A new integral equation for Brownian stopping problems with finite time horizon

Abstract: For classical finite time horizon stopping problems driven by a Brownian motion\[V(t,x) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}E_{(t,x)}[g(\tau,W_{\tau})],\] we derive a new class of Fredholm type integral equations for the stopping set. For large problem classes of interest, we show by analytical arguments that the equation uniquely characterizes the stopping boundary of the problem. Regardless of the uniqueness, we use the representation to rigorously find the limit behavior of the stopping boundary close to the terminal time. Interestingly, it turns out that the leading-order coefficient is universal for wide classes of problems. We also discuss how the representation can be used for numerical purposes.

\section{Introduction}
Let $W$ be an $n$-dimensional standard Brownian motion started at time $t\leq 0$ in $\textbf{x} \in \rr ^{n}$, $g:\rr_{\leq 0}\times \rr^{n} \to \rr$ a payoff function with properties to be specified later. We consider the stopping problem with finite time horizon
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sp1}
    V(t,\textbf{x}) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,x)}[g(\tau,W_{\tau})].
\end{equation}
Such problems arise in a wide variety of fields, including sequential statistics, change point detection, and one-armed bandit problems starting in the 1960s, and option pricing and economics in the last decades. We refer to \cite{lai05} for an overview (with a focus on the contributions by H. Chernoff). As no closed form solutions can be expected for most problems of interest, different approaches have been suggested to gain information for the solution. In the last decades, the most common analytical  approach is to characterize the (unknown) stopping boundary of the problem in terms of a nonlinear integral equation of  Volterra-type. The main mathematical difficulty here is to prove rigorously that the nonlinear integral equation  has a unique solution. We discuss this in more detail in Section \ref{sec:2}. For some more details and historical background we refer to \cite{peskir06} and \cite{peskir05}.

The contribution of this paper is to introduce and study a new integral equation for the boundary, which is -- in contrast to the standard equations for finite time horizon problems -- of Fredholm-type. More precisely,
let $A$ be the generator of $W$, $C$ the continuation set of \eqref{eq:sp1} and $C^{-}:= \{(t,\textbf{x})\mid (-Ag)(t,\textbf{x})<0\}$, then -- under natural assumptions -- it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main5}
     -\int_{C^{-}}  e^{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2}s + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\d s\d \textbf{y}
     = \int_{C\setminus C^{-}}  e^{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2}s + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\d s\d \textbf{y},
\end{equation}
 for $\textbf{c}\in \rr^{n}$ to be specified later. This is shown in Theorem \ref{th:martin} in Section \ref{sec:2}.
We derive \eqref{eq:main5} and show first examples illustration how it can be used to solve optimal stopping problems in Section \ref{sec:2}. Of special interest are stopping problems with discounted value functions, i.e., $g(t,\textbf{x})=e^{-rt}h(\textbf{x} )$. We derive versions of  \eqref{eq:main5} for that case in Subsection \ref{ssec:dis}.\\
Important questions that arise are: 'Does the representation determine $C$ uniquely?' and 'Can it be used to derive analytic properties of $C$?'\\
The second question is tackled in Section \ref{sec:3}, where we analyze the limit behavior of the continuation set $C$ for $t\to 0$ for a large class of stopping problems. This is done independently of the uniqueness, showing the properties for every set that satisfies \eqref{eq:main5}. We derive a second order approximation for $C$ close to $t=0$ for discounted stopping problems. This is done rigorously in the one-dimensional case in Subsection \ref{ssec:1}. We treat the American put with high dividend as one example.
In Subsection \ref{ssec:n} we discuss how the described method can be extended to multidimensional problems.

The question of uniqueness is discussed in Section \ref{sec:u}. We prove that a version of \eqref{eq:main5} determines $C$ uniquely in the one-dimensional, one-sided case with discounted payoff function $g(t,x)=e^{-rt}h(x)$, see Theorem \ref{th:eind}. For the proof we use methods known from the identifiability of certain mixtures of Gaussian laws, so our result can be interpreted as a result on identifiability for a case of a non-compact parameter space. The proof is analytical in nature, in contrast to the uniqueness results for the standard integral equations which usually are based on probabilistic arguments.

In Section \ref{sec:5} we describe numerical procedures based on \eqref{eq:main5} and give some examples in the one-dimensional case.
We conclude with a brief discussion of generalizations and further applications in Section \ref{sec:con}.

\section{Fredholm representation}\label{sec:2}
In this section we derive a Fredholm type integral representation for a large class of stopping problems with an $n$-dimensional Brownian motion as a driving process.

Let $W$ be an $n$-dimensional standard Brownian motion with space-time generator $A=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta$ and transition kernel $p$. For the sake of simplicity, we assume $g:\rr_{\leq0}\times \rr^{n} \to \rr$ to be in $C^{1,2}$. We want to analyze the stopping problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sp12}
    V(t,\textbf{x}) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,\textbf{x})}[g(\tau,W_{\tau})],
\end{equation}
where the supremum is taken over all stopping times $\tau$ with $t\leq\tau\leq0$ and $W_t = \textbf{x}$ a.s. Note that, in contrast to most other references, our terminal time is denoted by 0 and we start the process from $t\leq 0$. The usefulness of this convention will become clear later.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:drift}
	Note that if a Brownian motion with drift $X$ is the driving process of the stopping problem,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:drift}
		V(t,\textbf{x}) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,\textbf{x})}[g(\tau,X_{\tau})].
	\end{equation}
	we can convert \eqref{eq:drift} to our setting via a measure transformation and get
	\begin{equation}
		V(t,\textbf{x}) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,\textbf{x})}[g'(\tau,W_{\tau})],
	\end{equation}
	where $g'$ is a transformed payoff function and $W$ is a standard Brownian motion. If $g(t,x) = e^{-rt}h(x)$ then $g'(t,x) = e^{-r't}h'(x)$. We refer to \cite{christensen2020} and \cite{lerche07} for details.
\end{remark}

We denote the continuation set by
    \[C:=\{(t,\textbf{x})\in \rr_{\leq0}\times \rr^{n}\mid V(t,\textbf{x})>g(t,\textbf{x})\}\]
and the stopping set by $S=C^c$. For a fixed time $t$ we set $C_t := \set{\textbf{x}\in\rr^{n}\mid (t,\textbf{x})\in C}$ and define $S_t$ accordingly. We denote the first entrance time to $S$ by
$\tau^{\ast} = \tau_{C} := \inf\{t\leq s\leq 0\mid W_{s} \in S \}$ and note that this stopping time is optimal under minimal assumptions by the general theory. Under suitable assumptions (see the discussion in \cite{peskir06} based on \cite{MR2408999}, see also \cite{MR4133366} and \cite{cai2021change} fore some generalizations), we can apply a generalized version of Dynkin's formula to \eqref{eq:sp12} and get
\begin{align*}
    V(t,\textbf{x})
    & = \e_{(t,\textbf{x})}[g(0,W_0)] + \e_{(t,\textbf{x})}\left[\int_{t}^{0}\ind_{\{W_s\in S\}} (-Ag)(s,W_s)\d s\right]\\
    & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(0,\textbf{y})p((t,\textbf{x}),(0,\textbf{y}))\d \textbf{y} + \int_{t}^{0}\int_{S_s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})p((t,\textbf{x}),(s,\textbf{y})) \d \textbf{y} \d s,
\end{align*}
where $p$ denotes the Brownian transition kernel.
In the financial context, this representation is called called early-exercise-premium decomposition. In the same way we get
\begin{align*}
    g(t,\textbf{x})
    & = \e_{(t,\textbf{x})}[g(0,W_0)] + \e_{(t,\textbf{x})}\left[\int_{t}^{0} (-Ag)(s,W_s)\d s\right]\\
    & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(0,\textbf{y})p((t,\textbf{x}),(0,\textbf{y}))\d \textbf{y} + \int_{t}^{0}\int_{\rr^{n}}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})p((t,\textbf{x}),(s,\textbf{y})) \d \textbf{y} \d s.
\end{align*}
For $(t,\textbf{x})\in S$, we have $V(t,\textbf{x}) = g(t,\textbf{x})$ so if we subtract the two equations above we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pes}
    0 = \int_{t}^{0}\int_{C_s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})p((t,\textbf{x}),(s,\textbf{y})) \d \textbf{y} \d s,~ \forall (t,\textbf{x})\in S.
\end{equation}
This is nowadays a standard representation for stopping problems, which we use as a starting point for our approach, so that we silently assume it to hold in the following. Motivated by heat equations in physics, a slightly more complicated version of the integral equations was introduced by van Moerbeke in  \cite{moerbeke76} for one-sided one-dimensional problems. Van Moerbeke also showed local uniqueness of the solution of the integral representation. In the early 90s Kim \cite{kim90} and Myneni \cite{myneni92} derived \eqref{eq:pes} for the optimal exercise boundary of American options. Evaluating \eqref{eq:pes} for $(t,\textbf{x})$ in the boundary of  the stopping set leads to a useful equation for describing the stopping boundary. It was not until 2005, however, that it was rigorously proven by Peskir that this equation uniquely determined the stopping boundary for the case of the American put in the Black-Scholes market, see \cite{peskir05}. The proof is based on probabilistic arguments and has later been adapted for many other classes of problems.
The representation \eqref{eq:pes} is for example used to numerically approximate the continuation set of stopping problems. The numeric evaluation is however not always easy. One reason is that the integrand has singularities in $(t,\textbf{x})\in \partial C$.

As mentioned above, the key result of \cite{peskir05} was that it is enough to evaluate \eqref{eq:pes} for $(t,\textbf{x})\in \partial S\subseteq S$. The idea of the approach we present here is to use another subset of $S$. More precisely, we compactify the stopping region and use the \textit{infinitly far away} boundary (the Martin boundary) instead.
This leads to our Fredholm representation from \eqref{eq:pes}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{bilder/c1.png}
    \caption{An illustration of the setting in Theorem \ref{th:martin}}
    \label{fig:sp2}
\end{figure}

\begin{theorem}\label{th:martin}
    The continuation set $C$ defined by the stopping problem \eqref{eq:sp12} fulfills the equation
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:main}
        0 = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{C_s}e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} + \frac{\norm{\textbf{c}}^2}{2}s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\d y \d s
    \end{equation}
    for all $\textbf{c}$ for that the integral exists and there is an $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\{(t,-t(\textbf{c}+\textbf{a}))\mid t\leq 0, \norm{a}<\varepsilon\}\cap C$ is bounded.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
    The assumption that the cone $\{(t,-t(\textbf{c}+\textbf{a}))\mid t\leq 0, \norm{a}<\varepsilon\}$ has a bounded intersection with $C$ has technical reasons described in the appendix. For all practical purposes described throughout this article the condition that $\{(t,-t\textbf{c})\mid t\leq 0\}\cap C$ is bounded is enough. For discounted problems for instance, we give an easy condition later on.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
    We pick $\textbf{c}\in\rr^{n}$ such that $\{(t,-t\textbf{c})\mid t\leq 0\}\cap C$ is bounded, then $(t,-t\textbf{c}) \in S$ for $t$ small enough. We divide \eqref{eq:pes} by $p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(0,\textbf{0}))$ and get
    \begin{equation*}
        0 = \int_{t}^{0} \int_{C_s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\frac{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(s,\textbf{y}))}{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(0,\textbf{0}))} \d \textbf{y}\d s
    \end{equation*}
    for all $t$ small enough, if the integral exists.
    Taking limits we get
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:lim1}
        0 = \lim_{t\to -\infty}\int_{t}^{0} \int_{C_s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\frac{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(s,\textbf{y}))}{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(0,\textbf{0}))} \d \textbf{y} \d s.
    \end{equation}
    We analyze the quotient in  the integral. $p$ is the density of an $n$-dimensional normal distribution, so we have
    \begin{align*}
        \frac{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(s,\textbf{y}))}{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(0,\textbf{0}))}
        &= \frac{(2\pi)^{-\frac{n}{2}} (s-t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left(-\frac{\norm{-\textbf{c}t-\textbf{y}}^2}{2(s-t)}\right)}{(2\pi)^{-\frac{n}{2}}(-t)^{-\frac{n}{2}}\exp \left(-\frac{\norm{-\textbf{c}t}^2}{2(-t)}\right)} \\
        &= \left(\frac{-t}{s-t}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left(-\frac{\norm{-\textbf{c}t-\textbf{y}}^2}{2(s-t)} + \frac{\norm{-\textbf{c}t}^2}{2(-t)}\right)\\
        & = \left(\frac{-t}{s-t}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left(\frac{(\norm{\textbf{c}}^2t^2 + 2\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} t + \norm{\textbf{y}}^2)t + \norm{\textbf{c}}^2t^2(s-t)}{2(t^2-st)} \right)\\
        & = \left(\frac{-t}{s-t}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left(\frac{2\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} t^2 + t\norm{\textbf{y}}^2 +\norm{\textbf{c}}^2t^2s }{2(t^2-st)} \right),
    \end{align*}
    where $\cdot$ denotes the standard scalar product and $\norm{\cdot}$ the corresponding norm.
    We calculate the limit and get
        \[\lim_{t\to -\infty}\frac{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(s,\textbf{y}))}{p((t,-\textbf{c}t),(0,\textbf{0}))} = \exp\left(\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} + \frac{\norm{\textbf{c}}^2}{2}s \right).\]
    We can pull the limit into the integral in \eqref{eq:lim1} (for a proof of that fact see appendix)
    and get
    \begin{equation}
        0 = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{C_s}e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} + \frac{\norm{\textbf{c}}^2}{2}s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y} \d s
        =\int_{C}e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y} + \frac{\norm{\textbf{c}}^2}{2}s}(-Ag)(s,\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y} \d s
    \end{equation}
    for all $\textbf{c}$ with $\{(t,-t\textbf{c})\mid t\leq 0\}\cap C$ is bounded and the integral exists.
\end{proof}

The Fredholm type integral equation \eqref{eq:main} is highly non-linear. As far as we know, equations of this type have not been analyzed in the literature before.
We illustrate how it can be used to tackle explicitly solvable problems with the following example.

\begin{example}\label{ex:stadje}
    Let $n=1$ and $g(t,x) = tx$. The corresponding stopping problem
        \[  V(t,x) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,x)}[\tau W_\tau]\]
    arises from a discrete time \emph{commodity sales} problem, described by Stadje in \cite{stadje87}. We reproduce the solution using our integral equation. Motivated by Brownian scaling, we make the ansatz that the continuation set is of the form
        \[C = \{(t,x) \mid x < \alpha \sqrt{-t}\}\]
    for some $\alpha >0$. We have $-Ag(t,x) = -x$, plugging this into \eqref{eq:main} we get
    \begin{align*}
        0 & = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{-\infty}^{\alpha \sqrt{-s}} -x e^{c y + \frac{c^2}{2}s}\d y \d s\\
        & = \frac{1}{c^2}\int_{-\infty}^{0}(1-\alpha c \sqrt{-s})e^{\frac{c^2}{2}s+ \alpha c \sqrt{-s}} \d s\\
        & = \frac{1}{c^2}\left( -2\alpha^3 \frac{\Phi(\alpha)}{\phi(\alpha)} +(1-\alpha^2)  \right)
    \end{align*}
    where $\Phi$ and $\phi$ denote CDF and PDF of a standard normal distribution. The equation holds for all $c > 0$ iff
    \begin{align*}
        0 & = -2\alpha^3 \frac{\Phi(\alpha)}{\phi(\alpha)} +(1-\alpha^2)  \\
        \mbox{i.e.} ~ \alpha^3 \Phi(\alpha) & = (1-\alpha^2)\phi(\alpha).
    \end{align*}
    The latter equation has a unique positive solution at $\alpha_1 \approx 0.638833$. It can indeed be seen that the continuation set of the problem is
        \[C = \{(t,x) \mid x < \alpha_1 \sqrt{-t}\}.\]
\end{example}

\subsection{The discounted case}\label{ssec:dis}
An important special case are stopping problems with a discounted payoff function
    \[g(t,\textbf{x}) = e^{-rt} h(\textbf{x}).\]
We now have
    \[-Ag(t,\textbf{x}) = e^{-rt}\big(r h(\textbf{x}) - \frac{1}{2}\Delta h(\textbf{x})\big) =:e^{-rt}\tilde h(\textbf{x}),\]
where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace operator.
We rewrite \eqref{eq:main} to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main2}
    0 = \int_{C}e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}+\frac{1}{2}\norm{\textbf{c}}^2s-rs}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d(s,\textbf{y}),
\end{equation}
and see that  the integral exists if $\norm{c}>\sqrt{2r}$.
We define
    \[C_{\infty}:=\bigcup_{t\leq 0} C_t.\]
Note that in cases where the infinite time horizon problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:infhorizon}
    V(\textbf{x}) = \sup_{0\leq\tau}\e_{\textbf{x}}[e^{-r\tau}h(W_\tau)]
\end{equation}
is solvable, $C_{\infty}$ is the solution to that problem, see Proposition \ref{prop:helgasson}. Since the dimension of \eqref{eq:infhorizon} is reduced by one, $C_{\infty}$ is usually easier to find then $C$.\\
If $C_\infty$ is bounded, then $\{(t,-t\textbf{c})\mid t\leq 0\}\cap C$ is bounded for all $\textbf{c}\neq 0$ and \eqref{eq:main2} holds for all $\textbf{c}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}}>\sqrt{2r}$.

We now look at some properties of $C_t$.
It is first easily seen that $C_t$ is decreasing in $t$.
We also know that $C_0 = \set{\textbf{x}\mid \tilde h(\textbf{x})<0}$. We define the function
    \[d:C_\infty\setminus C_0 \to \rr_{\leq 0}, ~ \textbf{x}\mapsto \sup\set{t\leq0 \mid(t,\textbf{x})\in C}.\]
With the given properties of $C_t$ we see that $d$ defines $C$ via $C_t = d^{-1}([t,0])$.\\
We can now simplify \eqref{eq:main2} using Fubini's lemma
\begin{align}
     &-\int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{C_0}  e^{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2}s + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}-rs}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y} \d s
     = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{C_s\setminus C_0}  e^{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2}s + \textbf{c}\cdot y-rs}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y} \d s \nonumber\\
     \Leftrightarrow
     &-\frac{1}{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2} - r}\int_{C_0}  e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y}
     =\frac{1}{\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2} - r}\int_{C_{\infty}\setminus C_0} e^{\left(\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}   \nonumber \\
     \Leftrightarrow
     &-\int_{C_0}  e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y}
     =\int_{C_{\infty}\setminus C_0} e^{\left(\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}   \label{eq:9}
\end{align}
for all $\textbf{c}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}} >\sqrt{2r}$ for which $\{(t,-t\textbf{c})\mid t\leq 0\} \cap C$ is bounded.
The integral on the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:9} is known, it is an integral transformation of $\tilde h$.\\

We can use the Fredholm representation to derive the Martin boundary representation given in \cite{christensen16}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:helgasson}
    If
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:forhelgasson}
        \int_{C_{\infty}} e^{\left(\frac{\|\textbf{c}\|^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}=0
    \end{equation}
    holds for all $\textbf{c} \in \rr^{n}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}_)}>\sqrt{2r}$, then
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:helgasson}
        \int_{C_{\infty}} e^{\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}=0
    \end{equation}
    for all $\textbf{c} \in \rr^{n}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}}=\sqrt{2r}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
    Assume that \eqref{eq:forhelgasson} holds.
    For $\textbf{c}_0 \in \rr^{n}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}}=\sqrt{2r}$ let $(\textbf{c}_i)$ be a sequence in $\rr^{n}$ with $\norm{\textbf{c}_i}>\sqrt{2r}$ for all $i$ and $\textbf{c}_i \to \textbf{c}_0$ as $i\to \infty$.
    By monotone convergence (applied to $C_0$ and $C_{\infty}\setminus C_0$ seperately) we get
    \begin{align*}
        0&=\lim_{t\to\infty} \int_{C_{\infty}} e^{\left(\frac{\|\textbf{c}_i\|^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + \textbf{c}_i\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y} \\
        &=  \int_{C_{\infty}}\lim_{t\to\infty} e^{\left(\frac{\|\textbf{c}_i\|^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + \textbf{c}_i\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}\\
        &= \int_{C_{\infty}} e^{\textbf{c}_0\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y},
    \end{align*}
    what implies \eqref{eq:helgasson}.
\end{proof}

It was shown in \cite{christensen16} that under suitable assumptions \eqref{eq:helgasson} defines the continuation set $\tilde C$ of the infinite time horizon stopping problem \eqref{eq:infhorizon} uniquely, so Proposition \ref{prop:helgasson} shows that $\tilde C = C_\infty$.

\paragraph{The one-sided case for $n=1$}\label{ssec:2}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{bilder/sp1.png}
    \caption{The setting in the one-dimensional and one-sided case}
    \label{fig:sp1}
\end{figure}

In one dimension, an important class of stopping problems are problems with one-sided solutions. These have a continuation set that can be written as
\[C = \set{(t,x)\mid x<b(t)}\]
for some function $b:\rr_{\leq0}\to\rr$. In the discounted setting, $b$ is the inverse function of $d$ constructed above.
$b$ is decreasing and we define
    \[b_\infty:= \lim_{t\to-\infty} b(t) .\]
If the corresponding infinite time horizon stopping problem is solvable, then $b_\infty<\infty$ and
$C_\infty = [-\infty,b_\infty)$. Then \eqref{eq:main2} holds for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$. We can assume w.l.o.g.\ that $C_0 = [-\infty,0)$, then the integral transformation from \eqref{eq:9} is the Laplace transformation $\mathcal{L}$ and the representation can be written as
\begin{equation}
   -\mathcal{L}\tilde h(c) = \int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y
\end{equation}
for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$.

\begin{example}\label{ex:x3}
    Let  $h(x) = x^3$ and $r=0$, then $\tilde h(x) = 3x$. $\tilde h$ is just a multiple of $-Ag$ in Example \ref{ex:stadje}, so the problems have the same Fredholm representation (up to multiplication with a constant) and hence the same continuation set (see Section \ref{sec:u} for the uniqueness of the solution).
\end{example}

\section{Limit behavior}\label{sec:3}
In this section we show how to use the Fredholm representation to derive analytic properties of $C$, namely we study the limit behavior of $C_t$ for $t\to 0$. We do this rigorously for the one-dimensional one-sided discounted case in Subsection \ref{ssec:1} and give heuristic arguments for multidimensional stopping problems in Subsection \ref{ssec:n}. Our technique builds on Theorem \ref{th:martin} and is independent of the uniqueness discussed in Section \ref{sec:u}.\\
For special problems the results are known, but to our knowledge they are new in the generality given below.

\subsection{The one-dimensional case}\label{ssec:1}
 We consider the discounted case. We assume w.l.o.g. that $C_0 = (-\infty,0]$, so our main equation reads
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:10}
   -\mathcal{L}\tilde h(c)
   = \int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y
\end{equation}
for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$.

 We assume for now that $\tilde h$ is continuous, then $\tilde h(0) =0 $. Central for the limit behavior is the degree of $h$ close to 0. The most common case is that $\tilde h$ is approximately linear, i.e.\ $\tilde h(x) = m x + o(x)$ for some $m>0$ in a neighborhood of 0. We will stick to that case for sake of clarity, but all constructions work similar as long as
    \[\lim_{x \searrow 0} \frac{\tilde h(x)}{\tilde h(-x)} \in (-\infty,0),\]
 see Remark \ref{rem:nonlin} for more detail.
 For the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:10} we have
   \[\lim_{c\to\infty}-c^{2}\mathcal{L}\tilde h(c)   =m\]
 so we get
    \[m = \lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y. \]
The following two lemmata show that only a small neighborhood of 0 and the limit behavior of $\tilde h(x)$ for $x\to 0$ are relevant for the limit behavior of $C$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:eps1}
    For all $\varepsilon > 0$ it holds
        \[\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y
        =\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{\varepsilon} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y.\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    We know from the construction of the stopping problem that
    $d$ is decreasing, $d(0) = 0$ and $d(x)<0$ for all $x > 0$. Then $d(\varepsilon) < 0$ and $d(x)\leq d(\varepsilon)$ for all $x \geq \varepsilon$. We get
    \begin{align*}
        & |\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{\varepsilon}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y|
        \leq C_1 \lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{\varepsilon}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\varepsilon) + cy}\d y\\
        \leq & C_2 \lim_{c\to\infty}c^2 e^{\frac{c^{2}}{2} d(\varepsilon)}  \int_{\varepsilon}^{b_\infty} e^{cy}\d y
        =C_2 \lim_{c\to\infty}c^2 e^{\frac{c^{2}}{2} d(\varepsilon)}   \frac{1}{c}(e^{cy}-1) = 0,
    \end{align*}
    where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are some constants. With $[0,b_\infty] = [0,\varepsilon)\cup [\varepsilon,b_{\infty}]$ and the linearity of the integral, the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:eps2}
    If $\tilde h(x) = mx + o(x)$ in a neighborhood of 0, then
        \[\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y
        =\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_{\infty}} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}m y \d y.\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    For all $\delta >0$ there exists $\varepsilon_{\delta} >0$ s.t.\ for all $y\in[0,\varepsilon_{\delta}]$
        \[|h(y)-my|<\delta y.\]
    It follows with Lemma \ref{lem:eps1} that
    \begin{align*}
        &|\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y
        -\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{b_{\infty}} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}m y \d y|\\
        = & |\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{\varepsilon_{\delta}} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}(\tilde h(y)-my) \d y|\\
        &\leq |\lim_{c\to\infty}c^2\int_{0}^{\varepsilon_{\delta}} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\delta y \d y|
        \overset{\delta \to 0}\to 0.
    \end{align*}
\end{proof}

We can now state the main theorems of this section.

\begin{theorem}\label{cor:lim}
    If $\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2}$ exists in $\bar \rr = [-\infty,\infty]$, then
        \[\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2} = -B\]
    i.e.
        \[d(x) = -Bx^2 + o(x^2),\]
    with
        \[B \approx 2.4503325097411.\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Assume that $\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2}$ exists in $\bar \rr$. We first show that $d$ goes to 0 in quadratic order. Let us assume that $d$ is of lower order, i.e.\
        \[\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{-x^2} = \infty.\]
    So for all $M< 0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d(x)<Mx^2$ for all $x\leq \delta$.
    By Lemma \ref{lem:eps1} we have
    \begin{align*}
        & m = \lim_{c\to\infty} c^2 \int_{0}^{\delta}  e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy} my\d y,\\
        &1 =\lim_{c\to\infty} c^2 \int_{0}^{\delta} y e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy} \d y.
    \end{align*}
    We substitute $z = cy$ and get
    \begin{align}
        1 &= \lim_{c\to\infty} c \int_{0}^{c\delta} \frac{z}{c} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d\left(\frac{z}{c}\right) + z}\d z, \nonumber \\
            &= \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta} z e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d\left(\frac{z}{c}\right) + z}\d z\label{eq:z2}\\
        & \leq \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta} z e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)M\frac{z^2}{c^2}+ z}\d z\nonumber \\
        &=\lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta} z e^{M\frac{z^2}{2}+ z}\d z
        =:F(M).\nonumber
    \end{align}
    We see that $F(M)\to 0$ as $M\to -\infty$ what is a contradiction, since $M$ can be chosen arbitrarily.

    Let us now assume that $d$ is of higher order than $x^2$, i.e.\
    \[\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{-x^2} = 0.\]
    For all $M < 0$ there exists $\delta'>0$ such that $d(x)>Mx^2$ for all $x\leq \delta'$. Note that $d$ is non-positive.
    From \eqref{eq:z2} we get
    \begin{align}
        1 &= \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta'} z e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d\left(\frac{z}{c}\right) + z}\d z\nonumber\\
        & \geq \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta'} z e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)M\frac{z^2}{c^2}+ z}\d z\nonumber \\
        &=\lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta'} z e^{M\frac{z^2}{2}+ z}\d z
        =:\tilde F(M).\nonumber
    \end{align}
    We see that $\tilde F(M)\to \infty$ as $M\to 0$ what is a contradiction, since $M$ can be chosen arbitrarily.
    We have shown that $d(x) = -Bx^2 + o(x^2)$ and want to calculate $B$. From \eqref{eq:z2} we have
    \begin{align}
        1 &= \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta'} z e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d\left(\frac{z}{c}\right) + z}\d z\nonumber\\
        & = \lim_{c\to\infty} \int_{0}^{c\delta'} z e^{\left(-\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)\left(B\frac{z^2}{c^2} + o(\frac{z^2}{c^2})\right) + z}\d z\nonumber\\
        &= \int_{0}^{\infty} z e^{-B\frac{z^2}{2} + z}\d z.\nonumber
    \end{align}
    Since the integral is finite, we can solve it for $B$ and get
        \[B \approx 2.4503325097411.\]
\end{proof}

\noindent The following theorem generalizes Theorem \ref{cor:lim} and does not assume the existence of $\lim_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2}$.

\begin{theorem}\label{th:d1}
    It holds that
        \[-B\leq\limsup_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2}< 0\]
    and
        \[-\infty<\liminf_{x\searrow 0} \frac{d(x)}{x^2}\leq -B\]
    with
        \[B \approx 2.4503325097411.\]
\end{theorem}
The proof of the theorem is basically a refined version of the proof of Theorem \ref{cor:lim}. It can be found in the appendix.

\begin{remark}
    We note that $B$ does not depend on $m$ or $r$, i.e.\ it is a universal constant for stopping problems with the same order of $\tilde h$ in 0.
    This is however not surprising. Multiplying the payoff function $g$ by a constant does not affect $C$, so $m$ should not play a role. We could achieve a change of $r$ by Brownian scaling, i.e.\ scaling $t$ by a factor $a$ and $y$ by $\sqrt{a}$, and multiplying $g$ by a constant, but a quadratic functions such as $d$ is invariant to that.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:nonlin}
    If $\tilde h$ is not linear in 0, but rather
        \[\tilde h(x) = \begin{cases}
                    m x^{\beta} + o(x^{\beta}) & \mbox{if }x\geq 0\\
                    -m' |x|^{\beta} + o(|x|^{\beta})& \mbox{if }x< 0
                    \end{cases}
        \]
    for $m,m',\beta>0$ then the same procedure as above yields
        \[\frac{m'}{m}\Gamma(\beta + 1) = \int_{0}^{\infty} z^{\beta} e^{- B_{\beta}\frac{z^2}{2} + z}\d z,\]
    what can be solved for $ B_{\beta}$. For $m' = m$, some values are:
    $B_0 \approx 3.9084$, $B_{\frac{1}{2}} \approx 3.0133$, $B_2 \approx 1.7814$ and $B_3 \approx 1.3984$.\\
    With the implicit function theorem we see that $B_\beta$ is continuous as a function of $\beta$, hence other choices for $\tilde h$ lead to the same limit behavior, e.g.\ $\tilde h(x) = \frac{x}{\log(|x|)}$ has the same limit behavior as $\tilde h(x) = x$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
    If we look from the other direction again and state the result for the function $b = d^{-1}$ we get (if the limit exists)
        \[b(t) = \alpha \sqrt{t} + o(\sqrt{t})\]
    for $t\to 0$, where
        \[\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{B}} \approx 0.638833\]
    is the solution to $\alpha^3 \Phi(\alpha) = (1-\alpha^2)\phi(\alpha)$. This $\alpha$ is the same as in Example \ref{ex:stadje}, what is not surprising since the example matches our settings. This limit behavior was earlier derived for the exercise boundary of an American put with large dividend, we treat that case in the following Example \ref{ex:option}, and related problems, see \cite{wilmott98}, \cite{lamberton03} and \cite{lai05}.
\end{remark}

\begin{example}[American put with large dividend]\label{ex:option}
    We consider an American put option in the Black-Scholes model, with interest rate $r$ and continuously paid dividend $q$. The problem can be reduced to the following \emph{canonical} optimal stopping problem
    (see \cite{lai99})
        \[V(t,x) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,x)}[g(\tau,W_{\tau})]\]
    where
        \[g(t,x) = e^{-\rho t}\left(1-e^{x + (\rho - \theta \rho -\frac{1}{2})t}\right)^{+}\]
    with $\rho = \frac{r}{\sigma^2}$ and $\theta = \frac{q}{r}$. We consider the case $q>r$, i.e.\ $\theta<1$. For $x < 0$ we have
    \begin{equation*}\label{eq:put}
        -Ag(t,x) = e^{-\rho t}\left(\rho - \theta \rho e^{x + (\rho - \theta \rho -\frac{1}{2})t}\right).
    \end{equation*}
    $Ag(0,x)$ has a unique negative root in $x_0 = \log(\frac{1}{\theta}) = \log(\frac{r}{q})$ and $-Ag(0,x)\leq 0$ for $x \geq x_0$, so we have
        \[C_0 = \left(\log\left(\frac{r}{q}\right),\infty\right).\]
    By the variable transformation $z = x + \log\left(\frac{r}{q}\right) + (\rho - \theta \rho -\frac{1}{2})t$ we get the stopping problem
        \[V(t,z) = \sup_{t\leq\tau\leq0}\e_{(t,z)}[e^{-\rho \tau} h(X_{\tau})]\]
    where $h(z) = (\rho - \rho e^{z})^{+}$ and $X$ is a Brownian motion with drift. The problem now matches the assumptions of Theorem \ref{th:d1}, so we see that the continuation set of the \emph{canonical} problem is $C = \{(t,x)\mid t<d(x)\}$ with
        \[ \lim_{x\nearrow \log\left(\frac{r}{q}\right)} \frac{d(x)}{x^2} = -B.\]

    This result matches the limit behavior derived for the American put (and call) in \cite{lamberton03}. Note that for $q\leq r$ Theorem \ref{th:d1} is no longer directly applicable since $g(0,x)$ has a kink in 0, i.e.\ right at the boundary of $C_0$, so $\tilde h$ has a pointmass in 0 and is not asymptotically symmetric in 0. It however might be possible to use the methods described above to analyze these cases as well, we however run into more technical difficulties here.
\end{example}

\subsection{The multi-dimensional case}\label{ssec:n}
We now consider the $n$-dimensional discounted case. We will not give rigorous proofs, but explain rather heuristically how the methods from the previous subsection can be extended.\\

We change the notation slightly. For notational convenience, we substitute the parameter $\textbf{c}$ by $a\textbf{c}$, where $\textbf{c}\in S^{n-1}$ and $a\in \rr^{+}$. Our equation now reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a}
 -\int_{C_0}  e^{a \textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y}
     =\int_{C_{\infty}\setminus C_0} e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + a\textbf{c}\cdot \textbf{y}}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}.
\end{equation}
We assume for now that $C_0$ is strictly convex. Then for every $\textbf{c}$ for which $\{a\textbf{c}\mid a\in\rr^{+}\}\cap C_\infty$ is bounded, there is a unique point $\textbf{x}_c\in\partial C_0$ realizing $\sup\{\textbf{x}\cdot\textbf{c}\mid\textbf{x}\in \bar C_0\}$. An illustration can be found in Figure  \ref{fig:transf1}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{bilder/transf1.png}
    \caption{The setting in the two-dimensional case}
    \label{fig:transf1}
\end{figure}
The underlying stopping problem is invariant under rotation and translation, so we can reset the coordinate system such that $\textbf{x}_c$ lies in the origin and $\textbf{c} =(1,0,\ldots,0)$, see Figure \ref{fig:transf2}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{bilder/transf2.png}
    \caption{Figure \ref{fig:transf1} rotated and translated to $\textbf{c} = (1,0,\ldots,0)$}
    \label{fig:transf2}
\end{figure}
Now \eqref{eq:a} reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a2}
    -\int_{C_0}  e^{a y_1}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y}
    =\int_{C_{\infty}\setminus C_0} e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + ay_1}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y}.
\end{equation}
We assume that $\partial C_0$ has positive curvature, so it can be approximated in a neighborhood of 0 by $y_1 = -\sum_{i=2}^{n}\alpha_i y_i^2$ with constants $\alpha_i >0$. The constructions are similar and lead to the same result, if we consider different approximations such as a (piecewise) constant boundary, corners or $x_1 \approx -\sum\alpha_i \operatorname{sgn}(x_i)|x_i|^{p}$, $p\in \rr_{\geq 0}$, in general.

\paragraph{Two-dimensional}
For simplicity let us look at the case $n=2$. We set $\alpha = \alpha_2$ and calculate the limit of the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:a2}:
\begin{align*}
    &\lim_{a\to \infty}-a^{\frac{5}{2}}\int_{C_0}  e^{a y_1}\tilde h(\textbf{y})\d \textbf{y}\\
    = &\lim_{a\to \infty}- a^{\frac{5}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{0} e^{a y_1}
    \int_{-\sqrt{\frac{y_1}{\alpha}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{y_1}{\alpha}}} m(y_1-\alpha y_2^2)\d y_2 \d y_1
    =  m \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\alpha}}.
\end{align*}
For the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:a2} we see that only neighborhoods of 0 are asymptotically relevant and we get
\begin{align*}
    & \lim_{a\to \infty}a^{\frac{5}{2}}\int_{C_{\infty}\setminus C_0} e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + ay_1}\tilde h(\textbf{y}) \d \textbf{y} \\
    = & \lim_{a\to \infty}a^{\frac{5}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\alpha y_2^2}^{\infty}  m(y_1+\alpha y_2^2) e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(\textbf{y}) + ay_1} \d y_1 \d y_2,
\end{align*}
where we substitute $z_1 = a y_1$ and $z_2 = \sqrt{a} y_2$ and get
\begin{align*}
    = & \lim_{a\to \infty}-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-a\alpha z_2^2}^{\infty}  m(z_1+\alpha z_2^2) e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)d\left(\frac{z_1}{a},\frac{z_2}{\sqrt{a}}\right) + z_1} \d z_1 \d z_2,
\end{align*}
 where we set $d(x_1,x_2) = -B(x_1+\alpha x_2^2)^2$ and get
\begin{align*}
    = & \lim_{a\to \infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-a\alpha z_2^2}^{\infty}  m(z_1+\alpha z_2^2) e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)\frac{-B}{a^2}(z_1+\alpha z_2^2)^2 + z_1} \d z_1 \d z_2\\
    =& \lim_{a\to \infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}  m z_1 e^{\left(\frac{a^{2}}{2} - r\right)\frac{-B}{a^2}z_1^2 + z_1 - \alpha z_2^2} \d z_1 \d z_2\\
    = &\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}  m z_1 e^{\frac{-B}{2}z_1^2 + z_1 - \alpha z_2^2} \d z_1 \d z_2\\
    =& m\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\alpha}}\int_{0}^{\infty}z_1 e^{\frac{-B}{2}z_1^2 + z_1}\d z_1.
\end{align*}
Comparing the two sides we get
\begin{align*}
    m \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\alpha}} & = m \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\alpha}}\int_{0}^{\infty}z_1 e^{\frac{-B}{2}z_1^2 + z_1}\d z_1\\
    \iff 1 & = \int_{0}^{\infty}z_1 e^{\frac{-B}{2}z_1^2 + z_1}\d z_1.
\end{align*}
This is the same equation as in the one-dimensional case, that again is solved by $B \approx 2.4503325.$\\
In higher dimensions, the method works in exactly the same way.\\
These results have a nice interpretation that becomes clear when we write it in terms of distance to $C_0$. Let
    \[r:= r(\textbf{y}) = \operatorname{dist}(\textbf{y},C_{0}),\]
where $\operatorname{dist}(\textbf{y},C_0)$ denotes the distance between $\textbf{y}$ and $C_0$. Now for $\textbf{y}\notin C_0$ close to $\partial C_0$ we have
    \[d(\textbf{y}) = -Br^2 + o(r).\]
So for $t$ close to 0 we have that $C_t$ is approximately $C_0$ inflated by the constant amount
    \[\frac{1}{\sqrt{B}}\sqrt{t}\]
equally on each point.

\section{Uniqueness}\label{sec:u}
We show that $C$ is defined uniquely by the Fredholm representation in the one-dimensional, discounted and one-sided case described in Section \ref{ssec:2}. We once more list all assumptions that we use for the uniqueness results.
\begin{assumptions}\label{as:1}~
    \begin{itemize}
        \item The payoff function is of the form
            \[e^{-rt}h(x)\]
        with $r>0$.
        \item The Volterra integral equation \eqref{eq:pes} holds.
        \item The integral
        \[\int_{-\infty}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy}\tilde h(y) \d y \]
        exists.
        \item $\lambda(\tilde h(y) =0)=0$, where $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure.
        \item The solution is one-sided, i.e.\ there exists a bounded function
            \[b: \rr_{-}\to\rr,\]
        such that $C = \{(t,x)\mid x< b(t)\}$. Again we set $d = b^{-1}$.
    \end{itemize}
\end{assumptions}

In this setting, we show that \eqref{eq:main2} defines $b$ uniquely in the class of continuous and monotonic functions, hence $C$ is defined uniquely up to null-sets. The ansatz we use is not limited to this special case, in principle it can be used on multi-dimensional problems in a more general setting. This, however, brings a lot of  technicalities, so we stick to the case described.
Note that we do not need any assumptions on the differentiability of $h$, but only that \eqref{eq:pes} holds, what is true for American options, not only if $d>r$ as in Example \ref{ex:option}. For notational convenience, we will state the proofs using $\tilde h$ as a function. The proofs, however, work in the same way if we understand $\tilde h$ as a measure and evaluate $\int_{-\infty}^{b_\infty} e^{\left(\frac{c^{2}}{2} - r\right)d(y) + cy} \d \tilde h(y)$, what includes standard American options, see \cite{lai99}

\begin{remark}
    Our proof is inspired by techniques introduced by
    Bruni and Koch in their 1985 work on the identifiability of mixtures of Gaussian densities, see \cite{bruni85}.
    To see the connection, one can interpret the Fredholm representation as a mixture of Gaussian densities. Indeed, we have
        \[e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s} = A_{s,y}\varphi\left(\frac{y}{-s},\frac{1}{-s}\right)(c),\]
    where $\varphi\left(\frac{y}{-s},\frac{1}{-s}\right)$ is the density function of a normal distribution with mean $\frac{y}{-s}$ and variance $\frac{1}{-s}$ and $A_{s,y}$ is a positive function not depending on $c$. Bruni and Koch analyze mixtures of the form
        \[f(c) = \int_{D}\varphi\big(\lambda_1(x),\lambda_2(x)\big)(c)\d \mu(x)\]
    where $D$ is compact, the mean $\lambda_1$ and the variance $\lambda_2$ are $C^1$ on $D$ and bounded from above, $\lambda_2$ is additionally bounded away from 0. Under some additional assumptions they show that for given $f$ the measure $\mu$ is defined uniquely by the equation, i.e.\ it is identifiable. They state that compactness of $D$ is essential for their result. In our setting however, the area of integration is not compact and mean and variance are not bounded, so we cannot directly use their results. Theorem \ref{th:eind} can be viewed a result about identifiability in a special case of a non-compact $D$ and unbounded $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.\\
    We will keep in mind that we work with Gaussian mixtures with variable $c$, but we stick to the notation $e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s}$.
\end{remark}

\noindent The proof consist of the steps
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
    \item We show that the area with the highest variances, i.e.\ the largest $t$, govern the limits $c\to\infty$, see Lemma \ref{lem:lim}.
    \item Use (i) to show that if the Fredholm representation holds true for two different functions $b$ and $b'$, then this still holds true if we multiply the integrand by a polynomial $q(s,y)$, see Lemma \ref{lem:1}.
    \item Show that the polynomials (in fact we will use Laguerre exponential polynomials) lie dense in $L^{2}(\rr^{2})$, see Theorem \ref{th:eind}.
    \item Represent $b$ and $b'$ as part of measures $\mu$ and $\mu'$ on $\rr^{2}$ and use (ii) and (iii) to show that $\mu = \mu'$, see Theorem \ref{th:eind}.
\end{enumerate}

We recall that we can write \eqref{eq:main2} as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main22}
     -\frac{1}{\frac{c^2}{2}-r} \mathcal{L}\tilde h (c)
     = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{0}^{b(s)}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s.
\end{equation}
The integrand on the right-hand side is non-negative, the left-hand side is the known function $f(c)$.
We want to show uniqueness of $b$ in the class of positive continuous and monotone functions. We will use the following notation:
Let $J\subset \rr_{\leq 0}$ be measurable, $n,m\in\nn_{0}$, then
\begin{align*}
    & I^{b}_{J}(n,m)(c) := \int_{J}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(-s +1)^{n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\\
    & I^{b}(n,m)(c): = I^{b}_{(-\infty,0]}(n,m)(c)\\
    & I^{b}_{J}(c): = I^{b}_{J}(0,0)(c),
\end{align*}
and for two different continuous functions $b$ and $b'$
\begin{align*}
   & D_{J}(n,m)(c) := I^{b}_{J}(n,m)(c) - I^{b'}_{J}(n,m)(c)\\
   & D(n,m)(c) := D_{(-\infty,0]}(n,m)(c).
\end{align*}

The following lemma states that only the parts with the largest variance, i.e.\ the largest $t$ values in our setting, play a role for the limits $c\to \infty$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lim}
    Let $t\leq 0$ be fixed and $\varepsilon >0$, then
        \[\lim_{c\to \infty}\frac{I_{(-\infty, t]}^{b}(n,m)(c)}{I^{b}_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c)} = 1.\]
    If additionally $b(t) \neq b'(t)$, then
        \[\lim_{c\to \infty}\frac{D_{(-\infty, t]}(n,m)(c)}{D_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c)} = 1.\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Let $(c_i)$ be a sequence with $c_i \to \infty$ for $i\to \infty$. We first show that for all $\varepsilon >0$ and $t\leq 0$
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:i1}
            \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{I_{(-\infty, t]}^{b}(n,m)(c_i)}{I^{b}_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c_i)} = 1.
    \end{equation}
    Heuristically this means that only the parts with the largest variances (i.e.\ $\frac{1}{-s}$) govern the limits.
    Since $I^{b}_{(-\infty, t]}(n,m) = I^{b}_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m) + I^{b}_{(-\infty,t-\varepsilon)}(n,m)$, \eqref{eq:i1} is equivalent to
        \[\lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{I^{b}_{(-\infty,t-\varepsilon]}(n,m)(c_i)}{I^{b}_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c_i)} = 0.\]
    The numerator and denominator are positive. We derive an upper bound for $I^{b}_{(-\infty,t-\varepsilon]}(n,m)(c)$.  Let $h_1 = \max\{\tilde h(y)\mid y\in[0,b_\infty]\}$ then
    \begin{align*}
        & I^{b}_{(-\infty,t-\varepsilon]}(n,m)(c) =\int_{-\infty}^{t-\varepsilon}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(-s+1)^{n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\\
        \leq & \int_{-\infty}^{t-\varepsilon}\int_{0}^{b_{\infty}}(-s+1)^{n}b_\infty^{m}e^{c b_\infty+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}h_1\d y \d s\\
        = & N_1 e^{cb_\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{t-\varepsilon}(-s+1)^{n}e^{\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\d s
        = N_1 e^{cb_\infty}\frac{1}{\frac{c^2}{2}-r} P(c,\varepsilon) e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)(t-\varepsilon)},
    \end{align*}
    where $N_1$ is a constant and $P$ is a polynomial in $\frac{1}{c}$ and $\varepsilon$.

    We now derive a lower bound for $I^{b}_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c)$. Let $ 0< a_1 <a_2 \leq b(t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$ such that $\tilde h(y)$ is strictly positive on $[a_1,a_2]$ and let $h_2 = \min\{\tilde h(y)\mid y\in[a_1,a_2]\}>0$. Then,
    \begin{align*}
        & \int_{t-\varepsilon}^{t}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(-s+1)^{n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\\
        \geq & \int_{t-\varepsilon}^{t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\int_{a_1}^{a_2}(-t+\varepsilon+1)^{n}a_1^{m}e^{c\cdot0+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}h_2\d y \d s\\
        = & N_2 \int_{t-\varepsilon}^{t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\d s
        = N_2 \left(e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)(t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})} - e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)(t-\varepsilon)}\right),
    \end{align*}
    where $N_2>0$ is a constant.
    Together we get
    \begin{align*}
        0\leq \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{I^{b}_{(-\infty,-\varepsilon)}(n,m)(c_i)}{I^{b}_{[-\varepsilon,0]}(n,m)(c_i)}
        \leq \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{N_1 e^{c_ib_\infty}\frac{1}{\frac{c_i^2}{2}-r} P(c_i,\varepsilon) e^{(\frac{c_i^2}{2}-r)(t-\varepsilon)}}{N_2 \left(e^{(\frac{c_i^2}{2}-r)(t-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})} - e^{(\frac{c_i^2}{2}-r)(t-\varepsilon)}\right)}
        = 0
    \end{align*}
    what shows the first claim. \\
    Let now $b(t) \neq b'(t)$, we assume w.l.o.g.\ that $b(t) > b'(t)$. Since $b$ and $b'$ are continuous, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $b(s) > b'(s)$ for all $s\in [t-\delta,t]$.
    Then the term
        \[D_{[t-\delta,t]}(n,m)(c_i) = \int_{t-\delta}^{t}\int_{b'(s)}^{b(s)}(-s+1)^{n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\]
    is positive and analogously to the calculations above we get
        \[ \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{|D_{(-\infty, t-\delta]}(n,m)(c_i)|}{D_{[t-\delta,t]}(n,m)(c_i)}
        \leq  \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{I^{\max(b,b')}_{(-\infty, t-\delta]}(n,m)(c_i)}{D_{[t-\delta,t]}(n,m)(c_i)} = 0.\]
    If $\varepsilon \leq \delta$ we can set $\delta = \varepsilon$ and we are done. If $\varepsilon > \delta$, we have
    \begin{align*}
        & \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{|D_{(-\infty, t-\varepsilon]}(n,m)(c_i)|}{D_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c_i)} \\
        \leq & \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{|D_{(-\infty, t-\varepsilon]}(n,m)(c_i)|}{D_{[t-\delta,t]}(n,m)(c_i) - I^{\max(b,b')}_{(-\infty, t-\delta]}(n,m)(c_i)}
         = 0
    \end{align*}
    For $c$ large enough the denominator is positive, hence it follows that
        \[\lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{D_{(-\infty, t]}(n,m)(c_i)}{D_{[t-\varepsilon,t]}(n,m)(c_i)} = 1.\]
\end{proof}
The next lemma states that if the integral on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:main22} is the same for two different stopping boundaries, then this property is not changed if we multiply the integrand with a polynomial $q(s,y)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:1}
    If $I^{b}(c) = I^{b'}(c)$ for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$, then
        \[I^{b}(n,m)(c) = I^{b'}(n,m)(c),\]
    for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$ and $n,m\in\nn_{0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
    We prove the claim by induction. Let $n,m=0$ then $I^{b}(n,m)(c) = I^{b'}(n,m)(c)$ by assumption.
    Let now $n,m\neq 0$ be fixed and $I^{b}(l,k)(c) = I^{b'}(l,k)(c)$, for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$ and $l\leq n, k\leq n$.
    We multiply
        \[I^{b}(n,m)(c) = \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(-s +1)^{n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\]
    with $e^{-\frac{c^2}{2}}$, take the derivative in $c$ and we get
    \begin{align*}
        &\frac{\partial }{\partial c} \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(-s+1)^{-n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2(s-1)-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s  \\
        = &  \int_{-\infty}^{0}\int_{0}^{b(s)}(y+ c(s-1))(-s+1)^{-n}y^{m}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2(s-1)-rs}\tilde h(y)\d y \d s\\
        = &  e^{-\frac{c^2}{2}}\left(  I^{b}(n,m+1)(c) - cI^{b}(n+1,m)(c)\right).
    \end{align*}
    For $b'$ we get the same result and together we have
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:c}
        c\big(I^{b}(n+1,m)(c) - I^{b'}(n+1,m)(c)\big) = I^{b}(n,m+1)(c) - I^{b'}(n,m+1)(c).
    \end{equation}
    Let us assume that $I^{b}(n+1,m) \neq I^{b'}(n+1,m)$.
    $I^{b}(n+1,m)$ is analytic in $c$, hence there exists a series $(c_i)$ with $c_i\to \infty$ such that
    \[I^{b}(n+1,m)(c_i) \neq I^{b'}(n+1,m)(c_i),\]
    for all $i\in\nn$. We can solve \eqref{eq:c} for $c_i$
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:ci}
        c_i = \frac{I^{b}(n,m+1)(c_i) - I^{b'}(n,m+1)(c_i)}{I^{b}(n+1,m)(c_i) - I^{b'}(n+1,m)(c_i)}
        = \frac{D(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D(n+1,m)(c_i)}.
    \end{equation}
    We show that the right-hand side is bounded, in contradiction to the assumption $c_i\to\infty$.\\
    Let $t^{\ast} = \sup\{t\mid b(t) \neq b'(t)\}$. If the set is empty, there is nothing to show. Let $(t_j)_{j\in\nn}$ be a growing series with $b(t_j) \neq b'(t_j)$ and $\lim_{j\to \infty} t_j = t^{\ast}$.

    \begin{figure}[htbp]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{bilder/tj.png}
        \caption{Visualization of the setting in Lemma \ref{lem:1}}
        \label{fig:tj}
    \end{figure}

   For every $t_j$ we find $t_{j+1}-t_j>\varepsilon_j>0$ such that $b(s) \neq b'(s)$ for all $s\in [t_j-\varepsilon_j,t_j]$. We use Lemma \ref{lem:lim} and the fact that $b$ is decreasing to get
    \begin{align*}
       & \lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{D_{(-\infty,t_j]}(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D_{(-\infty,t_j]}(n+1,m)(c_i)}
       = \lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{D_{[t_j-\varepsilon_j,t_j]}(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D_{[t_j-\varepsilon_j,t_j]}(n+1,m)(c_i)} \\
       &   \leq \lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{b(t_j-\varepsilon_j) D_{[t_j-\varepsilon_j,t_j]}(n,m)(c_i)}{ (t_j + 1) D_{[t_j-\varepsilon_j,t_j]}(n,m)(c_i)}
       = \lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{b(t_j-\varepsilon_j) }{ (t_j + 1)}
       \leq b(t_j-\varepsilon_j).
    \end{align*}
    $(b(t_j-\varepsilon_j))_{j\in\nn}$ is decreasing and since $b$ is continuous we have
    \[\lim_{j\to\infty}b(t_j-\varepsilon_j) = b(t^{\ast})<\infty,\]
    so by dominated convergence we get
      \[\lim_{j\to \infty}\lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{D_{(-\infty,t_j]}(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D_{(-\infty,t_j]}(n+1,m)(c_i)}
        =  \lim_{i\to \infty}\frac{D_{(-\infty,t^\ast]}(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D_{(-\infty,t^{\ast}]}(n+1,m)(c_i)}
        <  \infty.\]
    For all $t > t^{\ast}$ we have $b(t) = b'(t)$, hence
        \[\lim_{i\to\infty} \frac{D(n,m+1)(c_i)}{ D(n+1,m)(c_i)} <\infty,\]
    in contradiction to \eqref{eq:ci}. It follows that
    $I^{b}(n+1,m) = I^{b'}(n+1,m)$. Plugging this into \eqref{eq:c} we get that also $I^{b}(n,m+1) = I^{b'}(n,m+1)$.

\end{proof}

\noindent We can now state our main theorem on the uniqueness of $b$.

\begin{theorem}\label{th:eind}
    Given a stopping problem that fulfills Assumptions \ref{as:1}, if there is $N\in\rr$ such that the Fredholm representation
    \eqref{eq:main2} holds for all $c > N$, then $b$ is determined  uniquely by \eqref{eq:main2} in the class of continuous monotone functions.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Let $I^{b}(c) = I^{b'}(c)$ for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:1} we have $I^{b}(n,m)(c) = I^{b'}(n,m)(c)$, for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$ and $n,m\in \rr$. We rewrite $I^{b}(n,m)(c)$ as
        \[I^{b}(n,m)(c) = \int e^{s}(-s +1)^{n}y^{m} \mu(ds,dy)
        \]
    where the measure $\mu$ is given by
        \[\mu =f \circ \lambda\]
    with density function
        \[f(s,y) := \ind_{\{0\leq y\leq b(t), t\leq 0\}} e^{-s}e^{cy+\frac{1}{2}c^2s-rs}\tilde h(y)\]
    where $\lambda$  denotes the Lebesgue measure on $\rr^{2}$. A measure $\mu'$ with density function $f'$ is defined analogously via $b'$.\\
    Functions of the form $p(-s+1)e^{s}$, for a polynomial $p$, are called \textit{Laguerre Exponential Polynomials} and they are dense in in $L^{2}(\rr_{\leq 0})$, see \cite[Lemma 1. (ii)]{ang72}. For  $B:=\rr_{\leq0}\times [0,M]$, the family $\{q(-s,y)e^{s}|q \text{ is a polynomial on } B\}$ lies dense in $L^{2}(B)$.
    By Lemma \ref{lem:1} and linearity of the integral we have
        \[\int e^{s}q(-s,y) f(s,y) \d\lambda = \int e^{s}q(-s,y) f'(s,y) \d\lambda\]
    for all polynomials $q$. Let now $g \in L^{2}(B)$ and $q_n$ be a sequence of polynomials with $e^{s}q_n \overset{L^2} \to g$. For $c$ large enough, $f$ and $f'$ are positive, bounded and are in $L^{2}$. It follows that
        \[\lim_{n\to\infty}\int e^{s}q_n(-s,y) f(s,y) \d\lambda
        = \int g(s,y) f(s,y) \d\lambda \]
    and
        \[\lim_{n\to\infty}\int e^{s}q_n(-s,y) f(s,y) \d\lambda
        =\int g(s,y) f'(s,y) \d\lambda\]
    hence
        \[\int g(s,y) \mu(ds,dy) = \int g(s,y) \mu'(ds,dy)\]
    for all $g \in L^{2}(B)$.\\
    If follows that $\mu = \mu'$ $\tilde h \circ \lambda$-a.e. Since $b$ and $b'$ are continuous and $\lambda(\{\tilde h(y) = 0 \}) = 0 $ we have $b = b'$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
    It is not straightforward to extend the proof immediately to the general setting \eqref{eq:main}, but some assumptions are easy to relax.
    \begin{itemize}
        \item We used that $b$ is bounded in the discounted case. For the proof it is enough if $b$ grows at most linearly for $t\to \infty$. That would then include cases like Example \ref{ex:x3}.
        \item We used monotonicity of $b$ for Lemma \ref{lem:1}. It would be enough to assume that $b$ is bounded on compact intervals, e.g., $b$ continuity would be enough.
        \item The assumption $\lambda(\{\tilde h(y) = 0 \}) = 0 $ is not necessary. If we do not assume this we would get uniqueness up to $-Ag\circ \lambda$ nullsets that are not necessarily $\lambda$-nullsets.
        \item The assumption that \eqref{eq:main} holds for all $c>N$ can be relaxed to \eqref{eq:main} holds for $(c_i)=(c_i)_{i\in\nn}$ where the set of limit points of $(c_i)$ is not bounded.
    \end{itemize}
\end{remark}

\begin{example}
    With Theorem \ref{th:eind} we can see that the continuation set given in Example \ref{ex:x3} is the correct solution without apriori argumentation via Brownian scaling.
\end{example}

\section{Numerics}\label{sec:5}
We show how the Fredholm representation can be used to numerically  approximate the optimal stopping boundary $\partial C$. We stick to the one-dimensional one-sided and discounted case, where we want to approximate the function $d$.\\

One ansatz is discretizing \eqref{eq:main2}
and then minimizing the (quadratic) error via some optimization algorithm.  \eqref{eq:main2} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disc2}
    0 =  \int_{0}^{b_\infty} e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)d(y)}  e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y
    + \int_{-\infty}^{0} e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y
\end{equation}
for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$.
The second integral does not depend on $d$, so to shorten notation we write $D(c) : = \int_{-\infty}^{0} e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y$.
We choose a number $N$ of evaluation points
$0=y_1<\ldots <y_N=b_\infty$ and set $d_n :=  d(y_n)$ for $n = 1,\ldots, N$. We want to evaluate \eqref{eq:disc2} for $M$ values $c_l >\sqrt{2r}$ with $l = 1,\ldots, M$. We model $d$ as piecewise constant, i.e.\
    \[d\approx \sum_{n=1}^{N-1}1_{[y_n,y_{n+1})}d_{n}.\]
Putting this $d$ into \eqref{eq:disc2} we get for $l=1\ldots M$
    \[0 \approx  D(c_l)+\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)d_n}\int_{y_n}^{y_{n+1}} e^{y}\tilde h(y)\d y.\]
It is useful to weight the error depending on the problem and on $c$.
For every $c_l$ we choose a convex function $F_{c_l}:\rr\to \rr^{+}$ with a unique minimum in 0 and minimize
\begin{equation}\label{eq:num1}
   f(d) = \sum_{l=1}^{M} F_{c_l}\left(D(c_l) +  \sum_{n=1}^{N-1}e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)d_n} \int_{y_n}^{y_{n+1}} e^{y}\tilde h(y)\d y\right)
\end{equation}
numerically. Additionally we can assume that $d_i\leq d_{i+1}$, since d is non-increasing.

\paragraph{Upper and lower bounds}
For the numeric minimization to be stable it is very useful to have suitable upper and lower bounds for $d$. Clearly $d^{u}_{1}:=0$ is an upper bound, hence
    \[\int_{-\infty}^{b_{\infty}}e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)d^{u}_{1}(y)}  e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y \geq 0\]
for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$. We define a lower bound for $x>0$ via
    \[d^{l}_{1}(x): = \inf\left\{t\mid \int_{-\infty}^{b_{\infty}}e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)\tilde d^{u}_{1}(y,x)}  e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y \geq 0,~\forall c>\sqrt{2r}\right\}\]
where
    \[\tilde d^{u}_{1}(y,x): = t 1_{[x,b_{\infty}]}(y)\wedge d^{u}_{1}(y).\]
Now, since $d^{l}_{1}$ is a lower bound we have
    \[\int_{-\infty}^{b_{\infty}}e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)d^{l}_{1}(y)}  e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y \leq 0\]
for all $c>\sqrt{2r}$. We can now find a better upper bound via
    \[d^{u}_{2}(x): = \sup\left\{t\mid \int_{-\infty}^{b_{\infty}}e^{(\frac{c^2}{2}-r)\tilde d^{l}_{1}(y,x)}  e^{cy}\tilde h(y)\d y \leq 0,~\forall c>\sqrt{2r}\right\}\]
where
    \[\tilde d^{l}_{1}(y,x): = t 1_{[0,x]}(y)\vee d^{l}_{1}(y).\]
Repeating this procedure improves the bounds slightly further. They, however, do not converge to $d$.

\begin{example}\label{ex:num}
    Let $h(x) = x$, $r=1$. Then $\tilde h = x$,
    $b_0 = 0$, $b_\infty = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}$ and
        \[D(c) = \frac{1}{c^2}.\]
    We set
        \[F_c(x) = \left(c^2 x +\frac{1}{1+c^2 x}\right)^{2},\]
    $N=60$, $M=40$, $y_k =  \frac{b_\infty(k-1)}{N-1}$, and $c_l = \sqrt{2r} + \frac{l}{10}$. A plot of the resulting stopping boundary is given in Figure \ref{fig:d2}. The plot nicely reflects the boundary behavior described in Section \ref{sec:3}. The function $-Bx^2 \approx -2.45 x^2$ is plotted as a reference.
    \begin{figure}[htbp]
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{bilder/d1_2.png}
        \caption{The stopping boundary from Example \ref{ex:num}. As a reference the \emph{limit} function $-Bx^2$ and $b_{\infty}$ are plotted as well.}
        \label{fig:d2}
    \end{figure}
\end{example}

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:con}
We believe that the Fredholm representation presented here is a useful tool for analyzing optimal stopping problems with finite time horizon. We have seen that in some cases the continuation set of a stopping problem is fully characterized by the representation. We are confident that uniqueness holds in a more general setting as well, but this still has to be proven. The representation also seems to be useful for numeric evaluation of stopping problems. One advantage over the standard integral representation is that the integrand has no singularities, what makes numeric integration more stable.

Here, we would like to underline a connection to the integral equation studied in \cite{christensen16} for the infinite horizon case. Indeed, also there a limit to the (Martin) boundary of the state space has been used to derive the equation.
This observation opens the door to interpreting our Fredholm integral equation as a Martin boundary representation. For details on Martin boundary theory see \cite{bass95}. We will, however, omit this discussion as the general results do not seem to be helpful for the questions we have studied here.

\subsection{Discussion on the limit behavior}
The methods used to analyze the limit behavior is independent of the uniqueness. We showed how the representation can be used to show limit behavior of the stopping boundary in a general setting. We did not prove that the limit $\frac{d(x)}{x^2}$ always exists. Under some technical assumptions it might be possible to show that using the ideas from the proof of Theorem \ref{th:d1}.
It seems further that the results on the limit behavior are by far not the most general setting that is possible to tackle with our method, so we want to discuss briefly how further generalizations could look like.

\paragraph{General payoff functions $g$}
In Lemma \ref{lem:eps1} and \ref{lem:eps2} we have shown that in the discounted case for \emph{regular} $\tilde h$ only the limit behavior of $\tilde h$ is relevant for the limit behavior of $d$ or $b$. This should hold true for general stopping problems where $Ag$ is sufficiently \emph{regular} close to $\partial C_0$. If we take a look at Example \ref{ex:stadje} we see that it does not directly fit the discounted setting, but $Ag(t,x) = x$ could emerge from a discounted problem. So it is not surprising that $C$ has the limit behavior described above.\\
In general, we expect a kind of similarity principle to hold true that states: if two stopping problems with the same driving process have payoff functions $g$ and $\tilde g$ s.t.\ $Ag$ and $A\tilde g$ have the same limit behavior as $t\to 0$ and $x\to \partial C$, then their continuation sets have the same limit behavior as $t\to0$.

\paragraph{General diffusions}
Consider a Brownian motion $X$ with volatility $\sigma^2$ and a stopping problem that matches (except the different driving process $X$) the assumptions of Theorem \ref{cor:lim} and has a stopping boundary $d$. We can scale the problem by $\frac{1}{\sigma}$ to get a problem for a standard Brownian motion $W$. For its stopping boundary $\tilde d$ we get $\tilde d(y) = d(\sigma y) = -By^2 + o(y^2)$ in a neighborhood of 0. So we get
    \[d(x)  = \frac{-B}{\sigma^2}x^2 + o(x^2)\]
in a neighborhood of 0.\\
Let now assume that $X$ is a diffusion that satisfies $dX = \mu(t,X)dt + \sigma(t,X)dW$, where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are smooth and locally bounded. $X$ locally \emph{looks} like a Brownian motion with drift, so we could expect that for the stopping boundary $d'$ of the corresponding stopping problem it holds
   \[d'(x)  = \frac{-B}{\sigma(0,0)^2}x^2 + o(x^2).\]

\paragraph{Possible shapes of $C_0$}
In the $n$-dimensional setting we assumed that $C_0$ is convex. Since limit behavior for $t\to 0$ is a local phenomenon, it would be surprising if the global shape of $C_0$ was relevant for it. So we expect the described limit behavior to hold for all parts of $C_0$ that are locally convex.\\
It would be surprising as well if the limit behavior for locally concave parts would be fundamentally different, but the Fredholm representations does not seem suitable to analyze these areas.

\paragraph{Other limits}
It is possible to analyze the limit behavior of $C_t$ for $t\to -\infty$ (or limit of $d(y)$ as $y\to b_\infty$ resp.) by looking at $c\searrow \sqrt{2r}$. This leads to an exponential lower bound for $b$, i.e.\ for $t\to -\infty$ we have
\[b(t) \geq b_{\infty} - M e^{t},\]
for some $M>0$. We omit the details here.


Sparsity of integer solutions in the average case

Abstract: We examine how sparse feasible solutions of integer programs are, on average. Average case here means that we fix the constraint matrix and vary the right-hand side vectors. For a problem in standard form with m equations, there exist LP feasible solutions with at most m many nonzero entries. We show that under relatively mild assumptions, integer programs in standard form have feasible solutions with O(m) many nonzero entries, on average. Our proof uses ideas from the theory of groups, lattices, and Ehrhart polynomials. From our main theorem we obtain the best known upper bounds on the integer Caratheodory number provided that the determinants in the data are small.

\section{Introduction}

Let $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $A \in \mathbb{Z}^{m \times n}$.
We always assume that $A$ has full row rank.
We also view $A$ as a set of its column vectors.
So, $W \subseteq A$ implies that $W$ is a subset of the columns of $A$.

We aim to find a sparse integer vector in the set
\[
P(A,b) := \{x\in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\ge 0}: Ax = b\},
\]
where $b \in \mathbb{Z}^m$.
That is, we aim at finding a solution $z$ such that $|\operatorname{supp}(z)|$ is as small as possible, where $\operatorname{supp}(x) := \{i \in \{1, \dotsc, m\} : x_i \neq 0\}$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
To this end, we define the \emph{support function of $(A,b)$} to be
\[
\sigma(A,b) := \min\{|\operatorname{supp}(z)| : z \in  P(A,b)\}.
\]
If $P(A,b) = \emptyset$, then $\sigma(A,b) := \infty$.
We define the \emph{support function of $A$} to be
\[
\sigma(A) := \max\{\sigma(A,b) :  b \in \mathbb{Z}^m \text{ and } \sigma(A,b) < \infty\}.
\]

The question of determining $\sigma(A)$ generalizes problems that have been open for decades.
A notable special case is the so-called integer Carath\'eodory number, i.e. the minimum number of Hilbert basis elements in a rational pointed polyhedral cone required to represent an integer point in the cone.
We say that $A$ has the \emph{Hilbert basis property} if its columns correspond to a Hilbert basis of $\operatorname{cone}(A)$.
For $A$ with the Hilbert basis property, Cook et al.~\cite{CookFS1986} showed that $\sigma(A) \le 2m-1$ and Seb\H{o} showed that $\sigma(A) \le 2m - 2 $~\cite{Sebo1990}.
Bruns et al.~\cite{BrunsGHMW1999} provide an example of $A$ with the Hilbert basis property with $ \frac{7}{6} m \le \sigma(A) $.
However, for matrices with the Hilbert basis property, the true value of $\sigma(A)$ is unknown.

For general choices of $A$, Eisenbrand and Shmonin~\cite{ES2006} showed that $\sigma(A) \le 2m \log_2(4m\|A\|_{\infty})$, where $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ is the max norm.
Aliev et al.~\cite{ADOO2017} and Aliev et al.~\cite{ADEOW2018} improved the previous result and showed that
\begin{equation}\label{eqDetBound}
\textstyle
\sigma(A) \le m + \log_{2}(g^{-1}\sqrt{\det(A{\displaystyle A^{\intercal}})}) \le 2m\log_2(2\sqrt{m}\|A\|_{\infty}),
\end{equation}
where $g = \gcd\{|\det(B)|: B \text{ is an } m \times m \text{ submatrix of } A\}$.
It turns out that the previous upper bound is close to the true value of $\sigma(A)$.
In fact, for every $\epsilon > 0$, Aliev et al.~\cite{ADEOW2018} provide an example of $A$ for which $m \log_2(\|A\|_{\infty})^{1/(1+\epsilon)} \le \sigma(A)$.

In this paper, we consider $\sigma(A,b)$ for \emph{most choices} of $b$.
We formalize this `average case' using the \emph{asymptotic support function of $A$} defined by
\[
\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) := \min\bigg\{ k \in \mathbb{Z} : \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m : \sigma(A,b) \le k\}|}
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m : P(A,b) \neq \emptyset\}|}
= 1\bigg\}.
\]
Note that $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le \sigma(A) \le |A|$.

The value $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$ can be thought of as the smallest $k$ such that almost all feasible integer programs with constraint matrix $A$ have solutions with support of cardinality at most $k$.
The function $\sigma^{\text{asy}} ( \cdot )$ was introduced by Bruns and Gubeladze in~\cite{BG2004}, where it was shown that $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m-3$ for matrices with the Hilbert basis property.
In general, an average case analysis of the support question has not been provided in the literature.
Average case behavior of integer programs has been studied in specialized settings, see, e.g.,~\cite{DF1989} for packing problems in $0,1$ variables and~\cite{IHO2017} for problems with only one constraint.
However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other studies available that are concerned with the average case behavior of integer programs, in general.

Our analysis reveals that the \emph{sizes} of the $m \times m$ minors of $A$ affect sparsity.
It turns out that \emph{the number of factors in the prime decomposition} of the minors also affects sparsity.
Moreover, for matrices with \emph{large} minors but \emph{few} factors, there exist solutions whose support depends on the number of factors rather than the size of the minors.
Recall that a prime is a natural number greater than or equal to $2$ that is divisible only by itself and $1$.
We now formalize these parameters related to the minors of a matrix.

Let $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m \times d}$ be of full row rank, where $d \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$.
Denote the set of absolute values of the $m \times m$ minors by
\[
\Delta(W) := \{|\det(W')|: W' \text{ is an invertible } m \times m \text{ submatrix of } W\},
\]
and denote the set of `number of prime factors' in each minor by
\begin{equation}\label{eqPhiDefn}
\Phi(W) :=  \bigg\{t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}:
\begin{array}{l}
W' \text{ an invertible } m \times m \text{ submatrix of } W, \text { and}\\
|\det(W')| = \prod_{i=1}^t \alpha_i \text{ with } \alpha_1, \dotsc, \alpha_t \text{ prime}
\end{array}
\bigg\}.
\end{equation}
If $\Phi(W)$ consists of only one element (e.g., when $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times m}$), then we denote the element by $\phi(W)$.
If $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times m}$ and $|\det(W)| = 1$, then $\phi(W) = 0$.
We denote the maximum and minimum of these sets by
\[
\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
\delta^{\max}(W) & := & \max ( \Delta(W)), & &\delta^{\min}(W) & := & \min ( \Delta(W)), \\[.1 cm]
\phi^{\max}(W) & := & \max ( \Phi(W)), & \quad \text{and} \quad & \phi^{\min}(W) & := & \min ( \Phi(W)).
\end{array}
\]
Our first main result bounds $\sigma^{\text{asy}}$ using these parameters.
\begin{theorem}\label{thmMainProb}
Let $A \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times n}$ and $W \subseteq A$ such that
\(
\operatorname{cone}(A) = \operatorname{cone}(W).
\)
Then

\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le m + \phi^{\max}(W) \le m + \log_{2}\left(\delta^{\max}(W)\right)$,\\
\item $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m + \phi^{\min}(W) \le 2m + \log_{2}\left(\delta^{\min}(W)\right)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} guarantees that the average support $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$ is linear in $m$ in two special cases: (a) the minimum minor of $A$ is on the order of $2^m$ or (b) there is a prime minor.
We emphasize that \emph{(ii)} uses the \emph{minimum} values $\phi^{\min}$ and $\delta^{\min}$, which can be bounded by sampling any $m\times m$ invertible submatrix of $A$.
Thus, $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$ can be bounded by finding a single $m\times m$ invertible submatrix of $A$.

Note that the bound in~\eqref{eqDetBound} includes the term $g$.
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} can be adjusted to prove $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le m + \log_2(g^{-1}\delta^{\max}(W))$ and $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m + \log_2(g^{-1}\delta^{\min}(W))$.
We omit this analysis here to simplify the exposition.
However, it should be mentioned that
\[
\textstyle
\delta^{\max}(A) \le (\sum_{\delta \in \Delta(A)} \delta^2)^{1/2} =  \sqrt{\det(A{\displaystyle A^{\intercal}})},
\]
where the equation follows from the so-called Cauchy-Binet formula.
Therefore, if $A$ has two nonzero $m\times m$ minors, then Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} \emph{(i)} improves~\eqref{eqDetBound}, on average.

A corollary of Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} is that if $A$ has the Hilbert basis property, then the extreme rays of $\operatorname{cone}(A)$ provide enough information to bound $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{thmMainHilb}
Let $V \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$ and $H \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^{m \times t}$.
Assume that $H$ has the Hilbert basis property and $\operatorname{cone}(H) = \operatorname{cone}(V)$.
Then
\[
\sigma^{\text{asy}}(H) \le m + \phi^{\max}(V)  \le m + \log_{2}\left(\delta^{\max}(V)\right).
\]
\end{corollary}
If $\delta^{\max}(V) < 2^{m-3}$, then the bound in Corollary~\ref{thmMainHilb} improves the bound in~\cite{BG2004}.

By modifying a construction in~\cite{ADEOW2018}, we obtain two interesting examples of $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$.
The first example shows that Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} \emph{(i)} gives a tight bound.
The second example shows that Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} \emph{(ii)} gives a tight bound and that $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A)$ can be significantly smaller than $\sigma(A)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thmMainLower}
For every $m \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $d \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$, there is a matrix $A \in \mathbb{Z}^{m \times n}$ such that $\phi^{\max}(A) = d$ and $\sigma^{asy}(A) = m+d$.

For every $m \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $d \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge m+3}$, there is a matrix $B \in \mathbb{Z}^{(m+1) \times n}$ such that $\phi^{\min}(B) =0$ and
\(
\sigma^{asy}(B) = 2m+2 < m+d = \sigma(B).
\)
\end{theorem}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb} is based on a combination of group theory, lattice theory, and Ehrhart theory.
On a high level, the combination of group and lattice theory bears similarities to papers of Gomory~\cite{G1965} and Aliev et al.~\cite{ADOO2017}.
Gomory investigated the value function of an IP and proved its periodicity when the right-hand side vector is sufficiently large.
Aliev et al. showed periodicity for the function $\sigma(A, b)$ provided again that $b$ is sufficiently large.
Our refined analysis allows us to quantify the number of right-hand sides for which the support function is small.
This new contribution requires not only group and lattice theory, but also Ehrhart theory.

Sections~\ref{secGroup} and~\ref{secCones} we provide background on groups and subcones.
In Section~\ref{secMainProb} we use the average support for each subcone to prove Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb}.
We prove Theorem~\ref{thmMainLower} in Appendix~\ref{secMainLower}.

\section{The group structure of a parallelepiped}\label{secGroup}

Let $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times m}$ be an invertible matrix, which we also view as a set of $m$ linearly independent column vectors.
Let $\Pi(W)$ denote the integer vectors in the fundamental parallelepiped generated by $W$:
\[
\Pi(W) := \{z \in \mathbb{Z}^m : z = W \lambda  \text{ for } \lambda \in [0,1)^m\}.
\]

For each $b \in \mathbb{Z}^m$, there is a unique $g \in \Pi(W)$ such that $ b = g + Wz$, where $z \in \mathbb{Z}^m$~\cite[Lemma 2.1, page 286]{barv}.
Thus, we can define a \emph{residue function} $\rho_W : \mathbb{Z}^m \to \Pi(W)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eqResidue}
\rho_W(b) = \rho_W (g + Wz ) \mapsto g.
\end{equation}
The image of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ under $\rho_W$ (i.e., $\Pi(W)$) creates a group $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m) $ using the operation $+_{G_W} : \Pi(W)\times \Pi(W) \to \Pi(W)$ defined by
\[
g +_{G_W} h \mapsto \rho_W(g+h).
\]
The identity of $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ is the zero vector in $\mathbb{Z}^m$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eqDetCardinality}
|G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)| = |\det(W)|,
\end{equation}
see, e.g., ~\cite[Corollary 2.6, page 286]{barv}.
Equation~\eqref{eqDetCardinality} implies $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ is finite.

The choice of notation for $G_{W}(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ is to emphasize that it is the group generated by the residues of all integer linear combinations of vectors in $\mathbb{Z}^m$.
We can also consider the group generated by any subset of vectors in $\mathbb{Z}^m$.
Given $B \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$, we denote the subgroup of $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ generated by $B$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eqSubgroup}
G_W(B) := \{\rho_W(Bz) : z \in \mathbb{Z}^{|B|}\}.
\end{equation}
If $B = \emptyset$, then $G_W(B) := \{0\}$.
The set $G_W(B)$ is a subgroup of $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ because $\{Bz : z \in \mathbb{Z}^{|B|}\}$ is a sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}^m$.

We collect some basic properties about the group $G_W(B)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemSubgroup}
Let $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times m}$ be an invertible matrix.
For every $B \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$, $G_W(B) = \{\rho_W(Bz) : z \in \mathbb{Z}^{|B|}_{\ge 0}  \}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $z \in \mathbb{Z}^{|B|}$, we can write $Bz$ as
\[
\textstyle
Bz = \sum_{b \in B : z_b \ge 0} z_b b + \sum_{b \in B : z_b < 0} z_b b.
\]
Thus, it suffices to show $\rho_W(-b) \in  \{\rho_W(By) : y \in \mathbb{Z}^{|B|}_{\ge 0}  \}= : C$ for each $b \in B$.
If $\rho_W(b) = 0$, then $\rho_W(-b) = \rho_W(b) = 0 \in  C$.
If $\rho_W(b) \neq 0$, then because $G_W(B)$ is finite there exists $\tau \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 2}$ with $\rho_W(\tau b ) = 0$.
Note that $\rho_W((\tau-1)b) + \rho_W(b) = 0 = \rho_W(b) + \rho_W(-b)$, so $\rho_W(-b) = \rho_W((\tau-1)b) \in  C$.
\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemGroupDecomp}
Let $W \in \mathbb{Z}^{m\times m}$ be an invertible matrix and $B \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$.
If $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ with $t \ge \phi(W)$, then there exist $w^1, \dotsc, w^t \in B$ (possibly with repetitions) such that $G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^t\}) = G_W(B)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Set $s:= \phi(W)$.
First, we show that for each $r \in \{0, \dotsc, s\}$ there exist $w^1, \dotsc, w^r \in B$ (possibly with repetitions) such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqInductionPrime}
\begin{array}{r@{\hskip .5 cm}l}
\text{either}& G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^r\}) = G_W(B) \\[.1 cm]
\text{or} & G_W(\emptyset) \subsetneq G_W(\{w^1\}) \subsetneq \dotsc \subsetneq G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^r\}).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We prove~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} by induction on $r$.
The result is vacuously true for $r = 0$, so assume that~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} holds for $r \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ and consider $r+1$.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{eqDefineStep}
 G^r := G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^r\}).
\end{equation}

By the induction hypothesis, there exist $w^1, \dotsc, w^r \in B$ such that~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} holds.
If $G^r = G_W(B)$, then $w^{r+1} := w^r$ proves~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} for $r+1$.
If $G^r \subsetneq G_W(B)$, then $G^0 \subsetneq \dotsc \subsetneq G^r$ by~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} and induction.
Recall $\rho_W(\cdot)$ from~\eqref{eqResidue}.
If $\rho_W(b) \in G^r$ for every $b \in B$, then $G_W(B) \subseteq G^r$ and $|G_W(B)| \le |G^r| < |G_W(B)|$, which is a contradiction.
Thus, there exists $w^{r+1} \in B$ such that $\rho_W(w^{r+1}) \not \in G^r$.
The sequence $G^0, \dotsc, G^r$,
\(
G^{r+1} := G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^{r+1}\})
\)
satisfies~\eqref{eqInductionPrime}, which proves~\eqref{eqInductionPrime}.

Let $G^1, \dotsc, G^s$ be chosen to satisfy~\eqref{eqInductionPrime}.
If $G^s = G_W(B)$, then set $w^{s+1} = \dotsc = w^t := w^s$ to conclude $G_W(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^t\}) = G_W(B)$.
It is left to consider the case when $G^s \subsetneq G_W(B)$.
We claim that this leads to a contradiction.

By~\eqref{eqPhiDefn} and~\eqref{eqDetCardinality}, $|G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)| = \prod_{i=1}^s \alpha_i $ for primes $\alpha_1, \dotsc, \alpha_s $.
By~\eqref{eqDefineStep}, $G^1, \dotsc, G^s$ are subgroups of $G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)$, so $|G^1|, \dotsc, |G^s| $ divide $|G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)|$ (see, e.g.,~\cite[Chapter 2]{artin}).
Also, $G^s \subsetneq G_W(B)$ and~\eqref{eqInductionPrime} imply that $G^1 \subsetneq \dotsc \subsetneq G^s$.
Hence, $1 < |G^1| < \dotsc < |G^s|$ and $|G^i|$ divides $|G^{i+1}|$ for each $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s-1\}$.
This implies that $|G^s|$ has at least $s$ many prime factors.
However, $|G^s| < |G_W(B)| \le |G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)|$, and $|G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)|$ only has $s$ many prime factors.
Thus,
\(
|G^{i}| = |G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m)|
\)
for some $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$, which contradicts $G^i = G_W(\mathbb{Z}^m) \supseteq G_W(B)$.
\qed
\end{proof}

\section{Lattice points in cones}\label{secCones}

A set $\Lambda \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$ is a lattice if $0 \in \Lambda$, $x + y \in \Lambda$ for $x,y\in \Lambda$, and if $x \in \Lambda$ then $-x \in \Lambda$ (see, e.g.,~\cite[Chapter VII]{barv}).
So, $\Lambda$ is a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^m$.
We assume that a lattice contains $m$ linearly independent vectors.
For $B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$ and $x \in \mathbb{R}^m$, set $B + x := \{b + x : b \in B\}$.

We use following lemma to find suitable translated subcones in which $\sigma(A, \cdot)$ is bounded.
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemOverlappingConesMany} is in Appendix~\ref{appProoflemOverlappingConesMany}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemOverlappingConesMany}
Let $v^1, \dotsc, v^m \in \mathbb{Z}^m$ be linearly independent vectors and set $K := \operatorname{cone}(\{v^1, \dotsc, v^m\})$.
For $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ and $x^1, \dotsc, x^t \in \mathbb{Z}^m$, there is a $z = \sum_{i=1}^m k_i v^i \in K \cap \mathbb{Z}^m$, where $k_1, \dotsc, k_m \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$, such that $ K+z \subseteq K \cap \bigcap_{i=1}^t (K+x^i)$.
\end{lemma}

Let $W \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$.
For each $x \in \operatorname{cone}(W)$, Carath\'eodory's Theorem implies that there is a linearly independent set $W^i \subseteq W$ such that $x \in \operatorname{cone}(W^i)$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eqCover}
\textstyle
\operatorname{cone}(W) = \bigcup_{i=1}^s \operatorname{cone}(W^i),
\end{equation}
where $s \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $W^1, \dotsc, W^s \subseteq W$ are the linearly independent subsets of $W$.
The following lemma states that for a given lattice $\Lambda$, `most' of the points in $\operatorname{cone}(W) \cap \Lambda$ are found in translations of the subcones $\operatorname{cone}(W^1), \dotsc, \operatorname{cone}(W^s)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemAsymptoticGeneral}
Let $W \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$ be such that $\operatorname{cone}(W)$ is $m$-dimensional.
Let $s \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $W^1 ,\dotsc, W^s \subseteq W$ be as in~\eqref{eqCover}.
Let $\Lambda \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$ be a lattice and assume that $W^1, \dotsc, W^s \subseteq \Lambda$.
For each $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$, choose any $k_w \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$, and define $z^i  := \sum_{w \in W^i} k_w w$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqLimit1}
\lim_{t \to \infty}
\frac
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap (\operatorname{cone}(W^i)+z^i))|}
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap \operatorname{cone}(W^i))|} =  1.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ set $K^i := \operatorname{cone}(W^i)$.
The fraction in~\eqref{eqLimit1} equals
\[
 1 - \frac{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcap_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [\operatorname{cone}(W) \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|},
\]
which is at least as large as
\[
 1 - \frac{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}.
\]
Thus, in order to prove~\eqref{eqLimit1}, it is enough to prove
\begin{equation}\label{eqLimit0}
\lim_{t \to \infty}
\frac{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|} = 0.
\end{equation}
By assumption, $\operatorname{cone}(W)$ is $m$-dimensional.
Thus, we may assume that the sets $W^1, \dotsc, W^s$ each have $m$ linearly independent vectors.

Let $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ and $L^i \subseteq \Lambda \cap K^i$ be the $\Lambda$ points that are coordinate-wise at most one more than $z^i$ in the coordinate system defined by $W^i$:
\[
\textstyle
L^i := \{ \sum_{w \in W^i} \beta_w w : \beta_w \in \mathbb{R} \text{ and } 0 \le \beta_w \le k_w+1~\forall~ w \in W^i \} \cap \Lambda.
\]
The set $L^i$ is finite.

The numerator of~\eqref{eqLimit0} considers $\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i + z^i)]$, so take $y \in \Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)]$.
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eqYinHPlane}
\textstyle
y \in r + \{ \sum_{w \in I} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} ~\forall ~ w \in I \},
\end{equation}
where $r \in L^i$ and $I \subseteq W^i$ with $|I| \le m-1$.
Write $y$ as
\(
y = \sum_{w \in W^i} \gamma_w w,
\)
where $\gamma_w \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$ and $\gamma_{\bar{w}} < k_{\bar{w}}$ for some $\bar{w} \in W^i$.
We have $y - \tau w \in \Lambda$ for each $w \in W^i\setminus\{\bar{w}\}$ and $\tau \in \mathbb{Z}$ because $W^i\subseteq \Lambda$ and $y \in \Lambda$.
In particular, $y -\floor{\gamma_w} w \in \Lambda \cap K^i$ and
\(
y - \sum_{w \in V} \floor{\gamma_w} w \in L^i,
\)
where $V := \{w \in W^i : \gamma_w > k_w +1\}$.
This proves~\eqref{eqYinHPlane}.
Note that we use the fact that $L^i$ is defined by $\beta_w \le k_w+1$ rather than $\beta_w \le k_w$:
if $L^i$ was defined by $\beta_w \le k_w$, then in the extreme case $0 = k_w$ and $\gamma_w \in (0,1)$, the vector $y - \floor{\gamma_w} w = y$ is not in $L^i$.

We use the fact that $|I| < m$ to show $\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i + z^i)]$ is contained in finite union of lower dimensional spaces.
Although we showed $|I| \le m-1$, we can assume $|I| = m-1$ by extending it arbitrarily to have $m-1$ columns and setting $\lambda_w = 0$ for these new columns.
Hence,
\begin{align}\label{eqBadSet}
&   \bigcup_{i=1}^s \Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)]\nonumber\\
\subseteq &
\bigcup_{i = 1}^s ~
\bigcup_{r \in L^i} ~
\bigcup_{\substack {I \subseteq W^i\\ |I| = m-1}} r + \bigg\{ \sum_{w \in I} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} ~\forall ~ w \in I \bigg\}.
\end{align}

For each $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ and $I \subseteq W^i$ with $|I| = m-1$, define the polytope
\[
\textstyle
P^{(i,I)} := \{ \sum_{w\in I} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in [0,1] ~\forall ~ w \in I \}.
\]
By assumption, $w \in \Lambda$ for each $w \in I$, so the vertices of $P^{(i,I)}$ are in $\Lambda$.
Ehrhart theory then implies that there is a polynomial $\pi^{(i,I)}(t)$ of degree $m-1$ such that
\[
\textstyle
\pi^{(i,I)}(t) = | tP^{(i,I)}  \cap \Lambda | =  |\{ \sum_{w \in I} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in [0,t] ~ \forall ~ w \in I \} \cap \Lambda|
\]
for each $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$.
The leading coefficient of $\pi^{(i,I)}$ is the $(m-1)$ dimensional volume of $P^{(i,I)}$, which is positive, see~\cite[Chapter VIII]{barv}.
Similarly, for the polytope
\[
\textstyle
P^{i} := \{ \sum_{w \in W^i} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in [0,1] ~\forall ~ w \in W^i \}
\]
there exists a polynomial $\pi^i(t)$ of degree $m$ with positive leading coefficient such that for each $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$
\[
\textstyle
\pi^i(t) = |tP^{i} \cap \Lambda | =  | \{ \sum_{w \in W^i} \lambda_w w : \lambda_w \in [0,t]  ~\forall~ w \in W^i\} \cap \Lambda |.
\]

Define
\[
\textstyle
d := \max\{ \| r + \sum_{w \in I} w \| _{\infty} : i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}, ~ r \in L^i,~ I \subseteq W^i \text{ with } |I| \le m-1\}.
\]
We show that the values in~\eqref{eqLimit0} go to zero as $t \to \infty$ by bounding the fraction
\[
\frac{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}
\]
for each $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$.
By the definition of $d$, $t P^{i} \subseteq \{-td, \dotsc, td\}^m \cap K^i$ for every $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$.
So for each $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$, say $i =1$, it follows that
\[
\pi^1(t) =   |tP^1 \cap \Lambda | \le |\{-td, \dotsc, td\}^m \cap \Lambda \cap K^1| \le \bigg|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)\bigg|.
\]
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eqBound1}
\frac{1}{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap  \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}
\le
\frac{1}{\pi^1(t)}.
\end{equation}

If $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ and $y \in \{-td, \dotsc, td\}^m \cap \Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)]$, then, by~\eqref{eqBadSet}, $y = r + \sum_{w \in I} \lambda_w w$ for $r \in L^i$, $I \subseteq W^i$ with $|I| = m-1$, and $\lambda_w \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in I$.
This implies that
\[
\textstyle
\|\sum_{w \in I} \lambda_w w\|_{\infty} = \| y - r \|_{\infty}  \le \|y\|_{\infty} + \|r\|_{\infty} \le td + d = (t+1)d.
\]
Hence,
\[
\{-td, \dotsc, td\}^m \cap \Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i) ]\subseteq
\bigcup_{r \in L^i} ~
\bigcup_{\substack {I \subseteq W^i\\ |I| = m-1}} r + (t+1)d P^{(i,I)}.
\]
If $r \in L^i$, then by the definition of $L^i$, $r \in \Lambda$.
This implies that the number of $\Lambda$ points in $r + (t+1)d P^{(i,I)}$ is equal to $\pi^{(i,I)}((t+1)d)$.
So,
\begin{align}
 |\{-td, \dotsc, td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|
 \le
 \sum_{i=1}^s ~
\sum_{r \in L^i} ~
\sum_{\substack {I \subseteq W^i\\ |I| = m-1}} \pi^{(i,I)}((t+1)d).\label{eqBound2}
\end{align}

The polynomial on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eqBound2}, call it $\psi(t+1)$, is of degree $m-1$ and has a positive leading coefficient.
Also, by~\eqref{eqBound1} and~\eqref{eqBound2},
\[
\frac{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}
 \le \frac{\psi(t+1)}{\pi^1(t)}.
\]
Recall that $\pi^1$ is of degree $m$, $\psi$ is of degree $m-1$, and $\psi$ and $\pi^1$ have positive leading coefficients.
Moreover, the limit as $t \to \infty$ is the same as $td \to \infty$.
Hence,
\begin{align*}
 &\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}  \\
= &
\lim_{t \to \infty}  \frac{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap [K^i \setminus (K^i+z^i)])|}
{|\{-td, ..., td\}^m \cap \bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap K^i)|}
=  \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{\psi(t+1)}{\pi^1(t)} = 0. \hspace{.25 in} \qed
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thmMainProb}}\label{secMainProb}

The assumption $\operatorname{cone}(A) = \operatorname{cone}(W)$ indicates that we can write $\operatorname{cone}(A)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eqCoverA}
\textstyle \operatorname{cone}(A) = \bigcup_{i=1}^s \operatorname{cone}(W^i),
\end{equation}
where $s \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$ and $W^1, \dotsc, W^s \subseteq W$ are linearly independent sets; see~\eqref{eqCover}.
Also, $A$ has full row rank, so we assume that $W^1, \dotsc, W^s$ each contain $m$ linearly independent vectors.
For $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$, let $K^i := \operatorname{cone}(W^i)$.

First, we prove $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le m + \phi^{\max}(A)$.
In order to do this, we find a lattice $\Lambda$ and points $z^1 \in K^1, \dotsc, z^s \in K^s$ such that
\[
\sigma(A,b) \le m + \phi^{\max}(W) \quad \forall ~ b \in (\Lambda \cap (K^1 + z^1)) \cup \dotsc \cup (\Lambda \cap (K^s + z^s))
\]
and $\Lambda$ contains every $ b \in \mathbb{Z}^m $ such that $ P(A,b)  \neq \emptyset $.
With these values, we will be able to apply Lemma~\ref{lemAsymptoticGeneral} to prove the desired result.

Fix $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ and set
\(
\phi^i := \phi(W^i).
\)
Let $G_{W^i}(\mathbb{Z}^m)$ be the group defined in Section~\ref{secGroup}.
In view of Lemma~\ref{lemGroupDecomp}, there exist $w^1, \dotsc, w^{t} \in A$ with $t \le \phi^i$ and
\[
G_{W^i}(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^{t}\}) = G_{W^i}(A).
\]
We emphasize that the choice of $w^1, \dotsc, w^{t}$ depends on $W^i$.
Define the lattice
\[
\Lambda^i  := \bigg\{\sum_{h \in G_{W^i}(A)} k_h h + \sum_{w \in W^i} p_w w : k_h \in \mathbb{Z} ~ \forall ~ h \in G_{W^i}(A),~ p_w \in \mathbb{Z} ~\forall ~ w \in W^i \bigg\}.
\]
In Lemma~\ref{lemmaAllSame}, we show that $\Lambda^i$ does not depend on $i$.
Lemma~\ref{lemSubgroup} implies that $\Lambda^i \supseteq \{g \in G_{W^i}(\mathbb{Z}^m) : \exists ~ b \in \mathbb{Z}^m \text{ such that }\rho_{W^i}(b) = g \text{ and }P(A,b) \neq \emptyset\}$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eqInfeasibleCond}
\text{if } b \not \in \Lambda^i \text{ (equivalently, if } \rho_{W^i}(b) \not \in G_{W^i}(A))\text{, then }  P(A,b) = \emptyset.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemmaSuffCond1}
There exists $z^i \in \Lambda^i \cap K^i $ that satisfies the following: for every $ b \in (K^i + z^i)\cap \mathbb{Z}^m $, either $ b \not \in \Lambda^i $ (so $P(A,b) = \emptyset$) by~\eqref{eqInfeasibleCond}) or $\sigma(A,b) \le m + \phi^i$.
The vector $z^i$ satisfies $z^i = \sum_{w \in W^i}k_w w$, where $k_w \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{cpl}
For each $g \in G_{W^i}(A) = G_{W^i}(\{w^1, \dotsc, w^{t}\})$, there exists $x^g \in \mathbb{Z}^m$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqResidueReps}
\textstyle
x^g - g = \sum_{w \in W^i} \tau_w w \quad \text{and} \quad x^g = \sum_{w \in W^i} q_w w + \sum_{\ell=1}^{t}  p_{\ell} w^{\ell},
\end{equation}
where $\tau_w \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $q_w \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$ and $p_1, \dotsc, p_{t} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemOverlappingConesMany}, there exists
\(
z^i \in \Lambda^i \cap K^i
\)
such that $\rho_{W^i}(z^i) = 0$ and
\(
K^i + z^i \subseteq K^i  \cap \bigcap_{g \in G_{W^i}(A)} (K^i + x^g).
\)
Let $b \in (K^i + z^i) \cap \mathbb{Z}^m$ such that $P(A,b) \neq \emptyset$.
By~\eqref{eqInfeasibleCond}, there is a $g \in G_{W^i}(A)$ such that $\rho_{W^i}(b) = g$.
So, by~\eqref{eqResidueReps},
\begin{equation}\label{eqFinalRep}
\textstyle
\begin{array}{rcl}
b
= g + \sum_{w \in W^i} \bar{\tau}_{w} w
&=& x^g + \sum_{w \in W^i} ( \bar{\tau}_{w} -  \tau_w) w\\[.15 cm]
&= &\sum_{\ell=1}^t  p_{\ell} w^{\ell} + \sum_{w \in W^i} (q_{w} + \bar{\tau}_w -   \tau_w ) w,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\tau}_w \in \mathbb{Z}$ for each $w \in W^i$.
Note $\bar{\tau}_{w} -  \tau_w \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$ because $b \in K^i + z^i \subseteq K^i + x^g$.
Thus, $P(A,b) \neq \emptyset$ and $\sigma(A,b) \le |W^i| + t \le m + \phi^i$.
\end{cpl}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemmaAllSame}
For every pair $i,j \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$, the lattices $\Lambda^i$ and $\Lambda^j$ are equal.
\end{lemma}
\begin{cpl}
It is enough to show that $\Lambda^1 \subseteq \Lambda^2$.
Let $x \in \Lambda^1$.
By Lemmata~\ref{lemOverlappingConesMany} and~\ref{lemmaSuffCond1}, there is a point $y \in (K^1 + z^1) \cap \Lambda^1$ such that $\rho_{W^1}(y) = \rho_{W^1}(x)$.
Also, by Lemma~\ref{lemmaSuffCond1}, $P(A,y) \neq \emptyset$.
Hence, by~\eqref{eqInfeasibleCond}, $y \in \Lambda^2$.
Similarly, $w \in \Lambda^2$ for each $w \in W^1$.
These inclusions along with $\rho_{W^1}(y) = \rho_{W^1}(x)$ imply $x \in \Lambda^2$.
\end{cpl}

Set $\Lambda := \Lambda^1 = \dotsc = \Lambda^s$.
Lemma~\ref{lemmaSuffCond1} implies that
\[
\textstyle
\bigcup_{i=1}^s (\Lambda \cap (K^i+z^i)) \subseteq \{b \in \mathbb{Z}^m : \sigma(A,b) \le m +\phi^{\max}\}.
\]
By~\eqref{eqCoverA} and~\eqref{eqInfeasibleCond}, it follows that
\[
\textstyle
\{b \in \mathbb{Z}^m : P(A,b) \neq \emptyset\}
\subseteq
\operatorname{cone}(A) \cap \Lambda
=
\bigcup_{i=1}^s \Lambda \cap K^i
\]
Hence, for each $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 1}$, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{eqFinalLimit}
& ~ \frac
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m : \sigma(A,b) \le m +\phi^{\max}\}|}
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m : P(A,b) \neq \emptyset\}|} \nonumber\\[.1 cm]
\ge & ~
\frac
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m \cap \left( \bigcup_{i=1}^s \Lambda \cap (K^i+z^i) \right) \}|}
{|\{b \in \{-t, ..., t\}^m  \cap \left( \bigcup_{i=1}^s \Lambda \cap K^i \right)\}|}.
\end{align}

By Lemma~\ref{lemAsymptoticGeneral}, it follows that $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le m +\phi^{\max}(W)$.
Also, the inequality $\phi^i \le \log_2(|\det(W^i)|)$ for each $i \in \{1, \dotsc, s\}$ implies $\phi^{\max}(W) \le \log_2(\delta^{\max}(W))$ and $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le m + \phi^{\max}(W) \le m + \log_2(\delta^{\max}(W))$.

Consider the inequality $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m +\phi^{\min}(W)$.
Without loss of generality, $\phi^1 \le \dotsc \le \phi^s$.
Let $z^1 \in K^1 \cap \Lambda$ be given from Lemma~\ref{lemmaSuffCond1}.
Let $i \in \{2, \dotsc, s\}$.
Using Lemma~\ref{lemOverlappingConesMany} and the fact that $K^1 + z^1$ is $m$-dimensional, the representative set $\{x^g : g \in G_{W^i}(A)\}$ from~\eqref{eqResidueReps} can be chosen in $K^1 + z^1$.
Let $b \in K^i+z^i$.
By~\eqref{eqFinalRep}, there exists a $g \in G_{W^i}(A)$ such that
\[
\textstyle
b= x^g + \sum_{w \in W^i} ( \bar{\tau}_{w} -   \tau_w ) w,
\]
where $\bar{\tau}_{w} -   \tau_w \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ for each $w \in W^i$.
The point $x^g$ is in $K^1 + z^1$, so $P(A, x^g) \neq \emptyset$ and there are $w^1, \dotsc, w^{m+ \phi_1} \in A$ such that
\(
x^g = \sum_{i=1}^{m+ \phi_1} q_\ell w^{\ell},
\)
where  $q_1, \dotsc, q_{m+\phi_1} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$.
So,
\[
\textstyle
b= \sum_{\ell=1}^{m+ \phi_1} q_\ell w^{\ell} + \sum_{w \in W^i} ( \bar{\tau}_{w} -   k_w ) w.
\]
Thus, $P(A,b) \neq \emptyset$ and $\sigma(A,b) \le 2m + \phi^1 = 2m +\phi^{\min}(W)$.
Hence, $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m +\phi^{\min}(W)$.

Finally, assume $\log_2(\delta^{\min}(W)) = \log_2(W^2)$.
Observe that $\phi(W^2) \le \log_2(W^2)$, so $\sigma^{\text{asy}}(A) \le 2m + \phi^{\min}(W) \le 2m + \log_2(\delta^{\min}(W))$.
 \qed

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

The authors would like to thank anonymous referees for helping to improve the presentation of the paper and Marie Putscher for identifying a typo in the proof of Lemma 4.

\bibliographystyle{splncs04}