Strictly monotone mean-variance preferences with applications to portfolio selection

Extracted source text · arXiv 2412.13523

\documentclass{article}

\baselineskip=12pt
\linespread{1.25}
%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
\parindent=11pt
\parskip \medskipamount
\pagestyle{plain}
\overfullrule=5pt

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{a4paper,left=1in,right=1in,top=1in,bottom=1in}
\usepackage{titling}
\setlength{\droptitle}{-6em}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{authblk}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,bm,bbm}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\esssup}{ess\,sup}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\essinf}{ess\,inf}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\Tr}{Tr}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\diag}{diag}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\Span}{span}
\usepackage{mathrsfs,stmaryrd}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\usepackage{stmaryrd}
\SetSymbolFont{stmry}{bold}{U}{stmry}{m}{n}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\usepackage{subdepth}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{diagbox}
\usepackage{pdfpages}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage[centerlast]{caption}
\usepackage[plainpages=false,hyperfootnotes=false]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,urlcolor=blue,linkcolor=red,citecolor=blue}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\crefname{equation}{\hspace{-0.4em}}{\hspace{-0.4em}}
\crefrangeformat{equation}{(#3#1#4)--(#5#2#6)}
\usepackage{bookmark}
\usepackage{framed}
\usepackage{enumitem}
%\setenumerate[1]{itemsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt,parsep=\parskip,topsep=0pt}
%\setitemize[1]{itemsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt,parsep=\parskip,topsep=0pt}
%\setdescription{itemsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt,parsep=\parskip,topsep=0pt}
\usepackage{apacite}
%\makeatletter \renewcommand{\@biblabel}[1]{#1.}\makeatother
%\usepackage{showkeys}
%\usepackage{lineno}\linenumbers


\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{assumption}[theorem]{Assumption}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
%\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\renewenvironment{proof}{\noindent {\bf Proof.}}{\hfill $\Box$}
\allowdisplaybreaks[4]

\title{Strictly monotone mean-variance preferences \\ with dynamic portfolio management}
\date{\vspace{-6ex}}
\author[1]{Yike Wang}
\author[2]{Yusha Chen}
\affil[1]{School of Finance, Chongqing Technology and Business University, 

          Chongqing 400067, China.}
\affil[2]{School of Finance, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, 

          Chengdu 611130, China.}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This paper is devoted to extending the monotone mean-variance (MMV) preference to a large class of strictly monotone mean-variance (SMMV) preferences, and illustrating its application to single-period/continuous-time portfolio selection problems.
The properties and equivalent representations of the SMMV preference are also studied. 
To illustrate applications, we provide the gradient condition for the single-period portfolio problem with SMMV preferences, and investigate its association with the optimal mean-variance static strategy. 
For the continuous-time portfolio problem with SMMV preferences and continuous price processes, we %use the portfolio replicating method rather than dynamic programming to 
show the condition that the solution is the same as the corresponding optimal mean-variance strategy.
When this consistency condition is not satisfied, the primal problems are unbounded, and we turn to study a sequence of approximate linear-quadratic problems generated by penalty function method.
The solution can be characterized by stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs equation, but it is still difficult to derive a closed-form expression.
We take a joint adoption of embedding method and convex duality method to derive an analytical solution.
In particular, if the parameter that characterizes the strict monotonicity of SMMV preference is a constant, the solution can be given by two equations in the form of Black-Scholes formula.  
\end{abstract}

\noindent {\bf Keywords:} monotone mean-variance preference, portfolio selection, Fenchel conjugate, dynamic programming, stochastic Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs equation
\vspace{3mm}

\noindent {\bf AMS2010 classification:} Primary: 91G10, 49N10; Secondary: 91B05, 49N90
\vspace{3mm}

\noindent {\bf Correspondence:} Yike Wang, School of Finance, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing 400067, China. Email: wangyike7246@hotmail.com

\noindent {\bf Funding information:} National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 12401611 and CTBU Research Projects under Grant 2355010.


\section{Introduction}

The modern mean-variance (MV) analysis pioneered by \citeA{Markowitz-1952} has been widely applied to many scopes in the theory and practice of mathematical finance for decades.
For portfolio selection, an agent with MV preference try to improve the mean of the investment return and reduce its variance, since the mean and variance stand for average yield and risk, respectively.
However, unlike aiming to reduce errors for improving the accuracy of an automatic control system, where any deviation is undesired,
a positive deviation of random return on investments means there are opportunities for excess earnings.
It is not always appropriate to use variance as a penalty term for an objective functional, due to a lack of monotonicity of MV preference. See \citeA{Dybvig-Ingersoll-1982,Jarrow-Madan-1997}. 

As the example given by \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} shows, the lack of monotonicity of MV preference may yield a counterintuitive result.
That is, as the objective function is given by the net value that the mean exceeds the variance, an agent will choose prospect $f$ according to the following \Cref{tab: example given by Maccheroni et al}. 
However, any rational agent should choose $g$, because it is obvious that the payoff of $g$ statewise dominates over that of $f$ and the reverse is not true. 
\begin{table}[htbp!]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
    \hline
    State of nature & ${s}_{1}$ & ${s}_{2}$ & ${s}_{3}$ & ${s}_{4}$ \\
    \hline
    Probabilities & $0.25$ & $0.25$ & $0.25$ & $0.25$ \\
    Payoff of $f$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ \\
    Payoff of $g$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $5$ \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Example given by \protect\citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} with $\mathbb{E} [f] - \Var [f] > \mathbb{E} [g] - \Var [g]$.}
    \label{tab: example given by Maccheroni et al}
\end{table} \\
For general MV preferences, the economic rationality principle is also violated for some selection problems, see \Cref{rem: non-monotonicity of MV} and our example illustrated with \Cref{tab: strictly statewise dominance violates general MV preference}.   
To overcome the lack of monotonicity of MV preferences, \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} proposed a class of monotone mean-variance (MMV) preferences, 
based on the variational representation of MV preferences (see \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-2006}) with a minor modification.
In short, using the MMV preference to evaluate a random variable $f$ is equivalent to using the corresponding MV preference to evaluate some truncated random variable $f \wedge {\lambda }_{f}$.
Intuitively speaking, it is rational to employ the MV preferences for portfolio selection, only if those sufficiently large positive deviations of total return are not taken into account.

In the past few years, MMV preference has attracted much attention of researchers, and acts as the objective function for dynamic portfolio selection. 
For example, \citeA{Trybula-Zawisza-2019} studied the continuous-time portfolio problems with MMV preferences, where a stochastic factor is incorporated in the model dynamics, and found that its solution is identical to the problem with MV preferences.
\citeA{Cerny-2020} investigated these problems in a general semi-martingale model, where the seemly unusual objective function is exactly equivalent to the commonly employed form. 
It is also mentioned in Corollary 5.5 therein that a continuous price process will result in the consistency of optimized MV and MMV objective functions. 
Besides, \citeA{Strub-Li-2020} provided a theoretical proof for the consistency of optimal MV and MMV portfolio strategies for continuous semi-martingale price processes.
Even though there exist some convex cone trading constraints in the market, the consistency of optimal MV and MMV portfolio strategies remains,
see \citeA{Shen-Zou-2022} for the deterministic coefficient case and \citeA{Hu-Shi-Xu-2023} for the random coefficient case. 

Recently, researchers considered the dynamic portfolio problems with MMV preferences in jump-diffusion models, and obtained some new results different from the optimal MV portfolio strategies.
For seeking optimal investment-reinsurance strategies, \citeA{Li-Guo-Tian-2023} extended their previous work \citeA{Li-Guo-2021}, where the claim process is a diffusion approximation, to the case with the classical Cram\'er-Lundberg model.
Apart from that, \citeA{Li-Liang-Pang-2022} made detailed comparisons between the optimal MMV and MV portfolio strategies in a jump-diffusion model, as well as validating the two-fund separation and establishing the monotone capital asset pricing model.
\citeA{Li-Liang-Pang-2023} compared the optimal MMV and MV portfolio strategies in a L\'evy market, and found the condition that make these two strategies the same.
In line with \citeA{Strub-Li-2020}, it was found that the discontinuity of market results in the difference between MMV and MV portfolio selections.

Despite so many excellent studies, there is still a fundamental flaw that are overlooked.
That is, due to the lack of strict monotonicity of MMV preferences, a counterintuitive result arises.
Let us return to the abovementioned example given by \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}; see also \Cref{tab: example given by Maccheroni et al}.
Applying \citeA[Theorem B.1]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} that gives the abovementioned truncation level $( {\lambda }_{f}, {\lambda }_{g} )$ corresponding to $( f, g )$, 
one can find that the selection problem is reduced to choosing between $f \wedge 2.5$ and $g \wedge 2.5$ with the abovementioned MV preference; 
see also \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} and \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq} with $\theta = 2$ and $\zeta \equiv 0$.
Obviously, $f \wedge 2.5 = g \wedge 2.5$ for every state of nature.
Thus, the agents with the given MMV preference could freely choose either of the two.   
However, if there are plenty of rational agents faced with this problem, or a rational agent is supposed to address this problem many times, the answers will always be choosing $g$! 
In other words, MMV preferences do not stand up repeated tests.

To tackle this drawback of MMV preferences, we make a minor modification in the Fenchel conjugate for generating the MMV preference, inspired by the celebrated envelope theorem.
This inspiration can also be found in \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-2006} for the variational representation of preferences.
As a result, we obtain a class of strictly monotone mean-variance (SMMV) preferences. 
See \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq} for the definition and \Cref{thm: strict monotonicity of SMMV} for the strict monotonicity.
As \Cref{thm: strict monotonicity of SMMV} says, our SMMV preferences gives different evaluation results for any non-identical prospects that one statewise dominates over the other. 

Apart from that, for the continuous-time portfolio problem with our SMMV preferences, the optimal SMMV and MV dynamic portfolio strategies are not necessarily the same, 
even though the dynamic model without any discontinuity of market is conventional and simple.
The consistency of the optimal SMMV and MV portfolio strategies depends on a random variable (denoted by $\zeta $) that one can artificially choose to characterize the strict monotonicity.
In fact, the consistency holds if and only if $\zeta $ is almost surely less than the Radon-Nikod\'ym derivative for the risk-neutral measure.

In this paper, we systematically study the SMMV preferences and the related portfolio selection problems.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
\emph{Firstly}, we propose a class of SMMV preferences and show the inspiration to facilitate the understanding and inspire future research.
The properties and equivalent expressions of SMMV preferences are investigated, which are parallel to those in \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}.
For example, a SMMV preference can also be represented as truncated quadratic utility (see \Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}) 
and as the minimum/maximum of some class of MV utility (see \Cref{thm: minimality of SMMV,thm: maximality of SMMV}).
\emph{Secondly}, we study the single-period static portfolio problems with SMMV preferences.
We investigate the existence and uniqueness for the optimal SMMV static strategy without the finiteness of probability space as assumed in \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009},
and compare the optimal SMMV and MV static strategies, between which the gap can be briefly represented by a Lagrange multiplier.
\emph{Thirdly}, we study the continuous-time dynamic portfolio problems with SMMV preferences.
We take the portfolio replicating method, instead of dynamic programming, to show under which condition the optimal SMMV and MV dynamic strategies are the same.
Unless this condition is satisfied, we reduce the problems to stochastic differential games between the investor and the incarnation of market, and find that the reduced problems are unbounded.
We employ the penalty function method and consider a sequence of approximate linear-quadratic problems without the abovementioned unboundedness.
However, distinct from the literature, e.g., \citeA{Trybula-Zawisza-2019}, it is still difficult to derive the explicit solution of those approximate problems via dynamic programming.
We take a joint adoption of the embedding method (pioneered by \citeA{Li-Ng-2000,Zhou-Li-2000}) and the convex duality method to express the solution by martingale representation.

\emph{In particular}, we consider the case with constant parameter that characterizes the strict monotonicity.
For expressing the solution, it is supposed to solve a system of two equations that like the Black-Scholes formula.
\emph{Notably}, since the abovementioned monotonicity parameter is allowed to be random, 
we are supposed to solve backward stochastic partial differential equations (BSPDEs) as Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs (HJBI) equations when employing the dynamic programming principle.
The existence and uniqueness of their solution is obvious, since our method is straightforward derivation rather than testing some construction.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
In \Cref{sec: Strictly monotone mean-variance preference}, we display the definition and properties of SMMV preferences.  
To illustrate the application of SMMV preferences, we study the single-period portfolio selection problem with SMMV preferences in \Cref{sec: Static portfolio selection}
and the continuous-time portfolio selection problem in \Cref{sec: Continuous-time dynamic portfolio management}.
In \Cref{sec: Concluding remark}, we make a brief concluding remark.
The proofs of lemmas, theorems and propositions for this work are collected in \Cref{app: Proof}.


\section{Strictly monotone mean-variance preference}
\label{sec: Strictly monotone mean-variance preference}

\subsection{MMV preference revisited}
\label{subsec: MMV preference revisited}

Let $( \Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P} )$ be a complete probability space, and $\mathbb{E} [ \cdot ]$ and $\Var [ \cdot ]$ respectively denote the expectation operator and variance operator under the probability measure $\mathbb{P}$.
For the sake of brevity, we denote by $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ the collection of all $\mathcal{F}$-measurable and square-integrable random variables on $( \Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P} )$,
which is equipped with the norm $\| \cdot \|_{ \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } := ( \mathbb{E} [ | \cdot |^{2} ] )^{1/2}$,
and introduce the subsets $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ) = \{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): f \ge 0, \mathbb{P}-a.s. \}$, $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{++} ( \mathbb{P} ) = \{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): f > 0, \mathbb{P}-a.s. \}$
and $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) := \{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): f \ge \zeta, \mathbb{P}-a.s. \}$ for $\zeta \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$.

The conventional MV objective function ${U}_{\theta }: \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \to \mathbb{R}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{U}_{\theta } (f) := \mathbb{E} [f] - \frac{\theta }{2} \Var [f]
                   = \int_{\Omega } \Big( f - \frac{\theta }{2} ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] )^{2} \Big) d \mathbb{P},
\label{eq: MV preference :eq}
\end{equation} 
where the preassigned $\theta > 0$ represents the risk aversion to variance (see also \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}).
In view that 
\begin{equation*}
\big| {U}_{\theta } ( f + g ) - {U}_{\theta } (f) - \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( 1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] ) \big) g \big] \big| = \frac{\theta }{2} \Var [g] \le \frac{\theta }{2} \mathbb{E} [ |g|^{2} ] = o ( \| g \|_{ \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } ),
\quad \forall f,g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ),
\end{equation*} 
${U}_{\theta }$ is Fr\'echet differentiable, and hence G\^ateaux differentiable.
Hereafter, with a slight abuse of notation, we denote by $d {U}_{\theta } (f) = 1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] )$ the G\^ateaux derivative of $d {U}_{\theta }$ at $f$, as 
\begin{equation*}
d {U}_{\theta } (f) (g) := \lim_{ \varepsilon \downarrow 0 } \frac{ {U}_{\theta } ( f + \varepsilon g ) - {U}_{\theta } (f) }{\varepsilon } = \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( 1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] ) \big) g \big]
\end{equation*}
gives a continuous linear functional $d {U}_{\theta } (f) ( \cdot ) \in ( \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )^{*}$ in a rigorous sense.
According to \citeA[Proposition 1.8, p. 5]{Phelps-1993}, ${U}_{\theta }$ is G\^ateaux differentiable at $f$, 
iff the superdifferential $\partial {U}_{\theta } (f) := \{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): {U}_{\theta } (g) \le {U}_{\theta } (f) + \mathbb{E} [ Y ( g-f ) ], ~ \forall g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \}$ is a singleton.
As a result, $\partial {U}_{\theta } (f) = \{ 1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] ) \}$.

\begin{remark}\label{rem: non-monotonicity of MV}
\citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} introduced the domain of monotonicity of ${U}_{\theta }$ as the following:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{G}_{\theta } := \{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): \partial {U}_{\theta } (f) \cap \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ) \ne \varnothing \} 
                       = \Big\{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): f - \mathbb{E} [f] \le \frac{1}{\theta }, \ \mathbb{P}-a.s. \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
This is the convex and closed subset of $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ where the G\^ateaux derivative of ${U}_{\theta }$ is non-nagetive.
For any $f,g \in \mathcal{G}_{\theta }$ with $f \le g$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., ${U}_{\theta } (f) \le {U}_{\theta } (g)$ follows.
However, for any $f \notin \mathcal{G}_{\theta }$, there exists $g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ that is $\varepsilon $-close to $f$ such that $g > f$ but ${U}_{\theta } (f) > {U}_{\theta } (g)$.
See \citeA[Lemma 2.1]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}.
This exactly shows the drawback of the conventional MV objective functions.
Apart from that, the following outcome of a single coin toss with 50/50 probability of heads and tails could intuitively illustrate this drawback in monotonicity.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
    \hline
    $h ( \text{head} ) = \frac{1}{\theta }$ & $h ( \text{tail} ) = - \frac{1}{\theta }$ 
    & $\esssup h - \mathbb{E} [h] = \frac{1}{\theta } $ 
    & ${U}_{\theta } (h) = - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta }$ \\
    \hline
    $g ( \text{head} ) = \frac{1}{\theta } + \varepsilon $ & $g ( \text{tail} ) = - \frac{1}{\theta }$ 
    & $\esssup g - \mathbb{E} [g] = \frac{1}{\theta } + \frac{\varepsilon }{2}$ 
    & ${U}_{\theta } (g) = - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } - \frac{\theta }{8} {\varepsilon }^{2}$ \\
    \hline
    $f ( \text{head} ) = \frac{1}{\theta } - \frac{\theta }{9} {\varepsilon }^{2}$ & $f ( \text{tail} ) = - \frac{1}{\theta } - \frac{\theta }{9} {\varepsilon }^{2}$ 
    & $\esssup f - \mathbb{E} [f] = \frac{1}{\theta }$ 
    & ${U}_{\theta } (f) = - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } - \frac{\theta }{9} {\varepsilon }^{2}$ \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{For any $\theta, \varepsilon > 0$, $g \notin \mathcal{G}_{\theta }$ statewise dominates over $f \in \mathcal{G}_{\theta }$, but ${U}_{\theta } (g) < {U}_{\theta } (f)$.}
    \label{tab: strictly statewise dominance violates general MV preference}
\end{table} 
\end{remark}

Now we turn to consider the Fenchel conjugate of ${U}_{\theta }$ as the following:
\begin{equation}
{U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) := \inf_{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta } (f) \}, \quad Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ).
\label{eq: Fenchel conjugate of MV :eq}
\end{equation}
As a point-wise infimum of some affine functions of $Y$, ${U}_{\theta }^{*}$ is concave. 
If there exists $c \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $f = c$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., then $\mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta } (f) = c ( \mathbb{E}^{P} [Y] - 1 )$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
{U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \le \inf_{ c \in \mathbb{R} } c ( \mathbb{E} [Y] - 1 )
= \left\{ \begin{aligned} & 0, && if \ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1; \\
                          & - \infty, && otherwise. \end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
This implies that ${U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) = - \infty $ if $\mathbb{E} [Y] \ne 1$.
In the case with $\mathbb{E} [Y] = 1$, we conclude that the minimizer $\hat{f}$ for the right-hand side of \cref{eq: Fenchel conjugate of MV :eq} fulfills $Y = 1 - \theta ( \hat{f} - \mathbb{E} [ \hat{f} ] )$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
by the first-order derivative condition for optimality $0 = \mathbb{E} [ Y {1}_{A} ] - \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} d {U}_{\theta } ( \hat{f} ) ] \equiv \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} ( Y - 1 + \theta ( \hat{f} - \mathbb{E} [ \hat{f} ] ) ) ]$ for any $A \in \mathcal{F}$,
or the G\^ateaux derivative condition for optimality $Y = d {U}_{\theta } ( \hat{f} )$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
Therefore, in this case,
\begin{equation}
  {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) 
= \mathbb{E} [ Y \hat{f} ] - \mathbb{E} [ \hat{f} ] + \frac{\theta }{2} \mathbb{E} \big[ ( \hat{f} - \mathbb{E} [ \hat{f} ] )^{2} \big]
= - \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] - 1 ).
\label{eq: Fenchel conjugate of MV on effective domain :eq}
\end{equation}

Fenchel-Moreau theorem (for Hilbert spaces, see \citeA[Theorem 13.37]{Bauschke-Combettes-2017}) indicates that the concave function ${U}_{\theta }$ exactly equals to the Fenchel conjugate of ${U}_{\theta }^{*}$,
which is also known as the variational representation of MV preference, see \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-2006}. 
That is,
\begin{equation}
{U}_{\theta } (f) = \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \}
             \equiv \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1 } \Big\{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] + \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] - 1 ) \Big\};
\label{eq: biconjugate form of MV :eq}
\end{equation}
while the envelope theorem (see, e.g., \citeA{Milgrom-Segal-2002}) gives the fact that $d {U}_{\theta } (f)$ realizes the minimum.
\cite{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} made a minor modification on the second Fenchel conjugate and obtained the following MMV preference:
\begin{equation}
{V}_{\theta } (f) := \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \}.
\label{eq: biconjugate form of MMV :eq}
\end{equation}
As a point-wise infimum of some affine functions of $f$, ${V}_{\theta }$ is concave.
Moreover, if ${V}_{\theta }$ is G\^ateaux differentiable, then $d {V}_{\theta } (f)$ is the minimizer on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: biconjugate form of MMV :eq}.
Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{\theta } (g) \le \mathbb{E} [ g d {V}_{\theta } (f) ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} ( d {V}_{\theta } (f) ) = {V}_{\theta } (f) + \mathbb{E} [ ( g - f ) d {V}_{\theta } (f) ] \le {V}_{\theta } (f)
\end{equation*}
for any $f,g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $g \le f$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., which shows the monotonicity of ${V}_{\theta }$.
However, if $d {V}_{\theta } (f)$ vanishes on some non-trivial $A \in \mathcal{F}$,
then ${V}_{\theta } ( f + \varepsilon {1}_{A} ) \le {V}_{\theta } (f) + \varepsilon \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} d {V}_{\theta } (f) ] = {V}_{\theta } (f)$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$ due to the concavity of ${V}_{\theta }$,
and hence ${V}_{\theta } ( f + \varepsilon {1}_{A} ) = {V}_{\theta } (f)$. 
In other words, ${V}_{\theta }$ is not strictly monotone.

\begin{remark}\label{rem: measure optimization form of MMV}
Since $Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$ and $\mathbb{E} [Y] = 1$, one can define the probability measure $\mathbb{Q} \ll \mathbb{P}$ on $( \Omega, \mathcal{F} )$ by $\mathbb{Q} (A) = \int_{A} Y d \mathbb{P}$.
Thus, $Y = d \mathbb{Q} / d \mathbb{P}$ is the Radon-Nikod\'ym derivative, and 
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] + \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] - 1 ) 
= \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} [f] + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \bigg( \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \frac{ d \mathbb{Q} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \Big)^{2} \Big] - 1 \bigg),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}$ denotes the expectation operator under $\mathbb{Q}$.
Conversely, for $\mathbb{Q} \ll \mathbb{P}$, according to Radon-Nikod\'ym theorem, there exists a Radon-Nikod\'ym derivative $Y = d \mathbb{Q} / d \mathbb{P}$.
Therefore, \cref{eq: biconjugate form of MMV :eq} can be re-expressed as
\begin{equation}
  {V}_{\theta } (f) 
= \inf_{ \mathbb{Q} \ll \mathbb{P}, \frac{ d \mathbb{Q} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } 
  \bigg\{ \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} [f] + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \bigg( \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \frac{ d \mathbb{Q} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \Big)^{2} \Big] - 1 \bigg) \bigg\}
= \inf_{ \frac{ d \mathbb{Q} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } 
  \bigg\{ \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} [f] + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } C ( \mathbb{Q} \| \mathbb{P} ) \bigg\},
\label{eq: measure optimization form of MMV :eq}
\end{equation}
where $C ( \mathbb{Q} \| \mathbb{P} )$ is the so-called ``relative Gini concentration index'' given by
\begin{equation*}
  C ( \mathbb{Q} \| \mathbb{P} ) 
= \left\{ \begin{aligned}
          & \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \frac{ d \mathbb{Q} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \Big)^{2} \Big] - 1, && if ~ \mathbb{Q} \ll \mathbb{P}; \\
          & + \infty, && otherwise.
          \end{aligned} \right. 
\end{equation*}
The expression \cref{eq: measure optimization form of MMV :eq} can be also found in, e.g., \citeA{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009,Trybula-Zawisza-2019,Strub-Li-2020,Li-Guo-2021}.
\end{remark}

\subsection{SMMV preferences}

As a straightforward solution to the abovementioned non-strict monotonicity, with an artificially chosen $\zeta \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{++} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] < 1$,
we introduce the following concave function defined on $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$:
\begin{equation}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) := \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \},
\label{eq: definition of SMMV :eq}
\end{equation}
of which the lower and upper bounds are given by
${U}_{\theta } (f) \le {V}_{\theta } (f) \le {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \le \mathbb{E} [ \zeta f ] / \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} ( \zeta / \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )$.

\begin{remark}
If $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] = 1$, then $Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$ and ${U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \ne - \infty $ lead to $Y = \zeta $, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
This implies that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \mathbb{E} [ f \zeta ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} ( \zeta )$, which is an affine function of $f$.
In addition, if $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] > 1$, then ${U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) = - \infty $ for any $Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$, which leads to an improper ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$. 
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem: monotonicity in theta and zeta}
Since \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq} can be re-expressed by
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1 } \Big\{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] + \frac{1}{2 \theta } \Var [Y] \Big\},
\end{equation*}
one can conclude that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ is decreasing in $\theta $. 
Moreover, for any $\hat{\zeta } \ge \zeta $, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \hat{\zeta } + } ( \mathbb{P} ) \subseteq \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$ gives ${V}_{ \theta, \hat{\zeta } } (f) \ge {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$. 
Roughly speaking, ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ is increasing in $\zeta $. 
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: strict monotonicity of SMMV}
${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) \le {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] < {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ for any non-identical $f,g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $g \le f$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Given the quadratic function \cref{eq: Fenchel conjugate of MV on effective domain :eq}, 
it is easy to see that the minimum on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq} can be realized, and the minimizer (denoted by $\hat{Y}_{f}$) is unique.
Detailed results can be found in \Cref{pf-thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}.
Since $\hat{Y}_{f} \in \mathbb{L}_{ \zeta + }^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$, then
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) \le \mathbb{E} [ g \hat{Y}_{f} ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} ( \hat{Y}_{f} ) = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \hat{Y}_{f} ] \le {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] < {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)
\end{equation*}
for any non-identical $f,g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $g \le f$. So the proof is completed.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem: uniqueness of solution for LQ optimization problems}
If $Y$ is another minimizer for \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq}, 
then the convexity of $\mathbb{E} [ Y f ] + \Var [Y] / ( 2 \theta )$ in $Y$ ensures that
$\mathbb{E} [ ( \varepsilon Y + ( 1 - \varepsilon ) \hat{Y}_{f} ) f ] + \Var [ \varepsilon Y + ( 1 - \varepsilon ) \hat{Y}_{f} ] / ( 2 \theta )$ is a constant function for $\varepsilon $ on $[ 0,1 ]$,
of which the second derivative gives $\mathbb{E} [ | Y - \hat{Y}_{f} |^{2} ] = 0$. 
This method is also suitable to show the uniqueness of solution for linear-quadratic optimization problems in the sequel.
\end{remark}

By virtue of \Cref{thm: strict monotonicity of SMMV}, we can say that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ is strictly monotone.
Moreover, as $\zeta $ could vary, we have indeed constructed a class of strictly monotone mean-variance preferences ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, and the essential lower bound of their G\^ateaux derivative $d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ can be controlled by $\zeta $.
If $\zeta $ is allowed to vanish, then ${V}_{ \theta, 0 } = {V}_{\theta }$.
In the sequel, we are able to take $\zeta $ in $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] < 1$ to include the conventional MMV case and our SMMV cases,
although we still call ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ the SMMV preference to avoid additional names such as ``generalized MMV preference''.

\begin{remark}\label{rem: measure optimization form of SMMV}
In the same manner as in \Cref{rem: measure optimization form of MMV}, 
by employing the dummy variable replacement $Z = ( Y - \zeta ) / ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )$ and writing $\kappa := 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ]$ for the sake of brevity, 
we have
\begin{equation*}
    {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) 
= \mathbb{E} [ f \zeta ]
+ \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
  \bigg\{ \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) Z \Big] + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{2} ] \bigg\}
+ \frac{1}{2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} ] - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta },
\end{equation*}
which gives the same (total) order over all $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ as the following statement does: 
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ f \zeta ]
+ \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
  \bigg\{ \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) Z \Big] + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{2} ] \bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}

\subsection{Properties and equivalent expressions of SMMV preference}
\label{subsec: Properties of SMMV preference}

Let us begin with showing the domain where the SMMV, MMV and MV preferences are identical with the related truncation results.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: identity and truncation}
Fix $( \theta, \zeta ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] < 1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = {U}_{\theta } (f)$, if and only if
      \begin{align*}
      f \in
      \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } & := \{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): \partial {U}_{\theta } (f) \cap \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) \ne \varnothing \} \\
                                    &  = \Big\{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): f - \mathbb{E} [f] \le \frac{ 1 - \zeta }{\theta }, ~ \mathbb{P}-a.s. \Big\}
                               \subseteq \mathcal{G}_{\theta }.
      \end{align*}
\item $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ for any $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ and $\lambda \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, 
      where ${\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \in ( \essinf \{ f + \zeta / \theta \}, \mathbb{E} [f] + 1 / \theta ]$ uniquely fulfills
      \begin{equation}
        \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } 
      = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
      \equiv {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big].
      \label{eq: lambda-equation :eq}
      \end{equation}
\item $f \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, if and only if $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ and $f + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
      In other words, 
      \begin{equation*}
      \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } = \bigg\{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ): \esssup \Big\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big\} \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } = \mathbb{E} [f] + \frac{1}{\theta } \bigg\}.
      \end{equation*}
\item $f \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, if and only if $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ and $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ for some or every $\lambda > {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$.
      That is, 
      \begin{equation*}
      \sup \{ \lambda: f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } \}
      = \left\{ \begin{aligned}
        & {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }, && if ~ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \setminus \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }; \\
        & + \infty, && otherwise.
        \end{aligned} \right.
      \end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}\label{rem: truncation by other levels}
${\lambda }_{ f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ), \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, and it holds with equality for all $\lambda \ge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, 
since
\begin{align*}
    \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta }
&   = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
    = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{\mathbb{R}} {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \}} ds \bigg] \\
& \le \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{\mathbb{R}} {1}_{\{ ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } ) \wedge \lambda \le s \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \}} ds \bigg]
    = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \bigg( f \wedge \Big( \lambda - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \bigg) ds,
\end{align*}
with equality for $\lambda \ge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$.
Intuitively speaking, when $\lambda \ge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) + \zeta / \theta $ and $f + \zeta / \theta $ have the same distribution on $( - \infty, {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ]$,
and hence the solution of \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} remains unchanged even if $f$ is replaced by $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta )$ therein.
\end{remark}

The proof of \Cref{lem: identity and truncation} is left to \Cref{pf-lem: identity and truncation}.
This first assertion of \Cref{lem: identity and truncation} with its proof provides the following comparison results for $\zeta \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{++} ( \mathbb{P} )$:
\begin{itemize}
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } = {V}_{\theta } = {U}_{\theta }$ on $\mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$;
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } > {V}_{\theta } = {U}_{\theta }$ on $\mathcal{G}_{\theta } \setminus \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$;
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } > {V}_{\theta } > {U}_{\theta }$ on $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \setminus \mathcal{G}_{\theta }$.
\end{itemize}
Apart from that, $c {1}_{\Omega } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ and ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( c {1}_{\Omega } ) = {U}_{\theta } ( c {1}_{\Omega } ) = c$ for any $c \in \mathbb{R}$. 
The other assertions of \Cref{lem: identity and truncation} show how to truncate $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ so that the truncation result falls into the domain $\mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ where ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } = {U}_{\theta }$, 
as listed below.
\begin{itemize}
\item $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ for $\lambda \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ is always true.
\item $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ for $\lambda > {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ is equivalent to $f \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, 
      or namely, $f + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\end{itemize}
Given \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}, we can roughly show how the critical truncation level ${\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ varies as a perturbation $\varepsilon {1}_{A}$ with $\varepsilon > 0$ and $A \in \mathcal{F}$ is added to $f$. 
In fact, since 
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta }
= \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \varepsilon {1}_{A} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \le \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds; \\
& \ge \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s - \varepsilon \Big) ds,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
we have ${\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta }$, 
or namely, ${\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } + \varepsilon $.
Interested reader can find more precise perturbation results in \Cref{app: perturbation results for lambda}.

Now we show the G\^ateaux differentiability and some explicit expressions of ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
For the sake of brevity, we omit the statement $( \theta, \zeta ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] < 1$ in the sequel, unless otherwise noted.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}
For any $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$, $d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \zeta + \theta ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \zeta / \theta )_{+}$, which realizes the minimum on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq}, and
\begin{align}
  {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) 
& = \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } s \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
  + \mathbb{E} [ f \zeta ] + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} ] - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta }
\label{eq: direct calculation form of SMMV :eq} \\
& = {U}_{\theta } \bigg( \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \bigg)
  + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) \zeta ] + \frac{1}{2 \theta } \Var [ \zeta ] \notag \\
& = {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
  + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg]
\label{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq} \\
& = {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
  + \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big)_{+} \zeta \Big]. \notag
\end{align}
\end{theorem}

The proof of \Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV} is left to \Cref{pf-thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}. 
Combining \Cref{lem: identity and truncation} and the expression \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq},
we can characterize the SMMV preference ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ by MV preference ${U}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ with a truncation approach.
It has been shown in \Cref{lem: identity and truncation} that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = {U}_{\theta } (f)$ for $f \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
For $f \notin \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ equals to the sum of 
\begin{itemize}
\item the MV preference for the truncated random variable $f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$
\item and the linear modification term for the gap $f - f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta )$, of which the ``growth speed'' is exactly $\zeta $.
\end{itemize}
This implies that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ is the minimum over all functions that are identical to ${U}_{\theta }$ on $\mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ and whose G\^ateaux derivatives belong to $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{\zeta +} ( \mathbb{P} )$.
More generally, replacing the G\^ateaux derivative by supergradient delivers the following proposition, of the proof is left to \Cref{pf-thm: minimality of SMMV}.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm: minimality of SMMV}
${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( \cdot ) = \min \{ V ( \cdot ): V |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } } = {U}_{\theta } |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } }, 
                                         ~ \partial V (f) \cap \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) \ne \varnothing, ~ \forall f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \}$.
\end{proposition}

Heuristically, fixing the ``basis'' ${U}_{\theta } ( f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) )$ and arbitrarily choosing $Y$ for the ``growth'' $\mathbb{E} [ ( f - f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) ) Y ]$ 
delivers the minimality of ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ as shown in \Cref{thm: minimality of SMMV}.
Conversely, if we arbitrarily choose $g$ for the basis ${U}_{\theta } (g)$ but fix the growth $\mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ]$, 
then the following proposition for the maximality of ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ arises, of which the rigorous proof can be found in \Cref{pf-thm: maximality of SMMV}.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm: maximality of SMMV}
${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \max\limits_{ g \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }, g \le f } \{ {U}_{\theta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] \}
                           = \max\limits_{ g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ), g \le f } \{ {U}_{\theta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] \}$.
\end{proposition}

Applying \Cref{thm: maximality of SMMV} can deliver the following proposition, which is an analog to \citeA[Proposition 2.1]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} for a reflexive relation named ``more uncertainty averse''.
To keep the main body of this paper focused, we left its proof to \Cref{pf-thm: more uncertainty averse for SMMV}.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm: more uncertainty averse for SMMV}
$\theta \ge \hat{\theta }$, if and only if 
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \ge {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( c {1}_{\Omega } ) ~ \Rightarrow ~ {V}_{ \hat{\theta }, \zeta } (f) \ge {V}_{ \hat{\theta }, \zeta } ( c {1}_{\Omega } )
\quad \forall ( f,c ) \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

To end this section, we extend the result given by \citeA[Theorem 2.3]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} that ${V}_{\theta } (f) \ge {V}_{\theta } (g)$ is a necessary condition for second-order stochastic dominance of $f$ over $g$.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm: SSD for SMMV}
If $f + \zeta / \theta $ is second-order stochastically dominant over $g + \zeta / \theta $, namely,
\begin{equation}
\int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \le \int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( g + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds, \quad \forall t \in \mathbb{R},
\label{eq: SSD :eq}
\end{equation} 
then ${\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ and ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \ge {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ]$.
\end{proposition}

The proof of \Cref{thm: SSD for SMMV} is left to \Cref{pf-thm: SSD for SMMV}, which is much more readable than that for \citeA[Theorem 2.3]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}.
In particular, if $\zeta $ is independent of $f$ and $g$ (including the case that $\zeta $ reduces to a constant),
${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \ge {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ f - g ] \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ]$ is a necessary condition for second-order stochastic dominance of $f$ over $g$.


\section{Single-period static portfolio selection}
\label{sec: Static portfolio selection}

In this section, we study the single period portfolio selection problems with the SMMV preference ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
In particular, we find that the existence of solution relies on the market parameters.
Later on, we will show how to properly choose $\zeta $ such that the solution for a given no-arbitrage financial market exists.
More generally, the no-arbitrage condition can be replaced by the condition of no free lunch, according to Kreps-Yan Theorem (see \citeA[Theorem 5.2.2, p. 77]{Delbaen-Schachermayer-2006}).

\subsection{Model and problem formulation}

Let $r$ be the risk-free yield rate, $\vec{R}$ the vector of the yield rates of $n$ risky assets with the variance-covariance matrix $\Var [ \vec{R} ]$ under $\mathbb{P}$, 
and $\vec{\alpha }$ the ratio of wealth invested on the $n$ risky assets without any constraint.
Assume that the market has no arbitrage, and $\Var [ \vec{R} ]$ is invertible so that any asset cannot be replicated by others.
For a unit initial wealth, the terminal wealth corresponding to portfolio strategy $\vec{\alpha }$ is 
\begin{equation*}
{X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } := r ( 1 - \langle \vec{\alpha }, \vec{1} \rangle ) + \langle \vec{\alpha }, \vec{R} \rangle = r + \langle \vec{\alpha }, \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \rangle,
\end{equation*}
where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle $ denotes the inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\vec{1}$ is the vector whose components are all $1$.  

For initial wealth $x > 0$, the agent with MV preference ${U}_{\theta }$ aims to maximize
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ x {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } ] - \frac{\theta }{2} \Var [ x {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } ]
= x r + x \Big( \langle \vec{\alpha }, \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ] \rangle - \frac{ x \theta }{2} \langle \vec{\alpha }, \Var [ \vec{R} ] \vec{\alpha } \rangle \Big),
\end{equation*}
subject to $\vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$.
Denote by $\vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (x)$ the maximizer for this classical linear-quadratic optimization problem. 
It is easy to arrive at $\mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ] = x \theta \Var [ \vec{R} ] \vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (x)$, or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (x) = \frac{1}{ x \theta } ( \Var [ \vec{R} ] )^{-1} \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ],
\label{eq: MV portfolio for SP :eq}
\end{equation}
which implies that the optimal investment amount $x \vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (x)$ is independent of the initial wealth $x$.
Moreover, the problem with initial wealth $x > 0$ and risk aversion parameter $\theta $ is equivalent to that with unit initial wealth and risk aversion parameter $x \theta $.
In terms of the SMMV preference ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$,  
\begin{equation*}
  \sup_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( x {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } )
= x \sup_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
  \Big\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } ( \zeta + \kappa Z ) ]
       + \frac{1}{ 2 x \theta } \mathbb{E} [ ( \zeta + \kappa Z )^{2} ] - \frac{1}{ 2 x \theta } \Big\}
= x \sup_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } {V}_{ x \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } ),
\end{equation*}
for an arbitrarily fixed initial wealth $x > 0$.
Thus, the SMMV problem with initial wealth $x > 0$ and risk aversion parameter $\theta $ can also be reduced to that with unit initial wealth and risk aversion parameter $x \theta $.
Hence, we only consider the problems with unit initial wealth, and
\begin{equation}
  \sup_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } )
= r + \sup_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
      \bigg\{ \langle \vec{\alpha }, \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] \rangle
            + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] \bigg\}
    - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta },
\label{eq: SP :eq}
\end{equation}
for which the maximizer is denoted by $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ if it exists.


\subsection{The property of solution}

Define ${\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } := {\lambda }_{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } }, \theta, \zeta }$ for the sake of brevity.
At first, we derive the gradient condition, or namely, the first-order derivative condition necessary and sufficient for maximality.
The results are collected in the following theorem, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-thm: optimality condition for SP}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: optimality condition for SP}
If the maximizer $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ for \cref{eq: SP :eq} exists, then it fulfills the following equations:
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
&   \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \zeta ]
  + \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big] \\
& - \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
    \Cov \Big[ \vec{R}, \zeta \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big] \\
& = \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
    \Var \Big[ \vec{R} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big] \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \\
& \frac{\kappa }{\theta } = \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \Big],
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq}
\end{equation}
where $\Cov [ \cdot, \cdot | \cdot ]$ denotes the conditional covariance vector under $\mathbb{P}$.
Conversely, if \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq} as a system of $n+1$ equations for $n+1$ variables admits a solution $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } )$,
then $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ realizes the maximum in \cref{eq: SP :eq}.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
For $\hat{\theta } \in \mathbb{R}_{+} \setminus \{ \theta \}$, 
$\hat{\theta } \vec{\alpha }^{**} = \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}$ and $\hat{\theta } \hat{\lambda } = \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + ( \hat{\theta } - \theta ) r$
lead to $\hat{\theta } {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{**} } = \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + ( \hat{\theta } - \theta ) r$ and $\theta ( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } ) = \hat{\theta } ( \hat{\lambda } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{**} } )$.
This implies that $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } )$ solves \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq}, 
if and only if $( \vec{\alpha }^{**}, \hat{\lambda } )$ solves \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq} with all $\theta $ therein replaced by $\hat{\theta }$.
In view of the arbitrariness of $\hat{\theta }$ and the identity $\hat{\theta } \vec{\alpha }^{**} = \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}$,
one can find that $\theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}$ is indeed independent of $\theta $.
\end{remark}

Combine \cref{eq: SP :eq} with \Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV},
we conclude that the pair $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, ( \theta / \kappa ) ( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \zeta / \theta )_{+} )$, if exists, solves the linear-quadratic max-min problem represented by
\begin{equation}
\max_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } \min_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 } 
\Big\{ \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }, \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] - \frac{1}{2} \Big\}.
\label{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}
\end{equation}
In particular, taking $\vec{\alpha } = 0$ provides the lower bound of \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq} as the following:
\begin{equation*}
  \min_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 } \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] - \frac{1}{2} \bigg\}
= \frac{1}{2} \min_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 } \Var [ \kappa Z + \zeta ] 
= 0.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, taking $\vec{\alpha } = \vec{\alpha }^{*}$ and $Z = ( 1 - \zeta ) / \kappa $ yields $\langle \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} ] - r \vec{1} \rangle \ge 0$. 
Furthermore, for the minimization problem corresponding to the maximizer $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$, the minimizer
\begin{equation*}
{Z}_{*} := \frac{\theta }{\kappa } \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+}
\in \argmin_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
    \Big\{ \mathbb{E} [ \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{R} \rangle Z ] + \frac{\kappa }{2} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( Z + \frac{\zeta }{\kappa } \Big)^{2} \Big] \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
For this constrained minimization problem, we can define the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{1}: \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}_{1} ( Z, \beta, \mu ) 
:= \frac{\kappa }{2} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( Z + \frac{\zeta }{\kappa } \Big)^{2} \Big] + \mathbb{E} [ \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{R} \rangle Z ]
 - \mathbb{E} [ \beta Z ] + \mu ( \mathbb{E} [Z] - 1 ),
\end{equation*}
which leads to the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) condition
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta + \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{R} \rangle - \beta + \mu, \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s.; \\
& \mathbb{E} [ {Z}_{*} ] = 1; \\
& \beta \ge 0, ~ {Z}_{*} \ge 0, ~ \beta {Z}_{*} = 0, ~ \mathbb{P}-a.s.
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: KKT condition :eq}
\end{equation}
Then, the following proposition, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-lem: express SMMV portfolio}, 
provides the expressions for $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ in terms of the Lagrange multiplier $\beta $ and the MV optimal portfolio $\vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1)$ given by \cref{eq: MV portfolio for SP :eq}.

\begin{proposition}\label{lem: express SMMV portfolio}
Assume that $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ realizes the maximum in \cref{eq: SP :eq}, 
and $( {Z}_{*}, \beta, \mu ) \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{R}$ solves the KKT condition \cref{eq: KKT condition :eq}.
Then,
\begin{align}
& \vec{\alpha }^{*} = \vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1) + \frac{1}{\theta } ( \Var [ \vec{R} ] )^{-1} \Cov [ \vec{R}, \beta ], 
\label{eq: express SMMV portfolio by MV portfolio :eq} \\
& \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \Cov [ \vec{R}, \beta ] \rangle = \Var [ \beta ] + \mathbb{E} [ \beta ( 1 - \zeta ) ].
\label{eq: express SMMV portfilio by Lagrange multiplier :eq}
\end{align}
Furthermore, $\Var [ \beta ] = 0$, if and only if ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
\end{proposition}

However, the Lagrange multiplier $\beta $ is implicit, even though given the KKT condition \cref{eq: KKT condition :eq}.
We purpose to compare $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ and $\vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1)$ by the sign of $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$, like \citeA[Proposition 4.1]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}.
The results are collected in the following \Cref{thm: optimal portfolio comparison}. 

\begin{proposition}\label{thm: optimal portfolio comparison}
Assume that $\zeta \le 1$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., and there is only one risky asset, 
that is, $( \vec{R}, \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{\alpha }^{*}_{mv} )$ reduces to $( R, {\alpha }^{*}, {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} ) \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$.
Then,
\begin{equation*}
{\alpha }^{*} = {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1) + \frac{ \Cov [ R, \beta ] }{ \theta \Var [R] }, \quad
{\alpha }^{*} \Cov [ R, \beta ] = \frac{1}{\theta } \big( \Var [ \beta ] + \mathbb{E} [ \beta ( 1 - \zeta ) ] \big) \ge 0.
\end{equation*}
Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\alpha }^{*} > 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \mathbb{E} [R] \ge r, ~ \Cov [ R, \beta ] \ge 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\alpha }^{*} \ge {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1) \ge 0; \\
& {\alpha }^{*} < 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \mathbb{E} [R] \le r, ~ \Cov [ R, \beta ] \le 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\alpha }^{*} \le {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1) \le 0; \\
& {\alpha }^{*} = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {X}_{ {\alpha }^{*} } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Var[ \beta ] = 0 
                    \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Cov [ R, \beta ] = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\alpha }^{*} = {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1).
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, if $\mathbb{P} ( {X}_{ {\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ {\alpha }^{*} } ) > 0$, or namely, ${X}_{ {\alpha }^{*} } \notin \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, then
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\alpha }^{*} > 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Cov [ R, \beta ] > 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\alpha }^{*} > {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1); \\
& {\alpha }^{*} < 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Cov [ R, \beta ] < 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\alpha }^{*} < {\alpha }^{*}_{mv} (1).
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

Given \Cref{lem: express SMMV portfolio} with \cref{eq: MV portfolio for SP :eq} and ${\alpha }^{*} ( \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} ] - r \vec{1} ) \ge 0$, the proof of \Cref{thm: optimal portfolio comparison} is straightforward, so we omit it.
Notably, for MMV preference, i.e. $\zeta = 0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., 
our condition to arrive at the abovementioned results is weaker than \citeA[Proposition 4.1]{Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009} that requires the finiteness of $\Omega $.

To end this section, we provide some discussions on the existence of solution $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {Z}_{*} )$ for \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}.
Let us proceed with the following theorem, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-thm: saddle point for SP}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: saddle point for SP}
$( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {Z}_{*} )$ solves the max-min problem given by \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}, if and only if $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {Z}_{*} )$ is the saddle point for \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}.
Furthermore, if ${Z}_{*}$ (uniquely) solves the minimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] \quad
\text{subject to} \quad Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] = \vec{0},
\label{eq: minimization problem for existence in SP :eq}
\end{equation}
then $\kappa {Z}_{*} = ( \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \zeta )_{+}$ for some $\vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$,
and the maximization problem given by \cref{eq: SP :eq} admits the solution
\begin{equation*}
\vec{\alpha }^{*} = \frac{1}{\theta } ( \Var [ \vec{R} | {Z}_{*} > 0 ] )^{-1} 
                    \bigg( \frac{1}{ \mathbb{P} ( {Z}_{*} > 0 ) } \big( \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \zeta ] + \kappa \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} | {Z}_{*} > 0 ] \big) 
                        - \Cov [ \vec{R}, \zeta | {Z}_{*} > 0 ] \bigg).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

From the proof of \Cref{thm: saddle point for SP}, we conclude that $\vec{\alpha }^{*}$ realizes the maximum in \cref{eq: SP :eq}, only if
\begin{equation}
{Y}_{*} := \zeta + \theta \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} = \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta
\in \argmin_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) Y ] = \vec{0} } \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ].
\label{eq: equivalent minimization problem for existence in SP :eq}
\end{equation}
Conversely, if one can find ${Y}_{*} \in \mathbb{Y} := \{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) Y ] = \vec{0} \}$ to minimize $\mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ]$,
then applying the second assertion of \Cref{thm: saddle point for SP} to ${Z}_{*} = ( {Y}_{*} - \zeta ) / \kappa $ gives the maximizer for \cref{eq: SP :eq}. 
By Lagrange multiplier method, it is easy to arrive at
\begin{equation*}
1 - \langle \vec{R} - \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} ], ( \Var [R] )^{-1} \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ] \rangle
\in \argmin_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) Y ] = \vec{0} } \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ],
\end{equation*}
which is the desired ${Y}_{*}$ if and only if it statewise dominates over $\zeta $, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.

Let us treat $Y$ as a Radon-Nikod\'ym derivative of the risk-neutral measure $\mathbb{Q}$ with respect to $\mathbb{P}$, as $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} [ \vec{R} ] = r \vec{1}$.
According to the first fundamental theorem of asset pricing (or namely, Dalang-Morton-Willinger theorem, see \citeA[Theorem 6.5.1]{Delbaen-Schachermayer-2006}), the no-arbitrage condition ensures that 
$\mathbb{Y}_{0} := \{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) Y ] = \vec{0} \}$ is not empty.
However, if $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) \cap \mathbb{Y}_{0} = \varnothing $,
e.g., the complete market where the unique risk-neutral measure $\mathbb{Q}$ (see \citeA[Theorem 5.4.9]{Shreve-2004} for the second fundamental theorem of asset pricing) satisfies $\mathbb{P} ( d \mathbb{Q} / d \mathbb{P} < \zeta ) > 0$,
then $\mathbb{Y} = \varnothing $, and hence the maximization problem given by \cref{eq: SP :eq} has no solution.

Suppose that $\mathbb{Y} \ne \varnothing $.
If $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by a finite partition of $\Omega $, including the case with finite $\Omega $, one can find ${Y}_{*}$ by solving such a typical constrained problem:
\begin{equation*}
\text{minimizing} \quad {\sum }_{i} {y}_{i}^{2} {p}_{i} \quad
\text{subject to} \quad {y}_{i} \ge {\zeta }_{i}, ~ {\sum }_{i} {y}_{i} {p}_{i} = 1, ~ {\sum }_{ \vec{h},i } ( \vec{h} - r \vec{1} ) {y}_{i} {p}_{ \vec{h},i } = \vec{0}.
\end{equation*}
The existence of minimizer is a straightforward result of Weierstrass Theorem.
Interested readers can refer to \Cref{app: Supplementary note for the static problem} for the case that $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by a countably infinite partition of $\Omega $.
There provides some sufficient conditions for reducing the infinite-dimensional problem to a finite-dimensional problem.
In general, observing that the minimization problem given by \cref{eq: equivalent minimization problem for existence in SP :eq} is defined on a (weakly) closed convex subset of reflexive Hilbert space $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$,
and thus $\mathbb{Y} \cap \{ Y: \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] \le t \}$ for some $t$ is weakly compact (according to Kakutani's Theorem), 
we can refer to the infinite-dimensional version of the Weierstrass Theorems, e.g., \citeA[Theorems 2.3.4 and 2.3.5, p. 56]{Bobylev-Emelyanov-Korovin-1999}, to conclude the existence of solution.


\section{Continuous-time dynamic portfolio management}
\label{sec: Continuous-time dynamic portfolio management}

\subsection{Model and problem formulation}

In this section, we study the portfolio selection problem in a continuous-time stochastic control framework with a preassigned finite time-horizon $T$ and the SMMV preference ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
Let us proceed with the complete filtered probability basis $( \Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$,
where $\mathbb{F} := \{ \mathcal{F}_{t} \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ is the right-continuous, completed natural filtration generated by a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion $\{ {W}_{t} \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$. 
Without any loss of generality, we assume that $\mathcal{F}_{0} = \{ \varnothing, \Omega \}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{T} = \mathcal{F}$. 
For $t \in [ 0,T )$, denote by $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ the set of all $\mathbb{F}$-adapted processes $f: [ t,T ] \times \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ 
such that $\int_{t}^{T} \| f ( s, \cdot ) \|^{2}_{ \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } ds < \infty $.
For the sake of brevity, hereafter we omit the statement of sample path $\omega $ and ``$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.'' unless otherwise mentioned, and write ${f}_{t} = f ( t, \omega )$, $f ( t,x ) = f ( t, \omega, x )$ and $f ( t,x,z ) = f ( t, \omega, x,z )$.

We consider the conventional Black-Scholes market as in \citeA[Section 6.8]{Yong-Zhou-1999} (see also \citeA{Zhou-Li-2000}) and \citeA[Section 4.5.1]{Shreve-2004}, which includes a risk-free asset (e.g. bond) and a risky asset (e.g. stock).
For epoch $t$, let ${r}_{t}$ denote the instantaneous yield rate of the risk-free asset,
and $( {\sigma }_{t}, {\vartheta }_{t} )$ respectively denote the volatility rate and the market price of risk for the risky asset.
In other words, the price processes of the two assets satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& d {B}_{t} = {B}_{t} {r}_{t} dt, && {B}_{0} > 0 \quad \text{(for the risk-free asset)}, \\
& d {S}_{t} = {S}_{t} ( {r}_{t} + {\sigma }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} ) dt + {S}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} d {W}_{t}, && {S}_{0} > 0 \quad \text{(for the risky asset)}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Assume that $\{ ( {r}_{t}, {\sigma }_{t}, {\vartheta }_{t} ) \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ is $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$-valued, continuous and deterministic.
The market is complete and has the unique risk-neutral probability measurable $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ given by the Radon-Nikod\'ym derivative 
\begin{equation*}
\frac{ d \tilde{\mathbb{P}} }{ d \mathbb{P} } \Big|_{\mathcal{F}_{t}} = {\Lambda }_{t} := {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} {\vartheta }_{v} d {W}_{v} - \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\{ {W}_{t} + \int_{0}^{t} {\vartheta }_{s} ds \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ is a standard Brownian motion under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ with respect to $\mathbb{F}$.

In terms of SMMV portfolio selection problem, it is supposed to maximize ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{T} )$ by choosing an appropriate dynamic portfolio strategy $\pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$, 
subject to the following stochastic differential equation (SDE) for the wealth process $\{ {X}_{t} \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$:
\begin{equation}
d {X}_{t} = ( {X}_{t} - {\pi }_{t} ) \frac{ d {B}_{t} }{ {B}_{t} } + {\pi }_{t} \frac{ d {S}_{t} }{ {S}_{t} }
          = {X}_{t} {r}_{t} dt + {\pi }_{t} {\sigma }_{t} ( d {W}_{t} + {\vartheta }_{t} dt ), \quad {X}_{0} = {x}_{0}.
\label{eq: wealth dynamics :eq}
\end{equation}
Here ${\pi }_{t}$ is the instantaneous amount of wealth invested in the risky asset.
Next, we show that the SMMV and MV portfolio selection problems have the same solution if $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$.


\subsection{An innovative approach for SMMV problem with \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$}{sufficiently small zeta}}
\label{subsec: MV problem and SMMV problem}

At first, we revisit the continuous-time MV portfolio selection problem:
\begin{equation}
\text{maximizing} \quad \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} ] - \frac{\theta }{2} \Var [ {X}_{T} ], \quad
\text{subject to} \quad ( X, \pi ) ~ \text{satisfies \cref{eq: wealth dynamics :eq}}, ~ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} \big( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \big). 
\label{eq: MV portfolio for DP :eq}
\end{equation}
Rather than applying the embedding method (pioneered by \citeA{Li-Ng-2000}, see also \citeA[Theorem 6.8.2]{Yong-Zhou-1999} and \citeA[Theorem 3.1]{Zhou-Li-2000}) or Lagrange multiplier method, we begin with the fact that 
\begin{align*}
    \max_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) }
    \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} ] - \frac{\theta }{2} \Var [ {X}_{T} ] \bigg\}
& = \max_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) }
    \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} ] - \frac{\theta }{2} \min_{ c \in \mathbb{R} } \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}_{T} - c )^{2} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \max_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \max_{ c \in \mathbb{R} }
    \mathbb{E} \bigg[ c + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } - \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( {X}_{T} - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big)^{2} \bigg] \\
& = \frac{1}{2 \theta } + \max_{ c \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ c - \min_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) }
                                                                \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( {X}_{T} - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big)^{2} \bigg] \bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Suppose that ${c}^{*}$ realizes the maximum in the last line, then ${c}^{*} = \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{ {c}^{*} }_{T} ]$ with ${X}^{c}$ corresponding to the minimizer ${\pi }^{c}$ that minimizes $\mathbb{E} [ ( {X}_{T} - c - 1 / \theta )^{2} ]$.
Hence, we turn to solve the following problem: 
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( {X}_{T} - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big)^{2} \bigg], \quad
\text{subject to} \quad ( X, \pi ) ~ \text{satisfies \cref{eq: wealth dynamics :eq}}, ~ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} \big( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \big). 
\label{eq: auxiliary problem for MV :eq}
\end{equation}
By dynamic programming principle, this auxiliary minimization problem is reduced to solving the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation
\begin{equation}
0 = \min_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \Big\{ \mathcal{V}_{t} ( t,x ) + \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x ) ( {r}_{t} x + \pi {\sigma }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} ) + \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}_{xx} ( t,x ) ( \pi {\sigma }_{t} )^{2} \Big\},
\label{eq: HJB for MV :eq}
\end{equation}
subject to the terminal condition
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V} ( T,x ) = \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( x - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big)^{2}.
\label{eq: terminal condition for MV :eq}
\end{equation}
By verification theorem (cf. \citeA[Theorem 5.3.1]{Yong-Zhou-1999}), we conclude that the classical solution $\mathcal{V}^{c}$ of \cref{eq: HJB for MV :eq} with \cref{eq: terminal condition for MV :eq} gives
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{c} ( t, {X}_{t} ) = \essinf_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( {X}_{T} - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big)^{2} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{equation*}
while ${\pi }^{c}_{t} = - ( {\vartheta }_{t} / {\sigma }_{t} ) \mathcal{V}^{c}_{x} ( t, {X}^{c}_{t} ) / \mathcal{V}^{c}_{xx} ( t, {X}^{c}_{t} )$ gives the optimal portfolio strategy for \cref{eq: auxiliary problem for MV :eq}.
We list the main results in the following lemma, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-lem: optimal MV portfolio}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: optimal MV portfolio}
For the auxiliary minimization problem \cref{eq: auxiliary problem for MV :eq}, the minimizer ${\pi }^{c}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\pi }^{c}_{t} = - \frac{ {\vartheta }_{t} }{ {\sigma }_{t} } \Big( {X}^{c}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - c - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }.
\label{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for the primal MV problem \cref{eq: MV portfolio for DP :eq}, the maximizer is given by \cref{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq} with
\begin{equation}
{c}^{*} = {x}_{0} {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{1}{\theta } \Big( {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - 1 \Big). 
\label{eq: MV expected terminal wealth :eq}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

Write ${X}^{*}_{T} := {X}^{ {c}^{*} }_{T}$, as the terminal wealth corresponding to the optimal MV portfolio strategy.
Sending $t$ to zero in \cref{eq: MV terminal wealth :eq} and \cref{eq: MV shadow price :eq}, with applying \cref{eq: MV expected terminal wealth :eq} for rearrangement, yields
\begin{equation*}
{X}^{*}_{T} - \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{*}_{T} ] - \frac{1}{\theta } = \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{\theta } \mathcal{V}^{c}_{x} ( 0, {x}_{0} ) {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } = - \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{\theta }.
\end{equation*}
Comparing this result with the first assertion of \Cref{lem: identity and truncation}, we immediately arrive at the following proposition. The proof is straightforward, so we omit it.

\begin{proposition}\label{lem: MV optimal portfolio in monotonicity domain}
${X}^{*}_{T} \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ if and only if $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$. 
\end{proposition}

Then, we show that the SMMV and MV portfolio problems has the same solution if $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$, and isolate the results in the following theorem, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-thm: identical solution of SMMV and MV}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: identical solution of SMMV and MV}
Assume that $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$.
Then, ${\pi }^{ {c}^{*} }$ given by \cref{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq} and \cref{eq: MV expected terminal wealth :eq} maximizes ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{T} )$ 
over all $\pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$, and the maximum ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} ) = {U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} )$.
\end{theorem}

However, ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} )$ has much more complicate expressions unless $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$,
according to \Cref{lem: identity and truncation}, \Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV} and \Cref{lem: MV optimal portfolio in monotonicity domain}.
As a consequence, we cannot easily compare ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{T} )$ with ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} )$.
In the next subsections, we will show that there does not exist regular solution in this case, and solve a sequence of approximate differential game problems by stochastic control.

\subsection{Problem reduction for \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) < 1$}{sufficiently large zeta}}

In the sequel, we consider the situation with $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) < 1$, unless otherwise mentioned.
According to \Cref{rem: measure optimization form of SMMV}, we are supposed to find the maximum point ${\pi }^{*}$ for 
\begin{equation}
\sup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
\bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} \zeta ]
      + \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( {X}_{T} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) Z \Big]
      + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{2} ] \bigg\},
\label{eq: max-min problem for DP :eq}
\end{equation}
subject to \cref{eq: wealth dynamics :eq}.
In general, we have the inequality chain for the above max-min problem:
\begin{align*}
& \sup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
  \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} \zeta ]
        + \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( {X}_{T} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) Z \Big]
        + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{2} ] \bigg\} \\
& \le \sup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \inf_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 }
      \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} \zeta ]
            + \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( {X}_{T} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) Z \Big]
            + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{2} ] \bigg\} \\
& \le \sup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } 
      \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} \zeta ]
            + \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( {X}_{T} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) {\Lambda }_{T} \Big]
            + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ | {\Lambda }_{T} |^{2} ] \bigg\} \\
&   = \sup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \mathbb{E} [ {X}_{T} \zeta ]
    + \kappa \Big( {x}_{0} {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{1}{\theta } \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta ] \Big)   
    + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv },
\end{align*}
of which the last line is boundless unless $\zeta $ is propositional to ${\Lambda }_{T}$.

Inspired by \citeA{Trybula-Zawisza-2019} and \citeA{Li-Guo-2021}, we denote by $( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma } )$ the $\mathbb{F}$-adapted solution of the following controlled SDEs corresponding to the control pair $( \pi, \gamma )$:
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& d {X}_{s} = {X}_{s} {r}_{s} ds + {\pi }_{s} {\sigma }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds ), \\
& d {Z}_{s} = {\gamma }_{s} d {W}_{s}, \\
& ( {X}_{t}, {Z}_{t} ) = ( x,z ),
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: controlled SDEs :eq}
\end{equation}
to formulate all the abovementioned max-min problems in the framework of stochastic control.
Obviously, ${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }$ is a square-integrable $( \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$-martingale if and only if $\gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$.
Corresponding to the initial condition $( {X}_{t}, {Z}_{t} ) = ( x,z )$,
we denote by ${\Pi }^{t,x}$ the set of all the admissible $\pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ such that $\mathbb{E} [ \sup_{ s \in [ t,T ] } | {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s} |^{2} ] < \infty $,
and by ${\Gamma }^{t,z}$ the set of all the admissible $\gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ such that ${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} )$.
In addition, we introduce the objective function
\begin{equation}
{J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) := \mathbb{E} \bigg[ {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} \zeta 
                                                 + \kappa \Big( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} 
                                                 + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } | {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} |^{2} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
\label{eq: objective function for DP :eq}
\end{equation}
with the terminal condition
\begin{equation}
{J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( T,x,z ) = x \zeta + \kappa \Big( x + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) z + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {z}^{2}, 
\label{eq: terminal condition for DP :eq}
\end{equation}
so that ${J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) = \mathbb{E} [ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( T, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$.
Then, the max-min problem given by \cref{eq: max-min problem for DP :eq} is reduced to finding the maximizer ${\pi }^{*}$ for 
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{ 0, {x}_{0} } } \inf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{0,1} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( 0, {x}_{0}, 1 ).
\end{equation*}

By dynamic programming principle, we aim to find a saddle point $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ for
\begin{equation}
\esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ),
\label{eq: control problem for DP :eq}
\end{equation}
that is, ${J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( t,x,z )$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., for all $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$.
Notably, \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq} formulates a sequence of stochastic differential games indexed by $( t,x,z )$, 
where one player (e.g., an investor) aims to maximize ${J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )$ with its strategy $\pi $ over ${\Pi }^{t,x}$ 
and the other player (e.g., an incarnation of the market) aims to minimize ${J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )$ with its strategy $\gamma $ over ${\Gamma }^{t,z}$ at almost every epoch $t$.
Notably, due to the presence of $\zeta $, ${J}^{ \pi, \gamma }$ may be a random field rather than a deterministic function.
So we take essential supremum and essential infimum for dynamic programming, 
and call the mapping that maps $( t,x,z )$ to \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq} the value random field (rather than the conventional name ``value function'') associated with \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq}.

\begin{remark}
In general, the following max-min inequality holds:
\begin{equation*}
\esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) \le \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
If there exists a saddle point $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$, then we have the inverse inequality
\begin{align*}
  \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
& \le \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) 
  \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \\
& \le \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
  \le \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ), 
\end{align*}
and hence obtain the max-min equality
\begin{equation*}
  \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) 
= {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z )
= \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, it can be seen from the above inverse inequality that the saddle point $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ is a Nash equilibrium of the stochastic differential game corresponding to $( t,x,z )$.
\end{remark}
 
\subsection{Unconstrained control problem and implication for divergence} 

In this subsection, we investigate the following unconstrained max-min problem:
\begin{equation}
\text{maximizing} \quad \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x},
\label{eq: unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
with the controlled SDEs \cref{eq: controlled SDEs :eq}.
Notably, setting $( t,x,z ) = ( 0, {x}_{0}, 1 )$ results in the solution of MV problem as in \Cref{lem: optimal MV portfolio}, by virtue of \cref{eq: biconjugate form of MV :eq} with dummy variable replacement $Y = \zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ 0,1, \gamma }$.
Moreover, the value random field associated with \cref{eq: unconstrained control problem :eq} gives a lower bound for \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq}.

For the sake of brevity, we introduce two infinitesimal operators for $( \pi, \gamma ) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{R}$-valued function $f ( t,x,z )$ twice continuously differentiable in $( x,z )$:
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } f ( t,x,z )
& = {f}_{x} ( t,x,z ) ( x {r}_{t} + \pi {\sigma }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} ) + \frac{1}{2} {f}_{xx} ( t,x,z ) ( \pi {\sigma }_{t} )^{2} + {f}_{xz} ( t,x,z ) \pi {\sigma }_{t} \gamma + \frac{1}{2} {f}_{zz} ( t,x,z ) {\gamma }^{2}, \\
    \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } f ( t,x,z )
& = {f}_{x} ( t,x,z ) \pi {\sigma }_{t} + {f}_{z} ( t,x,z ) \gamma.
\end{align*}
Since the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for DP :eq} is a random variable, we shall reduce the problem \cref{eq: unconstrained control problem :eq} to solving a BSPDE, or namely, a stochastic HJBI equation.
In addition, we denote by $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T ; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \Omega; {C}^{p,q} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) ) )$ the set of all random fields $f: [ 0,T ] \times \Omega \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ 
such that $f ( \cdot, x, z )$ is $\mathbb{F}$-progressively measurable with $\int_{0}^{T} \| f ( t,x,z ) \|^{2}_{ \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } dt < \infty$ 
and $p$ (resp. $q$) times continuously differentiable in $x$ (resp. $z$).
Let ${C}_{\mathbb{F}} ( [ 0,T ] ; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \Omega; {C}^{p,q} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) ) )$ be the set of all random fields 
$f \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T ; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \Omega; {C}^{p,q} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) ) )$ such that $f ( t,x,z )$ is continuous in $t$.
Then, referring to \citeA[Sections XI.3, XI.4 and Theorem XI.5.1, pp. 377--383]{Fleming-Soner-2006}, we collect the results of problem reduction into the following verification theorem,
the proof of which can be found in \Cref{pf-thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}.

\begin{theorem}[verification theorem]\label{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}
Suppose that there exists a random field pair
\begin{equation*}
( \mathcal{V}, \Phi ) \in {C}_{\mathbb{F}} \Big( [ 0,T ]; \mathbb{L}^{2} \big( \Omega; {C}^{2,2} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) \big) \Big)
            \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} \Big( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} \big( \Omega; {C}^{2,2} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) \big) \Big)
\end{equation*}
fulfilling the lower Isaacs BSPDE on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}
- d \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z )
= \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} }
  \{ \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( t,x,z ) \} dt
- \Phi ( t,x,z ) d {W}_{t}
\label{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
with the terminal condition on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V} ( T,x,z ) = x ( \zeta + \kappa z ) + \frac{\kappa }{\theta } \zeta z + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {z}^{2},
\label{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
and the integrability condition for any $( t,x,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$ and $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \bigg[ \sup_{ s \in [ t,T ] } | \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) | 
                + \int_{t}^{T} \big( | \Phi ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) |^{2} + | \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }_{s}, {\gamma }_{s} } \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) |^{2} \big) ds \bigg] < \infty.
\label{eq: integrability condition :eq}
\end{align}
If there exists a Markovian control pair $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ such that
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
&   \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ {\pi }_{s}, {\gamma }^{*}_{s} } \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
  + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }_{s}, {\gamma }^{*}_{s} } \Phi ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
\le \mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ), \\
&   \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ {\pi }^{*}_{s}, {\gamma }_{s} } \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )
  + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }^{*}_{s}, {\gamma }_{s} } \Phi ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )
\ge \mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: saddle point condition :eq}
\end{equation}
for any $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ and
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( t,x,z ) := \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \{ \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( t,x,z ) \},
\end{equation*}
then, ${J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \le \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( t,x,z )$, and hence
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) = {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z )
= \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
= \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}\label{rem: Isaacs minimax condition}
If $\mathcal{V}_{xx} < 0$ and $\mathcal{V}_{zz} > 0$, then 
\begin{align*}
    \mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( t,x,z )
& = \mathcal{V}_{x} x {r}_{t}
  - \frac{1}{2} \binom{ \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} }{ {\Phi }_{z} }^{\top }
                \begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{V}_{xx} & \mathcal{V}_{xz} \\ \mathcal{V}_{xz} & \mathcal{V}_{zz} \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
                \binom{ \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} }{ {\Phi }_{z} } \\
& = \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} }
    \{ \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( t,x,z ) \}
\end{align*}
with a slight abuse of notation, which implies that Isaacs minimax condition holds and \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} is both the upper and lower Isaacs BSPDE.
However, we cannot assume that $\mathcal{V}_{xx} < 0$ or the interchange of order of maximization for $\pi $ and minimization for $\gamma $ holds, since the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} is affine in $x$.
Instead, we assume that $\mathcal{V}_{xx} = 0$, $\mathcal{V}_{xz} \ne 0$ and $\mathcal{V}_{zz} > 0$, which can be verified later by the explicit expression of $\mathcal{V}$.
It follows that
\begin{align*}
    \mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( t,x,z )
& = \mathcal{V}_{x} x {r}_{t}
  + \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ ( \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} ) \pi {\sigma }_{t} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{ ( \mathcal{V}_{xz} \pi {\sigma }_{t} + {\Phi }_{z} )^{2} }{ \mathcal{V}_{zz} } \bigg\} \\
& = \mathcal{V}_{x} x {r}_{t}
  + \frac{ \mathcal{V}_{zz} ( \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} )^{2} - 2 \mathcal{V}_{xz} ( \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} ) {\Phi }_{z} }{ 2 \mathcal{V}_{xz}^{2} }.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if and only if $\mathcal{V}_{zz} ( \mathcal{V}_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} ) + \mathcal{V}_{xz} {\Phi }_{z} = 0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
  \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} }
  \{ \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( t,x,z ) \} \\
= \mathcal{V}_{x} x {r}_{t} + \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \Big\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}_{zz} {\gamma }^{2} + {\Phi }_{z} \gamma \Big\}
= \mathbb{H}^{ \mathcal{V}, \Phi } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
Otherwise, for the upper Isaacs BSPDE, 
$\essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \{ \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( t,x,z ) \} = + \infty $.
\end{remark}

From \Cref{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem} and \Cref{rem: Isaacs minimax condition}, 
we conclude that the saddle point $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ has the feedback form
${\pi }^{*}_{s} = \hat{\pi } ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )$ and ${\gamma }^{*}_{s} = \hat{\gamma } ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )$,
where the feedback random fields $\hat{\pi }, \hat{\gamma }: [ 0,T ] \times \Omega \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfy the optimality condition
\begin{equation}
\vec{0} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{V}_{xx} ( t,x,z ) & \mathcal{V}_{xz} ( t,x,z ) \\ \mathcal{V}_{xz} ( t,x,z ) & \mathcal{V}_{zz} ( t,x,z ) \end{pmatrix}
          \binom{ \hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ) {\sigma }_{t} }{ \hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) }
        + \binom{ \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} ( t,x,z ) }{ {\Phi }_{z} ( t,x,z ) },
\label{eq: vectored optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ), \hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) } \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }_{x} ( t,x,z ), \\
& 0 = \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ), \hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) } \mathcal{V}_{z} ( t,x,z ) + {\Phi }_{z} ( t,x,z ).
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we suppose that the $( \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$-martingale $\{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ has the representation
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] + \int_{0}^{t} {\eta }_{s} d {W}_{s}
\label{eq: martingale representation of zeta :eq}
\end{equation}
Then, the solution of the unconstrained control problem can be summarized in the following theorem, the proof of which can be found in \Cref{pf-thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}
For the max-min problem given by \cref{eq: unconstrained control problem :eq}, 
the saddle point $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} )$ has the feedback form
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\pi }^{*}_{s} = \frac{ {\vartheta }_{s} }{ \theta {\sigma }_{s} } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ) {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv }, \\
& {\gamma }^{*}_{s} = - \frac{1}{\kappa } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] {\vartheta }_{s} + {\eta }_{s} \big) - {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} {\vartheta }_{s},
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
corresponding to which the value random field
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V} ( t,x,z )
= x ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z \big) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
+ \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z )^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
- \frac{1}{2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ].
\label{eq: value random field for unconstrained control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
Moreover, ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }$ with $z > 0$ has a positive probability under $\mathbb{P}$ of downwards crossing the threshold $Z = 0$.
\end{theorem}
 
\begin{remark}\label{rem: trivial boundary condition in MV problem}
Sending $( t,x,z )$ to $( 0, {x}_{0}, 1 )$, and noting that $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] + \kappa = 1$, we obtain the following open-loop representation of the solution of MV portfolio problem \cref{eq: MV portfolio for DP :eq}: 
\begin{equation*}
{\pi }^{*}_{t} = \frac{ {\Lambda }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} }{ \theta {\sigma }_{t} } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv },
\end{equation*}
which can be re-expressed by the following SDE:
\begin{equation*}
d \frac{ {\pi }^{*}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} }{ {\vartheta }_{t} } = \frac{ {\pi }^{*}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} }{ {\vartheta }_{t} } \big( ( {r}_{t} - | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} ) dt - {\vartheta }_{t} d {W}_{t} \big), \quad
\frac{ {\pi }^{*}_{0} {\sigma }_{0} }{ {\vartheta }_{0} } = \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv }.
\end{equation*}
In comparison, from \cref{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq} and \cref{eq: MV expected terminal wealth :eq} we have the same results as the following:
\begin{align*}
& d \frac{ {\pi }^{c}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} }{ {\vartheta }_{t} } 
  = \frac{ {\pi }^{c}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} }{ {\vartheta }_{t} } {r}_{t} dt - {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } d \Big( {X}^{c}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) 
  = \frac{ {\pi }^{c}_{t} {\sigma }_{t} }{ {\vartheta }_{t} } \big( ( {r}_{t} - | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} ) dt - {\vartheta }_{t} d {W}_{t} \big), \\
&   \frac{ {\pi }^{ {c}^{*} }_{0} {\sigma }_{0} }{ {\vartheta }_{0} } 
  = - \Big( {x}_{0} {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - {c}^{*} - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big) {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
  = \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv }.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, by $\kappa {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$ for all $t \in [ 0,T ]$, 
we conclude that $\mathbb{P} ( {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} \ge 0 ) = 1$ for all $t \in [ 0,T ]$ if and only if $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$.

In particular, if $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) = 1$, then ${Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }$ almost surely vanishes after hitting the level $Z = 0$,
since $\{ \kappa {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ is a non-negative continuous $( \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$-martingale.
Thus, $\zeta = {\Lambda }_{T}$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. on $\{ {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = 0, \exists t \in [ 0,T ) \}$.
Consequently, for \cref{eq: objective function for DP :eq},
\begin{align*}
  {1}_{\{ {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = 0 \}} {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,0 ) 
= {1}_{\{ {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = 0 \}} \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
= {1}_{\{ {Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{*} }_{t} = 0 \}} x {\Lambda }_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
\end{align*}
is indeed independent of the control $\pi $.
\end{remark}

When $\mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ) < 1$ and $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ are considered, $Z = 0$ is also the absorbing state for ${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }$ as it is a non-negative continuous $( \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$-martingale;
however, $\mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = 0$ cannot provide $\mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] = 0$ for $s \in ( t,T ]$.
It follows from \cref{eq: controlled SDEs :eq} and \cref{eq: martingale representation of zeta :eq} with applying It\^o's rule to $\exp ( - \int_{t}^{s} {r}_{v} dv ) {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s} \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ]$ that
\begin{align*}
    {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,0 ) 
& = {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \mathbb{E} \Big[ {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} \Big] \\
& = x \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
  + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{t}^{T} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } {\pi }_{s} {\sigma }_{s} ( {\eta }_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] ) ds \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\end{align*}
Let $\tau := \inf \{ s: {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} = 0 \}$ with $\inf \varnothing = + \infty $.
Obviously, given that $\{ \tau < T \}$ is not a $\mathbb{P}$-null set,
${1}_{\{ \tau < T \}} {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( \tau, x, 0 )$ is indeed independent of $\pi $, 
if and only if ${\eta }_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] = 0$ for a.e. $s \in [ \tau, T ]$ and $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. on $\{ \tau < T \}$, 
which leads to
\begin{equation}
{1}_{\{ \tau < T \}} \zeta = {1}_{\{ \tau < T \}} \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] } {\Lambda }_{T}, \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s. 
\label{eq: necessary condition for trivial boundary :eq}
\end{equation}
Let $( {\pi }^{**}, {\gamma }^{**} )$ be the solution (that might not be a saddle point) for 
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
&  \text{maximizing} \quad \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
&& \text{subject to} \quad \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x}; \\
&  \text{minimizing} \quad {J}^{ {\pi }^{**}, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
&& \text{subject to} \quad \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z},
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
and hereafter $\tau $ be the corresponding first time of ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{**} }$ hitting zero with a slight abuse of notation.
The following lemma, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-lem: irregular boundary condition}, implies that for the initial pair $( t,z ) = ( 0,1 )$ of major concern in this study, 
$\esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {1}_{\{ \tau < T \}} {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{**} } ( \tau, x, 0 )$ tends to infinity on some set of positive probability measure.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: irregular boundary condition}
Let $( t,z ) = ( 0,1 )$. 
Then, $\mathbb{P} ( \tau < T ) > 0$, and $\tau < T$ does not necessarily provide a $\pi $-independent ${J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{**} } ( \tau, x, 0 )$.
\end{lemma}

In general, for any $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \in [ 0, + \infty )$, from \cref{eq: necessary condition for trivial boundary :eq} and \cref{eq: dynamics before first time of hitting zero :eq} we have
\begin{gather*}
  \tau = \inf \Big\{ s \in [ t,T ]: \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] = \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] } \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big\}, \\
  {1}_{\{ \tau < s \}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \zeta - \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] } {\Lambda }_{T} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{s} \Big]
= {1}_{\{ \tau < s \}} \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] }
  \bigg( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] - \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] } \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] \bigg) 
= 0, 
\end{gather*}
with the initial value
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ \zeta - \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] } {\Lambda }_{T} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Big] = - \kappa z \le 0.
\end{equation*}
In the same manner as in \Cref{pf-lem: irregular boundary condition}, we conclude that $\zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T} ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) / \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
As a consequence, the steps for proof by contradiction in \Cref{pf-lem: irregular boundary condition} cannot be straightforwardly applied to the case with an arbitrarily fixed initial pair $( t,z )$.


\subsection{Approximate problems with HJBI equations}

In the previous subsection, we have shown that corresponding to the saddle point for the dynamic programming problem \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq}, 
${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }$ has a positive probability of hitting the absorbing state $Z = 0$,
and may generate an improper boundary condition $| \mathcal{V} ( t,x,0 ) | = + \infty $ somewhere in $\Omega $.
To tackle this issue, we turn to address the following approximate problems indexed by $( t,x,z, \rho, c ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times [ 0, + \infty ) \times \mathbb{R}_{+} \times \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}
\text{maximizing} \quad \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x}.
\label{eq: approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
Obviously, the above objective function to be maximized approaches that for \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq} as $\rho $ tends to zero, 
and the value random field associated with \cref{eq: approximate control problem :eq} gives a lower bound for \cref{eq: control problem for DP :eq}.
Moreover, 
\begin{align*}
& \esssup_{ c \in \mathbb{R} } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
                                           - \frac{\rho }{2} \essinf_{ c \in \mathbb{R} } \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
                                           - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} \big[ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] \bigg\},
\end{align*}
which can be regarded as a portfolio problem with a mixed SMMV-MV objective function.

\begin{remark}
In the perspective of penalty function method, the additional quadratic term is employed to avoid the investment amount tending to infinity and leading to an extreme terminal wealth,
especially after ${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }$ hits the threshold $Z = 0$.
The flexible constant $c$ therein may mitigate the penalty for positive deviation.
Intuitively and roughly speaking, after taking a sufficiently large $c$ such that $\mathbb{P} ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} > c )$ becomes sufficiently small,
we can treat $- \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$ as a quadratic penalty function for the negative part $( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )_{-}$.
\end{remark}

For the sake of brevity, we omit the statement of the preassigned pair $( \rho, c )$ in the notation of random fields.
As an analog to \Cref{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem,thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}, 
we isolate the results for \cref{eq: approximate control problem :eq} with $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ being replaced by $\gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ in the following theorem,
and leave its proof to \Cref{pf-thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}.
Notably, unless otherwise mentioned, hereafter we omit the statement of the integrability condition like \cref{eq: integrability condition :eq}, as it is automatically satisfied for the given quadratic value random field.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}
For the (value) random field
\begin{align}
  \mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( t,x,z )
& = x ( \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
  + \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
  - \frac{1}{2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \notag \\
& - \frac{\rho }{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big)^{2} \notag \\
& - \frac{\rho }{2} \frac{ 1 - {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }
    \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - \frac{1}{\theta } ( \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big)^{2},
\label{eq: value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}
\end{align}
there exists a random field ${\Phi }^{\dag } \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \Omega; {C}^{2,2} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) ) )$ 
such that $( \mathcal{V}^{\dag }, {\Phi }^{\dag } )$ fulfills \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$ with the following terminal condition on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( T,x,z ) = x ( \zeta + \kappa z ) + \frac{\kappa }{\theta } \zeta z + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {z}^{2} - \frac{\rho }{2} ( x - c )^{2}.
\label{eq: terminal condition for approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the saddle point $( {\pi }^{\dag }, {\gamma }^{\dag } ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ given by
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\pi }^{\dag }_{s} 
= \frac{ {\vartheta }_{s} {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv } }
       { \theta {\sigma }_{s} \big( 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) }
  \Big( \rho c - \rho {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{s} + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big), \\
& {\gamma }^{\dag }_{s}
= - \frac{ {\vartheta }_{s} }{ \kappa \big( 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) }
    \Big( \rho c - \rho {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{s} + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big) 
  - \frac{ {\eta }_{s} }{\kappa },
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
satisfies \cref{eq: saddle point condition :eq} for any $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$.
Therefore, 
\begin{equation*}
    {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{\dag } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
\le \mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( t,x,z ) 
\le {J}^{ {\pi }^{\dag }, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], 
\end{equation*}
and hence
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( t,x,z ) 
& = {J}^{ {\pi }^{\dag }, {\gamma }^{\dag } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
                                           - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } 
    \Big\{ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}\label{rem: limiting and open-loop representation}
Setting $c = {\rho }^{\varepsilon }$ for any $\varepsilon > -1/2$ and then sending $\rho $ to zero, one can find that the triplet
$( \mathcal{V}^{\dag }, {\pi }^{\dag }, {\gamma }^{\dag } )$ given by \cref{eq: value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq} 
approaches $( \mathcal{V}, {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} )$ given by \cref{eq: value random field for unconstrained control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem :eq}.
If $\varepsilon = - 1/2$, then $\mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( t,x,z ) = \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) - 1/2$, 
but $( {\pi }^{\dag }, {\gamma }^{\dag } )$ still approaches $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} )$.
Moreover, corresponding to \cref{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}, 
for $\mathbb{V}^{t,x,z}_{s} := \rho c - \rho {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{s} \exp ( \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv ) + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{s} + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ]$ we have
\begin{equation*}
d \mathbb{V}^{t,x,z}_{s}
= - \mathbb{V}^{t,x,z}_{s} \bigg( {\vartheta }_{s} d {W}_{s} + \frac{ \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} }{ 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } ds \bigg),
\quad i.e. \quad
\mathbb{V}^{t,x,z}_{s} = \mathbb{V}^{t,x,z}_{t} \frac{ \big( 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) {\Lambda }_{s} }{ \big( 1 + \frac{\rho }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) {\Lambda }_{t} }.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, \cref{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq} has the following open-loop representation
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\pi }^{\dag }_{s} 
= \frac{ {\vartheta }_{s} {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv } {\Lambda }_{s} }
       { {\sigma }_{s} \big( \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) {\Lambda }_{t}  }
  \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big), \\
& {\gamma }^{\dag }_{s}
= - \frac{ \theta {\vartheta }_{s} {\Lambda }_{s} }{ \kappa \big( \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \big) {\Lambda }_{t} }
    \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big)
  - \frac{ {\eta }_{s} }{\kappa }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}

Incorporating a penalty term into the objective function does not necessarily result in ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } } > 0$, but addresses the question of convergence in the situation that ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }$ hits zero.
For this boundary, we isolate the results in the following lemma, and leave its proof to \Cref{pf-lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem}
For the (value) random field 
\begin{align}
  \mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x )
& = c \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
  + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
  - \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big)^{2},
\label{eq: boundary condition for approximate control problem :eq}
\end{align}
there exists a random field ${\Phi }^{\flat } \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \Omega; {C}^{2} ( \mathbb{R}; \mathbb{R} ) ) )$ 
such that $( \mathcal{V}^{\flat }, {\Phi }^{\flat } )$ fulfills 
\begin{equation}
- d \mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x )
= \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } 
  \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{xx} ( t,x ) | \pi {\sigma }_{t} |^{2} + \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) ( x {r}_{t} + \pi {\sigma }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} ) + {\Phi }^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) \pi {\sigma }_{t} \bigg\} dt 
- {\Phi }^{\flat } ( t,x ) d {W}_{t}
\label{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for boundary condition of approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}$ with the terminal condition $\mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( T,x ) = x \zeta - \rho ( x - c )^{2} / 2$ on $\mathbb{R}$.
Moreover, 
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x ) & = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
                             & = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, 0 } ( t,x,0 ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}

From \cref{eq: boundary condition for approximate control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for boundary condition of approximate control problem :eq}, 
the feedback random field for optimal $\pi $ in the case with ${Z}^{ t,z, \gamma } \equiv 0$ arises; that is
\begin{equation*}
{\pi }^{\flat } ( s,x ) = - \frac{1}{ {\sigma }_{s} } \frac{ \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{x} ( s,x ) {\vartheta }_{s} + {\Phi }^{\flat }_{x} ( s,x ) }{ \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{xx} ( s,x ) }
                        = \frac{1}{ \rho {\sigma }_{s} } {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } 
                          \bigg( \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big) {\vartheta }_{s} + \tilde{\eta }_{s} \bigg),
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\eta }$ is given by the martingale representation $\mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta ] + \int_{0}^{t} \tilde{\eta }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds )$.
In particular, as $\rho $ approaches zero, ${\pi }^{\flat } \in {\Pi }^{t,x}$ remains finite a.e. on $[ t,T ) \times \Omega $, 
if and only if $\mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] {\vartheta }_{s} + \tilde{\eta }_{s} = 0$ for a.e. $s \in [ t,T )$,
or namely, $\zeta = \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \exp ( - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv ) {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}$,
which is not necessarily true in general.
Let us return to the problem \cref{eq: approximate control problem :eq}.
From now on, we can characterize its value random field and the saddle point by lower Isaacs BSPDE.
The main results are summarized in the following verification theorem, which is analogous to \Cref{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}.
Its proof is also parallel to \Cref{pf-thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}, so we omit it.

\begin{theorem}[verification theorem]\label{thm: verification theorem for approximate control problem}
Suppose that there exists a random field pair
\begin{equation*}
( \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }, {\Phi }^{\ddag } ) \in {C}_{\mathbb{F}} \Big( [ 0,T ]; \mathbb{L}^{2} \big( \Omega; {C}^{2,2} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}; \mathbb{R} ) \big) \Big)
                                        \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} \Big( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} \big( \Omega; {C}^{2,2} ( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}; \mathbb{R} ) \big) \Big)
\end{equation*}
fulfilling the lower Isaacs BSPDE \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with
\begin{itemize} 
\item the terminal condition $\mathcal{V}^{\ddag } ( T,x,z )$ given by the right-hand side of \cref{eq: terminal condition for approximate control problem :eq} on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$,
\item the boundary condition $\lim_{ z \downarrow 0 } \mathcal{V}^{\ddag } ( t,x,z ) = \mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x )$ on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}$,
\item and the integrability condition \cref{eq: integrability condition :eq} with $( \mathcal{V}, \Phi ) = ( \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }, {\Phi }^{\ddag } )$ therein 
      for any $( t,x,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times [ 0, + \infty )$ and $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$.
\end{itemize}
If there exists a Markovian control pair $( {\pi }^{\ddag }, {\gamma }^{\ddag } ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ such that 
\cref{eq: saddle point condition :eq} with $( \mathcal{V}, \Phi, {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} ) = ( \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }, {\Phi }^{\ddag }, {\pi }^{\ddag }, {\gamma }^{\ddag } )$ therein holds
for any $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$,
then, 
\begin{equation*}
{J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{\ddag } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
\le \mathcal{V}^{\ddag } ( t,x,z ) 
\le {J}^{ {\pi }^{\ddag }, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\ddag } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], 
\end{equation*}
and hence for $( t,x,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$,
\begin{align*}
  \mathcal{V}^{\ddag } ( t,x,z ) 
& = {J}^{ {\pi }^{\ddag }, {\gamma }^{\ddag } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\ddag } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

Unfortunately, the solution for the lower Isaacs BSPDE \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} with those conditions stated in the above \Cref{thm: verification theorem for approximate control problem} 
is not of the quadratic form like $( \mathcal{V}, \mathcal{V}^{\dag } )$.
To keep the main body of this paper focused, we leave the detailed derivation to \Cref{app: no quadratic solution for Vddag}.
This implies that it is difficult to derive the explicit expression of $\mathcal{V}^{\ddag }$ and the saddle point $( {\pi }^{\ddag }, {\gamma }^{\ddag } )$.


\subsection{Embedding and convex duality method}
\label{subsec: Embedding and convex duality method}

The previous section shows that the constraint ${Z}^{ t, z, \gamma } \ge 0$ negates the quadratic form of the value random field $\mathcal{V}^{\ddag }$. 
Nevertheless, \Cref{thm: verification theorem for approximate control problem} implies that
$( {\pi }^{\ddag }, {\gamma }^{\ddag } ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ is a saddle point for \cref{eq: approximate control problem :eq} if it is a saddle point for 
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z},
\label{eq: interchanged approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
where the objective function to be minimized is quadratic in $x$.
Let us introduce the functions
\begin{equation*}
G ( x,y ) := xy + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } {x}^{2}, \quad
{F}^{\gamma }_{j} ( t,x,z ) := \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
                               \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{j}{2} \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big)
\end{equation*}
for $j = 1,2$. Since
\begin{align*}
& \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& = \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} }
    \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
          - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} \big[ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] \bigg\} 
 + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta )^{2} - {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& = \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
  - {F}^{\gamma }_{1} ( t,x,z ) \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
  - \frac{\rho }{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big)^{2} - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ,
\end{align*}
where the second equality follows from applying \Cref{lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem} with $\zeta $ being replaced by $\zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T}$,
the minimization problem \cref{eq: interchanged approximate control problem :eq} is reduced to 
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - {F}^{\gamma }_{1} ( t,x,z ) \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}.
\label{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq}
\end{equation}
Let ${\gamma }^{\S }$ denote the solution of \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq},
and $\bar{\Gamma }^{t,z} (w)$ be the set of all solutions to
\begin{equation*}
\text{minimizing} \quad \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - w \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}.
\end{equation*}
Notably, this problem is trivial for $z = 0$, as ${\Gamma }^{t,0}$ is a singleton that only contains a zero process. 
Hereafter we consider the case with $z > 0$, unless otherwise mentioned.
Then, we have the following lemma as an analog to the embedding method pioneered by \citeA{Li-Ng-2000,Zhou-Li-2000}; see also \citeA[Theorem 6.8.2, p. 338]{Yong-Zhou-1999}.
Interested readers can find our proof in \Cref{pf-lem: embedding method}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: embedding method}
${\gamma }^{\S } \in \bar{\Gamma }^{t,z} ( {w}^{\S } )$ with ${w}^{\S } = {F}^{ {\gamma }^{\S } }_{2} ( t,x,z )$.
\end{lemma}

Furthermore, in view that
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - w \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
= \mathbb{E} \bigg[ G \bigg( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c - w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{equation*}
without any additional difficulty, we investigate the following minimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z},
\label{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
for an arbitrarily fixed $Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$.
This problem can reduced to solving
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
- d \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,z ) & = \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\sharp }_{zz} ( t,z ) {\gamma }^{2} + {\Phi }^{\sharp }_{z} ( t,z ) \gamma \bigg\} dt - {\Phi }^{\sharp } ( t,z ) d {W}_{t},
                                 && ( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+}; \\
    \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( T,z ) & = G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } ( \kappa z + \zeta )^{2} + Y ( \kappa z + \zeta ), 
                                 && z \in [ 0, + \infty ); \\
    \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,0 ) & = \mathbb{E} [ G ( \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \mathbb{E} [ Y \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], 
                                 && t \in [ 0,T ].
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
In general, like the result in \Cref{app: no quadratic solution for Vddag}, $\mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t, \cdot )$ cannot be a quadratic function. Interested readers can find the detailed derivation in \Cref{app: no quadratic solution for Vsharp}.
In summary, it is still difficult to solve the stochastic HJB equation associated with \cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq}.

\begin{remark}\label{rem: unconstrained problem in convex duality method}
The problem \cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq} with the feasible control set ${\Gamma }^{t,z}$ being replaced by $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ is reduced to solving
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
- d \mathcal{V}^{\natural } ( t,z ) & = \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\natural }_{zz} ( t,z ) {\gamma }^{2} + {\Phi }^{\natural }_{z} ( t,z ) \gamma \bigg\} dt - {\Phi }^{\natural } ( t,z ) d {W}_{t},
                                   && ( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \in \mathbb{R}; \\
    \mathcal{V}^{\natural } ( T,z ) & = G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } ( \kappa z + \zeta )^{2} + Y ( \kappa z + \zeta ), 
                                   && z \in \mathbb{R}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Denote by ${\gamma }^{\natural }$ the solution of this problem.
Referring to the method in \Cref{pf-lem: optimal MV portfolio}, one can obtain $d \mathcal{V}^{\natural }_{z} ( s, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\natural } }_{s} ) = 0$, and hence
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\natural } }_{T} + \zeta ) + \kappa Y 
= \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\natural }_{z} ( T, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\natural } }_{T} ) 
= \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\natural }_{z} ( t,z )
= \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } ( \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ) + \kappa \mathbb{E} [ Y | \mathcal{F}_{t} ].
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, when applying \Cref{lem: embedding method} to the problem \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq} with ${\Gamma }^{t,z}$ being replaced by $\mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$,
we are supposed to solve the system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {w}^{\natural } = \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
                    \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{j}{2} \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\natural } }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big), \\
& \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\natural } }_{T} + \zeta = \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } ( \mathbb{E} [ Y | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - Y ), \\
& Y = c - {w}^{\natural } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
As a result, 
\begin{equation*}
{w}^{\natural } = \frac{1}{\rho } \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big).
\end{equation*}
Interested readers can try to derive other related results and solve the abovementioned unconstrained problems completely. 
The results must be identical to those in \Cref{thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}.
Here we only display the closed-form expression of ${w}^{\natural }$ that will be involved in the following discussion.
\end{remark}

Now we turn to adopt the convex duality method (as an modified application of Fenchel conjugate) to solve the problem \cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq} with $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$.
Applying Legendre-Fenchel transform to the convex function $g(z) = G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y )$, we introduce
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G} ( h,Y ) := \esssup_{ z \ge 0 } \{ h z - G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) \}, \quad h \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
which is convex in $h$. Moreover, since $\tilde{G} ( h ) \ge h z - G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y )$ for any $h \in \mathbb{R}$ and $z \ge 0$, we have
$\mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \ge \mathbb{E} [ h {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} - \tilde{G} ( h, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$ for any $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
\ge \esssup_{ h \in \mathbb{R} } \{ h z - \mathbb{E} [ \tilde{G} ( h, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}.
\label{eq: inequality in duality :eq}
\end{equation}
The following theorem, the proof of which is left to \Cref{pf-lem: saddle point for duality}, provides two sufficient conditions for the equality in \cref{eq: inequality in duality :eq}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: saddle point for duality}
Fix $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$.
Assume that there exists a pair $( {\gamma }^{\sharp }, {h}^{\sharp } ) \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} \times \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{align}
& \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\sharp } }{\kappa } - Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \bigg)_{+},
\label{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} \\
& \kappa z = \frac{ \theta \rho } { \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\sharp } }{\kappa } - Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\label{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq}
\end{align}
Then, $( {\gamma }^{\sharp }, {h}^{\sharp } )$ is the unique saddle point, for which \cref{eq: inequality in duality :eq} becomes an equality.
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
In \Cref{pf-lem: saddle point for duality}, we do not take advantage of the link between \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} and \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq}.
It is obvious that \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq} immediately follows from \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq}.
Conversely, given \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq}, applying martingale representation theorem yields \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} as well as the unique ${\gamma }^{\sharp }$.
Summing up, the problem \cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq} with $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ is reduced to solving the algebraic equation \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq}.
Notably, the solution ${h}^{\sharp }$ always exists, because the right-hand side of \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq} continuously maps $h \in \mathbb{R}$ onto $\mathbb{R}_{+}$.
\end{remark}

Now we return to the case with $Y = c - w {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}$ of our major concern. 
Moreover, applying \Cref{lem: embedding method} to derive the solution of \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq} with $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ fixed, we are supposed to solve
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \kappa z 
= \frac{ \theta \rho } { \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg], \\
& w \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \rho \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) - \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& \quad = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho }
          \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}
\end{equation}
for the solution pair $( {h}^{\S }, {w}^{\S } )$.
If ${h}^{\S } / \kappa - c \ge \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho ) - {w}^{\S } {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
then \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} reduces to
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
= \frac{ \theta \rho } { \theta + \rho } \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c + w \bigg), \\
& \frac{\rho }{ \theta + \rho } w {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) 
= \frac{ \theta }{ \theta + \rho } \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c \bigg),
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
which admits the solution
\begin{equation*}
w = \frac{1}{\rho } \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big) = {w}^{\natural },
\end{equation*}
see also \Cref{rem: unconstrained problem in convex duality method}.
This implies that in this case, following the steps in \Cref{rem: unconstrained problem in convex duality method} without considering the constraint $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ 
could provide the solution of the constrained problem \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq}.
Moreover, plugging the explicit expression of ${w}^{\S }$ back into ${h}^{\S } / \kappa - c \ge \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho ) - {w}^{\S } {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., yields
\begin{equation}
    \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
\ge \zeta - \frac{ \theta \big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big) }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }
            \Big( \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } - 1 \Big),
\quad \mathbb{P}-a.s.
\label{eq: no-hitting-boundary condition :eq}
\end{equation}
In particular, sending $\rho $ to zero and setting $( t,z ) = ( 0,1 )$, \cref{eq: no-hitting-boundary condition :eq} immediately gives ${\Lambda }_{T} \ge \zeta $, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
in which case the SMMV and MV portfolio selection problems has the same solution and $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{0,1}$ is not an effective constraint.
See also \Cref{subsec: MV problem and SMMV problem} and \Cref{rem: trivial boundary condition in MV problem}.
In other situations, we may not be able to rewrite \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} as a system of linear equations, but can still show the existence and uniqueness of its solution.
We summarize the results in the following theorem, and leave the proof to \Cref{pf-thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system}
For a fixed $( t,z ) \in [ 0,T ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$, \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} admits a unique solution $( {h}^{\S }, {w}^{\S } )$ with
\begin{equation*}
{w}^{\S } \ge \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

So far, we have derived the analytical solution of \cref{eq: interchanged approximate control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq}.
That is, according to \Cref{lem: embedding method,lem: saddle point for duality} with the dummy variable replacement $( h,w ) = ( \rho {h}^{\S }, \rho {w}^{\S } )$,
the solution ${\gamma }^{\S } \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ is given by the martingale representation
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{ \theta }{ \kappa ( \theta + \rho ) } \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - \rho c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{\theta } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} 
= z + \int_{t}^{T} {\gamma }_{s} d {W}_{s},
\end{equation*}
where $( h,w )$ is the unique solution of
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \kappa z = \frac{ \theta }{ \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - \rho c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{\theta } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg], \\
& w {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
= \frac{\theta }{ \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - \rho c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{\theta } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
due to \Cref{thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system} and \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}.
Notably, by sending $\rho $ to zero, the analytical expression of the limiting triplet $( {\gamma }^{\S }, h, w )$ arises.
Furthermore, as we have mentioned for reducing \cref{eq: interchanged approximate control problem :eq} to \cref{eq: reduced minimization problem :eq}, 
applying \Cref{lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem} with $\zeta $ being replaced by $\zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T}$ yields a maximizer ${\pi }^{\S } \in {\Pi }^{t,x}$ with
\begin{equation*}
{\pi }^{\S }_{s} = \frac{1}{ \rho {\sigma }_{s} } {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } 
                   \bigg( \Big( \rho c - \rho {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\S } }_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big) {\vartheta }_{s} 
                        + \tilde{\eta }_{s} + \kappa \tilde{\eta }^{\S }_{s} \bigg),
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\eta }^{\S }$ arises from the martingale representation $\mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] = z + \int_{t}^{T} \tilde{\eta }^{\S }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds )$.
Hence, $( {\pi }^{\S }, {\gamma }^{\S } )$ is the saddle point for \cref{eq: interchanged approximate control problem :eq}, as 
\begin{align*}
      {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{\S } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
& \le \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{\S } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
&   = {J}^{ {\pi }^{\S }, {\gamma }^{\S } } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\S } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
&   = \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \bigg\{ {J}^{ {\pi }^{\S}, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\S } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg\} \\
& \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{\S }, \gamma } ( t,x,z ) - \frac{\rho }{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\S } }_{T} - c )^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], \quad \forall ( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times {\Gamma }^{t,z}.
\end{align*}


\subsection{Semi-closed-form solution for constant \texorpdfstring{$\zeta \in ( 0,1 )$}{zeta in (0,1)}}

In the sequel, we let $\zeta $ be a constant in the interval $( 0,1 )$, so that the right-hand side of each of \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} can be re-expressed in a closed form, sometimes analogous to Black-Scholes formula. 
For the sake of brevity, we assume that $c \ge x \exp ( \int_{0}^{T} | {r}_{v} | dv )$.
So ${w}^{\S } > 0$ according to \Cref{thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system}.
Otherwise, we sometimes need to consider the case with ${w}^{\S } \le 0$, for which the results are parallel to the follows.

Suppose that ${h}^{\S } / \kappa - c - \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho ) \ge 0$.
Consequently, \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} gives
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \kappa z + \zeta = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } - c + {w}^{\S } \bigg), \\
& {w}^{\S } \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \rho \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big)
= \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } - c + {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \bigg),
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
and hence,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta
= - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - \frac{ \kappa z }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } + \frac{\zeta }{\rho } \Big), \\
& {w}^{\S } = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{1}{\rho } ( \kappa z + \zeta ) \Big).
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Notably, the right-hand side of the above first line in this situation should be non-negative, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\kappa z }{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \ge c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{\zeta }{\rho },
\label{eq: classification condition for constant zeta :eq}
\end{equation} 
which holds true for some small $c$ and large $\rho $.
However, in the spirit of our approximate problems \cref{eq: approximate control problem :eq} indexed by $( \rho,c )$, 
sufficiently large $c$ and small $\rho $ are of our major concern.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm: embedding-duality system of equations in Black-scholes' type}
Assume that $( \rho, c )$ does not satisfy \cref{eq: classification condition for constant zeta :eq}.
Then, $( {h}^{\S }, {w}^{\S } )$ as the unique solution of \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} fulfills ${h}^{\S } < \kappa c + \kappa \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho )$ and 
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \kappa z = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } {w}^{\S } 
             N \bigg( {d}_{+} \Big( t, {w}^{\S }, c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg) \\
& \qquad   - \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \Big( c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) 
             N \bigg( {d}_{-} \Big( t, {w}^{\S }, c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg), \\
& {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \frac{\zeta }{\rho } \Big) \\
& \quad = \frac{\theta } { \theta + \rho } {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } 
          N \bigg( {d}_{+} \Big( t, {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }, c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg) \\
&\qquad - \frac{\theta } { \theta + \rho } \Big( c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) 
          N \bigg( {d}_{-} \Big( t, {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }, c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg), 
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
where $N ( \cdot )$ is the cumulative distribution function of standard normal distribution and
\begin{equation*}
{d}_{\pm } ( t,x,K ) := \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } \bigg( \ln \frac{x}{K} \pm \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv \bigg)
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

Given \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}, the proof of \Cref{thm: embedding-duality system of equations in Black-scholes' type} is straightforward and in line with deriving Black-Scholes formula.
In fact, for any fixed $x,K \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$,
\begin{align*}
  \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( x \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } - K \Big)_{+} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Big]
& = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {d}_{-} ( t,x,K ) } \Big( x {e}^{ - y \sqrt{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } - K \Big) d N(y) \\
& = x N \big( {d}_{+} ( t,x,K ) \big) + K N \big( {d}_{-} ( t,x,K ) \big).
\end{align*}
Since ${h}^{\S } < \kappa c + \kappa \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho )$ has been shown by contradiction,
applying the above statement to 
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + {w}^{\S } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
= \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( {w}^{\S } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } - \Big( c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg], \\
& \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + {w}^{\S } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
= \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( {w}^{\S } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } - \Big( c + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta - \frac{ {h}^{\S } }{\kappa } \Big) \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
immediately yields our desired system of equations.

\section{Concluding remark}
\label{sec: Concluding remark}

We have studied the strictly monotone mean-variance preferences and the corresponding portfolio selection problems.
To tackle the drawback of conventional MMV preference, we have modified the application of Fenchel conjugate and obtained a class of SMMV preferences.
The properties of SMMV preferences, including monotonicity, equivalent expressions and G\^ateaux differentiability are parallel to those of MMV preference. 
In the static portfolio selection problem with SMMV preferences, we have provided the gradient condition that is sufficient and necessary for optimality, and studied the existence and uniqueness of its solution.
Moreover, we compared the solutions of static MMV problem and of static SMMV problem, and found that the sign of the optimal SMMV portfolio strategy can be determined due to the sign of the optimal MV portfolio strategy in the case with only one risky asset.

We have also investigated the dynamic portfolio selection problem with SMMV preference, and found the condition that the solutions of dynamic MMV problem and of dynamic SMMV problem are the same.
When this condition is not satisfied, the optimized objective function for the SMMV problem will approach infinity once a state process hits a threshold.
By employing the penalty function method, we considered some approximate problems without the abovementioned unboundedness.
However, it is difficult to solve the HJBI equation associated with the dynamic SMMV problem, due to the abovementioned threshold.
This difficulty does not appear in solving conventional MMV problems by dynamic programming.
We have turned to take a joint adoption of embedding method and convex duality method, and have arrived at an analytical solution of those approximate problems.
The solution is represented by a martingale representation, for which there are two parameters are given by a system of two algebraic equations like Black-Scholes formula.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We gratefully acknowledges financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 12401611 and CTBU Research Projects under Grant 2355010.

\section*{Data availability statement} 

The article describes entirely theoretical research. 
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

\section*{Conflict of interest statement} 

None of the authors have a conflict of interest to disclose.

\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{SMMV-references}

\newpage

\appendix

\section{Proof of lemmas, theorems and propositions}
\label{app: Proof}

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: identity and truncation}}{Lemma 2.8}}
\label{pf-lem: identity and truncation}

At first, combining the properties of ${U}_{\theta }$ mentioned in \Cref{subsec: MMV preference revisited}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\partial {U}_{\theta } (f) = \{ 1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] ) \} = \argmin_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) \}.
\end{equation*}
Given the strict concavity of ${U}_{\theta }^{*}$, the minimizer for on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq} must be unique.
Consequently, if and only if the minimizer $1 - \theta ( f - \mathbb{E} [f] ) \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$, 
it also realizes the minimum on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq}, which is equivalent to the equality ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = {U}_{\theta } (f)$.
This proves the first assertion.
Then, as 
\begin{align*}
  \lambda - \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge \lambda \Big]
= \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \lambda - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \Big]
= \int_{0}^{\infty } \mathbb{P} \Big( \lambda - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \ge s \Big) ds
= \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
\end{align*}
for any $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, the second assertion arises from
\begin{equation*}
\frac{ 1 - \zeta }{\theta } \ge \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
                            \ge f \wedge \Big( \lambda - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) - \mathbb{E} \Big[ f \wedge \Big( \lambda - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \Big], \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s., \quad \forall \lambda \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta },
\end{equation*}
where the first inequality is given by \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } = {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big] 
                                         \ge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \mathbb{E} \Big[ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big].
\end{equation*}
The ``if'' part of the third assertion also follows.
Next, in terms of the ``only if'' part, since $f + \zeta / \theta \le \mathbb{E} [f] + 1 / \theta $, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., we have
\begin{equation*}
    \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } 
\ge \esssup \Big\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big\} - \int_{ - \infty }^{ \esssup \{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \} } t d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le t \Big)
  = \int_{ - \infty }^{ \esssup \{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \} } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds.
\end{equation*}
This inequality combined with \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} implies that $\esssup \{ f + \zeta / \theta \} \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, which leads to $f + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
The ``only if'' part of the last assertion immediately emerges.
Finally, we assume that $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ and $f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ for some $\lambda > {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$.
It follows from the third assertion and \Cref{rem: truncation by other levels} that $\esssup \{ ( f + \zeta / \theta ) \wedge \lambda \} \le {\lambda }_{ f \wedge ( \lambda - \zeta / \theta ), \theta, \zeta } = {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } < \lambda $.
As a consequence, $\esssup \{ f + \zeta / \theta \} \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, which proves the ``if'' part of the last assertion.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}}{Theorem 2.10}}
\label{pf-thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV}

Since ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ as a point-wise infimum of some affine functions is concave and upper semi-continuous,
we conclude that the Fenchel conjugate of ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ is also concave and upper semi-continuous.
It follows from ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } \ge {U}_{\theta }$ that
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) := \inf_{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \} 
                             \le \inf_{ f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E}^{P} [ Y f ] - {U}_{\theta } (f) \} = {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y), 
\quad \forall Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ),
\end{equation*} 
which implies that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) = - \infty $ for $\mathbb{E} [Y] \ne 1$.
For $Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$,
the converse inequality ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) \ge {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y)$ follows from
$\mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \ge {U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) > - \infty$ given by \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq} for any $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$.
Otherwise, there exists $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $\mathbb{P} ( Y \le \zeta - \varepsilon ) > 0$,
and then for $f = c {1}_{\{ Y \le \zeta - \varepsilon \}} \ge 0 {1}_{\Omega } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \zeta, \theta  }$ with $c \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
        & \mathbb{E} [ ( Y - \zeta ) f ] \le - c \varepsilon \mathbb{P} ( Y \le \zeta - \varepsilon ) \downarrow - \infty, \quad as \quad c \uparrow \infty; \\
        & {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta f ] \ge {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( 0 {1}_{\Omega } ) = {U}_{\theta } ( 0 {1}_{\Omega } ) = 0,
        \end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
which implies that ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) = - \infty $. 
In summary, we have
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) 
= \left\{ \begin{aligned} 
  & - \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] - 1 ), && if \ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) ~and~ \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1; \\
  & - \infty, && otherwise. 
  \end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Applying Fenchel-Moreau theorem (cf. \citeA[Theorem 13.37]{Bauschke-Combettes-2017}) to ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ with its biconjugate yields
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) \}, \quad \forall f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ).
\end{equation*}
Notably, the above result also arises from assigning ${U}_{\theta }^{*} (Y) = - \infty $ for any $Y \notin \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$ in \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq};
however, the Fenchel conjugation of $( {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }, {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} )$ gives some additional information about superdifferential $\partial {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ as follows.
In fact, $Y \in \partial {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ is equivalent to the following statements
\begin{itemize}
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) \le {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) + \mathbb{E} [ Y ( g - f ) ]$ for any $g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$;
\item $\mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \le \inf_{ g \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y g ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g) \} \equiv {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y)$;
\item ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y)$.
\end{itemize}
Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\partial {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) 
= \argmin_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) } \{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta }^{*} (Y) \}
= \argmin_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E}^{P} [Y] = 1 } \Big\{ \mathbb{E} [ Y f ] + \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ] - 1 ) \Big\}
\label{eq: superdifferential of SMMV :eq}
\end{equation}
is at most a singleton.
If the minimizer exists, then ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ is G\^ateaux differentiable according to \citeA[Proposition 1.8, p. 5]{Phelps-1993},
and $d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ realizes the minimum on the right-hand side of \cref{eq: definition of SMMV :eq}, which meets the result of heuristically applying envelope theorem.

Now we solve the minimization problem for \cref{eq: superdifferential of SMMV :eq} by Lagrange duality method (noting that Lagrange multiplier method is also feasible). 
Let us proceed with the following min-max inequality:
\begin{align*}
      \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1 } \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } {Y}^{2} \Big] 
&   = \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) } \sup_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \Big\{ \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{2 \theta } {Y}^{2} - \lambda Y \Big] + \lambda \Big\} \\
& \ge \sup_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) } \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{2 \theta } {Y}^{2} - \lambda Y \Big] + \lambda \bigg\} \\
&   = \sup_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \inf_{ Y \ge \zeta } \Big\{ \frac{1}{2 \theta } {Y}^{2} + ( f - \lambda ) Y \Big\} \bigg] + \lambda \bigg\},
\end{align*}
for which the unique minimizer $Y = \zeta + \theta ( \lambda - f - \zeta / \theta )_{+} \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} )$ can be easily seen from
\begin{equation*} 
  \inf_{ Y \ge \zeta } \Big\{ \frac{1}{2 \theta } {Y}^{2} + ( f - \lambda ) Y \Big\}
= \inf_{ Y - \zeta \ge 0 } \Big\{ \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( Y - \zeta )^{2} - \Big( \lambda - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) ( Y - \zeta ) \Big\} + {\zeta }^{2} - \zeta ( \lambda - f ).
\end{equation*}
Consequently,
\begin{align*}
& \argmax_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) } \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{2 \theta } {Y}^{2} - \lambda Y \Big] + \lambda \bigg\} \\
& = \argmax_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \lambda ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )
                                             - \frac{\theta }{2 } \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \lambda - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)^{2} {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le \lambda \}} \Big] \bigg\} \\
& = \argmax_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \lambda ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )
                                             - \frac{\theta }{2} \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } ( \lambda - s )^{2} d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) \bigg\} \\
& = \argmax_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \lambda ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )
                                             - \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } ( \lambda - s ) \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Notably, the last equality arises from
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{1}{2} \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } ( \lambda - t )^{2} d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le t \Big)
= \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le t \Big) \int_{t}^{\lambda } ( \lambda - s ) ds
= \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } ( \lambda - s ) ds \int_{ - \infty }^{s} d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le t \Big). 
\end{equation*}
By the first-order derivative conditions $0 = 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] - \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } \mathbb{P} ( f + \zeta / \theta \le s ) ds$,
of which the right-hand side is decreasing in $\lambda $ and strictly decreasing on $( \essinf \{ f + \zeta / \theta \}, + \infty )$,
we arrive at the unique maximizer ${\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ given by \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}.
Therefore, by
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
&   \inf_{ Y \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{ \zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Y] = 1 } \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } {Y}^{2} \Big] 
\ge \mathbb{E} \Big[ f Y + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } {Y}^{2} \Big] \Big|_{ Y = \zeta + \theta ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } )_{+} }, \\
& \mathbb{E} \Big[ \zeta + \theta \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \Big] 
= \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] + \theta \bigg( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big] \bigg) = 1,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
we conclude that $Y = \zeta + \theta ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \zeta / \theta )_{+}$ is the unique minimizer for \cref{eq: superdifferential of SMMV :eq},
and hence $d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = \zeta + \theta ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \zeta / \theta )_{+}$.
Furthermore, one can obtain
\begin{align*}
  {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) 
= \max_{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \lambda ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] )
                                        - \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{\lambda } ( \lambda - s ) \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg\}
+ \mathbb{E} [ f \zeta ] + \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} ] - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta }, 
\end{align*}
and then immediately arrive at \cref{eq: direct calculation form of SMMV :eq}.
Then, the second line of our desired expression for ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ follows, as
\begin{align*}
  \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } s \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
& = \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } s ds \int_{ - \infty }^{s} d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le t \Big) \\
& = \frac{\theta }{2} \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }^{2} - {s}^{2} ) d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) \\
& = \frac{\theta }{2} {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }^{2} 
  - \frac{\theta }{2} {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }^{2} \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big)
  - \frac{\theta }{2} \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } {s}^{2} d \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) \\
& = \frac{\theta }{2} \bigg( \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } + \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big] \bigg)^{2}
  - \frac{\theta }{2} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \Big| \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big|^{2} \bigg] \\
& = \frac{\theta }{2} \Big( \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } \Big)^{2} 
  - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } \Big) 
  + {U}_{\theta } \bigg( \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \bigg) \\
& = \frac{ 1 - | \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] |^{2} }{ 2 \theta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] 
  + {U}_{\theta } \bigg( \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \wedge {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \bigg),
\end{align*}
where the fourth and fifth equalities both arise from \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}.
Alternatively, proceeding with the above fourth equality, we substitute 
\begin{align*}
  \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } s \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
& = \frac{\theta }{2} \bigg( \frac{1}{\theta } + \mathbb{E} \Big[ f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \Big] \bigg)^{2}
  - \frac{\theta }{2} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \Big| f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big|^{2} \bigg] \\
& = \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} ] }{ 2 \theta } 
  + {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
  - \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg]
\end{align*}
into the right-hand side of \cref{eq: direct calculation form of SMMV :eq} and then obtain \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq}, which leads to the last line of our desired result.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: minimality of SMMV}}{Proposition 2.11}}
\label{pf-thm: minimality of SMMV}

Assume by contradiction that $V(f) < {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ and $\partial V (f) \cap \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\zeta + } ( \mathbb{P} ) \ne \varnothing$ for some $f \notin \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$. 
Then, it follows from the expression \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq} that
\begin{align*}
    {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
& = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] \\
& > V(f) - \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] \\
& \ge V(f) - \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \bigg] \\
& \ge V \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg),
\end{align*}
which contradicts $V |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } } = {U}_{\theta } |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } }$. 

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: maximality of SMMV}}{Proposition 2.12}}
\label{pf-thm: maximality of SMMV}

On the one hand, by \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq} and $f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, we have
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) \le \sup_{ g \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }, g \le f } \{ {U}_{\theta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] \}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, since $d {U}_{\theta } (f) \in \partial {U}_{\theta } (f)$, $d {U}_{\theta } |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } } = d {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } |_{ \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta } }$ and 
${\lambda }_{ f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ), \theta, \zeta } = {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$, we have
\begin{align*}
{U}_{\theta } (g) & \le {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) 
                      + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( g - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) 
                                          \bigg( \zeta + \theta \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - f - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \bigg) \bigg] \\
                  & \le {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) 
                      + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( g - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] 
\end{align*}
for any $g \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ with $g \le f$.
Abstracting $\mathbb{E} [ ( g - f ) \zeta ]$ from both sides of the above inequality, 
then applying \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq} for the right-hand side and taking supremum on the left-hand side over all $g \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ with $g \le f$,
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{ g \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }, g \le f } \{ {U}_{\theta } (g) + \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ] \} \le {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f).
\end{equation*}
In summary, the first desired equality is proved. 
Moreover, the previous proof is also valid, if we extend the domain for $g$ to $\mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ with $g \le f$. 
Therefore, the second desired equality holds.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: more uncertainty averse for SMMV}}{Proposition 2.13}}
\label{pf-thm: more uncertainty averse for SMMV}

The ``only if'' part is obvious, due to the monotonicity of ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$ in $\theta $ (see \Cref{rem: monotonicity in theta and zeta}).
To see the ``if'' part, we firstly take $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ arbitrarily and $c = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$.
The identity ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) {1}_{\Omega } )$ gives ${V}_{ \hat{\theta }, \zeta } (f) \ge {V}_{ \hat{\theta }, \zeta } ( {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) {1}_{\Omega } ) = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f)$.
Then, we assume by contradiction that $\theta < \hat{\theta }$.
Moreover, assume that $f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } ) = c$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. for some $c \in \mathbb{R}$.
It follows that $f = c$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. on $\{ f \le {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } \}$.
If $\{ f > {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } \}$ were not a $\mathbb{P}$-null set,
then ${\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } = c$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. on this set would give 
$( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - c ) \hat{\theta } = {\zeta }_{0}$ and $\zeta = {\zeta }_{0}$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. on this set,
and hence result in $\mathbb{P} ( f \le {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } ) = \mathbb{P} ( c + \zeta / \hat{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } ) = \mathbb{P} ( \zeta \le {\zeta }_{0} ) = 1$.
Therefore, $\Var [ f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } ) ] = 0$ is equivalent to $f = c$ $\mathbb{P}-a.s.$ for some $c \in \mathbb{R}$.
So we can find $f \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$ such that $\Var [ f \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \zeta / \hat{\theta } ) ] > 0$, as $\mathcal{F}$ is non-trivial.
As a consequence, a contradiction arises from
\begin{align*}
  {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) 
& \ge {U}_{\theta } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
    + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] \\
&   > {U}_{ \hat{\theta } } \bigg( f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
    + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( f - f \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \hat{\theta }, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] \\
&   = {V}_{ \hat{\theta }, \zeta } (f),
\end{align*}
where the first inequality and the last equality follow from \Cref{thm: maximality of SMMV} and \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq}, respectively.
Therefore, $\theta \ge \hat{\theta }$, and we complete the proof.


\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: SSD for SMMV}}{Proposition 2.14}}
\label{pf-thm: SSD for SMMV}

On the one hand, ${\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$ can be seen from
\begin{equation*}
  \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( g + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
= \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
\le \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( g + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds,
\end{equation*}
where the first equality follows from \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} and the last inequality follows from \cref{eq: SSD :eq} with $t = {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$.
On the other hand, since it also follows from \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} that
\begin{align*}
    \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } s \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds 
& = \theta {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds
  - \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \int_{s}^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } dt \\
& = {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] ) 
  - \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } dt \int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds,
\end{align*}
then, given the expression \cref{eq: direct calculation form of SMMV :eq} and the second-order stochastic dominance condition \cref{eq: SSD :eq}, we have  
\begin{align*}
  {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (f) - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } (g)
& = \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ]
  + ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } - {\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } ) ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] ) 
  - \theta \int_{ {\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } dt \int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \\
& \quad + \theta \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } } \bigg( \int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( g + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds 
                                                                            - \int_{ - \infty }^{t} \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg) dt \\
& \ge \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ]
    + \theta \int_{ {\lambda }_{ g, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } dt \int_{t}^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \\
& \ge \mathbb{E} [ ( f - g ) \zeta ].
\end{align*}

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: optimality condition for SP}}{Theorem 3.1}}
\label{pf-thm: optimality condition for SP}

Since ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta }$ is concave and ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha } }$ is affine in $\vec{\alpha }$, one can arrive at ${V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } )$ is jointly concave in $\vec{\alpha }$.
It follows from \Cref{thm: Gateaux differentiability and equivalent expressions of SMMV} that
\begin{equation*} 
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( \vec{X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \varepsilon \vec{h} ) - {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( \vec{X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } )
= \bigg\langle \vec{h}, \mathbb{E} \bigg[ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \bigg( \zeta + \theta \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \bigg) \bigg] \bigg\rangle \varepsilon + o ( \varepsilon )
\end{equation*}
for any $( \varepsilon, \vec{h} ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}$,
so the following gradient condition,
\begin{align}
\vec{0} 
& = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \bigg( \zeta + \theta \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big)_{+} \bigg) \bigg] \notag \\
& \equiv \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \zeta ]
       + \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
                                                 \mathbb{E} \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big] \notag \\
&\quad - \theta \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
                \mathbb{E} \Big[ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big],
\label{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq}
\end{align}
is necessary and sufficient to realize the maximum in \cref{eq: SP :eq}.
Notably, the second equation in \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq} is a re-expression of \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}, 
so the rest of this proof is to show the equivalence between \cref{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq} and the first equation in \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq}.
Applying the iterated conditioning to \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq} with $f = \vec{X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} }$ yields
\begin{equation*}
  {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
= \frac{\kappa }{\theta } + \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big)
                            \mathbb{E} \Big[ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \Big].
\end{equation*}
Substituting it back into \cref{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq}, together with rearrangement, we obtain
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \zeta ]
+ \kappa \mathbb{E} \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big] \\
& = \theta \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big)
           \mathbb{E} \Big[ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big] \\
& \quad - \theta \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big)
                 \mathbb{E} \Big[ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big]
                 \mathbb{E} \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big] \\ 
& = \theta \mathbb{P} \Big( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big)
           \Cov \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1}, {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big].
\end{align*}
As ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } = r + \langle \vec{\alpha }, \vec{R} - r \vec{1} \rangle$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Cov \Big[ \vec{R} - r \vec{1}, {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big]
= \Var \Big[ \vec{R} \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big] \vec{\alpha }
+ \Cov \Big[ \vec{R}, \zeta \Big| {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } } \Big].
\end{equation*}
Hence, \cref{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq} gives the first equation in \cref{eq: optimality condition for SP :eq}, and vice versa.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: express SMMV portfolio}}{Proposition 3.3}}
\label{pf-lem: express SMMV portfolio}

In order to remove the real number $\mu $, we centralized the first equation in \cref{eq: KKT condition :eq} and arrive at
\begin{equation}
0 = \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta - 1 + \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{R} - \mathbb{E} [R] \rangle - ( \beta - \mathbb{E} [ \beta ] ), \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s.
\label{eq: centralized KKT equation :eq}
\end{equation}
Substituting \cref{eq: centralized KKT equation :eq} into the first line of the gradient condition \cref{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq} yields 
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ]
= \theta \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \vec{R} - \mathbb{E} [ \vec{R} ] )^{\top } ] {\alpha }^{*}
- \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \beta - \mathbb{E} [ \beta ] ) ]
= \theta \Var [ \vec{R} ] {\alpha }^{*} - \Cov [ \vec{R}, \beta ],
\end{equation*}
which results in \cref{eq: express SMMV portfilio by Lagrange multiplier :eq}.
Multiplying $\beta $ and then taking expectation on both sides of \cref{eq: centralized KKT equation :eq}, with applying the third line in \cref{eq: KKT condition :eq}, 
we obtain $0 = \mathbb{E} [ \beta ( \zeta - 1 ) ] + \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \Cov [ \vec{R}, \beta ] \rangle - \Var [ \beta ]$ that is equivalent to \cref{eq: express SMMV portfilio by Lagrange multiplier :eq}:
Furthermore, as the first equation of \cref{eq: KKT condition :eq} gives $\beta = \kappa {Z}_{*} + ( \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta ) - r \theta ( 1 - \langle \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \vec{1} \rangle ) + \mu $,
we have $\Var [ \beta ] = \Var [ \kappa {Z}_{*} + ( \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta ) ] = {\theta }^{2} \Var [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \vee ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta ) ]$.
If ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, or namely, ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} }$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., 
then $\Var [ \beta ] = {\theta }^{2} \Var [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } ] = 0$.
Conversely, we suppose that $\Var [ \beta ] = 0$, and assume by contradiction that $\mathbb{P} ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } ) \in ( 0,1 )$
(noting that ${\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } > \essinf ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta )$, see the second assertion of \Cref{lem: identity and truncation}).
By iterated conditioning formula, we have the decomposition
\begin{align*}
  \Var [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \vee ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta ) ]
& = \mathbb{E} \big[ \Var [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \vee ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta ) | {1}_{\{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \}} ] \big] \\
& \quad + \Var \big[ \mathbb{E} [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \vee ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta ) | {1}_{\{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \}} ] \big],
\end{align*}
of which each term on the right-hand side vanishes.
Since the first term vanishes, there must exist some constant $c > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} }$ such that ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta = c$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
Then, in terms of the second term, 
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \vee ( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta ) | {1}_{\{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \}} ]
= {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } {1}_{\{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \}}
+ c {1}_{\{ {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta > {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \}}
\end{equation*}
has a positive variance, which leads to a contradiction.
Therefore, ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta / \theta \le {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} }$, or equivalently, ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, follows from $\Var [ \beta ] = 0$.
So we are done.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: saddle point for SP}}{Theorem 3.5}}
\label{pf-thm: saddle point for SP}

The ``if'' part is obvious according to the definition of saddle point.
So the rest of this proof is showing the ``only if'' part.
Denote by $M$ the value of \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}.
By comparing \cref{eq: SP :eq} with the expression \cref{eq: modificed MV form of SMMV :eq}, 
together with the identities ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \zeta / \theta ) = {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \zeta / \theta - \kappa {Z}_{*} / \theta $ 
and $( \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta + \kappa {Z}_{*} - \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } ) {Z}_{*} = 0$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
  \mathcal{M} 
& = \theta {U}_{\theta } \bigg( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
  + \theta \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] 
  - \theta r \\
& = \mathbb{E} [ \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } - \zeta - \kappa {Z}_{*} ]
  - \frac{1}{2} \Var [ \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta ]
  + \mathbb{E} [ ( \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta + \kappa {Z}_{*} - \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } ) \zeta ]
  - \theta r \\
& = \kappa \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} }
  - \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta )^{2} ]
  + \mathbb{E} [ ( \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha }^{*} } + \zeta + \kappa {Z}_{*} ) \zeta ] 
  - \theta r \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta )^{2} ] - \frac{1}{2} + \theta \langle \vec{\alpha }^{*}, \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta ) ] \rangle.
\end{align*}
According to the gradient condition \cref{eq: gradient condition for SP :eq}, i.e., $\mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta ) ] = 0$, we further arrive at $2 \mathcal{M} = \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta )^{2} ] - 1$.
Consequently, the max-min inequality
\begin{align*}
2 \mathcal{M} & \le \min_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1 } \max_{ \vec{\alpha } \in \mathbb{R}^{n} } 
                    \{ 2 \langle \theta \vec{\alpha }, \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] \rangle + \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] - 1 \} \\
           & \equiv \min_{ Z \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{+} ( \mathbb{P} ), ~ \mathbb{E} [Z] = 1, ~ \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] = \vec{0} } \{ \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] - 1 \}
\end{align*}
for \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq} holds with equality. 
Therefore, $( \vec{\alpha }^{*}, {Z}_{*} )$ is the saddle point for \cref{eq: max-min problem for SP :eq}.

For the minimization problem \cref{eq: minimization problem for existence in SP :eq}, we define the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{2}: \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}$
with modified Lagrange multipliers by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}_{2} ( Z, \beta, \mu, \vec{\alpha } ) 
:= \frac{1}{ 2 \kappa } \mathbb{E} [ ( \kappa Z + \zeta )^{2} ] - \mathbb{E} [ \beta Z ] + ( \theta r - \mu ) ( \mathbb{E} [Z] - 1 ) + \frac{\theta }{\kappa } \langle \vec{\alpha }, \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa Z + \zeta ) ] \rangle,
\end{equation*}
and then arrive at the KKT condition
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta - \beta - \mu + \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } }, \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s.; \\
& \mathbb{E} [ {Z}_{*} ] = 1, \quad \mathbb{E} [ ( \vec{R} - r \vec{1} ) ( \kappa {Z}_{*} + \zeta ) ] = \vec{0}; \\
& \beta \ge 0, ~ {Z}_{*} \ge 0, ~ \beta {Z}_{*} = 0, \quad \mathbb{P}-a.s.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Multiplying $\kappa {Z}_{*}$ on both sides of the first equation yields, with applying the third line, yields $0 = \kappa {Z}_{*} ( \kappa {Z}_{*} - \mu + \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \zeta )$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{itemize}
\item On $\{ \mu \le \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \zeta \}$, $\kappa {Z}_{*} = 0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\item On $\{ \mu > \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \zeta \}$, if $\kappa {Z}_{*} = 0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., then the first equation in the KKT condition gives $\beta = \zeta + \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \mu < 0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
      This implies that $\kappa {Z}_{*} = \mu - \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \zeta$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., unless $\{ \mu > \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \zeta \}$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-null set.
\end{itemize}
In summary, we obtain $\kappa {Z}_{*} = ( \mu - \theta {X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } - \zeta )_{+}$, and hence $\mu = \theta {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } }$ due to the second equation and \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}. 
Therefore, ${Z}_{*} > 0$ is equivalent to ${X}_{ \vec{\alpha } } + \zeta / \theta < {\lambda }_{ \vec{\alpha } }$, 
and hence the final assertion arises from \Cref{thm: optimality condition for SP}.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: optimal MV portfolio}}{Lemma 4.1}}
\label{pf-lem: optimal MV portfolio}

Suppose that $\mathcal{V}^{c} ( t, \cdot )$ is three times continuously differentiable, which can be verified by \cref{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq}.
Differentiating both sides of \cref{eq: HJB for MV :eq}, with applying envelope theorem or straightforward rearrangement, yields
\begin{equation*}
0 = \mathcal{V}_{x} ( s, {X}^{c}_{s} ) {r}_{s} 
  + \mathcal{V}_{tx} ( s, {X}^{c}_{s} ) + \mathcal{V}_{xx} ( s, {X}^{c}_{s} ) ( {r}_{s} {X}^{c}_{s} + {\pi }^{c}_{s} {\sigma }_{s} {\vartheta }_{s} ) + \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}_{xxx} ( s, {X}^{c}_{s} ) ( {\pi }^{c}_{s} {\sigma }_{s} )^{2}. 
\end{equation*}
By It\^o's rule and the terminal condition $\mathcal{V}_{x} ( T, {X}^{c}_{T} ) = \theta ( {X}^{c}_{T} - c ) - 1$ arising from \cref{eq: terminal condition for MV :eq}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\theta ( {X}^{c}_{T} - c ) - 1 = \mathcal{V}^{c}_{x} ( t, {X}^{c}_{t} ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv - \int_{t}^{T} {\vartheta }_{v} d {W}_{v} - \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }.
\label{eq: MV terminal wealth :eq}
\end{equation}
Taking conditional expectation under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ on both sides results in
\begin{equation}
\theta \Big( {X}^{c}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - c \Big) - 1 = \mathcal{V}^{c}_{x} ( t, {X}^{c}_{t} ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv + \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv },
\label{eq: MV shadow price :eq}
\end{equation}
which immediately leads to \cref{eq: minimizer for auxiliary problem for MV :eq}.
In order to derive the maximizer ${c}^{*}$, let us plug ${\pi }^{c}_{t}$ with $c = \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{c}_{T} ]$ back into \cref{eq: wealth dynamics :eq} to arrive at the mean-field SDE
\begin{equation*}
d {X}^{c}_{t} = {r}_{t} {X}^{c}_{t} dt - {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big( {X}^{c}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{c}_{T} ] - \frac{1}{\theta } \Big) {\vartheta }_{t} ( d {W}_{t} + {\vartheta }_{t} dt ).
\end{equation*}
As a result, 
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} [ {X}^{c}_{t} ] = {X}_{0} {e}^{ \int_{0}^{t} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv }
                           + \Big( \frac{1}{\theta } + \mathbb{E} [ {X}^{c}_{T} ] \Big) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big( 1 - {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big).
\end{equation*}
In particular, sending $t$ to $T$ yields $\mathbb{E} [ {X}^{c}_{T} ] = {X}_{0} \exp ( \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv ) + ( \exp ( \int_{0}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv ) - 1 ) / \theta $. So we are done.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: identical solution of SMMV and MV}}{Theorem 4.3}}
\label{pf-thm: identical solution of SMMV and MV}

Consider ${X}_{T}$ corresponding to an arbitrarily fixed $\pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$. 
Obviously, if ${X}_{T} \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$, then
\begin{equation*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{T} ) = {U}_{\theta } ( {X}_{T} ) \le \max_{ \pi \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } {U}_{\theta } ( {X}_{T} ) = {U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} ) = {V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} ).
\end{equation*}
Otherwise, we purpose to seek the replicating portfolio for ${X}_{T} \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta }$.
Let us introduce $\mathbb{X}_{t} := \mathbb{E}^{ \tilde{\mathbb{P}} } [ ( {X}_{T} \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta ) ) \exp ( - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$
so that $\mathbb{X}_{T} = {X}_{T} \wedge ( {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta } - \zeta / \theta )$ and $\mathbb{X}_{0} \le {X}_{0}$. 
Applying martingale representation theorem to $\{ \mathbb{X}_{t} \exp ( - \int_{0}^{t} {r}_{v} dv ) \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$, together with variable replacement,
we conclude that there exists $\mathfrak{X} \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( 0,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{X}_{t} {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{t} {r}_{v} dv } = \mathbb{X}_{0} + \int_{0}^{t} {e}^{ - \int_{0}^{s} {r}_{v} dv } \mathfrak{X}_{s} {\sigma }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds ).
\end{equation*}
Thus, $\mathfrak{X}$ gives the replicating portfolio for ${X}_{T} \wedge {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta }$. 
Moreover, since
\begin{equation*}
{X}^{ \mathfrak{X} }_{T} = {X}_{0} {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \int_{0}^{T} {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \mathfrak{X}_{s} {\sigma }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds )
                         = ( {X}_{0} - \mathbb{X}_{0} ) {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{X}_{T} \in \mathcal{G}_{ \theta, \zeta },
\end{equation*}
where the superscript $\mathfrak{X}$ is introduced to indicate the dependence and to distinguish ${X}^{ \mathfrak{X} }_{T}$ from the primal ${X}_{T}$ corresponding to some $\pi $,
we have ${U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{ \mathfrak{X} }_{T} ) \le {U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} )$, and hence
\begin{align*}
{V}_{ \theta, \zeta } ( {X}_{T} ) 
& = {U}_{\theta } \bigg( {X}_{T} \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg)
  + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( {X}_{T} - {X}_{T} \wedge \Big( {\lambda }_{ {X}_{T}, \theta, \zeta } - \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \Big) \bigg) \zeta \bigg] \\
& \le {U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{ \mathfrak{X} }_{T} ) 
    - ( {X}_{0} - \mathbb{X}_{0} ) {e}^{ \int_{0}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
    + \mathbb{E} [ ( {X}_{T} - \mathbb{X}_{T} ) {\Lambda }_{T} ] \\
& \le {U}_{\theta } ( {X}^{*}_{T} ).
\end{align*}

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}}{Theorem 4.5}}
\label{pf-thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}

Given \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} and an arbitrarily fixed $( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$,
applying the It\^o-Kunita-Ventzel formula (as a generalized version of It\^o's rule, see \citeA[Theorem 1.5.3.2]{Jeanblanc-Yor-Chesney-2009}) to $\mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )$ yields
\begin{align*}
  d \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )
& = \big( \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \pi, \gamma } \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \pi, \gamma } \Phi ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} )
     - \mathbb{H} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) \big) dt \\
& \quad + \big( \Phi ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }_{s}, {\gamma }_{s} } \mathcal{V} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, \pi }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{s} ) \big) d {W}_{s}.
\end{align*}
Integrate both sides of the above SDE from $t$ to $T$, and take expectation conditioned on $\mathcal{F}_{t}$ under $\mathbb{P}$.
For any $\gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) )$, 
combining the second line of \cref{eq: saddle point condition :eq} with the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) 
\le \mathbb{E} [ \mathcal{V} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
  = \mathbb{E} [ {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
  = {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
In the same manner, one can arrive at $\mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) \ge {J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z )$ for any $\pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x}$.
Therefore, 
\begin{equation*}
{J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \le \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) = {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z ) \le {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, \gamma } ( t,x,z ), 
\quad \forall ( \pi, \gamma ) \in {\Pi }^{t,x} \times \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ).
\end{equation*}
This implies that $( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} )$ is the desired saddle point, which leads to the max-min equality
\begin{equation*}
  {J}^{ {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} } ( t,x,z )
= \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z )
= \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{L}^{2}_{\mathbb{F}} ( t,T; \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} ) ) } \esssup_{ \pi \in {\Pi }^{t,x} } {J}^{ \pi, \gamma } ( t,x,z ).
\end{equation*}
So the proof is completed.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}}{Theorem 4.7}}
\label{pf-thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}

Following the same line as in \Cref{pf-lem: optimal MV portfolio}, by applying envelope theorem or straightforward calculation, 
differentiating both sides of \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} with respect to $x$ under additional differentiability assumptions (which can be verified by the solution) yields
\begin{equation*}
  - d \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z )
= \big( \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) {r}_{t} + \mathcal{D}_{1}^{ \hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ), \hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) } \mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ \hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ), \hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) } {\Phi }_{x} ( t,x,z ) \big) dt
- {\Phi }_{x} ( t,x,z ) d {W}_{t},
\end{equation*}
which by It\^o-Kunita-Ventzel formula and the first equation in \cref{eq: optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} results in 
\begin{align*}
  d \mathcal{V}_{x} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
& = - \mathcal{V}_{x} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ) {r}_{s} ds \\
& \quad + \big( {\Phi }_{x} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
              + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }^{*}_{s}, {\gamma }^{*}_{s} } \mathcal{V}_{x} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ) \big) d {W}_{s} \\
& = - \mathcal{V}_{x} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ) ( {r}_{s} ds + {\vartheta }_{s} d {W}_{s} ).
\end{align*}
So $\mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) \exp ( - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv ) {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t} = \zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T}$,
as \cref{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} gives $\mathcal{V}_{x} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} ) = \zeta + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T}$.
Taking conditional expectation under $\mathbb{P}$ on both sides yields $\mathcal{V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) = ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv )$,
which implies that ${\Phi }_{x} ( t,x,z ) = {\eta }_{t} \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv )$.
In the same manner, one can arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}_{z} ( t,x,z ) = \frac{\kappa }{\theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } + \kappa x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }, \quad
{\Phi }_{z} ( t,x,z ) = \frac{\kappa }{\theta } {\eta }_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
\end{equation*}
via
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
  d \mathcal{V}_{z} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
& = \big( {\Phi }_{z} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} )
        + \mathcal{D}_{2}^{ {\pi }^{*}_{s}, {\gamma }^{*}_{s} } {V}_{z} ( s, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{s}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s} ) \big) d {W}_{s}
  = 0 \\
    \mathcal{V}_{z} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} )
& = \frac{\kappa }{\theta } \mathcal{V}_{x} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} ) + \kappa {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T},
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
and taking conditional expectation under $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ on both sides of
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}_{z} ( t,x,z ) = \frac{\kappa }{\theta } {V}_{x} ( t,x,z ) \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
                          + \kappa {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{*} }_{T}.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, $\mathcal{V}_{xx} ( t,x,z ) = 0$, $\mathcal{V}_{xz} ( t,x,z ) = \kappa {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }$ and $\mathcal{V}_{zz} ( t,x,z ) = ( {\kappa }^{2} / \theta ) \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv )$.
Substituting the above partial derivatives of $( \mathcal{V}, \Phi )$ back into \cref{eq: optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} yields the feedback random fields
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\pi } ( t,x,z ) = \frac{ {\vartheta }_{t} }{\theta {\sigma }_{t} } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv }, \quad
\hat{\gamma } ( t,x,z ) = - \frac{1}{\kappa } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] {\vartheta }_{t} + {\eta }_{t} ) - z {\vartheta }_{t},
\end{equation*}
which immediately lead to the desired saddle point \cref{eq: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem :eq}.

Furthermore, by substituting the above partial derivatives of $( \mathcal{V}, \Phi )$ and the feedback random fields $( \hat{\pi }, \hat{\gamma } )$ back into \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq}, together with rearrangement, 
we obtain
\begin{align*}
  - d \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z )
& = \Big( x ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) {r}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
        + \frac{1}{2 \theta } ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z )^{2} | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } 
        - \frac{1}{2 \theta } | {\eta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big) dt \\
& \quad - \Phi ( t,x,z ) d {W}_{t}.
\end{align*}
As the terminal condition has been given by \cref{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}, 
by It\^o's rule and the martingale representation \cref{eq: martingale representation of zeta :eq}, one can arrive at
\begin{align*}
  \mathcal{V} ( t,x,z ) 
& = x ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }
  + \Big( \frac{\kappa }{\theta } \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] z + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {z}^{2} \Big) {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \\
& - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{t}^{T} \Big( | {\eta }_{s} |^{2} - ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] )^{2} | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} \Big) {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } ds \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\end{align*}
Moreover, applying It\^o's rule to $( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] )^{2} \exp ( \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv )$ provides
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \\
= \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{t}^{T} \Big( | {\eta }_{s} |^{2} - ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] )^{2} | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} \Big) {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } ds \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\end{equation*}
Summing up with rearranging the terms in the expression of $\mathcal{V}$.

To show that ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }$ with $z > 0$ has a positive probability under $\mathbb{P}$ of downwards crossing the threshold $Z = 0$,
it suffices to derive $\mathbb{P} ( {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} < 0 ) > 0$ due to the continuous path of ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }$.
In fact, from the second line of \cref{eq: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem :eq}, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{s}
= \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z
- \int_{t}^{s} ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{v} ] + \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{v} ) {\vartheta }_{v} d {W}_{v}
= ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] }.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $\kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} = ( {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta ) + ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) {\Lambda }_{T} / \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$.
If $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z \le 0$, then we have $\mathbb{P} ( {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} < 0 ) \ge \mathbb{P} ( {\Lambda }_{T} < \zeta ) > 0$.
Otherwise, we assume by contradiction that ${Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} \ge 0$, which leads to
\begin{equation*}
0 \le \kappa \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} ] 
    = \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} ( {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta ) ]
    + \mathbb{E} \bigg[ ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} {1}_{A} }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] } \bigg]
\end{equation*}
for any $A \in \mathcal{F}_{T}$.
As a consequence, for $0 < \varepsilon < \esssup ( \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} )$, on the set
\begin{equation*}
A = \{ {\Lambda }_{T} \le \zeta - \varepsilon \} \cap \bigg\{ {\Lambda }_{T} \le \frac{\varepsilon }{2} \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z } \bigg\} \in \mathcal{F}_{T}
\end{equation*} 
we get $0 \le \kappa \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{A} {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{*} }_{T} ] \le - \mathbb{P} (A) \varepsilon / 2$, a contradiction.
So this proof has been completed.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: irregular boundary condition}}{Lemma 4.9}}
\label{pf-lem: irregular boundary condition}

Assume by contradiction that $\tau < T$ results in a $\pi $-independent ${J}^{ \pi, {\gamma }^{**} } ( \tau, x, 0 )$.
Notably, \cref{eq: necessary condition for trivial boundary :eq} also follows.
As an analog to the results in \Cref{thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem},
the feedback form of $( {\pi }^{**}, {\gamma }^{**} )$ can be found by solving \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ 
with the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} on $\mathbb{R} \times [ 0, + \infty )$
and the regular boundary condition ${1}_{\{ \tau \le t \}} \mathcal{V} ( t,x,0 ) = {1}_{\{ \tau \le t \}} x \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv )$ on $[ 0,T ) \times \mathbb{R}$.
Since \cref{eq: necessary condition for trivial boundary :eq} gives
\begin{align*}
  {1}_{\{ \tau \le t \}} \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
= {1}_{\{ \tau \le t \}} ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ | {\Lambda }_{T} |^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] }{ ( \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} }
= {1}_{\{ \tau \le t \}} ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] )^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
\end{align*}
under the abovementioned assumption, we conclude that \cref{eq: value random field for unconstrained control problem :eq} is the desired solution, 
and $( {\pi }^{**}_{s}, {\gamma }^{**}_{s} ) = ( {\pi }^{*}_{s}, {\gamma }^{*}_{s} {1}_{\{ s \le \tau \}} )$ given by \cref{eq: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem :eq},
which implies that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] + {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{**} }_{s} = ( \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \kappa z ) \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] }, 
\quad \mathbb{P}-a.s., \quad \forall s \in [ t, \tau ].
\label{eq: dynamics before first time of hitting zero :eq}
\end{equation}

Now let us consider the case $( t,z ) = ( 0,1 )$. 
If $\{ \tau < T \}$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-null set, then $( {\pi }^{**}, {\gamma }^{**} ) = ( {\pi }^{*}, {\gamma }^{*} )$ immediately follows and results in ${Z}^{ 0,1, {\gamma }^{**} }_{T} = {\Lambda }_{T} - \zeta \ge 0$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., a contradiction.
Hence, $\mathbb{P} ( \tau < T ) > 0$.
It is obvious that ${1}_{\{ \tau < T \}} \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] = 0$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., 
and hence due to \cref{eq: necessary condition for trivial boundary :eq},
\begin{equation*}
  {1}_{\{ \tau < s \}} \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] 
= {1}_{\{ \tau < s \}} \frac{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] }{ \mathbb{E} [ {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] } \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{\tau } ] = 0, 
\quad \mathbb{P}-a.s., \quad \forall s \in ( 0,T ]
\end{equation*}
Conversely, according to the definition of $\tau $, one can obtain $\tau = \inf \{ s: \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] = 0 \}$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. 
In other words, the continuous $( \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P} )$-martingale $\{ \mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ vanishes after it hits zero.
However, $\mathbb{E} [ \zeta - {\Lambda }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{0} ] = \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] - 1 < 0$ implies that this martingale never crosses above zero almost surely;
that is, $\zeta \le {\Lambda }_{T}$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., a contradiction as well.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}}{Theorem 4.11}}
\label{pf-thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}

In fact, \Cref{thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem} consists of the verification technic and the explicit expression of value random field and saddle point.
The proof for verification is parallel to \Cref{pf-thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}, so we omit it.
To derive the value random field \cref{eq: value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq} and the saddle point \cref{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq},
we refer to the same line as in \Cref{pf-thm: optimal MV portfolio via unconstrained control problem}.
By applying envelope theorem or straightforward calculation to differentiate both sides of \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq} with respect to $x$,
with using It\^o-Kunita-Ventzel formula and the optimality condition \cref{eq: optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq}, we obtain 
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} ) 
= \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( t,x,z ) \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv }, \\
& \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} ) 
= \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( t,x,z ).
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, it follows from the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for approximate control problem :eq} that
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -1 & \theta \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} ) }
        { \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( T, {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T}, {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} ) - c }
= \begin{pmatrix} - \rho & 1 \\ \theta + \rho & 0 \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T} - c }{ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} + \zeta }.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, 
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{\theta }{ \theta + \rho } 
  \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\theta } \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } & 1 \\ \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } & \rho \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( t,x,z ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( t,x,z ) - c }
= \binom{ {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T} - c }{ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} + \zeta }.
\end{equation*}
In view that $\mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ {X}^{ t,x, {\pi }^{\dag } }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = x \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv )$ and $\mathbb{E} [ {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\dag } }_{T} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = z$,
by multiplying the diagonal metrix $\diag ( {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}, 1 )$ on both sides of the above equation and then taking conditional expectation under $\mathbb{P}$, 
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{\theta }{ \theta + \rho }
  \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & 1 \\ 1 & \rho \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( t,x,z ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( t,x,z ) - c }
= \binom{ x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - c }{ \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] },
\end{equation*}
which gives
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ \theta + \rho }
  \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( t,x,z ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \frac{1}{\kappa } \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{z} ( t,x,z ) - c }
= \begin{pmatrix} - \rho & 1 \\ 1 & \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - c }{ \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] }.
\end{equation*}
Hence, with writing $\mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{xx} = \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{xx} ( t,x,z )$ and so on for short, we have
\begin{align*}
  \frac{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ \theta + \rho }
  \begin{pmatrix} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{\kappa } \end{pmatrix}
  \begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{xx} & \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{xz} \\ \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{xz} & \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{zz} \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} - \rho & 1 \\ 1 & \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \end{pmatrix}
  \begin{pmatrix} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ \theta + \rho }
  \begin{pmatrix} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{\kappa } \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{ {\Phi }^{\dag }_{x} }{ {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} }
= \begin{pmatrix} - \rho & 1 \\ 1 & \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \end{pmatrix}
  \binom{0}{ {\eta }_{t} }
= {\eta }_{t} \binom{1}{ \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }.
\end{equation*}
We employ $( \hat{\pi }^{\dag }, \hat{\gamma }^{\dag } )$ to represent the feedback random fields for $( {\pi }^{\dag }, {\gamma }^{\dag } )$.
Substituting the above partial derivatives back into the first-order derivative optimality condition like \cref{eq: vectored optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} yields
\begin{equation*}
\vec{0} = \begin{pmatrix} - \rho & 1 \\ 1 & \frac{1}{\theta } {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \end{pmatrix}
          \binom{ \hat{\pi }^{\dag } ( t,x,z ) {\sigma }_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \kappa \hat{\gamma }^{\dag } ( t,x,z ) + {\eta }_{t} } 
        + \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big) {\vartheta }_{t} \binom{1}{0}. 
\end{equation*}
Then, \cref{eq: solution for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq} immediately follows.

Furthermore, combining \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq}, \cref{eq: vectored optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: terminal condition for approximate control problem :eq}, we obtain
\begin{align}
    \mathcal{V}^{\dag } ( t,x,z )
& = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ x ( \zeta + \kappa z ) + \frac{\kappa }{\theta } \zeta z + \frac{ {\kappa }^{2} }{ 2 \theta } {z}^{2} - \frac{\rho }{2} ( x - c )^{2} 
                    + \int_{t}^{T} \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) x {r}_{s} ds \notag \\
& \qquad            + \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} \Big( \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) \hat{\pi } ( s,x,z ) {\sigma }_{s} {\vartheta }_{s} - {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} ( s,x,z ) \frac{ {\eta }_{s} }{\kappa } \Big) ds \notag \\
& \qquad            + \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} \binom{ \hat{\pi }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) {\sigma }_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \kappa \hat{\gamma }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) + {\eta }_{s} }^{\top }
                                               \binom{ {\Phi }^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \frac{1}{\kappa } {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} ( s,x,z ) } ds 
                    \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\label{eq: derive value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}
\end{align}
Let
\begin{equation*}
{K}_{m} ( t,x,z ) := \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } + \rho }
                     \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big)^{m},
\quad m = 0,1,2.
\end{equation*}
Then, $\mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) = {K}_{1} ( s,x,z ) \exp ( \int_{s}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv )$,
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) \hat{\pi }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) {\sigma }_{s} {\vartheta }_{s}
& = {K}_{2} ( s,x,z ) \frac{ | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }, \\
    {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} ( s,x,z ) \frac{ {\eta }_{s} }{\kappa }
& = \frac{1}{\theta } {K}_{0} ( s,x,z ) | {\eta }_{s} |^{2}, \\
    \binom{ \hat{\pi }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) {\sigma }_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \kappa \hat{\gamma }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) + {\eta }_{s} }^{\top }
    \binom{ {\Phi }^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{ \frac{1}{\kappa } {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} ( s,x,z ) }
& = - {K}_{1} ( s,x,z ) {\vartheta }_{s} {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
      \binom{0}{ {\eta }_{s} }^{\top } \binom{1}{0} 
  = 0.
\end{align*} 
Noting that
\begin{align*}
d {K}_{2} ( s,x,z ) & = - {K}_{2} ( s,x,z ) \frac{ \theta | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} }{ \theta + \rho {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } } ds
                      + 2 {K}_{1} ( s,x,z ) \Big( \rho x {r}_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } ds + {\eta }_{s} d {W}_{s} \Big) \\
              & \quad + {K}_{0} ( s,x,z ) | {\eta }_{s} |^{2} ds,
\end{align*}
we have
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{t}^{T} \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) x {r}_{s} ds
                  + \frac{1}{2} \int_{t}^{T} \Big( \mathcal{V}^{\dag }_{x} ( s,x,z ) \hat{\pi }^{\dag } ( s,x,z ) {\sigma }_{s} {\vartheta }_{s} - {\Phi }^{\dag }_{z} ( s,x,z ) \frac{ {\eta }_{s} }{\kappa } \Big) ds \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] \\
& = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{\theta } 
    \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{t}^{T} \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \kappa z + \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big) x {r}_{s} {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } ds \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} [ {K}_{2} ( T,x,z ) - {K}_{2} ( t,x,z ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{\theta }
    \bigg( \frac{\rho }{2} ( c - x )^{2} - \frac{\rho }{2} \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big)^{2}
         + x \big( \kappa z + \mathbb{E}^{P} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big) \Big( {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } - 1 \Big) \bigg) \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{ 2 \theta } \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( \rho ( c - x ) + \kappa z + \zeta \big)^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] + {K}_{2} ( t,x,z ).
\end{align*}
Plugging the above results back into \cref{eq: derive value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}, with rearranging the terms, yields the desired expression \cref{eq: value random field for unconstrained approximate control problem :eq}.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem}}{Lemma 4.13}}
\label{pf-lem: verification theorem for boundary condition of approximate control problem}

Like \Cref{pf-thm: result for unconstrained approximate control problem}, we omit the proof for verification, since it is also parallel to \Cref{pf-thm: verification theorem for unconstrained control problem}.
The rest of this proof is to show that \cref{eq: boundary condition for approximate control problem :eq} with a proper ${\Phi }^{\flat }$ fulfills \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for boundary condition of approximate control problem :eq}.
Following the same line as in \Cref{pf-lem: optimal MV portfolio}, one can obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv } = \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ].
\end{equation*}
By martingale representation theorem, we write $\mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta ] + \int_{0}^{t} \tilde{\eta }_{s} ( d {W}_{s} + {\vartheta }_{s} ds )$.
Then, it follows that ${\Phi }^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) = \tilde{\eta }_{t} \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} ( {r}_{v} - | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} ) dv )$.
Plugging these results into the first-order derivative optimality condition for \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for boundary condition of approximate control problem :eq} yields the feedback random field of optimal control
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\pi }^{\flat } ( t,x ) = \frac{1}{ \rho {\sigma }_{t} } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } 
                              \bigg( \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big) {\vartheta }_{t} + \tilde{\eta }_{t} \bigg).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, it follows from
\begin{align*}
& \esssup_{ \pi \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{xx} ( t,x ) | \pi {\sigma }_{t} |^{2} + \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) ( x {r}_{t} + \pi {\sigma }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} ) + {\Phi }^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) \pi {\sigma }_{t} \bigg\} \\
& = \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{x} ( t,x ) x {r}_{t}
  - \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\flat }_{xx} ( t,x ) \big( \hat{\pi }^{\flat } ( t,x ) {\sigma }_{t} \big)^{2} \\
& = \frac{1}{\rho } \Big( \rho x {r}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \tilde{\eta }_{t} {\vartheta }_{t} \Big) {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
    \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big) \\
& \quad 
  + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } | \tilde{\eta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
  + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
    \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big)^{2}
\end{align*}
that
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x )
& = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( T,x )
                    + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } \int_{t}^{T} d \bigg( {e}^{ - \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } 
                                                               \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{s}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{s} ] \Big)^{2} \bigg) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] \\
& = x \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - \frac{\rho }{2} ( c - x )^{2}
  + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( \rho ( c - x ) + \zeta \big)^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] \\
& \quad
  - \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
    \bigg( \rho \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \bigg)^{2}.
\end{align*}
By rearranging the terms on the right-hand side, \cref{eq: boundary condition for approximate control problem :eq} arises.
As ${\Phi }^{\flat } ( t,x )$ is given by the diffusion term in the semi-martingale decomposition of $\mathcal{V}^{\flat } ( t,x )$, this proof is complete.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: embedding method}}{Lemma 4.15}}
\label{pf-lem: embedding method}

Assume by contradiction that ${\gamma }^{\S } \notin \bar{\Gamma }^{t,z} ( {w}^{\S } )$. 
Thus, there exists some $\gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
  \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
- \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
< {w}^{\S } ( \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
            - \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S} }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ).
\end{equation*}
As a consequence, for the jointly concave auxiliary function 
\begin{equation*}
F ( x,y ) = x - {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) y - \frac{1}{2 \rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } {y}^{2},
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] - {F}^{\gamma }_{1} ( t,x,z ) \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
&   = F \big( \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big) \\
& \le F \big( \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big) \\
& \quad + \big( \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] 
              - \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big) \\
& \quad - {w}^{\S } ( \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
                    - \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ) \\
&   < F \big( \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta, c ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\S } }_{T} + \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \big),
\end{align*}
which contradicts the minimality of ${\gamma }^{\S }$. Hence, ${\gamma }^{\S } \in \bar{\Gamma }^{t,z} ( {w}^{\S } )$.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{lem: saddle point for duality}}{Lemma 4.17}}
\label{pf-lem: saddle point for duality}

On the one hand, \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
    {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T}
\in \argmax_{ z \ge 0 } \{ {h}^{\sharp } z - G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) \}
= \argmax_{ z \ge 0 } \bigg\{ \bigg( \frac{ {h}^{\sharp } }{\kappa } - Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \bigg) z - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } \kappa {z}^{2} \bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
which implies that $\tilde{G} ( {h}^{\sharp }, Y ) = {h}^{\sharp } {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} - G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} + \zeta, Y )$. 
Therefore, \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} gives
\begin{align*}
      \esssup_{ h \in \mathbb{R} } \{ h z - \mathbb{E} [ \tilde{G} ( h,Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}
& \ge \mathbb{E} [ {h}^{\sharp } {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} - \tilde{G} ( {h}^{\sharp }, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
&   = \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
  \ge \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ].
\end{align*}
On the other hand, by straightforward calculation, 
\begin{align*}
\tilde{G} ( h,Y ) & = \esssup_{ z \ge 0 } \bigg\{ \Big( \frac{h}{\kappa } - Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \Big) \kappa z - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } {\kappa }^{2} {z}^{2} \bigg\}
                    - Y \zeta - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } {\zeta }^{2} \\
                  & = \frac{1}{2} \frac{ \theta \rho } { \theta + \rho } \Big| \Big( \frac{h}{\kappa } - Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \Big)_{+} \Big|^{2}
                    - Y \zeta - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } {\zeta }^{2},
\end{align*}
and hence the first-order derivative optimality condition for maximizing $h z - \mathbb{E} [ \tilde{G} ( h, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$ is
\begin{equation*}
z = \frac{1}{ 2 {\kappa }^{2} } \frac{ \theta \rho } { \theta + \rho } \frac{\partial }{\partial h} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \Big| \Big( h - \kappa Y - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \kappa \zeta \Big)_{+} \Big|^{2} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg].
\end{equation*}
For $X = k Y + k \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho ) \in \mathbb{L}^{2} ( \mathbb{P} )$, since
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} \big[ | ( h - X )_{+} |^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] 
= \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{ - \infty }^{h} d {1}_{\{ X \le x \}} \int_{x}^{h} (h-y) dy \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] 
= \int_{ - \infty }^{h} (h-y) \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{\{ X \le y \}} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] dy, 
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial h} \mathbb{E} \big[ | ( h - X )_{+} |^{2} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] 
= \int_{ - \infty }^{h} \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{\{ X \le y \}} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] dy
= \int_{0}^{\infty } \mathbb{E} [ {1}_{\{ h - X \ge y \}} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] dy
= \mathbb{E} [ ( h - X )_{+} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]. 
\end{equation*}
Consequently, it follows from \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq} that
\begin{align*}
      \esssup_{ h \in \mathbb{R} } \{ h z - \mathbb{E} [ \tilde{G} ( h,Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \}
&   = \mathbb{E} [ {h}^{\sharp } {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} - \tilde{G} ( {h}^{\sharp }, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \\
& \ge \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, {\gamma }^{\sharp } }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
  \ge \essinf_{ \gamma \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} } \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa {Z}^{ t,z, \gamma }_{T} + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ].
\end{align*}
Summing up, we conclude that $( {\gamma }^{\sharp }, {h}^{\sharp } ) \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} \times \mathbb{R}$ satisfying \cref{eq: saddle point condition for Z in duality :eq} or \cref{eq: saddle point condition for h in duality :eq} is a saddle point.

Conversely, if $( {\gamma }^{\sharp }, {h}^{\sharp } ) \in {\Gamma }^{t,z} \times \mathbb{R}$ is a saddle point, then all the above inequalities hold as equalities.
Obviously, ${h}^{\sharp }$ maximizes $h z - \mathbb{E} [ \tilde{G} ( h, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$.
Given the first-order derivative optimality condition, ${h}^{\sharp }$ must be unique as $z > 0$.
Moreover, since $\mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$ is strictly convex in $z$, 
one can obtain the uniqueness of the minimizer ${\gamma }^{\sharp }$.

\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system}}{Theorem 4.19}}
\label{pf-thm: existence and uniqueness of solution of embedding-duality system}

Let us introduce the random function $a ( h,w ) = h / \kappa - c + w {\Lambda }_{T} / {\Lambda }_{t}$, and treat the first equation in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} as an equation for $h$ indexed by $w$.
The dependence of $w$ for the solution $h$ is captured by some continuous function $\hat{h} (w)$.
Fix $w \in \mathbb{R}$.
Noting that 
\begin{equation*}
\Big( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \Big)_{+} \le \Big( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \Big)_{+} \le \big( a ( h,w ) \big)_{+},
\end{equation*}
we denote by ${h}^{+}$ and ${h}^{-}$ the solutions of 
\begin{equation*}
kz = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] \quad \text{and} \quad
kz = \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho } \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( a ( h,w ) \big)_{+} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big],
\end{equation*}
respectively.
In fact, for $w = 0$, ${h}^{+}$ is given by ${h}^{+} / \kappa - c = ( 1 + \kappa z ) ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho )$.
For $w > 0$, the existence of ${h}^{+}$ arises from
\begin{align*}
      \liminf_{ h \to + \infty } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] 
& \ge \liminf_{ h \to + \infty } \Big( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \Big) = + \infty, \\
      \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
& \le \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] = 0.
\end{align*}
For $w < 0$, the existence of ${h}^{+}$ arises from
\begin{align*}
      \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] 
& \le \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \Big( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \Big) = - \infty, \\
      \liminf_{ h \to + \infty } \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
& \ge \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \liminf_{ h \to + \infty } \bigg( a ( h,w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg] = + \infty.
\end{align*}
Due to the strict monotonicity of $a ( \cdot, w )$, ${h}^{+}$ is unique.
In the same manner, we can show the existence and uniqueness of ${h}^{-}$.
Since $a ( h,w )$ is increasing in $h$, we have
\begin{equation*}
    \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( a ( {h}^{-}, w ) \big)_{+} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big] = \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \kappa z 
  = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( {h}^{+}, w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
\le \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( a ( {h}^{+}, w ) \big)_{+} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \big],
\end{equation*}
which gives ${h}^{+} \ge {h}^{-}$. 
Furthermore, from the strict monotonicity of $a$ and
\begin{align*}
&   \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \kappa z
  = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( {h}^{+}, w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
\le \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( {h}^{+},w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg], \\
&   \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \kappa z 
  = \mathbb{E} \big[ \big( a ( {h}^{-}, w ) \big)_{+} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Big]
\ge \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg( a ( {h}^{-},w ) - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{align*}
we conclude that the unique solution $h = \hat{h} (w)$ of the first equation in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq} locates in the interval $[ {h}^{-}, {h}^{+} ]$ and must be strictly decreasing in $w$.  

In terms of the second equation in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}, which can be re-expressed as
\begin{equation*}
\rho \Big( c - x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } \Big) + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]
= \frac{ \theta \rho }{ \theta + \rho }
  \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ w \frac{ \rho {\Lambda }_{T} }{ \theta {\Lambda }_{t} } 
                                       + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \wedge \bigg( \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + c - \frac{h}{\kappa } \bigg) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg],
\end{equation*}
we fix $h \in \mathbb{R}$ and treat it as an equation for $w$.
Obviously, the right-hand side of the above equation is strictly increasing in $w$ and approaches $+ \infty $ (resp. $- \infty $) as $w \to + \infty $ (resp. $w \to - \infty $).
Hence, the solution $w = \hat{w} (h)$ exists and must be unique and non-decreasing in $h$. 

Finally, we combine the two equations in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}, or equivalently, $h = \hat{h} (w)$ and $w = \hat{w} (h)$. 
The uniqueness of solution arises from the monotonicity of $( \hat{h}, \hat{w} )$.
Since 
\begin{equation*}
    \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
\le \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} \bigg[ \limsup_{ h \to - \infty } \bigg( \frac{h}{\kappa } - c - \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ \theta \rho } \zeta + w \frac{ {\Lambda }_{T} }{ {\Lambda }_{t} } \bigg)_{+} \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg]
  = 0
\end{equation*}
for the right-hand side of the second equation in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\hat{w} ( - \infty ) := \lim_{ h \to - \infty } \hat{w} (h) = \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } \Big( \rho c - \rho x {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] \Big).
\end{equation*}
In the same manner, $\hat{w} (h) \to + \infty $ as $h \to \infty $.
On the other hand, for the first equation in \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}, we have $\hat{h} ( \hat{w} ( - \infty ) ) > - \infty $ and $\hat{h} (w) \to - \infty $ as $w \to + \infty $.
Summing up, we conclude that the system of $h = \hat{h} (w)$ and $w = \hat{w} (h)$ admits a solution $( {h}^{\S }, {w}^{\S } )$ satisfying ${w}^{\S } \ge \hat{w} ( - \infty )$,
and so does \cref{eq: embedding-duality system :eq}.





\section{Perturbation results for \texorpdfstring{${\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }$}{lambda }}
\label{app: perturbation results for lambda}

Arbitrarily fix $\varepsilon > 0$ and $A \in \mathcal{F}$.
From \cref{eq: lambda-equation :eq}, we have
\begin{align*}
0 & = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \varepsilon {1}_{A} + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds 
    - \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \\
  & = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{0}^{\infty } {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } + s \le {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon {1}_{A} \}} ds \bigg] 
    - \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{0}^{\infty } {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } + s \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \}} ds \bigg]  \\
  & = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{0}^{\infty } ds \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon {1}_{A} } d {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le z - s \}} \bigg] \\
  & = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon {1}_{A} } {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le z \}} dz \bigg] \\
& \in \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds,
             \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg] \\
& \subseteq \Big[ ( {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - \varepsilon - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big),
                  ( {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } \Big) \Big],
\end{align*}
which leads to $0 \le {\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \le \varepsilon $.
However, we cannot conclude that ${\lambda }_{ f + \varepsilon {1}_{A}, \theta, \zeta }$ is necessarily differentiable w.r.t. $\varepsilon $.
In the same manner, we obtain
\begin{align*}
  - \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } \mathbb{P} (A)
& = \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} ] }{\theta } - \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } \\
& = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{ \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds 
    - \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \\
& = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta  + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } - \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } {1}_{A} } {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le z \}} dz \bigg] \\
& \in \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } - \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds,
             \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg] \\
& \subseteq \Big[ \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } - \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big), 
                  ( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } \Big) \Big]
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
  - \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } \varepsilon
& = \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{ \theta + \varepsilon } - \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{\theta } \\
& = \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } - \frac{\zeta \varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } \le s \Big) ds 
  - \int_{ - \infty }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \\
& = \mathbb{E} \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } + \frac{\zeta \varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } } {1}_{\{ f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le z \}} dz \bigg] \\
& \in \bigg[ \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \essinf \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds,
             \int_{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } }^{ {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \esssup \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } } \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le s \Big) ds \bigg] \\
& \subseteq \Big[ \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \essinf \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big), \\
& \qquad          \Big( {\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \esssup \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } \Big) 
                  \mathbb{P} \Big( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \esssup \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } \Big) \Big]
\end{align*}
which respectively lead to 
\begin{equation*}
- \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } \frac{ \mathbb{P} (A) }{ \mathbb{P} ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } ) }
\le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta + \varepsilon {1}_{A} } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } 
\le \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } \bigg( 1 - \frac{ \mathbb{P} (A) }{ \mathbb{P} ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) } \bigg)
\le \frac{\varepsilon }{\theta } \mathbb{P} ( \Omega \setminus A )
\end{equation*} 
and 
\begin{align*}
{\lambda }_{ f, \theta + \varepsilon, \zeta } - {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta }
& \in \bigg[ - \frac{\varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } 
               \bigg( \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{ \mathbb{P} ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } + \frac{\varepsilon \esssup \zeta }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } ) } + \esssup \zeta \bigg), \\
& \qquad     - \frac{\varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } 
               \bigg( \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{ \mathbb{P} ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) } + \essinf \zeta \bigg) \bigg] \\
& \subseteq \bigg[ - \frac{\varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } 
                     \bigg( \frac{ 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] }{ \mathbb{P} ( f + \frac{\zeta }{\theta } \le {\lambda }_{ f, \theta, \zeta } ) } + \esssup \zeta \bigg), 
                   - \frac{\varepsilon }{ ( \theta + \varepsilon ) \theta } ( 1 - \mathbb{E} [ \zeta ] ) \bigg].
\end{align*}

\section{Supplementary note for the static problem}
\label{app: Supplementary note for the static problem}

For the case with $\mathcal{F}$ generated by a countably infinite partition of $\Omega $, we assume, without any loss of generality, that 
$\Omega = \mathbb{N}_{+}$, $\mathcal{F} = {2}^{\Omega }$ and $\mathbb{P} ( \omega ) > 0$ for any $\omega \in \Omega $.
For the sake of brevity, we let $n=1$ and $\zeta = 0$, and note that the following method is also suitable for general $( n, \zeta )$. 
To express the value of random variables corresponding to each sample $\omega $, let us employ the following representations (inspired by Parseval's theorem):
\begin{equation*}
R - r = \sum_{ \omega = 1 }^{\infty } {1}_{\{ \omega \}} \big( \mathbb{P} ( \omega ) \big)^{ - \frac{1}{2} } {b}_{\omega }, \quad
1 = \sum_{ \omega = 1 }^{\infty } {1}_{\{ \omega \}} \big( \mathbb{P} ( \omega ) \big)^{ - \frac{1}{2} } {q}_{\omega }, \quad
Y = \sum_{ \omega = 1 }^{\infty } {1}_{\{ \omega \}} \big( \mathbb{P} ( \omega ) \big)^{ - \frac{1}{2} } {y}_{\omega },
\end{equation*}
with ${q}_{\omega } > 0$ for any $\omega $.
Write $\vec{y} = ( {y}_{1}, {y}_{2}, \ldots )$, etc., so that the minimization problem given by \cref{eq: equivalent minimization problem for existence in SP :eq} is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\text{minimizing} \quad \| \vec{y} \|^{2} \quad
\text{subject to} \quad \vec{y} \ge \vec{0}, ~ \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle = 1, ~ \langle \vec{y}, \vec{b} \rangle = 0.
\label{eq: minimization problem from Fourier analysis :eq}
\end{equation}
Notably, $\| \vec{q} \| = 1$, $\| b \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} = \Var [R] > 0$, and $\vec{y} = \vec{q}$ is the minimizer if and only if $\langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle = 0$.
Assume that $\langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle \ne 0$ in what follows.
For the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{3} ( \vec{y}, \vec{\beta }, \mu, \nu ) = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} / 2 - \langle \vec{y}, \vec{\beta } \rangle + \mu \langle \vec{y}, \vec{b} \rangle - \nu ( \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle - 1 )$,
we have the following KKT condition:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \vec{y} - \vec{\beta } + \mu \vec{b} - \nu \vec{q}, \\
& \langle \vec{y}, \vec{b} \rangle = 0, \quad \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle = 1, \\
& \langle \vec{y}, \vec{\beta } \rangle = 0, \quad \vec{\beta } \ge \vec{0}, \quad \vec{y} \ge \vec{0}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
With a slight abuse of notation, we let $\vec{y}$ be the minimizer for \cref{eq: minimization problem from Fourier analysis :eq}.
Referring to the steps as in \Cref{pf-lem: express SMMV portfolio,pf-thm: saddle point for SP}, one can obtain
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} - \nu, \quad i.e. \quad \nu = \| \nu \|^{2} > 1; \\
& 0 = - \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{b} \rangle + \mu \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \nu \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle, \\
& 0 = 1 - \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle + \mu \langle \vec{b}, \vec{q} \rangle - \nu,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
and the component-wise equalities $\vec{y} = ( \nu \vec{q} - \mu \vec{b} )_{+}$ and $\vec{\beta } = ( \mu \vec{b} - \nu \vec{q} )_{+}$.
Since
\begin{equation*}
\mu \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle = \nu - 1 + \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle > 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\vec{y} = \bigg( \| \vec{y} \|^{2} \vec{q} - \frac{ \nu - 1 + \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle }{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle } \vec{b} \bigg)_{+},
\end{equation*} 
we conclude that $\langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle {b}_{k} \le 0$ is sufficient for ${y}_{k} > 0$.
In particular, ${y}_{k} = \| y \|^{2} {q}_{k}$ for all $k$ that ${b}_{k} = 0$.
This implies that the minimizer $Y \equiv \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ]$ on $\{ k: {b}_{k} = 0 \} \in \mathcal{F}$.
Therefore, if there exists some positive integer $K$ such that ${b}_{k} = 0$ for all $k \ge K$, or namely, there are only finitely many states such that $R \ne r$, 
then one can solve the problem given by given by \cref{eq: equivalent minimization problem for existence in SP :eq} on the $\sigma $-field generated by the finite partition $( \{ 1 \}, \{ 2 \}, \ldots, \{ K-1 \}, \{ K, K+1, \ldots \} )$ of $\Omega $, 
which should result in $Y |_{\{ K, K+1, \ldots \}} \equiv \mathbb{E} [ {Y}^{2} ]$.

If $\vec{\beta } = 0$, then substituting $\mu = \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle / ( \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} )$ and $\nu = \| \vec{b} \|^{2} / ( \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} )$
back into the first line of the KKT condition yields
\begin{equation*}
\vec{0} \le \vec{y} = \frac{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} } \vec{q} - \frac{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} } \vec{b}
                    = \frac{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} } \bigg( \vec{q} - \frac{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} } \vec{b} \bigg).
\end{equation*}
The converse of this proposition is also true. 
Consequently, $\vec{q} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle \vec{b} / \| \vec{b} \|^{2} \ge \vec{0}$ if and only if its normalization is the minimizer for \cref{eq: minimization problem from Fourier analysis :eq}.
Let us assume that there is at least one 
\begin{equation*}
{m}_{k} := \frac{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} } \bigg( {q}_{k} - \frac{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} } {b}_{k} \bigg) < 0.
\end{equation*}
Given $\| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| > 0$ arising from $\langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle \ne 0$, let us introduce
\begin{equation*}
\vec{p} := \frac{1}{ \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| } ( \vec{m} - \vec{q} ) 
         = \frac{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} }{ \| \vec{b} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle^{2} } \bigg( \vec{q} - \frac{1}{ \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle } \vec{b} \bigg)
\end{equation*}
so that $\{ \vec{p}, \vec{q} \}$ contributes an orthonormal basis for $\Span \{ \vec{q}, \vec{b} \}$, and $\vec{m} = \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| \vec{p} + \vec{q}$ conversely.
Since $\langle \vec{m}, \vec{b} \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \vec{m}, \vec{q} \rangle = 1$
lead to $\langle \vec{y} - \vec{m}, \vec{b} \rangle = \langle \vec{y}, \vec{b} \rangle$ and $\langle \vec{y} - \vec{m}, \vec{q} \rangle = \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle - 1$, respectively,
\cref{eq: minimization problem from Fourier analysis :eq} can be reduced to minimizing the distance $\| \vec{y} - \vec{m} \|^{2}$ subject to 
$\vec{y} \ge \vec{0}$, $\langle \vec{y} - \vec{m}, \vec{p} \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \vec{y} - \vec{m}, \vec{q} \rangle = 0$.

By dummy variable replacement, it is supposed to minimize $\| \vec{y} \|^{2}$ subject to $\vec{y} + \vec{m} \ge \vec{0}$ and $\vec{y} \in \ker \{ \vec{p}, \vec{q} \}$.
So we introduce the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{4} ( \vec{y}, \vec{\beta }, \mu, \nu ) = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} / 2 - \langle \vec{y} + \vec{m}, \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} \rangle + \mu \langle \vec{y}, \vec{p} \rangle + \nu \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle$,
and then arrive at the following KKT condition:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \vec{y} - \vec{\beta } - \vec{m} + \mu \vec{p} + \nu \vec{q}, \\
& \langle \vec{y}, \vec{p} \rangle = \langle \vec{y}, \vec{q} \rangle = 0, \\
& \langle \vec{y} + \vec{m}, \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} \rangle = 0, \quad \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} \ge 0, \quad \vec{y} + \vec{m} \ge \vec{0}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, $\mu = \langle \vec{\beta } + \vec{m}, \vec{p} \rangle$, $\nu = \langle \vec{\beta } + \vec{m}, \vec{q} \rangle$ and
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} - \langle \vec{y}, \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} \rangle = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} + \langle \vec{m}, \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} \rangle = \| \vec{y} \|^{2} + \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| \mu + \nu, \\
& \vec{y} + \vec{m} = ( \mu \vec{p} + \nu \vec{q} - \vec{m} )_{-} = ( \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{p} \rangle \vec{p} + \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle \vec{q} )_{-}, \\
& \vec{\beta } + \vec{m} = ( \mu \vec{p} + \nu \vec{q} - \vec{m} )_{+} = ( \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{p} \rangle \vec{p} + \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle \vec{q} )_{+}.
\end{aligned} \right. 
\end{equation*}
Obviously, $\vec{\beta } + \vec{m} = \vec{0}$ would lead to $\vec{y} = 0$, which contradicts $\vec{y} \ge - \vec{m}$ with some ${m}_{k} < 0$.
Then, $\nu > 0$ follows due to $\vec{q} > 0$, and hence, $\mu = - ( \nu + \| \vec{y} \|^{2} ) / \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| < - \nu / \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| < 0$.
In view of
\begin{equation*}
\langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{p} \rangle \vec{p} + \langle \vec{\beta }, \vec{q} \rangle \vec{q} 
= \mu \vec{p} + \nu \vec{q} - \vec{m} 
= \Big( \nu - \frac{\mu }{ \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| } \Big) \vec{q} - \Big( 1 - \frac{\mu }{ \| \vec{m} - \vec{q} \| } \Big) \vec{m},
\end{equation*}
we conclude that ${y}_{k} = - {m}_{k}$ for such $k$ that ${m}_{k} \le 0$, or namely, ${q}_{k} \le \langle \vec{q}, \vec{b} \rangle {b}_{k} / \| \vec{b} \|^{2} $.
This implies that if there are only finitely many ${m}_{k} > 0$, then the problem is further reduced to
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \text{minimizing} \quad \| ( {y}_{1}, \ldots, {y}_{K} ) \|^{2} \\
& \text{subject to} \quad {y}_{j} \ge - {m}_{j}, ~ \sum_{j=1}^{K} {y}_{j} {p}_{j} = \sum_{j=K+1}^{\infty } {m}_{j} {p}_{j}, ~ \sum_{j=1}^{K} {y}_{j} {q}_{j} = \sum_{j=K+1}^{\infty } {m}_{j} {q}_{j}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
where $K = \max \{ k: {m}_{k} > 0 \}$. 


\section{No quadratic expression}

\subsection{For \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{V}^{\ddag }$}{V\^~ddag} in \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm: verification theorem for approximate control problem}}{Theorem 4.14}}
\label{app: no quadratic solution for Vddag}

Below we show that a quadratic $\mathcal{V}^{\ddag }$ must lead to a contradiction.
Given the boundary condition \cref{eq: boundary condition for approximate control problem :eq}, the degree of freedom for the quadratic $\mathcal{V}^{\ddag } ( t, \cdot, \cdot )$ is three.
For the sake of brevity, we write the column vector $\vec{y} := ( \rho c - \rho x \exp ( \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv ) + \mathbb{E}^{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], \kappa z )^{\top }$ 
and $f = f ( t,x,z )$ for $f = \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }, \Phi $ and their partial derivatives,
and assume that for all $( t,x,z ) \in [ 0,T ] \times \mathbb{R} \times [ 0, + \infty )$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{\ddag } = \frac{1}{2} \vec{y}^{\top } \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \vec{y}
                     + \vec{y}^{\top } \binom{0}{ {C}_{t} } + c \mathbb{E} [ \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ], 
\end{equation*}
where the parameters $( {A}_{t}, {B}_{t}, {C}_{t} )$ are to be determined later.
Write $d {f}_{t} = \mathcal{L}^{f}_{t} dt + \mathcal{I}^{f}_{t} d {W}_{t}$ for semi-martingale decomposition of $f = A,B,C$.
It follows that
\begin{align}
    d \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }
& = \frac{1}{2} \vec{y}^{\top } \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & \mathcal{L}^{A}_{t} \\ \mathcal{L}^{A}_{t} & \mathcal{L}^{B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \vec{y} dt
  + \vec{y}^{\top } \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \binom{ \rho x {r}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{0} dt \notag \\
& + \vec{y}^{\top } \binom{0}{ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} \tilde{\eta }_{t} + \mathcal{L}^{C}_{t} } dt
  - \frac{1}{ 2 \rho } | \tilde{\eta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } dt
  + {\Phi }^{\ddag } d {W}_{t}.
\label{eq: semi-martingale decomposition of constructed value random field for approximate control problem :eq}
\end{align}
On the other hand, plugging the optimality condition \cref{eq: vectored optimality condition for unconstrained control problem :eq} into \cref{eq: HJBI-BSPDE for unconstrained control problem :eq},
with changing the corresponding notation, we obtain 
\begin{equation}
  d \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }
= \frac{1}{2} \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }^{\ddag }_{x} }{ {\Phi }^{\ddag }_{z} }^{\top }
              \begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xx} & \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xz} \\ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xz} & \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{zz} \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
              \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} + {\Phi }^{\ddag }_{x} }{ {\Phi }^{\ddag }_{z} } dt
- \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} x {r}_{t} dt
+ \Phi d {W}_{t},
\label{eq: semi-martingale decomposition of value random field for approximate control problem :eq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
    \binom{ {\Phi }_{x} + \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} {\vartheta }_{t} }{ {\Phi }_{z} }
& = \begin{pmatrix} - \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
    \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {\vartheta }_{t} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {\vartheta }_{t} {A}_{t} + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} \\ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} & \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \vec{y} \\
& + \begin{pmatrix} - \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
    \binom{ - \frac{1}{\rho } \tilde{\eta }_{t} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ {A}_{t} \tilde{\eta }_{t} + \mathcal{I}^{C}_{t} }, \\
    \begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xx} & \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xz} \\ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{xz} & \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{zz} \end{pmatrix}
& = \begin{pmatrix} - \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
    \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix}
    \begin{pmatrix} - \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} x {r}_{t} = - \vec{y}^{\top } \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \binom{ \rho x {r}_{t} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } }{0}
\end{equation*}
arise from
\begin{equation*}
  \binom{ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{x} }{ \mathcal{V}^{\ddag }_{z} }
= \begin{pmatrix} - \rho {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} {r}_{v} dv } & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa \end{pmatrix}
  \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix} \vec{y} 
+ \binom{0}{ \kappa {C}_{t} }.
\end{equation*}
By comparing the coefficients in \cref{eq: semi-martingale decomposition of constructed value random field for approximate control problem :eq} and \cref{eq: semi-martingale decomposition of value random field for approximate control problem :eq},
especially those of ${x}^{2} dt$ and $x z dt$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
  - \frac{1}{\rho } | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv }
& = \binom{ - \frac{1}{\rho } {\vartheta }_{t} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} }^{\top }
    \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
    \binom{ - \frac{1}{\rho } {\vartheta }_{t} {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } }{ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} }, \\
    \mathcal{L}^{A}_{t}
& = \binom{ {\vartheta }_{t} {A}_{t} + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} }{ \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t} }^{\top }
    \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{1}{\rho } {e}^{ - \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } & {A}_{t} \\ {A}_{t} & {B}_{t} \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
    \binom{ {\vartheta }_{t} {A}_{t} + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} }{ \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t} },
\end{align*}
where the first equation gives ${\vartheta }_{t} {A}_{t} = \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t}$.
Consequently, 
\begin{equation*}
d {A}_{t} = \mathcal{L}^{A}_{t} dt + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} d {W}_{t} 
          = 2 | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} {A}_{t} dt + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} \bigg( d {W}_{t} + \frac{ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} - \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t} }{ \rho | {A}_{t} |^{2} {e}^{ \int_{t}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv } + {B}_{t} } dt \bigg).
\end{equation*} 
However, subject to ${A}_{T} = - 1 / \rho $ from the terminal condition \cref{eq: terminal condition for approximate control problem :eq}, the above SDE has no solution satisfying ${\vartheta }_{t} {A}_{t} = \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t}$.
Otherwise, one can introduce some probability measure $\mathbb{P}^{\ddag }$ such that $\{ {W}^{\ddag }_{t} \}_{ t \in [ 0,T ] }$ is the one-dimensional standard Brownian motion and 
$d {A}_{t} = 2 {A}_{t} | {\vartheta }_{t} |^{2} dt + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} d {W}^{\ddag }_{t}$, which gives $d \mathbb{E} [ {A}_{s} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = 2 | {\vartheta }_{s} |^{2} \mathbb{E} [ {A}_{s} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] ds$,
or equivalently, $\mathbb{E} [ {A}_{s} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = - \exp ( 2 \int_{s}^{T} | {\vartheta }_{v} |^{2} dv ) / \rho $.
Sending $s$ to $t$ yields a deterministic ${A}_{t} \ne 0$ and $\mathcal{I}^{A} \equiv 0$, which leads to a contradiction.

\subsection{For \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{V}^{\sharp }$}{V\^~sharp} as the value random field associated with Problem \texorpdfstring{\cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq}}{(52)}}
\label{app: no quadratic solution for Vsharp}

With a slight abuse of notation $( {A}_{t}, {B}_{t} )$, we try
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,z ) = \frac{1}{2} {A}_{t} {z}^{2} + {B}_{t} z + \frac{ \theta + \rho }{ 2 \theta \rho } \mathbb{E} [ {\zeta }^{2} | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] + \mathbb{E} [ Y \zeta | \mathcal{F}_{t} ],
\end{equation*}
with ${A}_{T} = {\kappa }^{2} ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho )$ and ${B}_{T} = \kappa \zeta ( \theta + \rho ) / ( \theta \rho ) + \kappa Y$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}^{\sharp }_{z} ( t,z ) = {A}_{t} z + {B}_{t}, \quad
{\Phi }^{\sharp }_{z} ( t,z ) = \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} z + \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t}, \quad
d \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,z ) = \Big( \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{L}^{A}_{t} {z}^{2} + \mathcal{L}^{B}_{t} z \Big) dt + {\Phi }^{\sharp } ( t,z ) d {W}_{t}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand,
\begin{equation*}
  \essinf_{ \gamma \in \mathbb{R} } \bigg\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{V}^{\sharp }_{zz} ( t,z ) {\gamma }^{2} + {\Phi }^{\sharp }_{z} ( t,z ) \gamma \bigg\}
= - \frac{ | {\Phi }^{\sharp }_{z} ( t,z ) |^{2} }{ 2 \mathcal{V}^{\sharp }_{zz} ( t,z ) }
= - \frac{1}{ 2 {A}_{t} } ( \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} z + \mathcal{I}^{B}_{t} )^{2}.
\end{equation*}
By comparing the above different expressions for the drift term of $d \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,z )$, we conclude that $( \mathcal{L}^{B}, \mathcal{I}^{B} )$ both vanish, that is $d {B}_{t} = 0$.
Besides, we have 
\begin{equation*}
d {A}_{t} = - \frac{1}{ {A}_{t} } | \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} |^{2} dt + \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} d {W}_{t} = \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} \Big( d {W}_{t} - \frac{ \mathcal{I}^{A}_{t} }{ {A}_{t} } dt \Big),
\end{equation*}
which implies that $d {A}_{t} = 0$, and hence $\mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( t,z ) = \mathbb{E} [ \mathcal{V}^{\sharp } ( T,z ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ] = \mathbb{E} [ G ( \kappa z + \zeta, Y ) | \mathcal{F}_{t} ]$.
This leads to a contradiction, unless ${B}_{T}$ is $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-measurable with $t$ being the initial epoch of \cref{eq: embedding approximate control problem :eq}.


\end{document}


\begin{thebibliography}{}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Bauschke%
\ \BBA {} Combettes%
}{%
Bauschke%
\ \BBA {} Combettes%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2017}}%
}]{%
Bauschke-Combettes-2017}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Bauschke-Combettes-2017}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Bauschke, H\BPBI H.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Combettes, P\BPBI L.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{2017}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces}
  {Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in hilbert spaces}\
  (\PrintOrdinal{2nd}\ \BEd).
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{Cham, Switzerland}{Springer Nature}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-3-540-46077-0} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Bobylev%
, Emel'yanov%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Korovin%
}{%
Bobylev%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1999}}%
}]{%
Bobylev-Emelyanov-Korovin-1999}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Bobylev-Emelyanov-Korovin-1999}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Bobylev, N\BPBI A.%
, Emel'yanov, S\BPBI V.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Korovin, S\BPBI K.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{1999}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Geometrical Methods in Variational Problems} {Geometrical
  methods in variational problems}.
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{Dordrecht}{Springer Science+Business Media}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-94-011-4629-6} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Delbaen%
\ \BBA {} Schachermayer%
}{%
Delbaen%
\ \BBA {} Schachermayer%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2006}}%
}]{%
Delbaen-Schachermayer-2006}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Delbaen-Schachermayer-2006}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Delbaen, F.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Schachermayer, W.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{2006}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {The Mathematics of Arbitrage} {The mathematics of arbitrage}.
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{Berlin, Heidelberg}{Springer-Verlag}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-3-540-31299-4} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Dybvig%
\ \BBA {} Ingersoll%
}{%
Dybvig%
\ \BBA {} Ingersoll%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1982}}%
}]{%
Dybvig-Ingersoll-1982}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Dybvig-Ingersoll-1982}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Dybvig, P\BPBI H.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Ingersoll, J\BPBI E.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{1982}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Mean-variance theory in complete markets} {Mean-variance
  theory in complete markets}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{The Journal of Business}{55}{2}{233-251}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1086/296162} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Fleming%
\ \BBA {} Soner%
}{%
Fleming%
\ \BBA {} Soner%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2006}}%
}]{%
Fleming-Soner-2006}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Fleming-Soner-2006}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Fleming, W\BPBI H.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Soner, M.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{2006}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Controlled {M}arkov processes and viscosity solutions}
  {Controlled {M}arkov processes and viscosity solutions}\ (\PrintOrdinal{2}\
  \BEd, \BVOL~25).
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{New York}{Springer}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/0-387-31071-1} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Hu%
, Shi%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Xu%
}{%
Hu%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2023}}%
}]{%
Hu-Shi-Xu-2023}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Hu-Shi-Xu-2023}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Hu, Y.%
, Shi, X\BPBI M.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Xu, Z\BPBI Q.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2023}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Constrained monotone mean-variance problem with random
  coefficients} {Constrained monotone mean-variance problem with random
  coefficients}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics}{14}{3}{838-854}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1137/22m154418x} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Jarrow%
\ \BBA {} Madan%
}{%
Jarrow%
\ \BBA {} Madan%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1997}}%
}]{%
Jarrow-Madan-1997}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Jarrow-Madan-1997}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Jarrow, R\BPBI A.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Madan, D\BPBI B.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{1997}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Is Mean-Variance Analysis Vacuous: Or was Beta Still
  Born?} {Is mean-variance analysis vacuous: Or was beta still born?}{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Review of Finance}{1}{1}{15-30}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1023/A:1009779113922} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Jeanblanc%
, Yor%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Shesney%
}{%
Jeanblanc%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2009}}%
}]{%
Jeanblanc-Yor-Chesney-2009}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Jeanblanc-Yor-Chesney-2009}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Jeanblanc, M.%
, Yor, M.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Shesney, M.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{2009}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Mathematical methods for financial market} {Mathematical
  methods for financial market}.
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{London}{Springer-Verlag}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-1-84628-737-4} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
B\BPBI H.~Li%
\ \BBA {} Guo%
}{%
B\BPBI H.~Li%
\ \BBA {} Guo%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2021}}%
}]{%
Li-Guo-2021}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Li-Guo-2021}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Li, B\BPBI H.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Guo, J\BPBI Y.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2021}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Optimal reinsurance and investment strategies for an
  insurer under monotone mean-variance criterion} {Optimal reinsurance and
  investment strategies for an insurer under monotone mean-variance
  criterion}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Rairo-Operations Research}{55}{4}{2469-2489}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1051/ro/2021114} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
B\BPBI H.~Li%
, Guo%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Tian%
}{%
B\BPBI H.~Li%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2023}}%
}]{%
Li-Guo-Tian-2023}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Li-Guo-Tian-2023}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Li, B\BPBI H.%
, Guo, J\BPBI Y.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Tian, L\BPBI L.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2023}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Optimal investment and reinsurance policies for the
  Cram\'er-Lundberg risk model under monotone mean-variance preference}
  {Optimal investment and reinsurance policies for the cram\'er-lundberg risk
  model under monotone mean-variance preference}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{International Journal of Control}{97}{6}{1296-1310}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1080/00207179.2023.2204384} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
D.~Li%
\ \BBA {} Ng%
}{%
D.~Li%
\ \BBA {} Ng%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2000}}%
}]{%
Li-Ng-2000}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Li-Ng-2000}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Li, D.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Ng, W.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2000}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Optimal dynamic portfolio selection: Multi-period
  mean-variance formulation} {Optimal dynamic portfolio selection: Multi-period
  mean-variance formulation}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Mathematical Finance}{10}{3}{387-406}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1111/1467-9965.00100} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Y\BPBI C.~Li%
, Liang%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Pang%
}{%
Y\BPBI C.~Li%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2022}}%
}]{%
Li-Liang-Pang-2022}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Li-Liang-Pang-2022}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Li, Y\BPBI C.%
, Liang, Z\BPBI X.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Pang, S\BPBI Z.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2022}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Continuous-time monotone mean-variance portfolio
  selection} {Continuous-time monotone mean-variance portfolio
  selection}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{arXiv:2211.12168v5}{}{}{}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.48550/arXiv.2211.12168} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Y\BPBI C.~Li%
, Liang%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Pang%
}{%
Y\BPBI C.~Li%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2023}}%
}]{%
Li-Liang-Pang-2023}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Li-Liang-Pang-2023}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Li, Y\BPBI C.%
, Liang, Z\BPBI X.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Pang, S\BPBI Z.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2023}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Comparison between mean-variance and monotone
  mean-variance preferences under jump diffusion and stochastic factor model}
  {Comparison between mean-variance and monotone mean-variance preferences
  under jump diffusion and stochastic factor model}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{arXiv:2211.14473v2}{}{}{}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.48550/arXiv.2211.14473} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Maccheroni%
, Marinacci%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Rustichini%
}{%
Maccheroni%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2006}}%
}]{%
Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-2006}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-2006}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Maccheroni, F.%
, Marinacci, M.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Rustichini, A.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2006}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational
  representation of preferences} {Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the
  variational representation of preferences}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Econometrica}{74}{6}{1447-1498}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1111/J.1468-0262.2006.00716.X} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Maccheroni%
, Marinacci%
, Rustichini%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Taboga%
}{%
Maccheroni%
\ \protect \BOthers {.}}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2009}}%
}]{%
Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini-Taboga-2009}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Maccheroni, F.%
, Marinacci, M.%
, Rustichini, A.%
\BCBL {}\ \BBA {} Taboga, M.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2009}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Portfolio selection with monotone mean-variance
  preferences} {Portfolio selection with monotone mean-variance
  preferences}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Mathematical Finance}{19}{3}{487-521}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1111/j.1467-9965.2009.00376.x} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Markowitz%
}{%
Markowitz%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1952}}%
}]{%
Markowitz-1952}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Markowitz-1952}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Markowitz, H.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{1952}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Portfolio Selection} {Portfolio selection}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{J. Finance}{7}{1}{77-91}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.2307/2975974} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Milgrom%
\ \BBA {} Segal%
}{%
Milgrom%
\ \BBA {} Segal%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2002}}%
}]{%
Milgrom-Segal-2002}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Milgrom-Segal-2002}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Milgrom, P.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Segal, I.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2002}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Envelope Theorems for Arbitrary Choice Sets} {Envelope
  theorems for arbitrary choice sets}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Econometrica}{70}{2}{583-601}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1111/1468-0262.00296} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Phelps%
}{%
Phelps%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1993}}%
}]{%
Phelps-1993}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Phelps-1993}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Phelps, G.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{1993}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Convex Functions, Monotone Operators and Differentiability}
  {Convex functions, monotone operators and differentiability}\
  (\PrintOrdinal{2nd}\ \BEd).
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{Berlin, Heidelberg}{Springer-Verlag}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-3-540-46077-0} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Shen%
\ \BBA {} Zou%
}{%
Shen%
\ \BBA {} Zou%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2022}}%
}]{%
Shen-Zou-2022}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Shen-Zou-2022}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Shen, Y.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Zou, B.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2022}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Cone-constrained Monotone Mean-Variance Portfolio
  Selection Under Diffusion Models} {Cone-constrained monotone mean-variance
  portfolio selection under diffusion models}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{arXiv:2205.15905}{}{}{}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.48550/arXiv.2205.15905} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Shreve%
}{%
Shreve%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2004}}%
}]{%
Shreve-2004}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Shreve-2004}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Shreve, S\BPBI E.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{2004}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Stochastic calculus for finance {II}: continuous-time model}
  {Stochastic calculus for finance {II}: continuous-time model}.
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{New York}{Springer-Verlag}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-0-387-22527-2} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Strub%
\ \BBA {} Li%
}{%
Strub%
\ \BBA {} Li%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2020}}%
}]{%
Strub-Li-2020}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Strub-Li-2020}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Strub, M\BPBI S.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Li, D.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2020}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {A note on monotone mean-variance preferences for
  continuous processes} {A note on monotone mean-variance preferences for
  continuous processes}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Operations Research Letters}{48}{4}{397-400}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1016/j.orl.2020.05.003} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Trybu{\l}a%
\ \BBA {} Zawisza%
}{%
Trybu{\l}a%
\ \BBA {} Zawisza%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2019}}%
}]{%
Trybula-Zawisza-2019}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Trybula-Zawisza-2019}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Trybu{\l}a, J.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Zawisza, D.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2019}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Continuous-Time portfolio choice under monotone
  mean-variance preferences--stochastic factor case} {Continuous-time portfolio
  choice under monotone mean-variance preferences--stochastic factor
  case}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Mathematics of Operations Research}{44}{3}{966-987}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1287/MOOR.2018.0952} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
\u{C}ern\'{y}%
}{%
\u{C}ern\'{y}%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2020}}%
}]{%
Cerny-2020}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Cerny-2020}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
\u{C}ern\'{y}, A.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2020}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Semimartingale theory of monotone mean-variance
  portfolio allocation} {Semimartingale theory of monotone mean-variance
  portfolio allocation}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Mathematical Finance}{30}{3}{1168-1178}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1111/mafi.12241} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Yong%
\ \BBA {} Zhou%
}{%
Yong%
\ \BBA {} Zhou%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {1999}}%
}]{%
Yong-Zhou-1999}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Yong-Zhou-1999}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Yong, J\BPBI M.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Zhou, X\BPBI Y.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYear{1999}.
\newblock
\APACrefbtitle {Stochastic Controls: Hamiltonian Systems and {HJB} equations}
  {Stochastic controls: Hamiltonian systems and {HJB} equations}.
\newblock
\APACaddressPublisher{New York}{Springer-Verlag}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/978-1-4612-1466-3} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\bibitem [\protect \citeauthoryear {%
Zhou%
\ \BBA {} Li%
}{%
Zhou%
\ \BBA {} Li%
}{%
{\protect \APACyear {2000}}%
}]{%
Zhou-Li-2000}
\APACinsertmetastar {%
Zhou-Li-2000}%
\begin{APACrefauthors}%
Zhou, X\BPBI Y.%
\BCBT {}\ \BBA {} Li, D.%
\end{APACrefauthors}%
\unskip\
\newblock
\APACrefYearMonthDay{2000}{}{}.
\newblock
{\BBOQ}\APACrefatitle {Continuous-Time Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection: a
  Stochastic {LQ} Framework} {Continuous-time mean-variance portfolio
  selection: a stochastic {LQ} framework}.{\BBCQ}
\newblock
\APACjournalVolNumPages{Applied Mathematics and Optimization}{42}{1}{19-33}.
\newblock
\begin{APACrefDOI} \doi{10.1007/s002450010003} \end{APACrefDOI}
\PrintBackRefs{\CurrentBib}

\end{thebibliography}