跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究连续时间动态过程及其离散时间观测下的估计偏差,对应时间序列方法。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Xiaohu Wang
Jun Yu

多元与一元扩散过程估计中的偏差

研究问题
使用离散观测估计连续时间扩散模型时,离散化偏差与参数估计偏差如何关联,不同近似方法的偏差和方差如何比较?
方法与思路
作者构建包含 Euler 与梯形近似的线性多元系统离散化框架,推导均值回复参数的渐近分布和偏差公式,并开展模型比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,该框架给出一元与多元情形的显式偏差表达式;在所述模型和模拟中,若干近似估计的偏差与方差小于精确极大似然。
阅读关注点
应核对观测间隔与样本跨度的渐近设定、离散化和估计偏差的分解,以及 Vasicek 与平方根过程比较所用的参数范围。
阅读边界
仅依据所给出版社摘要;摘要未说明完整条件与数值结果,近似方法的优势不能外推为对所有扩散模型或采样方案均成立。

原文摘要

Multivariate continuous time models are now widely used in economics and finance. Empirical applications typically rely on some process of discretization so that the system may be estimated with discrete data. This paper introduces a framework for discretizing linear multivariate continuous time systems that includes the commonly used Euler and trapezoidal approximations as special cases and leads to a general class of estimators for the mean reversion matrix. Asymptotic distributions and bias formulae are obtained for estimates of the mean reversion parameter. Explicit expressions are given for the discretization bias and its relationship to estimation bias in both multivariate and in univariate settings. In the univariate context, we compare the performance of the two approximation methods relative to exact maximum likelihood (ML) in terms of bias and variance for the Vasicek process. The bias and the variance of the Euler method are found to be smaller than the trapezoidal method, which are in turn smaller than those of exact ML. Simulations suggest that when the mean reversion is slow, the approximation methods work better than ML, the bias formulae are accurate, and for scalar models the estimates obtained from the two approximate methods have smaller bias and variance than exact ML. For the square root process, the Euler method outperforms the Nowman method in terms of both bias and variance. Simulation evidence indicates that the Euler method has smaller bias and variance than exact ML, Nowman's method and the Milstein method.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文