2.1. Model Setup
We study this math problem below. This is a 2-dimensional case however we show later that similar techniques can be applied to higher dimensions.
The Fokker-Planck equation [
1,
2,
5] describes the joint probability density function
by:
This is a 2d-PDE in the convention of quant finance industry (2d refers to 2-dimension in space variables
while in fact it is a 3-d PDE if counting
t, given the common presence of
t in this type of PDE we refer the dimensions to only the space variables) and the general numerical method is slow. However, we can reduce the complexity of the 2d-PDE if we make a reasonable assumtion on the correlation function as below:
This means the correlation depends on the in terms of the total , which can be interpreted as: correlation depends on a market factor which is the average of the underlyers. With this extra assumption, we can simplify the problem as below:
Lets make change of variables below
And
can be written as
Note the first diffusion only involves
u, then Fokker-Planck equation for probability density of
u is a 1d-PDE:
So we can solve
first, then we look at the
. For any given path
, the
is simply a sum of infinitesimal normal variables with variances
, so we know the distrubtion of
condition on this path
is a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance
2.2. Conditional Distribution and the First Two Moments
Conditioned on a path is not easy to use for calculation, it would be more useful to condition on a value instead of the whole path. Let be the conditional distribution, note this distribution is not a strict normal distribution in general. A more detailed discussion of this distribution is left to later and now we focus on the first two moments, ie, the mean and variance of this conditional distribution.
The mean is clearly zero by symmetry. For the variance, denoted as , we have
Theorem 1.
Let be the conditional distribution of conditioned on , then its variance satisfy
Proof. The proof is straightforward. For completeness included below: By the stochastic integral definition as limit of sums,
is the following sum with the constraint
:
Using definition of variance, we get this sum
Which only has non-zero terms as below after taking expectation.
with the constraint
.
Then take the limit of and the statement is proven. □
Note
is a path integral on all possible paths
that get to
u at
t. We have the following:
The
is the transition probability from state
to
.
Now we follow the Fokker-Planck equation derivation technique, we will get:
Proof.
Note the second term comes to
Let
be a smooth function with compact support, consider
Now the integral
is the
moment of the Brownian motion
, so we have
Then we have below, in the order of
The last step in above is integration by parts. Because the
is arbitrary smooth function so it follows that:
□
To recap, we have these 2 key equations:
We can solve for p first and then solve for f (It is also possible to bundle the PDE solving for p and f together in discretization etc). Knowing and , we know the marginal distribution of u and the mean (0) and variance of the conditional distribution . Note we mentioned previously the conditional distribution is not strictly normal in general: A sample of it is basicly a two step process: first choose a path for u subject to the terminal condition, this yields a path-wise integral . Then choose a point from a normal distribution with variance set to . Or one can also think it as first choose a sample from a standard normal distribution, then choose a path for u subject to the terminal condition, calculate the and scale the normal variable with it.
One might think the 2nd view can keep the normal ness of the whole sampling result, but actually not: some heriustic thinking is that the normal sampling tends to be centralized, and then the scaling also has some centralized tendency, therefore not the same as a constant scaling will do. This is heriustic of course, but next we develope equations for higher moment, then one can see it won’t be a strict normal as the 4th moment vs 2nd moment relation is different to a normal distribution.
2.3. Higher Order Moments
We can derive the equations of the higher order moments following the similar technique. To demonstrate, we look at the 4-th order. Let be the 4-th order moment of the conditional distribution .
Proof. 4-th order moment is limit of sum below with constraint
After taking expectation and removing zero terms, this becomes below: note (
terms are approaching to 0 when making finer grids so we ignored them)
Taking limit, in integral representation, it is
Then following the Fokker Planck derivation, we have:
The
is the transition probability from state
to
. Then following the previous derivation we have
□
Now we can prove the conditional distribution is not normal in general, because normal distribution’s 4th order moment is 3 times of the variance square.
Lemma 1. if , then
Proof. Plug into the equations and straightforward. □
If then it becomes the standard multi-variate normal distribution.
2.4. Normal Approximation to the Conditional
With above in mind, we still prefer to use the normal distribution with the variance matching to approximate the true conditional distribution. This is because first it can match the moments to the 2nd order which is usually good enough for many practical usage. Secondly, the normal distribution has very good analytic tractability.
Note that the normal distribution is not a random choice either: if we denote the true joint density as where is the conditional probability of v conditioned on u. Then when we use a normal density form for the q, it will satisfy the Fokker Planck equation on most of the terms.
This leads to a question: is there a good analytic form for the q such that it can match moments to higher order (for example 4-th order) ? Obviously such form will involve or the moments it need to match. Due to my limited knowledge, this remains interesting but also a mystery to me.