 6=
vj (pj , yj , α, βi )
dβi
dβi 2 2 2
almost surely-βi .
Then, the overall demand correspondence, x∗ (p, y, α, βi ), is almost surely single-valued.
Remarks:
1. Condition (a) follows from strict quasiconcavity of preferences because the conditional budget set is linear, or, if preferences are not strictly quasiconcave, from
a prior application of Theorem 1.
2. Condition (c) has the interpretation that for any two budget sets, there exists
some dimension of heterogeneity that varies the indirect utility at those two
budget sets by different amounts. Notice that βi is a vector and condition (c)
can be satisfied by any component of βi .
29

We allow α to be infinite dimensional, incorporating nonparametric random utility models.

17

3. Corollary 2 is more general than the approach in Burtless and Hausman (1978)
because it: (i) allows for an arbitrary number of blocks, (ii) applies to other
functional forms for indirect utility, and (iii) can use any kind of continuously
distributed heterogeneity in taste preferences to verify single-valued demand
almost surely.
4. Infinite dimensional heterogeneity, as considered in Hausman and Newey (2016)
and Blomquist, Kumar, Liang, and Newey (2015), can be accommodated by
verifying condition (c) with respect to an absolutely continuous finite dimensional functional of the heterogeneity. In fact, the condition is easier to verify
the higher the dimension of the heterogeneity. In this sense, Corollary 2 covers
nonparametric random utility models with totally unrestricted, possibly infinite
dimensional, heterogeneity.

4.3

Unique Policy Functions in Dynamic Programming

Many dynamic programming problems are not concave. The utility functions (or
cost functions) may be nonconcave (nonconvex). For example, fixed adjustment costs
imply a nonconvex cost function that appears in many settings, including investment
choice, choice over consumer durables, and price setting with menu costs, among
others. In addition, the choice set may be nonconvex, as in discrete choice models.
Consider the general dynamic programming problem,
V (k, z) = sup u(c, k, z) + βE(c,k,z)V (k ′ , z ′ ),
c∈C(k)

where k denotes a vector of state variables, z denotes a vector of shocks, and c denotes a vector of choice variables. The expectation is taken with respect to some
distribution, f (k ′ , z ′ |c, k, z), which defines the state transition probabilities. In many
settings, the object of interest is the policy function, c(k, z), which maps state variables to choice variables. Uniqueness is an important condition for a well-defined
convergence criterion for policy function iteration, a common way to solve dynamic
programming problems.
The typical argument for uniqueness of the policy function follows Theorems 4.8
and 9.8 in Stokey, Lucas, and Prescott (1989), which require the problem to be strictly
concave. The author is unaware of attempts to verify uniqueness of the policy function
18

without concavity in a general setting.30 This can be very difficult. For example,
Caballero and Engel (1999) study investment with adjustment costs and characterize
many aspects of the optimal policy, but cannot prove uniqueness.
Corollary 3. Assume the following hold.
(a) The choice set, C(k), is a finite or countable union of manifolds, possibly with
boundary or corner.
(b) The shocks, z, are continuously distributed.
(c) u(c, k, z) and E(c,k,z) V (k ′ , z ′ ) are differentiable with respect to z, and the derivative is continuous with respect to c and z.
(d) For every k, z, c1 , and c2 , where c1 6= c2 ,

d 
u(c1 , k, z) + βE(c1 ,k,z)V (k ′ , z ′ ) − u(c2 , k, z) − βE(c2 ,k,z)V (k ′ , z ′ ) 6= 0.
dz
Then, the policy function, c(k, z), is unique almost surely-z.
Remarks:
1. Condition (a) incorporates adjustment costs by allowing one manifold for adjustment and another manifold for no adjustment.
2. Condition (c) is a regularity condition that is easy to check. If the shocks are
independent over time, so that f (k ′ , z ′ |c, k, z) does not depend on z, condition
(c) simplifies to differentiability of u(c, k, z) with respect to z.

3. If the shocks are independent over time, condition (d) has the interpretation
that for any two choices, there exists a shock that affects the payoffs differently
for those two choices. For dependent shocks, the interpretation is the same
except the contribution to future payoffs must be considered.
4. Condition (d) is satisfied in a wide variety of dynamic programming problems.
30

Some papers analyze uniqueness of the value function without concavity, such as RincónZapatero and Rodrı́guez-Palmero (2003) and Martins-da-Rocha and Vailakis (2010), but they do
not analyze uniqueness of the policy function. There are very special cases where the policy function has been fully characterized. For example, Majumdar and Mitra (1983) characterize optimal
policy for a linear objective function and a particular type of nonconvex constraint.

19

(i) For example, if one of the z’s is a linearly additive transitory shock,
which means that it is independent over time and satisfies u(c, k, z1 , z2 ) =
u(c, k, z2 ) + cz1 , then condition (d) is satisfied. Adding this type of shock
to any nonconcave dynamic programming problem implies uniqueness of
the policy function almost surely.
(ii) Condition (d) is also satisfied in discrete choice models that incorporate
a full set of additively separable choice-specific shocks, as in Rust (1987),
among many others. In this context, Corollary 3 also covers shocks that
are not additively separable and may be dependent over time.
5. Random constraints can be incorporated in a limited capacity, either by solving
the constraints and substituting into the objective function, or by conditioning,
verifying Assumption Generic using z that only enter the objective function.

4.4

Envelope Theorems

Envelope theorems establish differentiability of the value function, together with a
formula for the derivative. Envelope theorems were originally developed for concave
problems,31 and later extended to nonconcave problems. Milgrom and Segal (2002)
prove an envelope theorem for general choice sets and nonconcave objective functions using equi-differentiability of the objective function. The equi-differentiability
assumption is relaxed in subsequent work by Morand, Reffett, and Tarafdar (2015),
hereafter MRT, which provides the most general envelope theorem available.
Uniqueness of the optimum is a key step in proving differentiability of the value
function. In the setup of MRT, the value function is directionally differentiable under
very weak conditions.32 However, to get differentiability of the value function, MRT
need uniqueness of the optimum so that directional derivatives coincide. Correspondingly, Corollary 11 in MRT proves differentiability of the value function assuming
the objective function is strictly quasi-concave and the domain is convex. These are
overly strong assumptions considering Theorem 1 provides uniqueness under much
weaker conditions.
An alternative approach to envelope theorems for nonconcave problems is Clausen
31

For example, see Benveniste and Scheinkman (1979).
Theorem 7 in MRT gives directional differentiability of the value function assuming differentiability of the objective function and a constraint qualification.
32

20

and Strub (2017), which assumes the existence of a differentiable lower support function to the policy function, together with a “Sandwich Lemma,” to prove differentiability. In this context, the existence of a differentiable lower support function requires,
as a necessary condition, uniqueness of the policy function.
Applied to utility maximization with a nonconvex budget set, the envelope theorem implies differentiability of the indirect utility function. Further, this implies that
Roy’s identity holds, the key equation relating demand to preference parameters and
simplifying estimation of the preference parameters.
Applied to dynamic programming with a nonconcave problem, the envelope theorem implies differentiability of the value function. If the choice variable is continuous,
this can be used to derive an Euler equation, which is useful for solving the model as
well as estimating parameters in the model.
Uniqueness of the policy function is a useful condition for proving envelope theorems, and Theorem 1 provides almost sure uniqueness in nondegenerate cases.

4.5

Limit Theory in Weakly Identified Models

In increasingly many models, there are concerns about parameters being weakly identified. Limit theory for estimators of weakly identified parameters often relies on an
assumption that a random function has a unique minimizer almost surely. In this
case, the random function is the limit of the profiled objective function. Examples
include Stock and Wright (2000), Andrews and Cheng (2012), Cheng (2015), Han
and McCloskey (2017), and Cox (2017). Andrews and Cheng (2012) provide sufficient conditions for this condition in the special case that the key parameter, β,
which determines the strength of identification, is scalar. However, examples that require vector β, including Cheng (2015) and Cox (2017), can benefit from the low-level
sufficient conditions stated in this paper.
Cox (2017) defines two types of parameters, β and π. β is identified, but the
identification of π depends on a function, h : (β, π) 7→ h(β, π) ∈ Rdh , that maps
structural parameters to reduced form parameters. In particular, for some value, β0 ,
the function h(β0 , π) is not injective as a function of π.33 Let parameters β and π have
dimensions dβ and dπ , respectively. Cox (2017) considers a sequence of true values,
33

This structure is closely connected to the definition of identification, incorporating many models
including the linear IV model, models estimated by minimum distance, and two examples given
below.

21

βn converging to β0 , and characterizes the limiting distribution of an estimator for π.
A typical sequence satisfies the following assumption, which says that βn influences
√
the value of h(β, π) at the n rate. The parameter b ∈ Rdβ measures the strength

of identification. The case b = 0 is an important special case corresponding to total
unidentification. It derives from βn = β0 for all n.
Assumption Weak Id.
(a) h(β, π) is twice continuously differentiable, and
(b) for some b ∈ Rdβ ,

√

n [h(βn , π) − h(β0 , π)] → hβ (β0 , π)b, uniformly on compact

sets over π, where hβ (β, π) denotes the derivative of h(β, π) with respect to β.

In this application, the parameter π serves the same purpose as t, indexing the
domain of the random function. The domain is the identified set for π under identification failure. Allowing for a variety of identified sets is useful because it often
has an unusual shape that may be difficult to characterize exactly. Let z be a be a
continuous random vector with dimension dz = dβ + dh . If H is a symmetric and
positive definite dz × dz matrix, then the limit of the profiled objective function is
Q(π, z) = 2z ′ g(π) − (z + g(π))′ P (π)(z + g(π)) + κ(π),

(4.1)

where κ(π) is a continuous function of π,34
"

#
0
d
×1
β
,
g(π) = H 1/2
hβ (β0 , π)b
#
"
I
d
β
, and
S(π) = H 1/2
hβ (β0 , π)
P (π) = S(π)[S(π)′S(π)]−1 S(π)′ .
We show that the argmin of Q(π, z) over π is almost surely unique by verifying the
conditions of Theorem 1. Assumption Manifold is satisfied as long as the identified set
can be written as a finite or countable union of second-countable Hausdorff manifolds,
possibly with boundary or corner. The fact that z is a continuous random vector
implies Assumption Absolute Continuity. Assumption Continuous Differentiability
34

The formula for κ(π) is g(π)′ g(π), but the following corollary only uses the continuity of κ(π).

22

is satisfied by Assumption Weak Id (a). The only assumption we need to verify is
Assumption Generic. We place low-level conditions on h(β, π).
Corollary 4. Let h(β, π) and the sequence βn satisfy Assumption Weak Id. Let
Q(π, z) be defined in equation (4.1). If
(c) for all π1 6= π2 , the rank of hβ (β0 , π1 ) − hβ (β0 , π2 ) is dh , and
(d) there exists an open set B containing β0 , such that for almost every β ∈ B,
h(β, π) − h(β0 , π) is an injective function of π.
Then, ξ(π1 , π2 , z) = Q(π1 , z) − Q(π2 , z) satisfies Assumption Generic. Therefore, by
Theorem 1, the argmin of Q(π, z) over π is unique almost surely.
Remark:
1. Conditions (c) and (d) eliminate degeneracy in Q(π, z) as a function of π so
that Assumption Generic can be verified by taking derivatives with respect to
z. Condition (c) is a rank condition guaranteeing that hβ (β0 , π) varies enough
as a function of π. A necessary condition is that dπ ≤ dh . Condition (d) says
that π is generically identified locally around β0 . Below, two examples are given
that demonstrate the importance of these two conditions.
Example 1. This example demonstrates the importance of condition (d), that π is
generically identified in a neighborhood of β0 . Consider the model,
Yi = α + β1 X1i + β2 X2i + (β1 π + β2 π 2 )X3i + ui ,
where E(ui |X1i , X2i , X3i ) = 0. In this case, identification of π is determined by injectivity of h(β1 , β2 , π) = β1 π + β2 π 2 in a neighborhood of (β1 , β2 ) = (0, 0). Condition
(d) is not satisfied because, for any β1 and β2 6= 0, there exists an h ∈ R such that

the quadratic equation, β1 π + β2 π 2 = h, has multiple solutions in π. We can calculate
d
h(β1 , β2 , π)|β1=0,β2 =0 = [π, π 2 ], which satisfies condition (c). If π is estimated by
dβ
nonlinear least squares, the profiled objective function, Q(π, z), has multiple minimizers with positive probability. Figure 2 gives some simulations of this function.

23

-1

-0.6

-1.5

-0.8

-2
-1
-2.5
-3

-1.2

-3.5

-1.4

-4
-1.6
-4.5
-1.8

-5
-5.5
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-2
-10

10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Figure 2: Sample simulations for Q(π, z) from Example 1 when b = (0, 0)′ and
H = I3 . In the left panel, z = (−1.03, 1.29, 2.77)′ and in the right panel,
z = (−1.82, −0.52, 0.16)′. These values were chosen randomly and are representative of a positive probability of multiple global minimizers.
Example 2. This example demonstrates the importance of condition (c), which states
that hβ (β0 , π1 ) − hβ (β0 , π2 ) has full rank, dh , for all π1 6= π2 . Consider the model,
Yi = α + βX1i + β(π + π 2 )X2i + β 2 πX3i + ui ,
where E(ui |X1i , X2i , X3i ) = 0. In this case, identification of π is determined by injectivity of
"
#
β(π + π 2 )
h(β, π) =
,
β 2π
in a neighborhood of β = 0. Condition (d) is satisfied because for any β 6= 0, β 2 π is
injective as a function of π. We can calculate
d
h(β, π)|β=0 =
dβ

"

π + π2
0

#

,

which does not satisfy condition (c) because the rank is zero whenever π1 and π2 are
both roots of π + π 2 = c.
If π is estimated by nonlinear least squares, the profiled objective function, Q(π, z),
has multiple minimizers with positive probability. Figure 3 gives some simulations of
this function. The key components of this example are the two functions in h(β, π)
24

-0.01

0

-0.05

-0.02

-0.1
-0.03
-0.15
-0.04
-0.2
-0.05
-0.25
-0.06

-0.3

-0.07
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-0.35
-10

10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Figure 3: Sample simulations for Q(π, z) from Example 2 when b = 0 and
H = I3 . In the left panel, z = (−0.23, −0.28, 1.31)′ and in the right panel,
z = (−0.76, −0.25, −1.65)′. These values were chosen randomly and are representative of a positive probability of multiple global minimizers.
that depend nonlinearly on β, and contain different amounts of information about π.
In the case βn → 0, the more informative function is weaker, and therefore cannot

satisfy condition (c). This example is concerning because it seems likely that these
key components are present in more complicated weakly identified models.

4.6

Functionals of Brownian Motion

Many objective functions can be written as functionals of Brownian motion. For
example, Chernoff’s distribution is defined to be the distribution of
X = argmint∈R t2 − W (t),
where W (t) is a two-sided Wiener Process satisfying W (t) = 0. Kim and Pollard
(1990) show that Chernoff’s distribution is well-defined in the sense that the argmin
is almost surely unique, and that Chernoff’s distribution characterizes the asymptotic
distribution of many estimators at the cube-root rate. Theorem 1 can be used to
provide a new proof that the argmin in Chernoff’s distribution is almost surely unique.
Corollary 5. The argmin of t2 − W (t) over t ∈ R is unique almost surely.
Remarks:
25

1. The proof of Corollary 5 illustrates the key aspect of accommodating an infinite
dimensional source of randomness or nondifferentiability in t: only derivatives
that are used to verify Assumption Generic are needed. In this case, Assumption
Generic is verified by taking derivatives with respect to z = W (t̄), for fixed
values of t̄.
2. Corollary 5 is stated only for one example of a functional of a Wiener process,
but the proof can be applied to more general functionals of Brownian motion.

5

Conclusion

This paper states and proves Theorem 1, establishing the argmin of a random objective function to be unique almost surely. The conditions of Theorem 1 are very
weak and easy to verify. In particular, Theorem 1 does not rely on convexity of the
objective function nor of the domain. Instead, Theorem 1 relies on a nondegeneracy
condition based on taking derivatives with respect to z, a random vector. Theorem
1 has widespread usefulness, including six applications that are discussed.

References
[1] Andrews, D., and X. Cheng (2012): “Estimation and Inference with Weak, SemiStrong, and Strong Identification,” Econometrica, 80, 2153-2211.
[2] Benveniste, L., and J. Scheinkman (1979): “On the Differentiability of the Value
Function in Dynamic Models of Economics,” Econometrica, 47, 727-732.
[3] Blomquist, S., A. Kumar, C. Liang, and W. Newey (2015): “Individual Heterogeneity, Nonlinear Budget Sets, and Taxable Income,” Unpublished Manuscript.
[4] Blundell, R., T. MaCurdy, and C. Meghir (2007): “Labor Supply Models: Unobserved Heterogeneity, Nonparticipation and Dynamics,” Handbook of Labor
Economics, 6, 4667-4775.
[5] Burtless, G., and J. Hausman (1978): “The Effect of Taxation on Labor Supply:
Evaluating the Gary Negative Income Tax Experiment,” Journal of Political
Economy, 86, 1103-1130.
26

[6] Caballero, R., and E. Engel (1999): “Explaining Investment Dynamics in U.S.
Manufacturing: A Generalized (S,s) Approach,” Econometrica, 67, 783-826.
[7] Cheng, K., and C. Chen (1988): “Estimation of the Weibull Parameters with
Grouped Data,” Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 17, 325341.
[8] Cheng, X. (2015): “Robust Inference in Nonlinear Models with Mixed Identification Strength,” Journal of Econometrics, 189, 207-228.
[9] Clausen, A., and C. Strub (2017): “A General and Intuitive Envelope Theorem,”
Unpublished Manuscript.
[10] Copas, J. (1975): “On the Unimodality of the Likelihood for the Cauchy Distribution,” Biometrika, 62, 701-704.
[11] Cox, G. (2017): “Weak Identification in a Class of Generically Identified Models
with an Application to Factor Models,” Unpublished Manuscript.
[12] Dalton, C. (2014): “Estimating Demand Elasticities Using Nonlinear Pricing,”
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 37, 178-191.
[13] Demidenko, E. (2008): “Criteria for Unconstrained Global Optimization,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 136, 375-395.
[14] Guillemin, V., and A. Pollack (1974): Differential Topology, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[15] Han, S., and A. McCloskey (2017): “Estimation and Inference with a (Nearly)
Singular Jacobian,” Unpublished Manuscript.
[16] Hanemann, M. (1984): “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand,”
Econometrica, 52, 541-561.
[17] Hausman, J. (1985): “The Econometrics of Nonlinear Budget Sets,” Econometrica, 53, 1255-1282.
[18] Hausman, J., and W. Newey (2016): “Individual Heterogeneity and Average
Welfare,” Econometrica, 84, 1225-1248.

27

[19] Hill, D., R. Saunders, and P. Laud (1980): “Maximum Likelihood Estimation
for Mixtures,” The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 8, 87-93.
[20] Hillier, G., and M. Armstrong (1999): “The Density of the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator,” Econometrica, 67, 1459-1470.
[21] Huh, K., A. Postert, and R. Sickles (1998): “Maximum Penalized Likelihood Estimation of Mixed Proportional Hazard Models,” Communications in Statistics
- Theory and Methods, 27, 2143-2164.
[22] Jewell, N. (1982): “Mixtures of Exponential Distributions,” The Annals of Statistics, 10, 479-484.
[23] Karlin, S. (1968): Total Positivity, Vol. 1, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
[24] Kim, J., and D. Pollard (1990): “Cube Root Asymptotics,” The Annals of Statistics, 18, 191-219.
[25] Kowalski, A. (2015): “Estimating the Tradeoff Between Risk Protection and
Moral Hazard with a Nonlinear Budget Set Model of Health Insurance,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 122-135.
[26] Lindsay, B. (1981): “Properties of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of a Mixing Distribution,” Statistical Distributions in Scientific Work, 5, 95-110.
[27] Lindsay, B. (1983a): “The Geometry of Mixture Likelihoods: A General Theory,”
The Annals of Statistics, 11, 86-94.
[28] Lindsay, B. (1983b): “The Geometry of Mixture Likelihoods, Part II: The Exponential Family,” The Annals of Statistics, 11, 783-792.
[29] Lindsay, B. (1995): Mixture Models: Theory, Geometry and Applications, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, United States of America.
[30] Lindsay, B., C. Clogg, and J. Grego (1991): “Semiparametric Estimation in
the Rasch Model and Related Exponential Response Models, Including a Simple Latent Class Model for Item Analysis,” Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 86, 96-107.

28

[31] Lindsay, B., and K. Roeder (1993): “Uniqueness of Estimation and Identifiability
in Mixture Models,” The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 21, 139-147.
[32] Majumdar, M., and T. Mitra (1983): “Dynamic Optimization with a NonConvex Technology: The Case of a Linear Objective Function,” The Review
of Economic Studies, 50, 143-151.
[33] Mäkeläinen, T., K. Schmidt, and G. Styan (1981): “On the Existence and
Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood Estimate of a Vector-Valued Parameter
in Fixed-Size Samples,” The Annals of Statistics, 9, 758-767.
[34] Mas-Colell A., M. Whinston, and J. Green (1995): Microeconomic Theory, Oxford University Press, New York.
[35] Mascarenhas, W. (2010): “A Mountain Pass Lemma and its Implications Regarding the Uniqueness of Constrained Minimizers,” Optimization, 60, 1121-1159.
[36] Mallet, A. (1986): “A Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method for Random
Coefficient Regression Models,” Biometrika, 73, 645-656.
[37] Martins-da-Rocha, V., and Y. Vailakis (2010): “Existence and Uniqueness of a
Fixed Point for Local Contractions,” Econometrica, 78, 1127-1141.
[38] Milgrom, P., and I. Segal (2002): “Envelope Theorems for Arbitrary Choice
Sets,” Econometrica, 70, 583-601.
[39] Moffitt, R. (1986): “The Econometrics of Piecewise-Linear Budget Constraints,”
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 4, 317-328.
[40] Morand, O., K. Reffett, and S. Tarafdar (2015): “A Nonsmooth Approach to
Envelope Theorems,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 61, 157-165.
[41] Olsen, R. (1978): “Note on the Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Tobit Model,” Econometrica, 46, 1211-1215.
[42] Orme, C. (1989): “On the Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in
Truncated Regression Models,” Econometric Reviews, 8, 217-222.
[43] Orme, C., and P. Ruud (2002): “On the Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator,” Economics Letters, 75, 209-217.
29

[44] Rincón-Zapatero, J., and C. Rodrı́guez-Palmero (2003): “Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions to the Bellman Equation in the Unbounded Case,” Econometrica, 71, 1519-1555.
[45] Roś, B., F. Bijma, J. de Munck, and M. de Gunst (2016): “Existence and Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for Models with a Kronecker Product
Covariance Structure,” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 143, 345-361.
[46] Rust, J. (1987): “Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical
Model of Harold Zurcher,” Econometrica, 55, 999-1033.
[47] Seregin, A. (2010): “Uniqueness of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for kMonotone Densities,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 138,
4511-4515.
[48] Simar, L. (1976): “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Compound Poisson
Process,” The Annals of Statistics, 4, 1200-1209.
[49] Soloveychik, I., and D. Trushin (2016): “Gaussian and Robust Kronecker Product Covariance Estimation: Existence and Uniqueness,” Journal of Multivariate
Analysis, 149, 92-113.
[50] Stock, J., and J. Wright (2000): “GMM with Weak Identification,” Econometrica, 68, 1055-1096.
[51] Stokey, N., R. Lucas, and E. Prescott (1989): Recursive Methods in Economic
Dynamics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[52] Szabó, A. (2015): “The Value of Free Water: Analyzing South Africa’s Free
Basic Water Policy,” Econometrica, 83, 1913-1961.
[53] Tarone, R., and G. Gruenhage (1975): “A Note on the Uniqueness of Roots of the
Likelihood Equations for Vector-Valued Parameters,” Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 70, 903-904.
[54] Varian, H. (1989): “Price Discrimination,” Handbook of Industrial Organization,
597-654.

30

[55] Wang, W., and D. Bice (1997): “A Model with Mixed Binary Responses and
Censored Observations,” Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods,
26, 921-941.
[56] Wilson, R. (1993): Nonlinear Pricing, Oxford University Press, New York.
[57] Wood, G. (1999): “Binomial Mixtures: Geometric Estimation of the Mixing
Distribution,” The Annals of Statistics, 27, 1706-1721.

A

Proofs

A.1

Global to Local

Proof of Lemma 1. Let z ∈ Zk for some k. Suppose Q(t, z) is not uniquely

minimized over t ∈ T . Then, there exist j1 , j2 ∈ J, t ∈ Tj1 , and s ∈ Tj2 , t 6= s, so that
Q(t, z) = Q(s, z) = inf Q(t, z).
t∈T

Furthermore, by Assumption K(d), there exist sets, K ∈ Kj1 and C ∈ Kj2 , such that
K ∩ C = ∅, t ∈ K 1/2 and s ∈ C 1/2 . It follows that
V (T, z) = V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = Q(t, z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z) = Q(s, z).
This implies that for every k,
{z ∈ Zk |Q(t, z) is not uniquely minimized over t ∈ T }
o
n
(K,z)=V (K 1/2 ,z)
.
⊂ ∪
∪
z ∈ Zk | V (T,z)=V
=V (C,z)=V (C 1/2 ,z)
j1 ,j2 ∈J K∈Kj1 ,C∈Kj2
K∩C=∅

This implies, by countability of J and Kj , that
P ({z ∈ Z|Q(t, z) is not uniquely minimized over t ∈ T })

≤ P (Zkc ) + P ({z ∈ Zk |Q(t, z) is not uniquely minimized over t ∈ T })
o
n
X
X
(K,z)=V (K 1/2 ,z)
P
z ∈ Zk V (T,z)=V
≤ P (Zkc ) +
=V (C,z)=V (C 1/2 ,z)
j1 ,j2 ∈J K∈Kj1 ,C∈Kj2
K∩C=∅

=

P (Zkc )

→ 0,
31

where Zkc denotes the complement of Zk in Z, the equality follows by assumption,
and the convergence follows as k → ∞ by the assumption on Zk .

Proof of Lemma 2. Notice that
{Nt,s,z̄ × Mt,s,z̄ × Wt,s,z̄ |z̄ ∈ Zk , t ∈ K, and s ∈ C}
is an open cover of
{(t, s, z̄)|z̄ ∈ Zk , t ∈ K, and s ∈ C}.

(A.1)

Thus, there is a finite subcover that we index by {(tm , sm , z̄m )}M
m=1 . Then,
P {z ∈ Zk |V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z)}
≤

M
X

m=1



P ({z ∈ Wtm ,sm,z̄m |V (Ntm ,sm ,z̄m , z) = V (Mtm ,sm ,z̄m , z) = V (K, z)
= V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z)}

= 0,



(A.2)

(A.3)

where (A.2) follows from the following argument. Let z ∈ Zk . By compactness there

exist, t̃ and s̃ ∈ C such that Q(t̃, z) = inf Q(t, z) and Q(s̃, z) = inf Q(t, z). Using the
t∈K

t∈C

open cover, there exists an m ∈ {1, ..., M} such that Ntm ,sm ,z̄m ×Mtm ,sm,z̄m ×Wtm ,sm ,z̄m
contains (t̃, s̃, z). This implies that V (Ntm ,sm ,z̄m , z) = V (K, z) and V (Mtm ,sm ,z̄m , z) =

V (C, z). Thus, the condition V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) = V (C 1/2 , z) implies that V (Ntm ,sm ,z̄m , z) = V (Mtm ,sm ,z̄m , z) = V (K, z) = V (K 1/2 , z) = V (C, z) =
V (C 1/2 , z) and z ∈ Wtm ,sm ,z̄m for some m ∈ {1, ..., M}.
Equation (A.3) follows by assumption.

A.2



The Local Problem

Proof of Lemma 3. There exists a β > 0 such that
|Q(t, z̄) − Q(s, z̄)| > β.
By continuity of Q(t, z), there exists W 1 , a neighborhood of z̄, such that
inf |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| > β.

z∈W 1

32

(A.4)

Also note that by continuity of |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| − |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| in z, t̃,and
s̃, that there exists W 2 , a neighborhood of z̄, and η1 , η2 > 0 such that ||t̃ − t|| < η1
and ||s̃ − s|| < η2 imply

sup |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| − |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| < β/2.

(A.5)

z∈W 2

Then, the neighborhoods, N = {t̃ ∈ K : ||t̃−t|| < η1 }, M = {s̃ ∈ C : ||s̃−s|| < η2 }
and W = W 1 ∩ W 2 , satisfy the conditions of Lemma 3. Specifically, for z ∈ W ,

V (N, z) 6= V (M, z) because of the following argument. Let t̃ ∈ N and s̃ ∈ M such
that |Q(t̃, z) − V (N, z)| < β/4 and |Q(s̃, z) − V (M, z)| < β/4. Then,
|V (N, z) − V (M, z)|
≥ |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| − |Q(t̃, z) − V (N, z)| − |Q(s̃, z) − V (M, z)|
> |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| − β/2


= |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| − |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| − |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| − β/2

> β − sup |Q(t, z) − Q(s, z)| − |Q(t̃, z) − Q(s̃, z)| − β/2
z∈W 2

> 0,

where the first inequality follows from the triangle inequality, the second inequality
follows from the definition of t̃ and s̃, the third inequality follows from (A.4), and the
last inequality follows from (A.5).



Proof of Lemma 4. There exists a λ ∈ Rdz and a β > 0 such that
d
(Q(t, z̄ + hλ) − Q(s, z̄ + hλ)) |h=0 < −β.
dh
By Assumption Continuous Differentiability, there exists a convex neighborhood of
z̄, W , and neighborhoods N and M of t and s, respectively, such that
sup
z∈W


d
Q(t̃, z + hλ) − Q(s̃, z + hλ)
dh

h=0

< −β

(A.6)

for all t̃ ∈ N and s̃ ∈ M.
Without loss of generality, we rotate z so that λ = e1 , the first unit vector. Then,
P ({z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (M, z)})
33

=
=

Z

ZW

1{V (N, z) = V (M, z)}p(z)dz
Z
1{V (N, z1 , z2 ) = V (M, z1 , z2 )}1{(z1 , z2 ) ∈ W }p(z)dz1 dz2 ,

Rdz −1

R

where the first equality uses Assumption Absolute Continuity with p(z), the density
of P , and the second equality uses Tonelli’s theorem. Thus, it is sufficient to show
that for every z2 fixed, the set of all z1 ∈ R such that V (N, z1 , z2 ) = V (M, z1 , z2 ) and
(z1 , z2 ) ∈ W is finite. We show that the number of such z1 is at most one. Suppose
there exist two, z1′ and z1′′ . Let z ′ = (z1′ , z2 ) and z ′′ = (z1′′ , z2 ). Then,
0 =
=
=
≤
=
<

V (N, z ′ ) − V (N, z ′′ ) V (M, z ′ ) − V (M, z ′′ )
−
z1′ − z1′′
z1′ − z1′′
Q(t∗m (z ′ ), z ′ ) − Q(t∗m (z ′′ ), z ′′ ) Q(s∗m (z ′ ), z ′ ) − Q(s∗m (z ′′ ), z ′′ )
−
lim
m→∞
z1′ − z1′′
z1′ − z1′′
Q(t∗m (z ′ ), z ′ ) − Q(s∗m (z ′ ), z ′ ) − (Q(t∗m (z ′′ ), z ′′ ) − Q(s∗m (z ′′ ), z ′′ ))
lim
m→∞
z1′ − z1′′
∗
′′
′
∗
′
′
∗
′′
′′
∗
′
′′
limsup Q(tm (z ), z ) − Q(sm (z ), z ) − (Q(tm (z ), z ) − Q(sm (z ), z ))
m→∞
z1′ − z1′′
d
limsup
m→∞
(Q(t∗m (z ′′ ), z1 , z2 ) − Q(s∗m (z ′ ), z1 , z2 ))
dz1
z1 =z̃1m
−β < 0,

where the second equality follows by letting t∗m (z) be a sequence in N for which
Q(t∗m (z), z) → V (N, z) as m → ∞, and similarly for s∗m (z). The third equality follows by rearranging terms. The first inequality follows because lim Q(t∗m (z ′ ), z ′ ) ≤
m→∞

limsup Q(t∗m (z ′′ ), z ′ ) and lim Q(s∗m (z ′′ ), z ′′ ) ≤ limsup Q(s∗m (z ′ ), z ′′ ). The final equalm→∞

m→∞

m→∞

ity follows by the mean value theorem for some z̃1,m between z1′′ and z1′ .

The second inequality follows from equation (A.6) because t∗m (z ′ ) ∈ N, s∗m (z ′′ ) ∈
M, and (z̃1m , z2 ) ∈ W , by convexity. This is a contradiction. Therefore, the set of all
z1 ∈ R such that V (N, z1 , z2 ) = V (M, z1 , z2 ) and (z1 , z2 ) ∈ W contains at most one

point. Therefore, P ({z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (M, z)}) = 0.



d
Proof of Lemma 5. Since
Q(t1 + h∆, t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0, there exists an ǫ > 0 and a
dh
t̄1 ∈ K1 such that
Q(t̄1 , t2 , z̄) < Q(t1 , t2 , z̄) − ǫ.

(A.7)

By the continuity of Q(t, z̄), there exist neighborhoods of z̄ and t, W and N, respec34

tively, such that for all t† ∈ N and for all z ∈ W ,
Q(t̄1 , t2 , z) < Q(t† , z) − ǫ.

(A.8)

Then, for every z ∈ W ,
V (N, z) ≥ Q(t̄1 , t2 , z) + ǫ > V (K, z),
where the first inequality follows from equation (A.8) and the second inequality follows
from the fact that (t̄1 , t2 ) ∈ K. This shows that {z ∈ W |V (N, z) = V (K, z)} = ∅. 

A.3

Dealing with the Boundary

Proof of Lemma 6. By compactness of K 1/2 and by assumption, V (K 1/2 , z̄) >
V (K, z̄). By the maximum theorem, we know that V (K 1/2 , z̄)−V (K, z̄) is continuous
in z̄. Then, there exists W , a neighborhood of z̄, such that for all z ∈ W , V (K 1/2 , z)−
V (K, z) > 0.

Proof of Lemma 7. Fix j ∈ J and K ∈ Kj . By Assumption K, K = K1 × K2 ,
where K1 = B1 ∩ Λ and B1 = B1 (t̄1 , r1 ). For any z ∈ Z and t ∈ K, let
gz (t) :=

d
Q(t1 + h∆∗ , t2 , z)|h=0 .
dh

By Assumption Continuous Differentiability, gz (t) is a continuous function of t and z.
The proof relies on two claims.
Claim 1: Fix η ∈ (1/2, 1) and z̄ ∈ Ωη . There exist 0 < ǫ2 < ǫ3 < 1 − η and a
neighborhood of z̄, W , such that the following hold.




1
1
1−η 1−η
1. For k, l ∈ N, if P (Ωη ) ∈
and if ǫ3 ∈
, then
,
,
k+1 k
l+1
l
1−η
.
ǫ2 ≤ k+l+1
2
(k + 1)(l + 1)
2. For all η̃ ∈ (η + ǫ2 , η + ǫ3 ), and for all z ∈ Ωη ∩ W = ∅, z ∈
/ Ωη̃ .
Proof of Claim 1:
The first part of the proof of Claim 1 carefully defines four epsilon values, 0 <
ǫ1 < ǫ2 < ǫ3 < ǫ4 < 1 − η, satisfying the first condition. The second part shows that
35

Λ

K1
∂Bǫ

B1
∂B0−

∂B0+

ǫr

ηr

Figure 4: ∂B0+ and ∂B0− .
z∈
/ Ωη̃ by dividing K η̃ into four regions and showing that none of them contain an
interior minimizer.
pp

t

By the definition of Ωη , there exists a problem point for z̄, which we denote by
pp
pp
= (tpp
1 , t2 ). Let β = −gz̄ (t ), which is positive by the definition of a problem

point. For every ǫ ∈ [0, 1 − η), let ∂Bǫ = {t ∈ K : ||t1 − t̄1 || = (η + ǫ)r}, which are
the points on the boundary of B1 (t̄1 , (η + ǫ)r). (The ∂ denotes boundary and the
subscript ǫ denotes an expansion of the radius.) Further, for every ǫ ∈ [0, 1 − η), let
−3β
}
4
−β
= {t ∈ ∂Bǫ |gz̄ (t) ≥
},
4

∂Bǫ− = {t ∈ ∂Bǫ |gz̄ (t) ≤
∂Bǫ+

both of which are compact by the continuity of gz̄ (t) and the compactness of ∂Bǫ .
Note that ∂B0− is not empty because tpp ∈ ∂B0− . Figure 4 illustrates ∂B0+ and ∂B0− .

Let N − be a neighborhood of ∂B0− and W 1 be a neighborhood of z̄ such that
−5β
for all t ∈ N − and z ∈ W 1 , and let N + be a neighborhood of ∂B0+ and
gz (t) ≤
8
−3β
2
W be a neighborhood of z̄ such that gz (t) ≥
for all t ∈ N + and for all z ∈ W 2 .
8
Note that N + and N − are mutually exclusive, and, by a standard construction, they
can be taken to be the union of finitely many open sets in K. In particular, we can
36

take the open sets to be products of open balls, F1 × F2 , with centers, f¯1 and f¯2 such
that (f¯1 , f¯2 ) ∈ ∂B0− (or ∂B0+ ).35

Next, let ∂Bǫm = ∂Bǫ \ N − ∪ N + , which is compact. (m stands for “middle.”)

By construction, every t ∈ ∂B0m satisfies gz̄ (t) ∈ (−3β/4, −β/4). Let N m be a
neighborhood of ∂B0m and W 3 be a neighborhood of z̄ such that for all t ∈ N m and

for all z ∈ W 3 , gz (t) ∈ [−7β/8, −β/8]. Again, N m can be taken to be the union of
finitely many open sets in K, which are the Cartesian product between open balls
and have their center on ∂B0m .

Since N − ∪N m ∪N + ∪K η is an open set containing K η , there exists an ǫ4 ∈ (0, 1−η]
−
m
+
such that K η+ǫ4 ⊂ N − ∪ N m ∪ N + ∪ K η . Notice
 that ∂Bǫ ⊂ N ∪ N
 ∪ N for
η + ǫ pp
all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ4 ). For every ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ4 ), let t−
. With this
(t1 − t̄1 ) + t̄1 , tpp
2
ǫ =
η
−
−
−
construction, t−
ǫ ∈ ∂Bǫ . Let ǫ3 be small enough that tǫ ∈ ∂Bǫ ∩ N for all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ3 ),
which exists by continuity of gz̄ (t).
Now consider any ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ3 ). The following notation drops dependence on ǫ until
−
m
+
equation (A.10). Let t+ = (t+
1 , t2 ) ∈ ∂Bǫ \(N ∪ N ) be an arbitrary element of that
η
set. Let t+
(t+ − t̄1 ).
1,0 =
η+ǫ 1
−
−
We know that t+ ∈ N + and t−
ǫ ∈ N . By a geometric argument, every t̃ on the

pp
+
line segment connecting t−
ǫ and t , and for every t̃ on the line segment connecting
−
−
+
and t̃+ ∈ N + .36 This implies that
t+ and (t+
1,0 , t2 ), the following holds: t̃ ∈ N

gz̄ (t̃− ) ≤

−5β
−3β
and gz̄ (t̃+ ) ≥
.
8
8

(A.9)

Then, by mean value expansions,
pp
−
Q(t−
ǫ , z̄) = Q(t , z̄) + gz̄ (t̃ )

≤ Q(tpp , z̄) −
35

ǫ
η

5βǫ
8η

This standard construction is: for every t ∈ ∂B0− , by continuity there exists a F1,t , F2,t , and
that satisfy the conditions. Since ∂B0− is compact, ∂B0− is covered by finitely many of them,
1
M
1
−
indexed by {tm }M
= ∪M
m=1 . Then set N
m=1 F1,tm × F2,tm and W = ∩m=1 Wtm . The analogous
+
construction holds for N .
36
The geometric argument is: let K be a closed ball with boundary ∂K, center t̄, and radius r.
r
(t − t̄) + t̄, which belongs
Let F be an open ball with center x, on ∂K. Let t ∈ F \K. Let y =
||t − t̄||
to ∂K. Then y ∈ F , and by the convexity of F , the line segment connecting t and y is contained in
F . The fact that y ∈ F follows from some algebra showing that ||x − y||2 ≤ ||x − t||2 , which uses
the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the formula for y, and the facts that r ≤ ||t − t̄|| and r = ||x − t̄||.
Wt1

37

3βǫ
−βǫ
+
+ Q((t+
1,0 , t2 ), z̄) −
4η
8η
−βǫ
+
+ ǫ
≤
+ Q((t+
1,0 , t2 ), z̄) + gz̄ (t̃ )
4η
η
−βǫ
+ Q(t+ , z̄),
=
4η

≤

where both equalities are mean value expansions, the first and last inequalities follow
from (A.9), and the second inequality follows because tpp is a problem point, so that
+
Q(tpp , z̄) ≤ Q((t+
1,0 , t2 ), z̄). This shows that
inf−

t∈∂Bǫ \(N ∪N m )

Q(t, z̄) ≥

−βǫ
+ inf − Q(t, z̄),
4η
t∈∂Bǫ

for every ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ3 ). Then, for any ǫ† ∈ (0, ǫ3 ),
inf

ǫ∈[ǫ† ,ǫ3 ]



inf−

t∈∂Bǫ \(N ∪N m )

Q(t, z̄) − inf − Q(t, z̄)
t∈∂Bǫ



βǫ
βǫ†
=
> 0.
4η
ǫ∈[ǫ† ,ǫ3 ] 4η

≥ inf

(A.10)

Let k, l ∈ N be such that
P (Ωη ) ∈



1
1
,
k+1 k



and ǫ3 ∈




1−η 1−η
.
,
l+1
l




1−η
Then, let ǫ2 ∈ 0, l+k+1
.
2
(k + 1)(l + 1)
By the definition of a problem point, we know that Q(t, z̄) ≥ Q(tpp , z̄) for all t∈
∂B0 \(N − ∪ N m ), which is compact. Then, there exists an ǫ1 such that for all
βǫ2 37
η + ǫ2 pp
tc ∈ ∪ǫ∈[0,ǫ1] ∂Bǫ \(N − ∪N m ), Q(tc , z̄) ≥ Q(tpp , z̄)−
. Let t−
(t1 − t̄1 )+ t̄1 .
1 =
8η
η
Then, for every ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ1 ) and for every tc ∈ ∂Bǫ \(N − ∪ N m ),
pp
pp
−
Q((t−
1 , t2 ), z̄) = Q(t , z̄) + gz̄ (t̃ )

≤ Q(tpp , z̄) −
37

ǫ2
η

5β ǫ2
8 η

−
m
If not, then there exists a sequence, {t̃m }∞
m=1 such that t̃m ∈ ∪ǫ∈[0,ǫ2 /m] ∂Bǫ \(N ∪ N ) and
βǫ2
. Then, ||t̃1,m − t̄1 || → η, and by compactness there exists a subsequence
Q(t̃m , z̄) < Q(tpp , z̄) −
8η
such that t̃m → t̃ ∈ ∂B0 . The fact that t̃ ∈ ∂B0 and t̃ ∈
/ N − ∪ N m , together with the continuity of
pp
Q(t, z̄), contradicts the fact that Q(t, z̄) ≥ Q(t , z̄) for all t ∈ ∂B0 \(N − ∪ N m ).

38

≤ Q(tc , z̄) −

βǫ2
,
2η

pp
where the equality follows by a mean value expansion for some t̃− between (t−
1 , t2 )
and tpp , the first inequality follows from (A.9), and the second inequality follows from

the previously mentioned property of tc ∈ ∂Bǫ \(N − ∪ N m ).
Then,
inf

inf−

ǫ∈[0,ǫ1 ] tc ∈∂Bǫ \(N ∪N m )

βǫ2
pp
+ Q((t−
1 , t2 ), z̄)
2η
βǫ2
pp
+ sup Q((t−
=
1,ǫ , t2 ), z̄)
2η
ǫ∈[ǫ2 ,ǫ3 ]
βǫ2
≥
+ sup inf − Q(t, z̄),
2η
ǫ∈[ǫ2 ,ǫ3 ] t∈∂Bǫ

Q(tc , z̄) ≥

where the equality follows for t−
1,ǫ =
ǫ ∈ [ǫ2 , ǫ3 ],

(A.11)

η + ǫ pp
(t1 − t̄1 ) + t̄1 and the fact that for each
η

pp
pp
− ǫ
Q((t−
1,ǫ , t2 ), z̄) = Q(t , z̄) + gz̄ (t̃ǫ ) ,
η

which is maximized at ǫ = ǫ2 using (A.9). The final inequality follows from the fact
pp
−
that (t−
1,ǫ , t2 ) ∈ ∂Bǫ .
By the maximum theorem, both the left hand side and the right hand side of
(A.11) are continuous as a function of z̄. Thus, there exists a neighborhood, W 4 ,
such that for all z ∈ W 4 ,
inf

inf

ǫ∈[0,ǫ1 ] tc ∈∂Bǫ \N −

Q(tc , z) > sup

inf − Q(t, z).

(A.12)

ǫ∈[ǫ2 ,ǫ3 ] t∈∂Bǫ

We know from equation (A.10) that
inf

ǫ∈[ǫ1 ,ǫ3 ]



inf

t∈∂Bǫ \(N − ∪N m )



Q(t, z̄) − inf − Q(t, z̄) > 0.
t∈∂Bǫ

By the continuity of the above expression in z̄, there exists a neighborhood of z̄, W 5 ,
such that for all z ∈ W 5 ,
inf

ǫ∈[ǫ1 ,ǫ3 ]



inf

t∈∂Bǫ \(N − ∪N m )



Q(t, z) − inf − Q(t, z) > 0.
t∈∂Bǫ

39

(A.13)

I
IV
III
N−

Nm
N+

η̃r
II

ηr

Figure 5: Regions of K η̃ .
The ǫ2 and ǫ3 defined above satisfy condition 1 in Claim 1. Let W = W 1 ∩ W 2 ∩
W 3 ∩ W 4 ∩ W 5 . This W satisfies condition 2 of Claim 1. To show this, let z ∈ W
and let η̃ ∈ (η + ǫ2 , η + ǫ3 ). We show that if z ∈ Ωη , then z ∈
/ Ωη̃ because Q(t, z) does

not achieve its minimum on the interior of B1 (t̄1 , η̃r1 ).
Let t0 = (t01 , t02 ) ∈ K η̃ be an arbitrary point. We show that K η̃ does not contain an
interior minimizer by dividing into four regions: (I) t0 ∈ (N − ∪ N m )\K η (II) t0 ∈ K η
(III) t0 ∈ (N + ∩ K η+ǫ1 )\K η , and (IV) t0 ∈ N + \(N m ∪ K η+ǫ1 ). Figure 5 illustrates
these four regions.

(I) In region I, we show that the minimum is always achieved on the boundary.
We know from the fact that t0 ∈ N − ∪ N m , gz (t0 ) < 0 by the defining property
of W 1 and W 3 . Then, there exists an open ball, F , such that for all t̃0 ∈ F ,
gz (t̃0 ) < 0 and F ⊂ K η̃ . Let χ > 1 be such that t̄0 := (χ(t01 − t̄1 ) + t̄1 , t02 ) ∈ F .

Then, t̄0 is on the line connecting (t̄1 , t02 ) and t0 . Take a mean value expansion
Q(t̄0 , z) − Q(t0 , z) = gz (t̃0 )(χ − 1) < 0,
for some t̃0 between t̄0 and t0 . The inequality follows because g(t̃0 ) < 0, which
holds because t̃0 ∈ F , by the convexity of F .
(II) In region II, we show that no minimizer exists because the value is larger than
40

or equal to the minimum over region I. Let tpp
z be a problem point for z, which
pp
exists because z ∈ Ωη . Then, gz (tz ) < 0, so by continuity, there exists an open
ball, F ⊂ K η̃ , around tpp
z , such that gz (t̃) < 0 for all t̃ ∈ F . Let χ > 1 such that
pp
t̄ = (χ(tpp
z,1 − t̄1 ) + t̄1 , tz,2 ) ∈ F .

Then, we can calculate from the same mean value expansion as in case (I) that
pp
Q(tpp
z , z) > Q(t̄, z). Also, we know from the fact that tz is a problem point that
0
η̃
Q(t0 , z) ≥ Q(tpp
z , z). Thus, t is not a minimizer of Q(t, z) over K .
(III) In region III, we show that equation (A.12) implies that any value is larger
than the minimum over region I. Let t0 = (t01 , t02 ) ∈ (N + ∩ K η+ǫ1 )\K η . Set
ǫ = ||t01 − t̄1 || − η ∈ (0, ǫ1 ]. Then,

Q(t0 , z) ≥
≥
>

inf

t∈∂Bǫ \N −

inf

Q(t, z)
inf

ǫ∈[0,ǫ1 ] t∈∂Bǫ \N −

Q(t, z)

inf − Q(t, z)

sup

ǫ∈[ǫ2 ,ǫ3 ] t∈∂Bǫ

≥

inf

−
t∈∂Bη̃−η

Q(t, z),

where the first inequality follows because t0 ∈ ∂Bǫ \N − , the second inequality

is because ǫ ∈ [0, ǫ1 ], the third inequality follows by equation (A.12), the fourth
inequality follows because η̃ − η ∈ [ǫ2 , ǫ3 ]. This shows that there exists a t− ∈
−
∂Bη̃−η
⊂ K η̃ such that Q(t0 , z) > Q(t− , z). Therefore, t0 is not a minimizer of

Q(t, z) over t ∈ K η̃ .

(IV) In region IV, we show that equation (A.13) implies that any value is larger than
a corresponding value in region I. Let t0 = (t01 , t02 ) ∈ N + \(N m ∪ K η+ǫ1 ). Set
ǫ = ||t01 − t̄1 || − η ∈ (ǫ1 , ǫ3 ]. Then,
Q(t0 , z) ≥

inf

t∈∂Bǫ \(N − ∪N m )

Q(t, z) > inf − Q(t, z),
t∈∂Bǫ

where the first inequality follows because t0 ∈ ∂Bǫ \(N − ∪ N m ) and the second
equality follows from equation (A.13) applied to ǫ. Thus, there exists a t− ∈
∂Bǫ− ⊂ K η̃ such that Q(t0 , z) > Q(t− , z). Therefore, t0 is not a minimizer of
Q(t, z) over t ∈ K η̃ .

41

This shows that ǫ2 , ǫ3 , and W , defined above, satisfy the conditions of Claim 1. 
Claim 2: For every η ∈ (1/2, 1), there exist ǫU (z) and ǫL (z), real-valued functions of z ∈ Z satisfying the following.
1. P ({z ∈ Ωη |ǫU (z) ∈
/ (0, 1 − η] or ǫL (z) ∈
/ (0, 1 − η]}) = 0.




1−η 1−η
1
1
and if ǫU (z) ∈
, then
,
,
2. For k, l ∈ N, if P (Ωη ) ∈
k+1 k
l+1
l
1−η
ǫL (z) ≤ k+l+1
.
2
(k + 1)(l + 1)
3. If z ∈ Ωη and if η̃ ∈ (η + ǫL (z), η + ǫU (z)), then z ∈
/ Ωη̃ .
Proof of Claim 2: For each q ∈ N, let Ωηq be a compact set contained in Ωη

such that P Ωη \ ∪∞
= 0, which exists by absolute continuity of P . For each
q=1 Ωηq
I

q
be a finite set of points such that Wz̄i , defined in Claim 1, covers
q ∈ N, let {z̄i }i=1
Ωηq . For each z̄i , Claim 1 also defines ǫ2 (z̄i ) and ǫ3 (z̄i ).
Let

/ Ωηq−1 }ǫ3 (z̄i )
iq (z) = argmaxi=1,2,...,Iq 1{z ∈ Wz̄i }1{z ∈ Ωηq , z ∈
∞
X
1{z ∈ Wz̄iq (z) }1{z ∈ Ωηq , z ∈
ǫU (z) =
/ Ωηq−1 }ǫ3 (z̄iq (z) )
ǫL (z) =

q=1
∞
X
q=1

1{z ∈ Wz̄iq (z) }1{z ∈ Ωηq , z ∈
/ Ωηq−1 }ǫ2 (z̄iq (z) ).

If the argmax is not unique, then it suffices to take the smallest i in the argmax. This
is defined for all z ∈ Z, and the definitions of ǫU (z) and ǫL (z) are nonzero if and only
if z ∈ ∪∞
q=1 Ωηq . Note that at most one term in the sum is nonzero.
We verify that this definition of ǫU (z) and ǫL (z) satisfies Claim 2.

1. P ({z ∈ Ωη |ǫU (z) = 0 or ǫL (z) = 0) = P (Ωη \ ∪∞
q=1 Ωηq ) = 0 by the definition of
Ωηq .

2. Under the conditions, ǫU (z) = ǫ3 (z̄i ) and ǫL (z) = ǫ2 (z̄i ) for some i = 1, 2, ..., Iq
and some q ∈ N. By property 1 of Claim 1, the condition holds.
3. Let z ∈ Ωη . Then if z ∈
/ ∪∞
q=1 Ωηq , then ǫL (z) = ǫU (z) = 0. In this case, there is
nothing to check because (η + ǫL (z), η + ǫU (z)) = (η, η) = ∅.
42

If z ∈ Ωηq for some q ∈ N, then z ∈ Wz̄i for some i = 1, ..., Iq , and therefore
z ∈ iq (z) by the definition of the argmax. Thus, ǫU (z) = ǫ3 (z̄iq (z) ) and ǫL (z) =
ǫ2 (z̄iq (z) ). Let η̃ ∈ (η + ǫL (z), η + ǫU (z)), and the result follows by property 2 of
Claim 1.

Thus, ǫU (z) and ǫL (z) satisfy the conditions of Claim 2.



Finally, we prove Lemma 7. Let
Υ = {η ∈ (1/2, 1)|P (Ωη ) > 0}


1
1
Υk = {η ∈ Υ|P (Ωη ) ∈
, }.
k+1 k
We show that Υ 6= (1/2, 1) by contradiction. Assume for all η ∈ (1/2, 1), P (Ωη ) > 0.

We seek to bound the Lebesgue measure of Υ, denoted by µ(Υ). Notice that
µ(Υ) =
=

Z

1

1/2
Z 1

1/2
1

=
=
=
≤
=

1{P (Ωη ) > 0}dµ(η)
Z

Z

1{z ∈ Ωη }
dP (z)dµ(η)
P (Ωη )

0
1{z ∈ Ω+
η } + 1{z ∈ Ωη }
dP (z)dµ(η)
P (Ωη )
1/2 Z
Z 1
Z
1
1{z ∈ Ω+
η }dP (z)dµ(η)
P
(Ω
)
η
1/2
Z


Z
∞ Z 1
X
1
1
1
+
1{z ∈ Ωη }1{P (Ωη ) ∈
, }dP (z)dµ(η)
P (Ωη ) Z
k+1 k
k=1 1/2


Z 1 Z
∞
X
1
1
+
(k + 1)
1{z ∈ Ωη }1{P (Ωη ) ∈
, }dP (z)dµ(η)
k
+
1
k
1/2
Z
k=1


Z Z 1
∞
X
1
1
+
, }dµ(η)dP (z),
(k + 1)
1{z ∈ Ωη }1{P (Ωη ) ∈
k+1 k
Z 1/2

Z

Z

k=1

where the fourth equality follows by Claim 2, which defines ǫη,U (z) and ǫη,L (z) for
every η, and by defining
Ω0η = {z ∈ Ωη |ǫη,U (z) = 0 or ǫη,L (z) = 0}

Ω+
= {z ∈ Ωη |ǫη,U (z), ǫη,L (z) > 0},
η

43

and the last equality follows by Tonelli’s Theorem.
Fix z ∈ Z and k ∈ N. We show that


Z 1
1
1
1
+
1{z ∈ Ωη }1{P (Ωη ) ∈
, }dµ(η) ≤ k+2
.
k+1 k
2 (k + 1)
1/2

(A.14)

If (A.14) is true, then by summing, µ(Υ) ≤ 1/4, which contradicts the assumption
that Υ = (1/2, 1).
Let
Υzk
Υzkl

= {η ∈ (1/2, 1)|z ∈

Ω+
η



and P (Ωη ) ∈


1−η 1−η
z
= {η ∈ Υk |ǫη,U (z) ∈
},
,
l+1
l


1
1
, }
k+1 k

z
for l ∈ N, so that Υzk = ∪∞
l=1 Υkl . It is sufficient to show that the Lebesgue measure
1
of Υzkl is less than or equal to k+l+2
for each k, l ∈ N and for every z ∈ Z.
2
(k + 1)

m−1
l
1
. We notice that (1/2, 1) =
For every m ∈ N, let χm = 1 −
2 l+1
∞
z
∪∞
m=1 (χm , χm+1 ]. Fix m and let {η̄n }n=1 be a sequence in Υkl such that inf{η ∈

Υzkl |η ≥ χm } − η̄n = o(n−1 ). For all η̃ ∈ (η̄n + ǫη̄n ,L (z), η̄n + ǫη̄n ,U (z)), we know that
z∈
/ Ωη̃ by Claim 2.
For a fixed m, the measure of all the η’s not in Υzkl ∩ (χm , χm+1 ] is equal to:
[inf{η ∈ Υzkl |η ≥ χm } − χm ] + [η̄n + ǫη̄n ,U (z) − η̄n − ǫη̄n ,L (z)]

≥ [η̄n − χm ] + [χm+1 − (η̄n + ǫη̄n ,L (z))] + o(n−1 )

= χm+1 − χm − ǫη̄n ,L (z) + o(n−1 )
1 − η̄n
1 − χm
− k+l+1
+ o(n−1 )
≥
l+1
2
(k + 1)(l + 1)


1 − χm
1 − η̄n
=
1 − k+l+1
+ o(n−1 )
l+1
2
(k + 1)(1 − χm )


1
1 − χm
1 − k+l+1
+ o(n−1 ),
≥
l+1
2
(k + 1)
where the first inequality uses the definition of η̄n and the fact that
η̄n + ǫη̄n ,U (z) ≥ η̄n +

1 − η̄n
l
l
=1−
(1 − η̄n ) ≥ 1 −
(1 − χm ) = χm+1 ,
l+1
l+1
l+1
44

where the first inequality follows from the assumed property of l, the first equality
follows by algebra, the second inequality follows because η̄n ≥ χm , and the last
equality follows by the definition of χm . Taking n → ∞ shows that
µ(Υzkl

1 − χm
∩ (χm , χm+1 ]) ≤ (χm+1 − χm ) −
l+1




1
1 − k+l+1
.
2
(k + 1)

This implies that
µ(Υzkl )


≤ 1/2 − 1 −

1
k+l+1
2
(k + 1)


= 1/2 − 1/2 1 −
=

1

2k+l+2(k

+ 1)

1
2k+l+1(k

X
∞

1 − χm
l+1
m=1


+ 1)

,

where the first inequality and the first equality hold because

m−1
m−1
∞ 
∞
∞
X
X
X
l
l
1
1
1
1 − χm
=
=
= .
l+1
2(l + 1) l + 1
2(l + 1) m=1 l + 1
2
m=1
m=1
This shows that the Lebesgue measure of Υzkl is less than or equal to

1

.
+ 1)
By summing, this verifies equation (A.14). By summing again, this shows that the
2k+l+2(k

Lebesgue measure of Υ is bounded above by 1/4. This is a contradiction to the
assumption that Υ = (1/2, 1). Therefore, there exists at least one η ∈ (1/2, 1) such

that η ∈
/ Υ. Call it η ∗ . This means that P (Ωη∗ ) = 0.

A.4

Proof of Theorem 1

For each j ∈ J and for each U ∈ Uj , U is a (relatively) open set in Rm1 × Rn+1 ×
Rm2 × Rn+2 . We define Kj satisfying Assumption K in four steps. Let U 0 be an open
set in Rm1 +n1 +m2 +n2 such that U = U 0 ∩ (Rm1 × Rn+1 × Rm2 × Rn+2 ). Let Kj1,U be the

collection of products of closed balls, K1 ×K2 ⊂ U 0 , with rational centers and rational
radii. We can write K1 = B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) and K2 = B2 (t̄2 , r2 ).38 Let Kj2,U = {B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) ×
B2 (t̄2 , r2 ) ∈ Kj1,U |r1 <
min
t̄1,i }. Let Kj3,U = {K ∩ U|K ∈ Kj2,U }. Let
{i=m1 +1,...,m1 +n1 :t̄1,i >0}

The notation here is: B1 (x, r) = {y ∈ Rm1 ×Rn+1 : ||y −x|| ≤ r} and B2 (x, r) = {y ∈ Rm2 ×Rn+2 :
||y − x|| ≤ r}.
38

45

Kj3 = ∪U ∈Uj Kj3,U .
Claim: Kj3 satisfies Assumption K.
Proof: Conditions (a) and (b) are trivial. Condition (c) is satisfied for
K = B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) × B2 (t̄2 , r2 ) ∩ U

= (B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) ∩ Rm1 × Rn+1 ) × (B2 (t̄2 , r2 ) ∩ Rm2 × Rn+2 )
= (B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) ∩ Λ) × (B2 (t̄2 , r2 ) ∩ Rm2 × Rn+2 ),

where the final equality using the fact that r1 <

1
Λ = A(t̄1 ) = Rm1 × ×ni=1


R

R

min

{i=m1 +1,...,m1 +n1 :t̄1,i >0}

if t̄1,m1 +i > 0
+

t̄1,i and

.

if t̄1,m1 +i = 0

To show condition (d), let t, s ∈ Tj . The fact that Tj is Hausdorff implies that there
exist U1 , U2 ∈ Uj such that t ∈ U1 , s ∈ U2 , and the ranges of the coordinate maps

are disjoint. All we have to show is that there exists some K ∈ Kj3,U with t ∈ K,
and symmetrically for s. Since t ∈ U10 , let C = B1 (t̄1 , r1 ) × B2 (t̄2 , r2 ) ⊂ U10 be a
product of closed balls, with rational centers and radii, containing t, and satisfying
the following condition. For i = m1 + 1, ..., m1 + n1 , if ti = 0, then t̄i = 0, and if
ti > 0, then t̄i > r1 . Then, C ∈ Kj1,U1 . Since r1 <
min
t̄1,i , C ∈ Kj2,U1 ,
{i=m1 +1,...,m1 +n1 :t̄1,i >0}

and therefore, K = C ∩ U ∈ Kj3,U1 .

∗
Apply Lemma 7 to each K ∈ Kj3 to get an ηK
and an ΩK := ΩηK∗ such that
∗

P (ΩK ) = 0. Let Kj = {K ηK |K ∈ Kj3 }.
Claim: Kj satisfies Assumption K.

Proof: Conditions (a) and (b) are trivial. Condition (c) follows from condition
(c) for K ∈ Kj3 and the structure of K η . Condition (d) follows from the fact that
Kj3 satisfies condition (d) in Assumption K with 1/2 replaced by 1/4, by the same

argument as above. That is, for t 6= s ∈ Tj , there exist K, C ∈ Kj3 such that
K ∩ C = ∅, t ∈ K 1/4 , and s ∈ C 1/4 . Condition (d) then follows from the observation
∗

∗
∈ (1/2, 1).

that K 1/4 ⊂ K ηK /2 because ηK
Let Ω̃ = ∪j∈J ∪K∈Kj ΩK , which has measure zero. Note that P (Z\Ω̃) = 1, so by
absolute continuity of P , there exists a sequence of compact sets, Zk ⊂ Z\Ω̃, such

that P (Zk ) → 1 as k → ∞.

46

Fix j1 , j2 ∈ J, K ∈ Kj1 , and C ∈ Kj2 such that K ∩ C = ∅. We seek to verify the
conditions of Lemma 2. Fix t ∈ K, s ∈ C, and let z̄ ∈ Zk . We show the existence of
neighborhoods, N, M, and W , such that (3.1) is satisfied. We divide into cases:
1. Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄). In this case, the existence of neighborhoods, N, M, and W ,
satisfying (3.1) follows from Lemma 3.

2.

d
d
Q(t, z̄) 6= Q(s, z̄). In this case, the existence of neighborhoods, N, M, and
dz
dz
W , satisfying (3.1) follows from Lemma 4.

¯ ∈ A(t1 ) such that d Q(t1 +
3. From Assumption Generic, there exists a ∆
dh
d
¯ s2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0. Without loss of general¯ t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0 or
Q(s1 + h∆,
h∆,
dh
ity we take the first case. Divide into two subcases:
˜ ∈ CK1 (t1 ) such that d Q(t1 + h∆,
˜ t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0. In
(a) There exists a ∆
dh
this case, the existence of neighborhoods, N, M, and W , satisfying (3.1),
follows from Lemma 5.
˜ ∈ CK (t1 ), d Q(t1 + h∆,
˜ t2 , z̄)|h=0 ≥ 0. In this case, we argue
(b) For all ∆
1
dh
d
Q(t1 + h∆∗ , t2 , z̄)|h=0 < 0, where ∆∗ = t1 − t̄1 .
that
dh
We already know that if t1 is on the interior of B1 , then A(t1 ) = CK1 (t1 ),
a contradiction. Therefore, t1 is on the boundary of B1 . Recall that A(t1 )
is the tangent cone of t1 to Rm1 × Rn+1 . Since both t1 and t̄1 belong to
Rm1 × Rn+1 , it must be the case that A∗ (t1 ) := {α∆∗ |α ∈ R} ⊂ A(t1 ).
Write A(t1 ) = A∗ (t1 ) + A⊥ (t1 ), where A⊥ (t1 ) := {∆ ∈ A(t1 ) : ∆ ⊥ ∆∗ }.
We show that A⊥ (t1 ) ⊂ CK1 (t1 ). Recall that CK1 (t1 ) is the tangent cone

of t1 to B1 ∩ Λ, which is equal to the intersection of the tangent cones of
t1 to B1 and t1 to Λ. Since any ∆ ∈ A⊥ (t1 ) is orthogonal to ∆∗ = t1 − t̄1 ,
together with the fact that B1 is a closed ball with t1 on the boundary, ∆
must be in the tangent cone of t1 to B1 . Furthermore, there must exist a
α > 0 such that t1 + α∆ ∈ Λ. If not, then t1 lies on the boundary of Λ,
but the only boundaries of Λ are also boundaries of Rm1 × Rn+1 .39 Then,

39

This follows from the structure of Λ, which satisfies:
(
R
if t̄1,m1 +i > 0
1
.
Λ = Rm1 × ×ni=1
R+ if t̄1,m1 +i = 0

47

such a ∆ would not be in A(t1 ). Therefore, A⊥ (t1 ) ⊂ CK1 (t1 ).
¯ in A(t1 ) as α1 ∆∗ + α2 ∆⊥ for ∆⊥ ∈ A⊥ (t1 ) and α2 ≥ 0.
We can write any ∆
¯ ∈
In addition, if ∆
/ CK1 (t1 ), then α1 > 0. Calculate:
d
1 d
¯ t2 , z̄)|h=0 − α2 d Q(t1 +h∆⊥, t2 , z̄)|h=0 <0,
Q(t1 +h∆∗, t2 , z̄)|h=0 =
Q(t1 +h∆,
dh
α1 dh
α1 dh
where the first equality follows by calculus, and the inequality follows from
the defining property of cases (3) and (b).
Divide into two final cases.
i. V (K 1/2 , z̄) > V (K, z̄). In this case, the existence of a neighborhood,
W , so that N = K and M = C satisfy (3.1) follows from Lemma 6.
ii. V (K 1/2 , z̄) = V (K, z̄). In this case, if Q(t, z̄) = V (K, z̄), then t is a
problem point. Because z̄ ∈ Zk , which implies that z̄ ∈
/ ΩK , there can
be no problem points. Therefore, Q(t, z̄) > V (K, z̄). By continuity,
let N be a neighborhood of t and let W be a neighborhood of z̄ such

that inf inf (Q(t, z) − V (K, z)) > 0. Then, N, M = C, and W satisfy
z∈W t∈N

equation (3.1).

The above cases exhaust the possibilities. Thus, for every (t, s) ∈ K × C, the

condition of Lemma 2 is satisfied for K and C. Since K and C are arbitrary, this
verifies the condition of Lemma 1. Therefore, by Lemma 1, the argmin of Q(t, z) over
t ∈ T is unique almost surely-z.


A.5

Proof of Corollaries

Proof of Corollary 1. We verify the assumptions of Theorem 1. Assumption Manifold is satisfied because µ and τ both take values in manifolds in RJ of dimensions J
and J −1, respectively. Assumption Absolute Continuity is satisfied because zi is continuously distributed. We take Z to be the set of all (z1 , ..., zn ) ∈ Rn that are distinct.

This is permitted because any two draws of zi being equal occurs only on a set of
measure zero. Assumption Continuous Differentiability is satisfied with m2 = n2 = 0
because the objective function is continuously differentiable, as a function of both z
and (τ, µ).
To verify Assumption Generic, we consider any (z1 , ..., zn ) ∈ Rn such that the zi
48

are all distinct. For any τ, ς ∈ RJ such that

J
X

τj =

j=1

J
X
j=1

ςj = 1, and any µ, ν ∈ RJ

such that µ1 < µ2 < ... < µJ and ν1 < ν2 < ... < νJ , we show that if
d
[Q(τ, µ, z1 , ..., zn ) − Q(ς, ν, z1 , ..., zn )] = 0
dzi
for all i = 1, ..., n, then τ = ς and µ = ν. By the contrapositive, if τ 6= ς or µ 6= ν,
then Condition (d) in Assumption Generic must hold for some i = 1, ..., n.
Suppose for every i = 1, ...n, the following holds:
d
[Q(τ, µ, z1 , ..., zn ) − Q(ς, ν, z1 , ..., zn )]
dzi
J
J
X
X
1
1
τj (zi − µj )φ(zi − µj ) −
ςj (zi − νj )φ(zi − νj ).
=
f (zi ; τ, µ) j=1
f (zi ; ς, ν) j=1

0=

This holds if and only if
f (zi ; ς, ν)

J
X
k=1

⇐⇒
⇐⇒

J
X
j=1

ςj φ(zi −νj )

J X
J
X
j=1 k=1

J
X
k=1

τk (zi −µk )φ(zi −µk ) = f (zi ; τ, µ)
τk (zi −µk )φ(zi −µk ) =

J
X
k=1

J
X
j=1

ςj (zi −νj )φ(zi −νj )

τk φ(zi −µk )

ςj τk φ(zi −νj )φ(zi −µk )(µk −νj ) = 0.

J
X
j=1

ςj (zi −νj )φ(zi −νj )
(A.15)

Rewrite equation (A.15), for all i = 1, ..., n, as:
Ab = 0,

(A.16)

where b is a J 2 × 1 vector, which is indexed by j = 1, ..., J and k = 1, ..., J. The
(j, k)th element of b is given by:
ςj τk (µk − νj ) exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2k )}.
A is an n × J 2 matrix, whose (i, (j, k))th element is exp{zi (νj + µk )}, which uses
φ(zi − νj )φ(zi − µk ) = (2π)−1 exp{−zi2 } exp{zi (νj + µk )} exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2k )},
49

together with multiplying equation (A.15) by 2π exp{zi2 } to simplify.
We would like to show that A has full rank equal to J 2 , but this is not true because
some of the columns of A are redundant whenever there are pairs of indices, (j1 , k1 )
and (j2 , k2 ) such that νj1 + µk1 = νj2 + µk2 . To deal with this, we define equivalence
classes of indices and shrink the matrix, A.
Consider sets of indices, (j, k), divided into equivalence classes according to the
equivalence relation:
(j1 , k1 ) ∼ (j2 , k2) ⇐⇒ νj1 + µk1 = νj2 + µk2 .
Let the set of all equivalence classes be G. For every g ∈ G, let |g| denote the value
of νj + µk for (j, k) ∈ g. Suppose there are M ≤ J 2 equivalence classes, enumerated
by g1 , ..., gM , in ascending order. Consider the following equation:
Ãb̃ = 0,

(A.17)

where b̃ is an M vector, indexed by g ∈ G. The g th element of b̃ is given by:
X

(j,k)∈g

ςj τk (µk − νj ) exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2k )}.

Ã is a n × M matrix, whose (i, g)th element is: exp{zi |g|}. We can see that equation
(A.17) follows from equation (A.16) by eliminating those columns that are redundant.
Next, we use the fact that Ã is a strictly totally positive matrix.40 This means
that for distinct, |g1 |, ..., |gM |, and the fact that the z1 , ..., zn are distinct means that

Ã has full rank, M. Therefore, by inversion, we know that b̃ = 0 or, for every g ∈ G,
X

(j,k)∈g

ςj τk (µk − νj ) exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2k )} = 0.

We use equation (A.18) to show the following Claim.
Claim: For all j, k = 1, ..., J, µj = νj and τk ςj = τj ςk .
Proof of Claim: The proof proceeds by induction on K.
40

See Karlin (1968), Section 1.2.

50

(A.18)

1. Initialization Step: For j = k = K = 1, g1 = {(1, 1)}. This is because νj + µk
is minimized when both νj and µk are at their minimum values, ν1 and µ1 .
Applying equation (A.18) to g1 gives
ς1 τ1 (µ1 − ν1 ) exp{−0.5(ν12 + µ21 )} = 0.
Since ς1 > 0 and τ1 > 0, this reduces to µ1 = ν1 . Also, τ1 ς1 = τ1 ς1 holds trivially.
2. Induction Step: For j, k ≤ K, assume that µj = νj and τk ςj = τj ςk . We want
to show the result for j, k ≤ K + 1.
Consider νK+1 and µK+1. Without loss of generality, suppose νK+1 ≤ µK+1.

Let ḡ ∈ G be the smallest equivalence class that contains K + 1 as an index.
One can verify that, (K + 1, 1) ∈ ḡ and |ḡ| = νK+1 + µ1 , since any other pair
of indices containing K + 1 must be larger than or equal to νK+1 + µ1 . ḡ may
also contain three other types of indices:
(a) (1, K + 1) may belong to ḡ depending on whether or not µK+1 = νK+1.
(b) (j, j) may belong to ḡ for some 1 ≤ j ≤ K.
(c) The pair, (j, k) and (k, j), may both belong to ḡ, for 1 ≤ j, k ≤ K.
The proof that no other pairs of indices belongs to ḡ follows from noticing

the following facts. First, notice that if j or k is greater than K + 1, then
νj + µk > νK+1 + µ1 . Second, notice that if either j = K + 1 or k = K + 1,
then the other index must be equal to 1. Finally, notice that if (j, k) ∈ ḡ, where
j, k ≤ K, then (k, j) ∈ ḡ because, by the induction assumption, νj = µj and
νk = µk .
Now, consider equation (A.18) applied to ḡ. We have that
2
ςK+1 τ1 (µ1 − νK+1) exp{−0.5(νK+1
+ µ21 )}

0 =

+ 1{(1, K + 1) ∈ ḡ}ς1 τK+1 (µK+1 − ν1 ) exp{−0.5(ν12 + µ2K+1)}
+

K
X
j=1

+

1{(j, j) ∈ ḡ}ςj τj (µj − νj ) exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2j )}

j−1
K X
X
j=2 k=1


1{(j, k) ∈ ḡ} ςj τk (µk − νj ) exp{−0.5(νj2 + µ2k )}
51


+ ςk τj (µj − νk ) exp{−0.5(νk2 + µ2j )} .

The terms in the third line are zero because µj = νj by the induction assumption. The terms in the fourth line are also zero because µk = νk , µj = νj , and
ςj τk = ςk τj . Finally, there are two cases. If (1, K + 1) ∈
/ ḡ, then the equation
2
0 = ςK+1 τ1 (µ1 − νK+1 ) exp{−0.5(νK+1
+ µ21 )}

implies a contradiction because ςK+1 > 0, τ1 > 0, νK+1 > ν1 = µ1 , and
2
exp{−0.5(νK+1
+ µ21 )} > 0. Therefore, it must be the case that (1, K + 1) ∈ ḡ.
This can only happen if µK+1 = νK+1 . Further, in this case equation (A.18)

reduces to: ςK+1τ1 = ς1 τK+1 . This proves the induction step because for any
τj
ςj
j ≤ K, we multiply the equation by
=
to get: ςK+1 τj = ςj τK+1 .

τ1
ς1
Finally, we show that ς = τ . From the Claim, we know that for any j, k = 1, ..., J,
τk /τj = ςk /ςj . If τk > ςk for some k, then τj > ςj for any other j, to make the equation
J
J
X
X
hold. Summing up, we get 1 =
τj >
ςj = 1, a contradiction. Therefore, ςk = τk
j=1

j=1

for all k.

This verifies Assumption Generic. By Theorem 1, the argmin of Q(τ, µ, z1 , ..., zn )
is unique almost surely, which proves Corollary 1.

Proof of Corollary 2. We verify the conditions of Theorem 1 applied to vj (·) as
a function of βi and j. Notice that T = {1, ..., J} is a finite union of 0-dimensional manifolds, verifying Assumption Manifold. Assumption Absolute Continuity
is satisfied because βi is continuously distributed. Assumption Continuous Differentiability is satisfied by condition (b). Assumption Generic is satisfied by condition (c).
Therefore, by Theorem 1, vj (pj , yj , α, βi ) is uniquely maximized over j almost surely.
Therefore, xj (pj , yj , α, βi ), which is single-valued by condition (a), is the unique global
maximizer, x∗ (p, y, α, βi), almost surely.
Proof of Corollary 3. We verify the conditions of Theorem 1. Assumption Manifold is satisfied because C(k) is a finite or countable union of manifolds, possibly with
boundary or corner. Assumption Absolute Continuity is satisfied by (b). Assumption Continuous Differentiability is satisfied, taking m1 = n1 = 0, by (c). Finally,
Assumption Generic is satisfied by condition (d). Therefore, by Theorem 1, the policy
function, c(k, z), is unique almost surely-z.

52

Lemma 8. Let T = ∪j∈J Tj be a finite or countable disjoint union of second-countable
Hausdorff manifolds. Let f : T → Rl be continuously differentiable. Let u ∈ Rl be
a non-invertible value for f if there exist t1 6= t2 ∈ T such that f (t1 ) = f (t2 ) = u.

Let fn : T → Rl be a sequence of continuously differentiable and injective functions,
converging uniformly over compact sets to f . Then, the Lebesgue measure of {u ∈
Rl : u is a non-invertible value of f } is zero.

Proof of Lemma 8. For each j ∈ J, denote the dimension of Tj by dj . Notice that
in order for fn to be continuously differentiable and injective, dj must be less than or
equal to l for all j ∈ J. Denote the derivative of f (t) by f ′ (t).
First, we show that any non-invertible value, u, must be a critical value, in the
sense that there exists a t ∈ T such that f (t) = u and f ′ (t) has rank less than l. Let u
be a non-invertible value. Then, there exist t1 6= t2 ∈ T such that f (t1 ) = f (t2 ) = u.
Let t1 ∈ Tj1 and t2 ∈ Tj2 . Suppose, to reach a contradiction, that f ′ (t1 ) and f ′ (t2 )

both have rank l. Notice that this requires dj1 = dj2 = l. Then, by the inverse function
theorem, there exist neighborhoods, N1 and N2 , of t1 and t2 , and a neighborhood,

M, of u such that f restricted to Ni is invertible as a function onto M, for i = 1, 2.
We can take N1 , N2 , and M to be compact and homeomorphic41 to a closed ball in
Rl . We can also take N1 and N2 to be disjoint.
Let ǫ > 0 such that the ball of radius ǫ around u is contained in M. Then, by
uniform convergence on compact sets, there exists an n such that for all t ∈ N1 ∪ N2 ,
||fn (t) − f (t)|| < ǫ/2. For each i = 1, 2, let fn (Ni ) = Mi denote the image of Ni
under fn , and let fn (∂Ni ) = ∂Mi denote the image of the boundary of Ni , ∂Ni , under
fn . We know that f maps the boundary of Ni to the boundary of M because f is a

homeomorphism when restricted to Ni , for each i = 1, 2.
We show that u ∈ Mi for both i = 1, 2. Suppose not for some i. Then, let
ū = fn (f −1 (u)), where the inverse of f is restricted to Ni . By the choice of n,
||ū − u|| < ǫ/2, and ū ∈ Mi . On the line segment connecting u and ū, there exists at
least one point, u† ∈ ∂Mi . Let t† = fn−1 (u† ), and we notice that
ǫ/2 > ||fn (t† ) − f (t† )|| ≥ ||u − f (t† )|| − ||fn (t† ) − u|| > ǫ/2,
where the first inequality follows by the choice of n, the second inequality is the
triangle inequality, and the third inequality follows because (1) f (t† ) ∈ ∂M, which is
41

A homoemorphism is a continuous function with a continuous inverse.

53

at least ǫ away from u by the choice of ǫ, and (2) fn (t† ) = u† is on the line segment
connecting u and ū, so ||u† − u|| ≤ ||ū − u|| < ǫ/2. This contradiction shows that
u ∈ Mi for both i = 1, 2.
The fact that u ∈ M1 ∩ M2 is a contradiction because then there exist t̄1 ∈ N1
and t̄2 ∈ N2 such that fn (t̄1 ) = fn (t̄2 ) = u, which is impossible because fn is injective

and N1 ∩ N2 = ∅. Altogether, this shows that any non-invertible value, u, must be a
critical value.
By Sard’s Theorem, the set of critical values in Rl has Lebesgue measure zero.42


Proof of Corollary 4. Let π ∈ Π, a finite or countable union of second-countable

Hausdorff manifolds. Consider z ∈ Rdz and write z = (z1 , z2 ), where z1 ∈ Rdβ and
z2 ∈ Rdh . For a fixed z = (z1 , z2 ) consider the equation:
hβ (β0 , π)(z1 − b) = z2 .

(A.19)

We show that {z = (z1 , z2 ) : equation (A.19) has multiple solutions over π ∈ Π} has
Lebesgue measure zero.
Fix z1 , and for every n let
z1
an
β̃n = βn − √ + ,
n
n
where ||an || ≤ 1 is chosen so that h(β̃n , π) − h(β0 , π) is injective as a function of
π. Such an an always exists by Assumption (d) and for n large enough so that
√
βn − z1 / n ∈ B. Let
f (π) = hβ (β0 , π)(z1 − b), and

√ 
fn (π) = − n h(β̃n , π) − h(β0 , π) .
We verify the conditions of Lemma 8. Let K be a compact subset of Π, and notice

√ 
fn (π) = − n h(β̃n , π) − h(β0 , π)
 √
√ 
= − n h(β̃n , π) − h(βn , π) − n (h(βn , π) − h(β0 , π))
42

For Sard’s Theorem, see Guillemin and Pollack (1974).

54



√
an
= −hβ (β̈n,π , π) −z1 + √
− n (h(βn , π) − h(β0 , π))
n
→ hβ (β0 , π)z1 − hβ (β0 , π)b, uniformly over π ∈ K
= f (π),
where the third equality follows by a mean value expansion for every π ∈ K and

β̈n,π is on the line segment between β̃n and βn . The convergence follows because (1)
the second term converges to hβ (β0 , π)b uniformly over π ∈ K by Assumption Weak
Id.(b), and (2) the first term converges to hβ (β0 , π)z1 uniformly over π ∈ K by the

continuity of hβ (β, π) and the fact that an is bounded.
Therefore, by Lemma 8, the set of all z2 ∈ Rdh such that the equation f (π) = z2

has multiple solutions over π ∈ Π has Lebesgue measure zero. Since this holds
for every z1 , the Lebesgue measure of {z = (z1 , z2 ) : equation (A.19) has multiple
solutions over π ∈ Π} has Lebesgue measure zero.

Next, let Z = {z ∈ Rdz : equation (A.19) admits at most one solution}. We
want to show that ξ(π1 , π2 , z) satisfies Assumption Generic on Ξ = {(π1 , π2 , z) :
π1 , π2 ∈ Π, π1 6= π2 , z ∈ Z}. We write
ξ(π1 , π2 , z) = Q(π1 , z) − Q(π2 , z)

= 2z ′ (g(π1 ) − g(π2 )) + κ(π1 ) − κ(π2 )

− (z + g(π1 ))′ P (π1 )(z + g(π1 )) + (z + g(π2 ))′ P (π2 )(z + g(π2 ))

= 2W ′ (2Idz − P (π1 ) − P (π2 ))δ − W ′ (P (π1 ) − P (π2 ))W + κ̃(π1 , π2 ),
g(π1 ) + g(π2 )
g(π1 ) − g(π2 )
and δ =
, and the third equality follows
2
2
from some algebra for some κ̃(π1 , π2 ) that does not depend on z.
Suppose part (d) in Assumption Generic is not satisfied. Then,

where W = z +

0=

d
ξ(π1 , π2 , z) = 2(2Idz − P (π1 ) − P (π2 ))δ − 2(P (π1 ) − P (π2 ))W.
dz

This implies that
0 = M(π1 )(W + δ) + M(π2 )(δ − W ),

(A.20)
#
′
−h
(β
,
π)
β
0
.
where M(π) = Idz − P (π), which projects onto the span of H −1/2
Idh
Condition (c) implies that the ranges of M(π1 ) and M(π2 ) are linearly independent.
"

55

Then, equation (A.20) implies that both M(π1 )(W + δ) = 0 and M(π2 )(δ − W ) = 0.


Premultiply both equations by 0dβ ×dh , Idh H 1/2 to get:
"

−hβ (β0 , π1 )′
Idh

#′

"

−hβ (β0 , π1 )′
Idh

#!−1 "

−hβ (β0 , π1 )′
Idh

#′

"

−hβ (β0 , π2 )′

#′

"

−hβ (β0 , π2 )′

#!−1 "

−hβ (β0 , π2 )′

#′

Idh

H −1

H −1

Idh

Idh

H −1/2 (W + δ) = 0

H −1/2 (δ − W ) = 0.

Premultiplying by invertible matrices and using the formulas for W and δ gives:
"

−hβ (β0 , π1 )′
Idh

#′

H −1/2 H 1/2 (z + g(π1 )) = 0

"

−hβ (β0 , π2 )′
Idh

#′

H −1/2 H 1/2 (z + g(π2 )) = 0.

Rearranging, using z = (z1 , z2 )′ , and using the formula for g(π) gives:
hβ (β0 , π1 )(z1 − b) = z2
hβ (β0 , π2 )(z1 − b) = z2 .
This shows that for (z1 , z2 ) ∈ Z, both π1 and π2 are solutions to equation (A.19).

This is a contradiction because we have assumed that for any z ∈ Z, equation (A.19)
d
ξ(π1 , π2 , z) 6= 0. This must hold for all
has at most one solution. Therefore,
dz
(π1 , π2 , z) ∈ Ξ, showing that ξ(π1 , π2 , z) satisfies Assumption Generic.

Proof of Corollary 5. If, for every M > 0, the argmin of t2 −W (t) over t ∈ [−M, M]

is unique almost surely, then the argmin of t2 − W (t) over t ∈ R is unique almost
surely. This is because, if ω ∈ Ω is the underlying state space, then
{ω ∈ Ω|t2 − Wω (t) has multiple minimizers over R}

2
= ∪∞
M =1 {ω ∈ Ω|t − Wω (t) has multiple minimizers over [−M, M]},

where Wω (t) denotes the draw of W (t) that is associated with ω ∈ Ω. Thus, we fix
M > 0 and show that the probability of multiple minimizers over [−M, M] is zero.

56

We decompose the two-sided Wiener process, W (t), into three components:
W (t) = Z1 t1{t > 0} + Z2 t1{t < 0} + W ⊥ (t),
t
where Z1 = W (M)/M, Z2 = W (−M)/M, and W ⊥ (t) = W (t) −
W (M)1{t >
M
t
0} −
W (−M)1{t < 0}. We condition on W ⊥ (·) and show that the argmin of
M
Q(t, Z1 , Z2 ) = t2 − W ⊥ (t) − Z1 t1{t > 0} − Z2 t1{t < 0} is unique almost surely-

(Z1 , Z2 ). This implies uniqueness almost surely-W (·). One can calculate that Z1 and
Z2 are independent, normal, and independent of W ⊥ (·).
We verify the conditions of Theorem 1. Assumption Manifold is satisfied because
[−M, M] is a manifold with boundary. Assumption Absolute Continuity is satisfied
because Z1 and Z2 are normal with positive variance. Assumption Continuous Differentiability is satisfied because the objective function is continuously differentiable
as a function of Z1 and Z2 , although it is not differentiable as a function of t. This
is permitted as long as we verify Assumption Generic using only derivatives with
respect to Z1 or Z2 . Thus, we take m1 = n1 = 0. To verify Assumption Generic, fix
t, s ∈ R such that t 6= s and calculate:
 

d
[Q(t, Z1 , Z2 ) − Q(s, Z1 , Z2 )]
s1{s > 0} − t1{t > 0}
 

 dZ1
=
.
 d
[Q(t, Z1 , Z2 ) − Q(s, Z1 , Z2 )]
s1{s < 0} − t1{t < 0}
dZ2


We can check all the cases (s and t positive, negative, or zero) to see that this
derivative is never zero. Therefore, Assumption Generic holds.
By Theorem 1, the argmin of Q(t, Z1 , Z2 ) over t ∈ [−M, M] is unique almost
surely. By the previous argument, the argmin over all of t ∈ R is unique almost

surely.



57

