Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Fixed-Point Estimation of the Drift Parameter in Stochastic Differential Equations Driven by Rough Multiplicative Fractional Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For H∈(1/3,1), the paper constructs a computable fixed-point estimator of the drift θ0 of a multiplicative fractional-noise SDE from N independent copies, with an asymptotic confidence interval and mean-squared error of order 1/N.

desk verdict Solid H>1/2 theory and genuinely new Malliavin/Young tools, but a sign issue in the proof of Proposition 3.9 leaves the rough-regime well-posedness unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09787 v2 pith:3L3MRBAV submitted 2025-07-13 math.ST stat.TH

Chiara Amorino , Laure Coutin , Nicolas Marie This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62M0560G2260H0762F12
keywords driftparameterestimationfractionalBrownianmotionmultiplicativenoisefixed-pointestimatorSkorokhodintegralMalliavinderivativeYoungroughpaths
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

This paper seeks to estimate the drift parameter θ0 of an SDE driven by multiplicative fractional Brownian noise from N independent copies observed over a fixed finite time horizon. The natural least-squares object is a 'fake estimator' because it contains an unobservable Skorokhod integral, so the authors replace that integral with a corrected pathwise one and define a computable fixed-point estimator whose fixed point is the unique solution of a random contraction map. The paper proves that for every Hurst parameter H in (1/3,1), including the rough regime H in (1/3,1/2], the fixed point exists on a high-probability event, yields an asymptotic confidence interval with guaranteed coverage, and has mean-squared error of order 1/N. If correct, this is the first parametric-rate drift estimation procedure for multiplicative fractional noise across the full range of H, extending earlier work that was limited to additive noise, to H>1/2, or to a single trajectory over a long time horizon.

What carries the argument

The machinery rests on three pieces. First, Proposition 2.2 rewrites the Malliavin derivative of the solution as D_s X_t = σ(X_t) exp(θ0 ∫_s^t (b' - σ'b/σ)(X_u) du) 1_{[0,t)}(s), an expression with no explicit dependence on the driving fractional Brownian motion. Second, for H∈(1/3,1/2], Proposition 2.3 reduces the two-dimensional Young integral of a regular function x against the fBm covariance to α_H ∫∫ x(s,t)|t-s|^{2H-2} ds dt with α_H = H(2H-1), which turns the rough-regime correction into a computable kernel integral. Third, using these identities, the gap between the fake estimator and a pathwise estimator becomes a fixed-point equation for the maps Θ_N (when H>1/2) and Θ̃_N (when H≤1/2), both built from the coefficient functions φ = σ(σb' + σ'b) and ψ = (σb' - σ'b)/σ, the empirical denominator D_N, and the pathwise increment I_N; under the paper's sign conditions these maps are contractions on R_+, so their fixed point R_N exists and is unique and θ_N = I_N + R_N is the estimator.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: with H=0.7, σ≡1, b(x)=-x, choose T so large that the small-horizon condition (12) is violated and run the estimator on N=$10^{4}$ simulated paths; if the mean-squared error still decays like 1/N and the coverage stays at the nominal level, the paper's condition (12) is not necessary as stated, whereas if the error fails to decay, the condition is doing real work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the gap between the unobservable Skorokhod-based estimator and a computable pathwise one can be closed by a fixed-point equation, for all H∈(1/3,1). The key identity is a Malliavin derivative formula D_s X_t = σ(X_t) exp(θ0 ∫_s^t ψ(X_u) du) that is free of explicit dependence on the driving fractional Brownian motion, together with a new 2D Young-integral reduction (Proposition 2.3) that converts the rough-regime correction into a Riemann-integrable form. Under sign conditions on the coefficients and a small-horizon condition, the resulting maps Θ_N and Θ̃_N are contractions on R_+, so the fixed point exists and is unique; the paper then proves P(Δ_N^c) ≤ c/N, an asymptotic confidence interval with coverage at least 1-2λα, and a non-asymptotic bound E(|$θ_N^{{c,d}}$ - θ0|²) ≤ c/N.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the sign condition (Assumption 3.1: b', φ, ψ ≤ 0 and θ0 > 0) joined with the small-horizon condition (12); if those fail, fixed-point existence and all the statistical guarantees are unproven, and (12) depends on the unknown law of X, so it cannot be checked from the data alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For H>1/2 the estimator θ_N = I_N + R_N is fully computable from the data, since I_N is an explicit function of the increments of b(X) and R_N is obtained by iterating the contraction Θ_N.
  • For H∈(1/3,1/2] the same computable fixed-point scheme works, at the price of the bounded-drift assumption (2.4) and a more conservative variance bound Y_N.
  • The asymptotic confidence interval in Proposition 3.6 (resp. 3.10) covers θ0 with probability at least 1-2λα, which can be made close to 1-α by choosing λ close to 1 and α small.
  • The doubly truncated estimator θ_N^{c,d} has mean-squared error at most c/N, so the estimator converges at the parametric rate.
  • The bad event on which the fixed point is not defined has probability O(1/N), so the truncation at Δ_N does not change the asymptotics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The small-horizon condition (12) involves ||b||²_f, an expectation under the unknown law of X, so a data-driven check or plug-in estimate of this quantity would be needed to turn the procedure into an off-the-shelf method; the paper does not develop such a check.
  • The B-free Malliavin derivative formula of Proposition 2.2 is likely to simplify other inference problems for fBm-driven SDEs, such as nonparametric drift estimation or estimation from discretely sampled paths, beyond the fixed-point estimator studied here.
  • The 2D Young integral reduction of Proposition 2.3 may be useful in other statistical contexts for rough noise, for instance in constructing moment estimators or in weak convergence arguments, because it reduces a double integral against the fBm covariance to an explicit kernel integral.
  • The extension to d-dimensional fBm is only sketched in Section 5 via a finite-difference Jacobian estimator; testing that estimator numerically would be a natural next step, but it is not part of the paper's claims.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies estimation of the drift parameter θ0 in the SDE dX_t = θ0 b(X_t) dt + σ(X_t) dB_t driven by a multiplicative fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter H ∈ (1/3,1), using N independent copies observed on a fixed time interval [0,T]. The starting point is an infeasible least-squares-type estimator involving a Skorokhod integral, which the paper replaces by a computable fixed-point estimator. The transition relies on a new expression for the Malliavin derivative of X that does not depend explicitly on B (Proposition 2.2) and, for H ∈ (1/3,1/2], on a new reduction of a 2D Young integral to an explicit weighted integral (Propositions 2.3 and 2.5). The estimator is defined as θ_N = I_N + R_N, where R_N is the unique fixed point of a random map Θ_N (for H > 1/2) or Θ̃_N (for H ≤ 1/2). Under sign conditions (Assumption 3.1) and a small-horizon condition (12), the paper claims well-posedness of the fixed point on an event Δ_N whose complement has probability O(1/N), an asymptotic confidence interval (Propositions 3.6 and 3.10), and a non-asymptotic O(1/N) risk bound for doubly truncated versions (Propositions 3.8 and 3.12). A numerical study is reported for H = 0.7 and H = 0.9.

Significance. If the paper's claims are correct, it would be a substantial contribution: it provides a computable fixed-point drift estimator with parametric-rate guarantees for multiplicative fBm-driven SDEs over the full range H ∈ (1/3,1), extending earlier work that was restricted to additive noise and/or H > 1/2. The Malliavin-derivative reformulation of Proposition 2.2 and the 2D Young-integral representation of Proposition 2.3 are potentially useful tools beyond this specific estimation problem. The paper is transparent about many of its assumptions, gives worked proof outlines for most of the main results, and provides a numerical illustration. However, one of the central proof steps in the rough regime is not justified as written, and one main result is stated without proof, so the significance can only be assessed after those gaps are repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.8, proof of Proposition 3.9] The self-map property Θ̃_N(R_+) ⊂ R_+ is asserted using 'φ ⩽ 0 and I_N ⩾ 0' together with inequality (22). The claim I_N ⩾ 0 is never proved and is not true under Assumption 3.1. For example, take the allowed model b(x) = −x, σ = 1, x0 = 0; an antiderivative of b is B(x) = −x²/2, so I_N = (1/(NTD_N)) Σ_i (−(X_T^i)²/2) ≤ 0, and in fact I_N < 0 almost surely. When r + I_N < 0, the argument of the exponential in Λ_t^i(r + I_N) changes sign, inequality (22) is no longer available, and Θ̃_N(r) can take negative values; the displayed conclusion 'Θ̃_N(r) ≥ 0' is therefore unjustified. Since existence and uniqueness of R_N are obtained via Picard's fixed-point theorem from exactly this self-map property, the well-posedness of the fixed-point estimator for H ∈ (1/3,1/2] is not established as written. This is a load-bearing gap in the paper's headline claim.
  2. [Section 6, after Proposition 3.12] The proof of Proposition 3.12 is explicitly omitted, with the justification that it follows the same lines as Proposition 3.8. This is not a purely cosmetic omission: the rough-regime risk bound requires the well-posedness and contraction properties of Θ̃_N that are affected by the gap in Proposition 3.9, and the analogue of the transfer inequality (20) for Θ̃_N is not written out. A main theorem, the non-asymptotic risk bound for H ∈ (1/3,1/2], is thus left without support. The proof should be supplied, or the statement should be explicitly conditional on a repaired well-posedness result.
  3. [Section 3.1, condition (12)] The small-horizon condition (12) involves ||b||_f and E(b(X_T)) − b(x0), both of which depend on the law of X and hence on θ0 itself; it is not checkable from the observed data. This condition is load-bearing: it is used to prove P(Δ_N^c) ≤ c/N in Proposition 3.5, which in turn drives the asymptotic confidence intervals and the risk bounds. The numerical study in Section 4 never verifies condition (12), and it only covers H = 0.7 and H = 0.9. The paper should state clearly that the advertised guarantees are conditional on a non-verifiable model condition, and should discuss whether the small-horizon condition can be replaced by a data-driven or more explicit criterion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The numerical section reports results only for H = 0.7 and H = 0.9, so it does not illustrate the rough regime H ∈ (1/3,1/2] that the paper presents as its main technical challenge; a simulation with, say, H ≈ 0.4 would be informative.
  2. [Section 3.1, Equation (8)] The notation 'with b′ = b' is confusing: the drift b and its antiderivative should be denoted by different symbols throughout, for example B(x) = ∫_0^x b(y) dy.
  3. [Proposition 3.6 and Remark 3.7] The displayed definitions of Y_N and R_i contain typographical errors: repeated differentials such as 'dudvdudv' and ambiguous limits of the form ∫_0^v ∫_0^u make the intended integration variables unclear. These formulas should be rewritten with distinct variables for the two pairs of integration arguments.
  4. [Section 4.1] The symbol n is overloaded: it denotes both the number of Riemann-sum discretization points and the number of Picard iterations in the composition (Θ_{N,n} ∘ ⋯ ∘ Θ_{N,n}). This makes the implementation description harder to follow than necessary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity in the derivation: the fixed-point estimator is a genuine self-consistency estimator, the asymptotic results are transferred from the infeasible estimator by explicit inequalities, and the only flagged issues are non-load-bearing self-citations and a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The fixed-point estimator theta_N = I_N + R_N is obtained by replacing the unobservable Skorokhod-based fake estimator theta_hat_N with a data-dependent self-consistency equation: from Equality (9), theta_hat_N - I_N = Theta_N(theta_0 - I_N), and since theta_hat_N is consistent for theta_0, R_N is defined as the contraction fixed point of Theta_N (or Theta_tilde_N). The contraction property (Propositions 3.2 and 3.9, apart from the gap noted below) and the transfer inequality (20), |theta_N - theta_hat_N| 1_{Delta_N} <= c/(1-c) |theta_hat_N - theta_0| 1_{Delta_N}, are proved from the model coefficients, not assumed by definition. Asymptotic normality comes from a standard CLT on the fake estimator, with the computable variance proxy Y_N shown to dominate the true variance proxy Y*_N using psi <= 0 and theta_0 > 0; this is a bound, not an identity forced by construction. The risk bounds for theta_N^{c,d} similarly follow from the fake-estimator risk bound plus P(Delta_N^c) <= c/N. I flag, as a correctness issue rather than circularity, the proof of Proposition 3.9 (Section 6.8), which asserts 'since phi <= 0 and I_N >= 0' to make Theta_tilde_N map R_+ into itself; for the allowed model b(x) = -x, the primitive is B(x) = -x^2/2 and I_N <= 0 generically, so the self-map property, and hence well-posedness for H in (1/3,1/2], is not established as written. This is a proof gap, not a reduction of an output to an input. The omission of the proof of Proposition 3.12 (said to proceed 'along the same lines' and 'therefore omitted') is also a completeness issue. Self-citations to [5] and [50] are contextual and non-load-bearing: the paper's existence, uniqueness, CLT, and risk proofs are carried out in Section 6. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimation procedure introduces no parameter fitted to data: the estimator is a deterministic functional of the observed paths and the known coefficients b, σ. The hand-chosen constants c, d, θ_max, λ, α are theorem-level tuning. The main fragility is that the theoretical guarantees hold only under the ad hoc sign conditions (b', φ, ψ ≤ 0, θ0 > 0), which are needed for the contraction and for the variance comparisons at every step, plus the small-horizon condition (12) that involves the unknown ||b||_f. Background mathematics (Malliavin calculus, Young/rough integration, Song-Tindel) is standard or cited. No invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • c (contraction margin) = chosen in (0,1); in Proposition 3.6 it must satisfy c < 1 - u_{1-λα/2}/u_{1-α/2}
    Hand-chosen constant in condition (10)/(12) controlling the contraction rate of Θ_N and Θ̃_N and the CI level; not fitted to data.
  • d (truncation level) = d ∈ (0, ||b||²_f/2]
    Defines the doubly truncated estimator θ̃_N^{c,d}; the risk bound requires knowing the population quantity ||b||²_f, which depends on the law of X through the time-averaged density.
  • θ_max = a known upper bound on θ0, e.g. 1 for a proportion
    Appears in the rough-regime confidence interval (Proposition 3.10) and in Y_N; the paper suggests replacing it by θ̃_N in practice.
  • λ and α (CI level tuning) = α ∈ (0,1/2), λ ∈ (1, 1/(2α))
    Set the asymptotic coverage level 1-2λα; chosen by hand, and they trade off interval sharpness against the validity of condition (12).
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Malliavin calculus for fBm (Skorokhod integrals centered, integration by parts, Itô-type isometry for the asymptotic variance)
    Invoked throughout Section 3 and the proofs; background from Nualart [58] and Biagini et al. [10], Theorem 3.11.1.
  • standard math Equation (1) admits a unique solution as a Young (H > 1/2) or rough path (H ≤ 1/2) differential equation, and the change-of-variable formula applies
    b, σ ∈ C^{[1/H]+1} with bounded derivatives (Section 1); standard results from Friz-Victoir [34] and Friz-Hairer [33].
  • standard math Song-Tindel Theorem 3.1 relating Skorokhod and pathwise integrals for controlled processes
    Used in the proof of Proposition 2.5 for H ∈ (1/3,1/2]; the technical p-variation conditions are verified in Lemma 6.1.
  • domain assumption The law of X_t has a density f_t and s ↦ f_s(x) ∈ L¹([0,T],dt), defining the time-averaged density f and the norm ||·||_f
    Stated before the fake estimator in Section 2; needed for ||b||_f, the asymptotic variance, and the small-T condition (12). Justified by [49] (constant σ) or [6] (b bounded).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: σ bounded, with inf |σ| > 0
    Required for Proposition 2.2 (Malliavin derivative formula via log|σ|), for the density results, and for the boundedness of φ and ψ.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2.4: b bounded (required only when H ∈ (1/3,1/2])
    The authors state in Remark 2.6 that this is the price to pay for applying Song-Tindel and Proposition 2.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3.1: b', φ = σ(σb' + σ'b), ψ = (σb' - σ'b)/σ are nonpositive, and θ0 > 0
    The sign conditions are the load-bearing premise for the contraction argument, the nonnegativity of the fixed-point maps, and the variance comparisons behind both confidence intervals; no external justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-horizon condition (12) involving the unknown population norm ||b||_f
    Guarantees P(Δ_N^c) ≤ c/N (Proposition 3.5), on which both the CI and the risk bound rely; it involves the law of X through ||b||_f and is not checkable from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixed-Point Estimation of the Drift Parameter in Stochastic Differential Equations Driven by Rough Multiplicative Fractional Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3L3MRBAV

@misc{pith2026250709787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixed-Point Estimation of the Drift Parameter in Stochastic Differential Equations Driven by Rough Multiplicative Fractional Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3L3MRBAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09787}
}
abstract

We investigate the problem of estimating the drift parameter from $N$ independent copies of the solution of a stochastic differential equation driven by a multiplicative fractional Brownian noise with Hurst parameter $H\in (1/3,1)$. Building on a least-squares-type object involving the Skorokhod integral, a key challenge consists in approximating this unobservable quantity with a computable fixed-point estimator, which requires addressing the correction induced by replacing the Skorokhod integral with its pathwise counterpart. To this end, a crucial technical contribution of this work is the reformulation of the Malliavin derivative of the process in a way that does not depend explicitly on the driving noise, enabling control of the approximation error in the multiplicative setting. For the case $H\in (1/3,1/2]$, we further exploit results on two-dimensional Young integrals to manage the more intricate correction term that appears. As a result, we establish the well-posedness of a fixed-point estimator for any $H\in (1/3,1)$, together with both an asymptotic confidence interval and a non-asymptotic risk bound. Finally, a numerical study illustrates the good practical performance of the proposed estimator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of N 7→ θN (black line) and of the bounds of the 89%-ACIs (dashed black lines) for Model (A) with H = 0.7 (left) and H = 0.9 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of N 7→ θN (black line) and of the bounds of the 89%-ACIs (dashed black lines) for Model (B) with H = 0.7 (left) and H = 0.9 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plots of N 7→ θN (black line) and of the bounds of the 89%-ACIs (dashed black lines) for Model (C) with H = 0.7 (left) and H = 0.9 (right). 5. Concluding remarks and perspectives This section summarizes the main insights gained throughout the paper and outlines potential direc￾tions for future research. As previously discussed, we investigated the estimation of the drift parameter based on N independent copies of th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albi, G.et al.(2019). Vehicular Traffic, Crowds, and Swarms: From Kinetic Theory and Multi-scale Methods to Applications and Research Perspectives.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences29(10), 1901-2005

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    & Zhou, S.Y

    Amorino, C., Belomestny, D., Pilipauskaite, V., Podolskij, M. & Zhou, S.Y. (2024). Polynomial rates via deconvolution for nonparametric estimation in McKean-Vlasov SDEs. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 1-46

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    & Halconruy, H

    Amorino, C., Gloter, A. & Halconruy, H. (2025). Evolving Privacy: Drift Parameter Estimation for Discretely Observed IID Diffusion Processes under LDP.Stochastic Processes and their Applications181, 104557

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    & Podolskij, M

    Amorino, C., Heidari, A., Pilipauskaite, V. & Podolskij, M. (2023). Parameter Estimation of Discretely Observed Interacting Particle Systems.Stochastic Processes and their Applications163, 350-386

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    & Shevchenko, R.Fractional Interacting Particle System: Drift Parameter Estimation via Malliavin Calculus.Preprint, arXiv:2502.06514

    Amorino, C., Nourdin, I. & Shevchenko, R.Fractional Interacting Particle System: Drift Parameter Estimation via Malliavin Calculus.Preprint, arXiv:2502.06514

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    & Tindel, S

    Baudoin, F., Nualart, E., Ouyang, C. & Tindel, S. (2016). On Probability Laws of Solutions to Differential Systems Driven by a Fractional Brownian Motion.The Annals of Probability44(4), 2554-2590

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    & Podolskij, M

    Belomestny, D., Pilipauskaite, V. & Podolskij, M. (2023). Semiparametric Estimation of McKean-Vlasov SDEs.Annales de l’IHP B59(1), 79-96

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    & Zhou, S.Y

    Belomestny, D., Podolskij, M. & Zhou, S.Y. (2024). On Nonparametric Estimation of the Interaction Function in Particle System Models. Preprint, arXiv:2402.14419

    arXiv 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    (1990).Continuous-Time Econometric Modeling.Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Bergstrom, A.R. (1990).Continuous-Time Econometric Modeling.Oxford University Press, Oxford

    1990

  2. [10]

    & Zhang, T

    Biagini, F., Hu, Y., Oksendal, B. & Zhang, T. (2008).Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Applications.Springer, London

    2008

  3. [11]

    & Martinez-Rodriguez, K

    Bossy, M., Jabir, J-F. & Martinez-Rodriguez, K. (2022). Instantaneous Turbulent Kinetic Energy Modeling Based on Lagrangian Stochastic Approach in CFD and Application to Wind Energy.Journal of Computational Physics464, 110929

    2022

  4. [12]

    Caglar, M. (2004). A Long-Range Dependent Workload Model for Packet Data Traffic.Mathematics of Operations Research29(1), 92-105

    2004

  5. [13]

    & Zhu, Y

    Carrillo, J.A., Jin, S., Li, L. & Zhu, Y. (2021). A Consensus-Based Global Optimization Method for High-Dimensional Machine Learning Problems.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations27, S5

    2021

  6. [14]

    & Bach, F

    Chizat, L. & Bach, F. (2018). On the Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Over-Parameterized Models Using Optimal Transport.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems31

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Viens, F.G

    Chronopoulou, A. & Viens, F.G. (2012). Estimation and Pricing Under Long-Memory Stochastic Volatility.Annals of Finance8(2-3), 379-403

    2012

  8. [16]

    & Renault, E

    Comte, F., Coutin, L. & Renault, E. (2012). Affine Fractional Stochastic Volatility Models.Annals of Finance8, 337-378

    2012

  9. [17]

    & Genon-Catalot, V

    Comte, F. & Genon-Catalot, V. (2020). Nonparametric Drift Estimation for IID Paths of Stochastic Differential Equations.The Annals of Statistics48(6), 3336-3365. 30 CHIARA AMORINO ⋆, LAURE COUTIN †, AND NICOLAS MARIE ⋄

    2020

  10. [18]

    & Marie, N

    Comte, F. & Marie, N. (2021). Nonparametric Estimation for IID Paths of Fractional SDE.Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes24, 669-705

    2021

  11. [19]

    & Marie, N

    Comte, F. & Marie, N. (2023). Nonparametric Drift Estimation from Diffusions with Correlated Brownian Motions. Journal of Multivariate Analysis198, 23 pages

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Marie, N

    Comte, F. & Marie, N. (2025). Nonparametric Estimation of the Transition Density Function for Diffusion Processes. Stochastic Processes and their Applications188, 104667

    2025

  13. [21]

    & Wang, X

    Dai, M., Duan, J., Liao, J. & Wang, X. (2021). Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Stochastic Differential Equations with Random Effects Driven by Fractional Brownian Motion.Applied Mathematics and Computation397

    2021

  14. [22]

    D’Argenio, D. Z. & Park, K. (1997). Uncertain Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Systems: Design, Estimation and Control.Control Engineering Practice5(12), 1707-1716

    1997

  15. [23]

    & Simsekli, U

    De Bortoli, V., Durmus, A., Fontaine, X. & Simsekli, U. (2020). Quantitative Propagation of Chaos for SGD in Wide Neural Networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 278-288

    2020

  16. [24]

    Degond, P. (2018). Mathematical Models of Collective Dynamics and Self-Organization. In Proceedings of the Inter- national Congress of Mathematicians: Rio de Janeiro 2018 (pp. 3925-3946)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Hoffmann, M

    Della Maestra, L. & Hoffmann, M. (2022). Nonparametric Estimation for Interacting Particle Systems: McKean-Vlasov Models.Probability Theory and Related Fields182(1), 551-613

    2022

  18. [26]

    (2013).Mean-Field Simulation for Monte-Carlo Integration.Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 126, 26

    Del Moral, P. (2013).Mean-Field Simulation for Monte-Carlo Integration.Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 126, 26

    2013

  19. [27]

    & Martinez, M

    Denis, C., Dion-Blanc, C. & Martinez, M. (2021). A Ridge Estimator of the Drift from Discrete Repeated Observations of the Solution of a Stochastic Differential Equation.Bernoulli27(4), 2675-2713

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Martinez, M

    Denis, C., Dion, C. & Martinez, M. (2020). Consistent Procedures for Multi-Class Classification of Discrete Diffusion Paths.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics47(2), 516-554

    2020

  21. [29]

    & Samson, A

    Donnet, S. & Samson, A. (2013). A Review on Estimation of Stochastic Differential Equations for Pharmacoki- netic/Pharmacodynamic Models.Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews65(7), 929-939

    2013

  22. [30]

    Eftaxias, K.et al.(2008). Evidence of Fractional Brownian Motion Type Asperity Model for Earthquake Generation in Candidate Pre-Seismic Electromagnetic Emissions.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences8(4), 657-669

    2008

  23. [31]

    & Kirby, C

    Fleming, J. & Kirby, C. (2011). Long Memory in Volatility and Trading Volume.Journal of Banking & Finance35(7), 1714-1726

    2011

  24. [32]

    & Lucarini, V

    Franzke, C.L.E., O’Kane, T.J., Berner, J., Williams, P.D. & Lucarini, V. (2015). Stochastic Climate Theory and Modeling.WIREs Climate Change6, 63-78

    2015

  25. [33]

    & Hairer, M

    Friz, P. & Hairer, M. (2014).A Course on Rough Paths (With an Introduction to Regularity Structures).Springer

    2014

  26. [34]

    & Victoir, N

    Friz, P. & Victoir, N. (2010).Multidimensional Stochastic Processes as Rough Paths: Theory and Applications.Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge

    2010

  27. [35]

    & Hyung, N

    Granger, C.W. & Hyung, N. (2004). Occasional Structural Breaks and Long Memory with an Application to the S&P 500 Absolute Stock Returns.Journal of Empirical Finance11(3), 399-421

    2004

  28. [36]

    & Pareschi, L

    Grassi, S. & Pareschi, L. (2021). From Particle Swarm Optimization to Consensus Based Optimization: Stochastic Modeling and Mean-Field Limit.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences31(8), 1625-1657

    2021

  29. [37]

    & Marie, N

    Halconruy, H. & Marie, N. (2024). On a Projection Least Squares Estimator for Jump Diffusion Processes.Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics76(2), 209-234

    2024

  30. [38]

    (1976).Models for Stochastic Activity of Neurones.Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin/Boston

    Holden, A.V. (1976).Models for Stochastic Activity of Neurones.Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin/Boston

    1976

  31. [39]

    & Vojta, T

    House, J., Janušonis, S., Metzler, R. & Vojta, T. (2025). Fractional Brownian motion with Mean-Density Interaction. Preprint, arXiv:2503.15255

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    & Nualart, D

    Hu, Y. & Nualart, D. (2010). Parameter Estimation for Fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Processes.Statistics and Prob- ability Letters80, 1030-1038

    2010

  33. [41]

    & Zhou, H

    Hu, Y., Nualart, D. & Zhou, H. (2019). Drift Parameter Estimation for Nonlinear Stochastic Differential Equations Driven by Fractional Brownian Motion.Stochastics91(8), 1067-1091

    2019

  34. [42]

    Hurst, H.E.(1951).Long-TermStorageCapacityofReservoirs.Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 116(1), 770-799

    1951

  35. [43]

    & Le Breton, A

    Kleptsyna, M.L. & Le Breton, A. (2001). Some Explicit Statistical Results About Elementary Fractional Type Models. Nonlinear Analysis47, 4783-4794. FIXED-POINT ESTIMATION OF THE DRIFT IN SDE DRIVEN BY ROUGH FRACTIONAL NOISE 31

    2001

  36. [44]

    & Ralchenko, K

    Kubilius, K., Mishura, Y. & Ralchenko, K. (2017).Parameter Estimation in Fractional Diffusion Models.Springer

    2017

  37. [45]

    (1967).Stochastic Stability and Control.Academic Press, New York

    Kushner, H.J. (1967).Stochastic Stability and Control.Academic Press, New York

    1967

  38. [46]

    & Hardy, R.J

    Lai, D., Davis, B.R. & Hardy, R.J. (2000). Fractional Brownian Motion and Clinical Trials.Journal of Applied Statistics 27(1), 103-108

    2000

  39. [47]

    & Lapeyre, B

    Lamberton, D. & Lapeyre, B. (2007).Introduction to Stochastic Calculus Applied to Finance.Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York

    2007

  40. [48]

    & Olhede, S.C

    Lilly, J.M., Sykulski, A.M., Early, J.J. & Olhede, S.C. (2017). Fractional Brownian Motion, the Matérn Process, and Stochastic Modeling of Turbulent Dispersion.Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics24, 481-514

    2017

  41. [49]

    & Sieber, J

    Li, X-M., Panloup, F. & Sieber, J. (2023). On the (Non-)Stationary Density of Fractional-Driven Stochastic Differential Equations.The Annals of Probability51(6), 2056-2085

    2023

  42. [50]

    Marie, N. (2025). On a Computable Skorokhod’s Integral Based Estimator of the Drift Parameter in Fractional SDE. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics52(1), 1-37

    2025

  43. [51]

    (2025).From Nonparametric Regression to Statistical Inference for Non-Ergodic Diffusion Processes.Fron- tiers in Probability and the Statistical Sciences, Springer

    Marie, N. (2025).From Nonparametric Regression to Statistical Inference for Non-Ergodic Diffusion Processes.Fron- tiers in Probability and the Statistical Sciences, Springer

    2025

  44. [52]

    Marie, N. (2026). Nonparametric Estimation from Correlated Copies of a Drifted Process.Journal of Multivariate Analysis213, 17 pages

    2026

  45. [53]

    & Rosier, A

    Marie, N. & Rosier, A. (2023). Nadaraya-Watson Estimator for IID Paths of Diffusion Processes.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics50(2), 589-637

    2023

  46. [54]

    & Toschi, F

    Muntean, A. & Toschi, F. (Eds.). (2014).Collective Dynamics from Bacteria to Crowds: an Excursion Through Modeling, Analysis and Simulation (Vol. 553).Springer Science & Business Media

    2014

  47. [55]

    & Toscani, G

    Naldi, G., Pareschi, L. & Toscani, G. (2010).Mathematical Modeling of Collective Behavior in Socio-Economic and Life Sciences.Springer Science & Business Media

    2010

  48. [56]

    & Tindel, S

    Neuenkirch, A. & Tindel, S. (2014). A Least Square-Type Procedure for Parameter Estimation in Stochastic Differential Equations with Additive Fractional Noise.Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes17(1), 99-120

    2014

  49. [57]

    Norros, I. (1995). On the Use of Fractional Brownian Motion in the Theory of Connectionless Networks.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications13(6), 953-962

    1995

  50. [58]

    (2006).The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics.Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg

    Nualart, D. (2006).The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics.Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg

    2006

  51. [59]

    Papanicolaou, G.C. (1995). Diffusion in Random Media.Surveys in Applied Mathematics201-253

    1995

  52. [60]

    & Ladroue, C

    Papavasiliou, A. & Ladroue, C. Parameter Estimation for Rough Differential Equations.The Annals of Statistics39(4), 2047-2073

  53. [61]

    Ramanathan, M. (1999). An Application of Ito’s Lemma in Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Pharmaceutical research16(4), 584

    1999

  54. [62]

    Ramanathan, M. (1999). A Method for Estimating Pharmacokinetic Risks of Concentration-Dependent Drug Interac- tions from Preclinical Data.Drug Metabolism and Disposition27(12), 1479-1487

    1999

  55. [63]

    (1977).Diffusion Processes and Related Topics in Biology.Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Springer, New York

    Ricciardi, L.M. (1977).Diffusion Processes and Related Topics in Biology.Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Springer, New York

    1977

  56. [64]

    (2009).Option Pricing in Fractional Brownian Markets (Vol

    Rostek, S. (2009).Option Pricing in Fractional Brownian Markets (Vol. 622).Springer Science & Business Media

    2009

  57. [65]

    & Vanden Eijnden, E

    Rotskoff, G. & Vanden Eijnden, E. (2022). Trainability and Accuracy of Artificial Neural Networks: An Interacting Particle System Approach.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics75(9), 1889-1935

    2022

  58. [66]

    & Pavliotis, G.A

    Sharrock, L., Kantas, N., Parpas, P. & Pavliotis, G.A. (2021). Parameter Estimation for the McKean-Vlasov Stochastic Differential Equation. Preprint, arXiv:2106.13751

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    & Spiliopoulos, K

    Sirignano, J. & Spiliopoulos, K. (2020). Mean Field Analysis of Neural Networks: A Law of Large Numbers.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics80(2), 725-752

    2020

  60. [68]

    & Tindel, S

    Song, J. & Tindel, S. (2022). Skorokhod and Stratonovich Integrals for Controlled Processes.Stochastic Processes and Their Applications150, 569-595

    2022

  61. [69]

    Totzeck, C. (2021). Trends in Consensus-Based Optimization. InActive Particles, Volume 3: Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications(pp. 201-226). Cham: Springer International Publishing

    2021

  62. [70]

    & Viens, F

    Tudor, C.A. & Viens, F. (2007). Statistical Aspects of the Fractional Stochastic Calculus.The Annals of Statistics 35(3), 1183-1212. 32 CHIARA AMORINO ⋆, LAURE COUTIN †, AND NICOLAS MARIE ⋄

    2007

  63. [71]

    Wang, Z., Luo, J., Fu, G., Wang, Z. & Wu, R. (2013). Stochastic Modeling of Systems Mapping in Pharmacogenomics. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews65(7), 912-917

    2013

  64. [72]

    stability

    Willinger, W., Taqqu, M.S., Leland, W.E. & Wilson, D.V. (1995). Self-Similarity in High-Speed Packet Traffic: Analysis and Modeling of Ethernet Traffic Measurements.Statistical Science, 67-85. AppendixA.Summary of key notations To help the reader in navigating the technical fr...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.