Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 61 references

Bayesian Non-Parametric Inference for L\'evy Measures in State-Space Models

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Lévy jump measures inside linear state-space models can be learned from noisy data by an augmented Gibbs sampler, factorizing $Q(x)=\lambda f(x)$ into a Gamma rate and a Dirichlet-process jump-size law.

desk verdict There is a load-bearing bug in the core sampler — the conditional posterior for the jump rate λ omits the censored interval — and the abstract promises things the body never delivers; the underlying modeling idea is still sensible and worth refereeing if the fix is straightforward. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22587 v2 pith:2TY3U5GS submitted 2025-05-28 stat.ME

Bill Z. Lin , Simon Godsill This is my paper
classification stat.ME MSC 60G5162F1562M0562G05
keywords LévymeasureDirichletprocessBayesiannonparametricsstate-spacemodelsubordinatornormalvariance-meanaugmentedGibbssamplershot-noiserepresentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Lévy processes are the standard model for dynamics that mix smooth motion with sudden jumps, but the measure that drives them — the rate and size law of the jumps — is almost never known, and estimation is hard because the likelihood is intractable except in special cases. This paper claims the first Bayesian non-parametric inference for that Lévy measure inside a linear state-space model, covering both the subordinator that supplies the random time change and the normal variance-mean (NVM) process built on it. The method factorizes the measure as a total rate times a probability law, $Q(x)=\lambda f(x)$, puts a Gamma prior on $\lambda$ and a Dirichlet process on $f$, and treats the jump series as augmented variables; given the jumps the model is Gaussian, so a Rao-Blackwellized Kalman filter supplies the likelihood in closed form. The posterior yields the subordinator Lévy density as a weighted discrete measure and the NVM density as an unnormalized mixture of Student-$t$ distributions. Tests on synthetic tempered-stable data and on tick-level GBP/USD prices show that the inferred measures track the ground truth away from the smallest jumps, and the resulting one-step forecasts beat a Gaussian Langevin baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorization of the Lévy density into a total Poisson rate and a jump-size probability law, $Q(x)=\lambda f(x)$, with $\lambda\sim\mathrm{Gamma}(\alpha_\lambda,\beta_\lambda)$ and $f\sim\mathrm{DP}(\alpha,H_\eta)$; the paper calls this random measure the Independent Gamma-scaled Dirichlet Process, of which the Gamma process is a special case. Under the finite-activity assumption the subordinator is a compound Poisson process, so conditioning on the augmented jump series $\{Z_i,V_i\}$ decouples the posterior: a conjugate Gamma update for $\lambda$ from the inter-arrival times, and a conjugate Dirichlet-process update for $f$ from the jump-size samples, drawn with an explicitly truncated stick-breaking construction. The observations enter through the shot-noise representation of the linear SDE, which is Gaussian conditional on the jumps; a Rao-Blackwellized Kalman filter with $\mu_w$ and $\sigma_w^2$ marginalized gives the likelihood, and integrating the Gaussian NVM kernels against the inverse-Gamma and normal posteriors produces the unnormalized Student-$t$ mixture (54) that is the final NVM-measure sample.

What would settle it

Generate data from an infinite-activity Lévy process with a known Lévy density, run the algorithm at several user-chosen truncation thresholds, and compare the posterior-mean subordinator tail functions at small jump sizes: if the inferred measure shifts materially with the threshold, the threshold rather than the data is determining the recovered jumps. A complementary check is a posterior predictive test that simulates new subordinator series from the inferred posterior measure and compares their small-jump activity with that of the true series.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the posterior of the Lévy measure $Q(x)$ is tractable once the problem is posed in finite-activity form: writing $Q(x)=\lambda f(x)$ with $f\sim\mathrm{DP}(\alpha,H_\eta)$ and $\lambda\sim\mathrm{Gamma}(\alpha_\lambda,\beta_\lambda)$, the subordinator becomes a compound Poisson process whose jump times and sizes, conditioned on, are independent of the DP hyper-parameters. The inter-arrival times give a conjugate Gamma posterior for $\lambda$, the jump sizes give a conjugate Dirichlet-process posterior for $f$, and the likelihood linking the jumps to the observations is the closed-form Kalman marginal (23) of the conditionally Gaussian shot-noise representation, with $\mu_w$ and $\sigma_w^2$ marginalized. An augmented Gibbs sampler alternates these updates with an MH-in-Gibbs block update of the jump series and an MH step for system parameters. Combining samples as $Q^{(l)}(x)=\lambda^{(l)}\sum_j w_j^{(l)}\delta_{x_j}$ yields the subordinator measure estimate, and integrating the NVM kernels over the posteriors of $\mu_w$ and $\sigma_w^2$ yields the NVM measure as an unnormalized Student-$t$ mixture, equation (55). The paper demonstrates this on data generated from a tempered-stable subordinator, an infinite-activity process handled through the finite-activity approximation, and on high-frequency foreign-exchange data, where the inferred momentum signal and forecasts support the inferred measures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Section 3 and used throughout the experiments, is that inference may be conducted under a finite-activity compound-Poisson approximation of the true Lévy process: the small-jump truncation threshold and the Dirichlet-process component count $K$ are fixed by the user and never learned or validated, so what is recovered is the Lévy measure of the approximating process, and jump mass below the threshold is missed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given discrete, irregularly spaced observations of a linear SDE, one can now obtain full posterior samples for the Lévy measure of the driving subordinator and of the induced NVM process, not just for the system states and parameters.
  • The NVM Lévy density comes out as an unnormalized Student-$t$ mixture (55), so tail functions and other measure summaries are available in closed form from the MCMC output.
  • The DP concentration $\alpha$ is itself sampled through an auxiliary-variable Gibbs step, removing one of the main prior-tuning knobs from user choice.
  • On tick-level GBP/USD data the inferred Lévy model improves one-step-forecast MSE and directional hit rate over both a Gaussian Langevin state-space model and a naive random walk.
  • Because the scheme inherits the shot-noise conditional-Gaussian structure, it carries over to other linear SDEs driven by subordinated Brownian motion.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The user-fixed truncation threshold could itself be given a prior and sampled, and a posterior-predictive check on small-jump activity would test whether the finite-activity approximation is adequate for a given dataset; the paper fixes the threshold without learning it.
  • The weak temporal dependence of the augmented jump series is what makes the MH-in-Gibbs update cheap here, so the same augmentation should carry over to nonlinear observation models with a particle-filter estimate replacing the Kalman marginal, at higher computational cost.
  • The Student-$t$ mixture output is a ready-made plug-in for derivative pricing or risk measurement in time-changed models, since the NVM Lévy density is exactly the object that governs jump risk premia; the paper demonstrates forecasting but not this downstream use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian nonparametric framework for inferring the Lévy measures of a subordinator process and of the normal variance-mean (NVM) process that it drives, within a linear Lévy state-space model with additive Gaussian observation noise. The Lévy measure is modeled as Q(x) = λ f(x), where λ has a Gamma prior and f has a Dirichlet process prior (referred to as the IGSDP in the abstract), so that the inference target is the Lévy measure of a finite-activity compound Poisson approximation. Inference is performed with an augmented Gibbs sampler that alternates between (i) sampling Q together with the DP concentration parameter conditional on an augmented jump series {Z_i, V_i}; (ii) updating the jump series via MH-in-Gibbs using the model prior as the proposal and the Rao-Blackwellized marginal likelihood (a Kalman filter with the NVM parameters μ_w and σ_w marginalized) in the acceptance ratio; and (iii) updating the system parameters. Conditional on the jump series, μ_w and σ_w are marginalized in closed form, and the NVM Lévy measure is represented as an unnormalized mixture of Student-t distributions. The method is tested on simulated tempered-stable data and on tick-level GBP/USD data, with a forecasting comparison against a Gaussian Langevin SSM and a naive forecaster.

Significance. If the two concerns below are resolved, this would be a useful methodological contribution: it appears to be the first MCMC scheme that targets the Lévy measure of both the subordinator and the NVM process in a linear Lévy state-space model, and several components are assembled correctly. In particular, the DP posterior update in Eq. (40), the Student-t marginalization in Eq. (54), and the Kalman-based marginal likelihood of Eqs. (23)/(68) are standard results that appear derived correctly, and the paper is commendably explicit about its conditional-update structure. The empirical validation is also sensible: the synthetic experiments exercise an infinite-activity tempered stable driving process, and the real-data forecasting comparison (Table 1) is a meaningful practical check. However, the significance is conditional: the λ-posterior error in Eq. (39) means the sampler currently does not target the stated posterior even under the finite-activity model, and the unquantified truncation approximation limits the strength of the claims in Sections 1.3 and 6. The paper ships no code, so correctness rests entirely on the derivations and experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2, Eqs. (38)–(39)] The conditional posterior for λ stated in Eq. (39) is incorrect for the observation scheme used throughout the paper. With T_i = V_i − V_{i−1} and V_0 = 0, one has Σ_{i=1}^M T_i = V_M, the time of the last jump, so the claimed posterior Gamma(α_λ + M, β_λ + Σ T_i) discards the censored interval between the last jump and the end of the observation window. For a Poisson process of rate λ observed on a fixed window of length L (here L = t_N − t_1, the span of the N discrete observations), the likelihood of the count M and the ordered event times is λ^M exp(−λL); the residual interval (V_M, L] is informative about λ and must be included. The correct full conditional is Gamma(α_λ + M, β_λ + L). Because every Lévy measure sample is formed as Q^(l) = λ^(l) f^(l)(x) in Eqs. (41)–(42), the upward bias in λ (the denominator β_λ + V_M is smaller than β_λ + L with positive probability) propagates to all reported Lévy measures and to the NVM measure (54)–(55). I verified this concern independently: the augmented Gibbs sampler does not have the generative model (36) as its stationary distribution, even under the finite-activity assumption. The fix is local, but it is load-bearing, and the Section 5.2 experiments (high-activity tempered stable case) do not stress the regime where the bias is largest, namely when few jumps occur and V_M is well before the window end.
  2. [3, 5.2, Appendix D] The inference target is the finite-activity compound Poisson approximation Q(x) = λ f(x), not the Lévy measure of the infinite-activity process that generates the data. Section 3 states that it is natural to perform inference under the finite-activity assumption, and Appendix D defines an explicit truncation threshold ε for the ground truth, but ε and the DP truncation level K are fixed by the user and are never learned, validated, or subjected to sensitivity analysis, and their numerical values are not reported for the synthetic or real-data experiments. When the driving process is infinite-activity (tempered stable, Section 5.2), the model is misspecified, and the posterior concentrates on an approximating measure whose bias is controlled by ε; Figures 1–2 therefore validate the sampler for the approximating model, not the unqualified claim in Sections 1.3 and 6 that the procedure infers the Lévy measures of subordinators and NVM processes. I request (i) a scoping statement in Sections 1.3 and 6 that the object of inference is the truncated measure, (ii) a sensitivity analysis over ε (and K) with the chosen values reported, and (iii) at least one posterior check of the truncation, such as a comparison of the observed number of jumps with the predictive distribution implied by the inferred λ.
  3. [Abstract vs. body (also 2.5, 4.6)] The abstract advertises two contributions that are absent from the body. First, the 'Independent Gamma-scaled Dirichlet Process (IGSDP)' is named only in the abstract; the model actually used is Q = λ f with f ~ DP(α, H_η) and λ ~ Gamma (model (36), Eqs. (41)–(42)), and the claim that the well-known Gamma process is a special case is not established anywhere in the text. As stated it is in tension with the discreteness of DP realizations: Q is almost surely a discrete measure in Eq. (42), whereas the Gamma process has an infinite-activity, absolutely continuous Lévy measure; a precise limiting or embedding statement is needed. Second, the abstract promises 'an explicit characterization of the parameter contour for NVM processes' yielding 'an identifiable parameterization of the model,' but no such characterization appears in the body or in Appendices A–D. Identifiability of the NVM parameters is nontrivial — the transformation (μ_w, σ_w, ν(dz)) → (μ_w/c, σ_w/√c, ν(dz/c)) leaves the law of J(t) in (13) invariant — so the advertised characterization should be supplied if it exists, or these claims should be removed from the abstract and Section 1.3.
minor comments (7)
  1. [2.5 (paragraph after Eq. (29))] The text says the Dirichlet process 'generates discrete densities with probability 1' and therefore 'cannot be used to estimate a continuous density'; a DP generates discrete probability measures rather than densities, and since the paper's estimator is the discrete random measure (42), the repeated use of 'Lévy density' for Q(x) (Section 2.1, Figure 2 captions) should be reconciled with the discrete-measure interpretation.
  2. [5.3, Table 1] The hit-rate metric is never defined, and the naive forecaster's reported hit rate of 0.0000 needs clarification: if a hit requires a strictly nonzero predicted direction, a naive prediction of zero change would always be a miss, but the definition should be stated explicitly; reporting standard errors or intervals for the MSE comparison would also strengthen the claim that the Lévy model outperforms the naive benchmark.
  3. [5.2, Appendix D] No numerical values are reported for the truncation threshold ε, the DP truncation level K, or the prior hyperparameters (a, b, α_λ, β_λ, α_w, β_w, k_w, and the initial subordinator parameters), so the synthetic and real-data experiments are not reproducible as described.
  4. [4.2, 4.5, B] The symbol α is overloaded: it denotes the DP concentration parameter in (36), the extended state vector α(t) in (59), and appears in the inverse-Gamma shape α_w in (36) and (65); this makes Sections 4.2, 4.5, and Appendix B unnecessarily hard to follow.
  5. [5.2] The sentence claiming consistent results for various parameter combinations and random initializations is not backed by any reported results; a summary of the repeated runs (e.g., posterior means and their ranges across initializations) should be included in an appendix.
  6. [4.3] The efficiency claim for the prior-proposal MH update rests on the heuristic of weak temporal dependence; reporting the average acceptance rate of the blocked updates and the functional autocorrelation times for the subordinator series itself (as opposed to θ) would make the claim verifiable.
  7. [References; Algorithm 1] Several bibliographic entries are incomplete ([4], [5] lack venues/years; [19] lacks the author's initials), and there are numerous typos, e.g., 'a random variabel N' in Algorithm 1, 'non-negativesubordinator' in Section 2.2, and 'we make use of a fact that...' in Section 3; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Levy-measure posterior is sampled from the augmented jump series and forecasts are out-of-sample; self-citations supply external background machinery, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Levy measure is modeled as Q(x) = lambda f(x) with f ~ DP(alpha, H_eta) and lambda ~ Gamma(alpha_lambda, beta_lambda), as in Eq. (36). Conditional on the augmented subordinator series {Z_i, V_i}, the posterior for f is a standard Dirichlet process update (Eq. 40), and lambda is updated from its conjugate Gamma likelihood (Eq. 39). The observations enter the Levy-measure posterior only through the MH update of the jump series in Eqs. (44)-(45), whose acceptance ratio is the Kalman-filter marginal likelihood of Eq. (23); this is Bayesian data augmentation, not fitting Q to Y and then 'predicting' Y from the fitted value. The NVM density in Eq. (54) is obtained by substituting the discrete measure into Eq. (50) and marginalizing the normal-inverse-Gamma conditionals of Eqs. (52)-(53), so it is a genuine posterior functional rather than a renamed input. The forecasting evaluation is explicitly out-of-sample: the model is trained on the data in figure 6 and then used to predict the next 900 ticks (Section 5.3, Table 1), so the reported MSE and hit rate are not in-sample fitted values. The paper also acknowledges its modeling limitations: the finite-activity truncation of infinite-activity processes is stated in Section 3, and Section 5.2 notes that inferred measures deviate from ground truth at small jump sizes because those jumps are indistinguishable from observation noise. These are approximation choices, not circular steps. Self-citations to the authors' prior shot-noise and Levy state-space work [26, 57] supply the conditionally Gaussian likelihood and Rao-Blackwellized filtering structure used as the proposal and acceptance kernel; this is external, checkable machinery and does not assume the Levy-measure posterior. No step reduces, by definition or by fit, to its own output. A possible technical objection that Eq. (39) omits the censored residual waiting time is a correctness concern rather than a circularity concern: even if valid, it would make the sampler target a different posterior, not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on user-chosen truncation and tuning constants rather than learned parameters; the DP and Kalman steps are standard. No new physical entities are introduced, though the abstract names an IGSDP random measure that the text does not define.

free parameters (5)
  • Small-jump truncation threshold eps = Not reported; user-chosen
    Section 3 restricts inference to finite-activity approximations; appendix D uses an explicit cutoff epsilon. The threshold determines which jumps are modeled and is never learned.
  • Dirichlet process truncation level K = Not reported; 'sufficiently large'
    Section 2.5: 'we will assume that the number of components K is sufficiently large for all the effective components to be modeled'; no procedure to validate K is given.
  • Initial subordinator series parameters = Not reported; 'parameters chosen to give comparable magnitudes to the data'
    Section 5.3 initializes MCMC from a tempered stable process with hand-picked parameters; Section 5.2 uses 'some combination of parameters' without stating them.
  • Base measure hyperparameters eta = Not reported; fixed
    Section 5.2 says sampling eta is avoided because it harms mixing, so eta is fixed by the user and affects the DP posterior.
  • Prior hyperparameters (a, b, alpha_lambda, beta_lambda, alpha_w, beta_w, k_w) = Not reported
    These govern the Gamma, inverse-Gamma, and normal priors; values are not stated in the paper, so the results depend on unreported choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Restriction to subordinators with no diffusion and no constant drift
    Section 2.2: 'we consider the case of no additional constant drift b0, so that the drift component arises entirely from small jumps'. The method does not apply to processes with a Brownian component or negative jumps in the subordinator.
  • domain assumption Finite-activity compound Poisson approximation is adequate for inference on infinite-activity processes
    Section 3: 'it is natural to consider performing inference under the finite activity assumption'; experiments simulate infinite-activity tempered stable processes, so the model is deliberately misspecified.
  • standard math Conditional Gaussianity of the state given the subordinator series (Eq. 20) holds, enabling the Kalman-filter marginal likelihood (Eq. 23)
    Follows from the linear SDE (16) and Gaussian subordination in (13); used throughout Section 4.
  • standard math Truncated stick-breaking DP (finite K) provides a valid posterior for the jump-size distribution
    Section 2.5 invokes Ishwaran and James; assumes K large enough.
  • ad hoc to paper The MH-in-Gibbs sampler using the prior proposal p({Zi,Vi}|Q) mixes efficiently (weak temporal dependence of jumps)
    Section 4.3 claims efficiency is due to 'weak temporal dependencies of the subordinator series on the observations', but no convergence theory or diagnostic guarantees are given beyond traces and autocorrelation times.
  • ad hoc to paper Identifiability of NVM parameters mu_w, sigma_w via an extended state-space representation
    Appendix B sets mu_w as an extra state; abstract claims a 'parameter contour' characterization, but the text never derives it.
invented entities (1)
  • Independent Gamma-scaled Dirichlet Process (IGSDP)
    purpose: Abstract claims a new random measure prior on Levy measures with the Gamma process as a special case
    Named only in the metadata abstract; the full text defines the prior as an independent Gamma(alpha_lambda, beta_lambda) scaled Dirichlet process DP(alpha, H_eta) but does not give it this name, prove the Gamma process is a special case, or use the term anywhere in Sections 1-6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Non-Parametric Inference for L\'evy Measures in State-Space Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TY3U5GS

@misc{pith2026250522587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Non-Parametric Inference for L\'evy Measures in State-Space Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TY3U5GS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22587}
}
read the original abstract

L\'evy processes, known for their ability to model complex dynamics with skewness, heavy tails, and discontinuities, play a critical role in stochastic modeling across various domains. However, inference for most L\'evy processes, whether in parametric or non-parametric settings, remains a significant challenge. In this work, we present a novel Bayesian non-parametric inference framework for inferring the L\'evy measures of subordinators and normal variance-mean (NVM) processes within a linear state space model. A flexible random measure, the Independent Gamma-scaled Dirichlet Process (IGSDP), is introduced, for which the well-known Gamma process is a special case, leading to tractable conditional distributions for inference about both L\'evy measures. We further show that in the Gamma process special case, conjugacy can be achieved for hyper-parameter inference. An explicit characterization of the parameter contour for NVM processes is provided, enabling an identifiable parameterization of the model for effective Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms in posterior inference. The method is demonstrated on both synthetic and tick-level (high-frequency) financial datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Posterior Inference of System States and NVM Parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior Inference of L´evy Measures (a) Empirical Distribution of θ (b) θ Sample Trace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. θ Mixing Visualization To further evaluate our approach, we examine the mixing performance of the three sampling 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DP Concentration Parameter α Trace For more quantitative analysis, the autocorrelation time is used. However, it is slightly more complicated in our case since our samples are not just finite-dimensional parameters but also continuous functions. In [16], a similar situ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GBP/USD Data (a) x(t) (b) d dtx(t) (Momentum Signal) (c) Subordinator L´evy Density Inferred (d) NVM L´evy Density Inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inference Results of the GBP/USD Data 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: α Trace of GBP/USD Data Infer￾ence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Forecasted FX Time Series Model MSE Hit Rate Naive 0.8159 0.0000 Gaussian Langevin SSM 2.8436 0.6171 L´evy Langevin SSM 0.7871 0.6505 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrieu, A

    C. Andrieu, A. Doucet, and R. Holenstein. Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 72(3):269–342, June 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    E Antoniak

    C. E Antoniak. Mixtures of Dirichlet Processes with Applications to Bayesian Nonparametric Problems.The annals of statistics, pages 1152–1174, 1974

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, S. I. Resnick, and T. Mikosch, editors.L´ evy Processes: Theory and Applications. Birkh¨ auser Boston, MA, 1 edition, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and N. Shephard. Basics of L´ evy Processes

    work page

  5. [5]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and N. Shephard. L´ evy Driven Volatility Models

    work page

  6. [6]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and N. Shephard. Non-Gaussian Ornstein–Uhlenbeck-based Models and Some of Their Uses in Financial Economics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 63(2):167–241, July 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Belomestny, S

    D. Belomestny, S. Gugushvili, M. Schauer, and P. Spreij. Nonparametric Bayesian Inference for Gamma-Type L´ evy Subordinators.Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 17(3):599–628, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    C. M. Bishop.Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Information Science and Statistics. Springer, New York, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Capp´ e, S

    O. Capp´ e, S. J. Godsill, and E. Moulines. An Overview of Existing Methods and Recent Advances in Sequential Monte Carlo.Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(5):899–924, May 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Caron, M

    F. Caron, M. Davy, A. Doucet, E. Duflos, and P. Vanheeghe. Bayesian Inference for Linear Dynamic Models with Dirichlet Process Mixtures.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(1):71–84, January 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    P. Carr, R. Lee, and L. Wu. Variance Swaps on Time-changed L´ evy Processes.Finance and Stochastics, 16:335–355, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Carr and L

    P. Carr and L. Wu. Time-Changed L´ evy Processes and Option Pricing.Journal of Financial Economics, 71(1):113–141, January 2004. 22

    2004

  5. [13]

    Chopin and S

    N. Chopin and S. S. Singh. On particle gibbs sampling.Bernoulli, 21(3), August 2015. arXiv:1304.1887 [stat]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H. L. Christensen, J. Murphy, and S. J. Godsill. Forecasting High-Frequency Futures Returns Using Online Langevin Dynamics.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 6(4):366–380, August 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Cont and P

    R. Cont and P. Tankov.Financial Modelling with Jump Processes. Chapman & Hall/CRC Financial Mathematics Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    S. L. Cotter, G. O. Roberts, A. M. Stuart, and D. White. MCMC Methods for Functions: Modifying Old Algorithms to Make Them Faster.Statistical Science, 28(3), August 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Doucet and A

    A. Doucet and A. M. Johansen. A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen years later

  10. [18]

    Duval and E

    C. Duval and E. Mariucci. Spectral-Free Estimation of L´ evy Densities in High-Frequency Regime, April 2020. arXiv:1702.08787 [math]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D Escobar and M

    M. D Escobar and M. West. Bayesian Density Estimation and Inference Using Mixtures

  12. [20]

    Fearnhead

    P. Fearnhead. MCMC for State-Space Models. In S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. L. Jones, and X. Meng, editors,Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, pages 513–530. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    T. S. Ferguson. A Bayesian Analysis of Some Nonparametric Problems.The Annals of Statistics, 1(2), March 1973

    1973

  14. [22]

    Figueroa-L´ opez and C

    E. Figueroa-L´ opez and C. Houdr´ e. Nonparametric Estimation for L´ evy Processes with a View Towards Mathematical Finance, December 2004. arXiv:math/0412351

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. Gan, B. I. Ahmad, and S. J. Godsill. L´ evy State-Space Models for Tracking and Intent Prediction of Highly Maneuverable Objects.IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 57(4):2021–2038, August 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Geman, D

    H. Geman, D. B. Madan, and M. Yor. Time Changes for L´ evy Processes.Mathematical Finance, 11(1):79–96, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    S. J. Godsill and Y. Kındap. Point Process Simulation of Generalised Inverse Gaussian Processes and Estimation of the Jaeger Integral.Statistics and Computing, 32(1):13, February 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    S. J. Godsill, M. Riabiz, and I. Kontoyiannis. The L´ evy State Space Model. In2019 53rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pages 487–494, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Gugushvili, F

    S. Gugushvili, F. van der Meulen, and P. Spreij. Nonparametric Bayesian Inference for Multidimensional Compound Poisson Processes.Modern Stochastics: Theory and Applications, 2(1):1–15, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Gugushvili, F

    S. Gugushvili, F. van der Meulen, and P. Spreij. A Non-Parametric Bayesian Approach to Decompounding from High Frequency Data.Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 21(1):53–79, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    A. C. Harvey.Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, transf. to dig. print edition, 2009. 23

    2009

  22. [30]

    Huang and L

    J. Huang and L. Wu. Specification Analysis of Option Pricing Models based on Time-changed L´ evy Processes.The Journal of Finance, 59(3):1405–1439, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Ishwaran and L

    H. Ishwaran and L. F. James. Gibbs Sampling Methods for Stick-Breaking Priors.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(453):161–173, March 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    F. V. Jensen and T. D. Nielsen.Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Information science and statistics. Springer, New York, 2nd ed edition, 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    Jongbloed, F.H

    G. Jongbloed, F.H. Van Der Meulen, and A.W. Van Der Vaart. Nonparametric Inference for L´ evy-driven Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Processes.Bernoulli, 11(5), October 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Jørgensen.Statistical Properties of the Generalized Inverse Gaussian Distribution, volume 9 ofLecture Notes in Statistics

    B. Jørgensen.Statistical Properties of the Generalized Inverse Gaussian Distribution, volume 9 ofLecture Notes in Statistics. Springer New York, New York, NY, 1982

    1982

  27. [35]

    Kalli, J

    M. Kalli, J. E. Griffin, and S. G. Walker. Slice Sampling Mixture Models.Statistics and Computing, 21(1):93–105, January 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    A. Ya. Khintchine. Zur Theorie der unbeschr¨ ankt teilbaren Verteilungsgesetze.Matematicheskii Sbornik, 44:79–119, 1937

    1937

  29. [37]

    Kindap and S

    Y. Kindap and S. Godsill. Non-Gaussian Process Dynamical Models.IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, page 1–9, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Koskela, D

    J. Koskela, D. Spano, and P. A. Jenkins. Consistency of Bayesian Nonparametric Inference for Discretely Observed Jump Diffusions.Bernoulli, 25(3), August 2019. arXiv:1506.04709 [math]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kındap and S

    Y. Kındap and S. J. Godsill. Non-Gaussian Process Regression.arXiv preprint, arXiv:2209.03117, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kındap and S

    Y. Kındap and S. J. Godsill. Point Process Simulation of Generalised Hyperbolic L´ evy Processes. Statistics and Computing, 34(1):33, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Lindsten, M

    F. Lindsten, M. I Jordan, and T. B Sch¨ on. Particle Gibbs with Ancestor Sampling

  34. [42]

    Z. Liu, Z. Tiller, and S. J. Godsill. Inference for Non-Gaussian Dynamical Models with Time- Varying Skew. In2024 27th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), page 1–8, Venice, Italy, July 2024. IEEE

    2024

  35. [43]

    K. Matsuda. Introduction to Merton Jump Diffusion Model. 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    M¨ uller, F

    P. M¨ uller, F. A. Quintana, A. Jara, and T. Hanson.Bayesian Nonparametric Data Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer Cham, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    M. H. Neumann and M. Reiß. Nonparametric estimation for L´ evy processes from low-frequency observations.Bernoulli, 15(1), February 2009

    2009

  38. [46]

    Øksendal.Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications

    B. Øksendal.Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications. Universitext. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 6 edition, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    M. H. Pesaran and A. Timmermann. A Simple Nonparametric Test of Predictive Performance. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(4):461–465, 1992. 24

    1992

  40. [48]

    Petropoulos, D

    F. Petropoulos, D. Apiletti, V. Assimakopoulos, M. Z. Babai, D. K. Barrow, S. B. Taieb, C.h Bergmeir, R. J. Bessa, J. Bijak, J. E. Boylan, et al. Forecasting: Theory and Practice. International Journal of forecasting, 38(3):705–871, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Rosi´ nski.Series Representations of L´ evy Processes from the Perspective of Point Processes, pages 401–415

    J. Rosi´ nski.Series Representations of L´ evy Processes from the Perspective of Point Processes, pages 401–415. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2001

    2001

  42. [50]

    Samoradnitsky.Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes: Stochastic Models with Infinite Variance

    G. Samoradnitsky.Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes: Stochastic Models with Infinite Variance. Routledge, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    S¨ arkk¨ a and L

    S. S¨ arkk¨ a and L. Svensson.Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing, volume 17. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Sato.L´ evy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions, volume 68 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    K. Sato.L´ evy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions, volume 68 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999

    1999

  45. [53]

    Sethuraman.A Constructive Definition of Dirichlet Priors:

    J. Sethuraman.A Constructive Definition of Dirichlet Priors:. Fort Belvoir, V A, May 1991

    1991

  46. [54]

    Sokal.Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechanics: Foundations and New Algorithms, page 131–192

    A. Sokal.Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechanics: Foundations and New Algorithms, page 131–192. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1997

    1997

  47. [55]

    Tancini, F

    D. Tancini, F. Bartolucci, and S. Pandolfi. A Comparison between Marginal Likelihood and Data Augmented MCMC Algorithms for Gaussian Hidden Markov Models.Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 94(7):1571–1594, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    M. A. Tanner and W. Wong. The Calculation of Posterior Distributions by Data Augmentation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(398):528–540, 1987

    1987

  49. [57]

    Tapia Costa, I

    M. Tapia Costa, I. Kontoyiannis, and S. J. Godsill. Generalised Shot Noise Representations of Stochastic Systems Driven by Non-Gaussian L´ evy Processes.arXiv preprint, arXiv:2305.05931, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Y. Teh. Dirichlet Process. In Claude Sammut and Geoffrey I. Webb, editors,Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, volume 1063, pages 280–287. Springer, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Wang and R

    Z. Wang and R. Martin. Gibbs Posterior Inference on a L´ evy Density under Discrete Sampling. (arXiv:2109.06567), September 2021. arXiv:2109.06567 [math]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    West.Hyperparameter Estimation in Dirichlet Process Mixture Models

    M. West.Hyperparameter Estimation in Dirichlet Process Mixture Models. Duke University ISDS Discussion Paper# 92-A03, 1992

    1992

  53. [61]

    R. L. Wolpert. L´ evy Random Fields. https://www2.stat.duke.edu/courses/Spring16/ sta961/lec/levy.pdf, 2021. Lecture notes, Duke University. Appendix A Simulation Algorithms for Compound Poisson Processes The following algorithm for the finite activity case i.e. the compound P...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.