Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 46 references

Sensitivity estimation of conditional value at risk using randomized quasi-Monte Carlo

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that randomized quasi-Monte Carlo (RQMC) estimation of CVaR sensitivity is consistent and attains mean error O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+epsilon}), asymptotically beating Monte Carlo.

desk verdict Solid proof of RQMC error rates for CVaR sensitivity; the main theorem is likely correct, with a fixable inequality in the bounded-case proof and a strong but explicitly acknowledged regularity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07232 v2 pith:5WRERPMO submitted 2019-08-20 math.NA cs.NAstat.CO

Zhijian He This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAstat.CO MSC 65C0565D3091G70
keywords conditionalvalueatriskCVaRsensitivityinfinitesimalperturbationanalysisrandomizedquasi-MonteCarloscramblednetsrisk-measureerror
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

Conditional value at risk (CVaR) measures portfolio tail risk, and its derivative with respect to a model parameter—CVaR sensitivity—is what gradient-based risk optimization needs. This paper analyzes the standard infinitesimal perturbation analysis (IPA) estimator for that sensitivity when the underlying simulation uses randomized quasi-Monte Carlo (RQMC) points rather than independent Monte Carlo draws. The main result is a mean error bound of order $O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+\epsilon})$ for arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$, where $d$ is the dimension of the RQMC points, together with strong consistency under very mild integrability assumptions. Since the Monte Carlo rate is $O(n^{-1/2})$, the paper establishes a provable asymptotic gain for RQMC, with the gain shrinking as $d$ grows. Numerical experiments on single-asset options, multi-asset portfolios, and a quadratic delta-gamma loss model confirm the predicted convergence and the degradation with dimension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of discontinuous integrands together with the tie-count lemma that connects them. Define $\Omega=\{u\in(0,1)^d:g_\theta(u)>v_\alpha\}$; at the true VaR the estimator is exactly RQMC quadrature of $f(u)=g'_\theta(u)1\{u\in\Omega\}/(1-\alpha)$, whose error is governed by Proposition 3.4 when $\partial\Omega$ has Minkowski content. Replacing $v_\alpha$ by $\hat{v}_{\alpha,n}$ is controlled by Lemma 3.9: for a scrambled $(t,m,d)$-net, at most $b^t$ sample losses can coincide whenever every one-dimensional slice of $g_\theta$ is a continuous random variable (Assumption 3.8), and this bounds the empirical CDF discrepancy almost surely. Unbounded $g'_\theta$ is handled by the boundary growth condition (3.13), which permits an extension $h_\epsilon$ that is bounded and of bounded variation, with controlled $L^1$ error as $\epsilon$ shrinks; choosing $\epsilon\propto n^{-1/2-1/(2d)}$ balances truncation error against sampling error.

What would settle it

Construct a loss mapping with a flat slice—for example $g_\theta(u_1,u_2)=\phi(u_1)$ where $\phi$ is smooth but identically zero on an interval—so Assumption 3.8 is violated, run the scrambled-net estimator at $n=2^{10},2^{12},\ldots,2^{20}$, and estimate the mean absolute error against a high-accuracy benchmark. If the empirical error decays like $O(n^{-1/2})$ instead of $O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+\epsilon})$, or if the number of tied losses in the sample exceeds the $b^t$ bound, the theorem's rate is thereby falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that replacing iid sampling by scrambled $(t,m,d)$-nets in the IPA estimator $\hat{\mu}_n = \frac{1}{n(1-\alpha)}\sum_{i=1}^n L'_i 1\{L_i>\hat{v}_{\alpha,n}\}$ yields both almost-sure convergence to $c'_\alpha(\theta)$ and, under technical conditions on $g_\theta$ and $g'_\theta$, a mean absolute error $E[|\hat{\mu}_n-c'_\alpha(\theta)|]=O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+\epsilon})$. The proof's key structural insight is that the estimator's error splits into two RQMC integration errors—one for the discontinuous integrand $g'_\theta(u)1\{g_\theta(u)>v_\alpha\}/(1-\alpha)$ and one for the indicator of the tail region $1\{g_\theta(u)\le v_\alpha\}$—plus a gap that records the cost of replacing the true VaR $v_\alpha$ by the estimated VaR $\hat{v}_{\alpha,n}$. Lemma 3.9 bounds that gap using the fact that under Assumption 3.8 at most $b^t$ of the $n$ RQMC losses can be tied, giving $|\hat{F}_n(\hat{v}_{\alpha,n})-\hat{F}_n(v_\alpha)|\le b^t/n + |\hat{F}_n(v_\alpha)-\alpha|$ almost surely. For unbounded $g'_\theta$, boundary growth conditions and a truncation-extension argument bring the singular integrand back into the range of known RQMC error bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The rate proof stands on Assumption 3.8: when all but one coordinate of the uniform input $u$ are fixed, the loss $g_\theta(u)$ must be a continuous random variable in the remaining coordinate. If a one-dimensional slice has a flat part or an atom, the tie-count bound (3.8) fails and the stated error exponent is no longer supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RQMC-based CVaR sensitivity estimation attains mean error $O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+\epsilon})$ for any fixed dimension $d$, asymptotically dominating the Monte Carlo rate $O(n^{-1/2})$.
  • Strong consistency of the VaR, CVaR, and CVaR sensitivity estimators holds under mild $L^{1+\gamma}$ conditions whenever the scrambled-net strong law applies, so RQMC can be used without sacrificing convergence guarantees.
  • The convergence is limited by the two discontinuous integrands, so the worst-case rate cannot exceed the RQMC rate for discontinuous functions; the single-asset numerical examples come close to $O(1/n)$.
  • In higher-dimensional portfolios the RQMC gain over Monte Carlo deteriorates as predicted, so dimension reduction or smoothing is needed to retain practical benefit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Assumption 3.8 fails—say a slice of $g_\theta$ is constant on an interval—then many RQMC losses can tie and Lemma 3.9's $b^t$ bound no longer applies; the stated exponent is not justified, though the estimator may still converge at a Monte Carlo-like rate.
  • Because the proof isolates two discontinuous integrands, smoothing or conditioning applied separately to each integrand should recover higher-order RQMC rates; the paper mentions this direction but leaves it implicit in its numerical outlook.
  • The same decomposition could transfer directly to capital allocation and expected-shortfall sensitivity problems, whose mathematical form is the CVaR sensitivity considered here.
  • A testable quantitative prediction is the exponent's dependence on $d$: comparing plain scrambled nets with dimension-reduced variants at fixed $n$ would isolate the effect of the dimension term on the improvement over Monte Carlo.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the RQMC version of the infinitesimal perturbation analysis (IPA) estimator for the sensitivity of conditional value at risk (CVaR). The estimator, defined in (2.4), replaces the true VaR by its empirical counterpart computed from the same RQMC sample. Section 3 establishes strong consistency under mild conditions (Theorems 3.6 and 3.7) and then proves convergence rates: Theorem 3.11 treats bounded loss derivatives and gives a mean squared error bound, while Theorem 3.13 treats unbounded derivatives satisfying a boundary growth condition and gives the advertised mean absolute error rate of O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+ε}). The proof architecture splits the total error into the RQMC quadrature error at the true VaR plus a gap term caused by the estimated VaR. The gap is bounded through Lemma 3.9, which relies on Assumption 3.8 and the tie-counting Lemma 6.1. Section 4 verifies the assumptions for a single European option, multi-asset option portfolios, and a delta-gamma quadratic loss model, and reports numerical convergence plots.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the first convergence-rate analysis of RQMC for CVaR sensitivity and it demonstrates an asymptotic improvement over Monte Carlo that degrades with dimension. The proof strategy is clean and uses published, parameter-free results from He and Wang (2015) and He (2018) rather than fitting constants, which is a genuine strength. The paper is also honest about its technical conditions: the advertised rate is conditional on Assumption 3.8, which is strictly stronger than the no-atom Assumption 2.3 and rules out locally flat loss slices. The assumption is verified only for the specific smooth Black-Scholes-type examples in Section 4, so the contribution is best viewed as a worst-case asymptotic guarantee within that class rather than a universal statement. The numerical experiments are limited but consistent with the theory.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 3.11, Eq. (3.12)] The displayed chain uses E[(A+B)^2] ≤ E[A^2] + E[B^2], which is false unless the cross term is nonpositive. The correct inequality is E[(A+B)^2] ≤ 2E[A^2] + 2E[B^2]. The subsequent bounding terms are of the same order, so the rates in Theorem 3.11 remain valid after this correction, but the proof as written should be amended.
  2. [Section 4.2, verification of assumptions] After showing that ∂gθ/∂zj has finitely many zeros, the text concludes 'verifying Assumption 2.3'. Since Theorem 3.13 requires the stronger Assumption 3.8, the paragraph should explicitly invoke Remark 3.10 and explain that piecewise strict monotonicity in zj gives the required slice-wise continuity in uj.
  3. [Section 4.2, root-counting claim] The claim that the equation ∂gθ/∂zj = 0 has finitely many roots is plausible but not proved. A short argument using the exponential-polynomial structure of the Black-Scholes terms would make the verification of Assumption 3.8 self-contained.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.2, typos] There are a few typos: 'scrambeled' in the bullet list of Section 3.1 should be 'scrambled'; 'The later' in Section 4.1, Case 2, should be 'The latter'; 'infinitely times differentiable' in Section 4.2 should be 'infinitely differentiable'.
  5. [Appendix, Lemma 6.1] The conditioning argument in Lemma 6.1 conditions on the values of several continuous random variables. The proof would benefit from stating that this is understood through regular conditional distributions or by conditioning on the relevant sigma-algebra. The underlying idea is sound, but the current wording is informal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central derivation is self-contained; cited prior theorems are parameter-free external results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The target result (Theorem 3.13) decomposes the mean error of the RQMC-based CVaR sensitivity estimator into two terms: the RQMC quadrature error of g'_theta(u) 1{g_theta(u) > v_alpha} and the gap caused by replacing the true VaR with the estimated VaR. The gap is controlled by Lemma 3.9 under Assumption 3.8 and the net property; this bound is an independent probabilistic argument, not an assumption of the desired rate. The quadrature-error rates are imported from Proposition 3.4, which is stated as a compilation of He and Wang (2015) and He (2018). Those cited results are published, parameter-free theorems with stated assumptions that do not include CVaR sensitivity or the estimated-VaR correction; they concern RQMC integration of discontinuous indicator-weighted integrands, an external mathematical fact. The paper does not fit any constant to data and then call it a prediction; the numerical studies compare MC and RQMC against a benchmark and do not determine the theorem's rate. Assumption 3.8 is a regularity condition restricting the loss slices, but imposing a condition is not circular. The self-citations are load-bearing as lemmas, yet they qualify as independent support under the stated criteria because they are parameter-free results with proofs and assumptions not containing the present target claim. Consequently, no step reduces by definition or by self-citation to the paper's own inputs, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All listed assumptions are regularity and modeling conditions that restrict the class of losses; none is fitted to data. The two most costly conditions for the rate claim are Assumption 3.8 and the boundary-growth/Minkowski-content requirements in Theorem 3.13.

assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Loss representation L=g_theta(u) with u~U(0,1)^d and measurable g_theta, g'_theta.
    Section 3, equation (3.1). This representation is required to generate samples from RQMC points and is the stated price of switching from MC to RQMC.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: L(theta) is Lipschitz in theta with integrable K and L'(theta) exists w.p.1.
    Section 2, Assumption 2.1. Needed for the IPA interchange of derivative and expectation.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.2: v_alpha(theta) is differentiable on Theta.
    Section 2, Assumption 2.2. Ensures the sensitivity c'_alpha(theta) is well-defined.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.3: P(L(theta)=v_alpha(theta))=0.
    Section 2, Assumption 2.3. Avoids atom at the quantile in the IPA derivation and in consistency proofs.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.5: v_alpha(theta) is the unique quantile of L.
    Section 3.2, Assumption 3.5. Needed for strong consistency of the VaR estimator.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.8: for fixed d-1 components of u, g_theta(u) is a continuous random variable in the remaining uniform coordinate.
    Section 3.3, Assumption 3.8 and Lemma 3.9. Controls the number of tied losses in the RQMC sample.
  • domain assumption g'_theta satisfies the boundary growth condition (3.13) with arbitrarily small rates A_i.
    Definition 3.12 and Theorem 3.13. Needed to bound the truncated derivative h_epsilon and control singularities at the cube boundary.
  • domain assumption The set Omega={u:g_theta(u)>v_alpha} has boundary with finite (d-1)-dimensional Minkowski content.
    Theorem 3.13 and Proposition 3.4. Needed for the discontinuous-integrand error rates.
  • standard math Proposition 3.4: RQMC variance/mean-error rates for discontinuous integrands from He-Wang (2015) and He (2018).
    Imported as a lemma; it states variance O(n^{-1-1/(2d-1)+epsilon}) and mean error O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+epsilon}) for scrambled nets.
  • standard math Strong law of large numbers for scrambled net integration (Owen and Rudolf 2020).
    Used in Theorems 3.6 and 3.7 for strong consistency of the empirical CDF and function averages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity estimation of conditional value at risk using randomized quasi-Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WRERPMO

@misc{pith2026190807232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity estimation of conditional value at risk using randomized quasi-Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WRERPMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07232}
}
abstract

Conditional value at risk (CVaR) is a popular measure for quantifying portfolio risk. Sensitivity analysis of CVaR is very useful in risk management and gradient-based optimization algorithms. In this paper, we study the infinitesimal perturbation analysis estimator for CVaR sensitivity using randomized quasi-Monte Carlo (RQMC) simulation. We first prove that the RQMC-based estimator is strongly consistent under very mild conditions. Under some technical conditions, RQMC that uses $d$-dimensional points in CVaR sensitivity estimation yields a mean error rate of $O(n^{-1/2-1/(4d-2)+\epsilon})$ for arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$. The numerical results show that the RQMC method performs better than the Monte Carlo method for all cases. The gain of plain RQMC deteriorates as the dimension $d$ increases, as predicted by the established theoretical error rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CVaR sensitivity of the put option for θ = S0 (Case 1) and α = 0.9. All errors are based on 100 replications for n = 210 , . . . , 2 20. The figure has two reference lines proportional to labeled powers of n. Differently from Monte Carlo (MC) and RQMC, RQMC2 uses the estimate (2.4) by replacing ˆvα,n with the true value of VaR vα = 0.859. The benchmark is c 0 α (S0) = −0.1337. 103 104 105 106 sample sizes 10-7 10-6 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CVaR sensitivity of the put option for θ = r (Case 2) and α = 0.9. All errors are based on 100 replications for n = 210 , . . . , 2 20. The figure has two reference lines proportional to labeled powers of n. Differently from Monte Carlo (MC) and RQMC, RQMC2 uses the estimate (2.4) by replacing ˆvα,n with the true value of VaR vα = 0.859. The benchmark is c 0 α (r) = −3.8585. 103 104 105 106 sample sizes 10-5 10-4 10… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CVaR sensitivity of Portfolio A (independent assets) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CVaR sensitivity of Portfolio B (correlated assets) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ambrosio, A

    L. Ambrosio, A. Colesanti, and E. Villa. Outer M inkowski content for some classes of closed sets. Mathematische Annalen, 342 0 (4): 0 727--748, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Asimit, L

    V. Asimit, L. Peng, R. Wang, and A. Yu. An efficient approach to quantile capital allocation and sensitivity analysis. Mathematical Finance, pages 1--26, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A. N. Avramidis and J. R. Wilson. Correlation-induction techniques for estimating quantiles in simulation experiments. Operations Research, 46 0 (4): 0 574--591, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Broadie and P

    M. Broadie and P. Glasserman. Estimating security price derivatives using simulation. Management science, 42 0 (2): 0 269--285, 1996

    1996

  5. [5]

    Broadie, Y

    M. Broadie, Y. Du, and C. C. Moallemi. Efficient risk estimation via nested sequential simulation. Management Science, 57 0 (6): 0 1172--1194, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    R. E. Caflisch, W. J. Morokoff, and A. B. Owen. Valuation of mortgage backed securities using B rownian bridges to reduce effective dimension. Journal of Computational Finance, 1 0 (1): 0 27--46, 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Z. Cui, M. C. Fu, J. Hu, Y. Liu, Y. Peng, and L. Zhu. On the variance of single-run unbiased stochastic derivative estimators. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 32 0 (2): 0 390--407, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Dick and H

    J. Dick and H. Niederreiter. On the exact t-value of Niederreiter and Sobol ' sequences. Journal of Complexity, 24 0 (5-6): 0 572--581, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Dick and F

    J. Dick and F. Pillichshammer. Digital Nets and Sequences: Discrepancy Theory and Quasi--Monte Carlo Integration. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Dong and M

    H. Dong and M. K. Nakayama. Quantile estimation with latin hypercube sampling. Operations Research, 65 0 (6): 0 1678--1695, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    B. L. Fox and P. W. Glynn. Replication schemes for limiting expectations. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 3: 0 299--318, 1989

    1989

  4. [12]

    M. C. Fu, L. J. Hong, and J.-Q. Hu. Conditional M onte C arlo estimation of quantile sensitivities. Management Science, 55 0 (12): 0 2019--2027, 2009

    2019

  5. [13]

    Glasserman

    P. Glasserman. Monte C arlo Methods in Financial Engineering . Springer, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Glasserman, P

    P. Glasserman, P. Heidelberger, and P. Shahabuddin. Variance reduction techniques for estimating value-at-risk. Management Science, 46 0 (10): 0 1349--1364, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    M. B. Gordy and S. Juneja. Nested simulation in portfolio risk measurement. Management Science, 56 0 (10): 0 1833--1848, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Z. He. Quasi- Monte Carlo for discontinuous integrands with singularities along the boundary of the unit cube. Mathematics of Computation, 87 0 (314): 0 2857--2870, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Z. He. On the error rate of conditional quasi-- Monte Carlo for discontinuous functions. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 57 0 (2): 0 854--874, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    He and X

    Z. He and X. Wang. On the convergence rate of randomized quasi-- M onte C arlo for discontinuous functions. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 53 0 (5): 0 2488--2503, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    He and X

    Z. He and X. Wang. Convergence analysis of quasi- Monte Carlo sampling for quantile and expected shortfall. Mathematics of Computation, 2020. Appeared online

    2020

  12. [20]

    L. J. Hong. Estimating quantile sensitivities. Operations research, 57 0 (1): 0 118--130, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    L. J. Hong and G. Liu. Simulating sensitivities of conditional value at risk. Management Science, 55 0 (2): 0 281--293, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    L. J. Hong, S. Juneja, and J. Luo. Estimating sensitivities of portfolio credit risk using M onte C arlo. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 26 0 (4): 0 848--865, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    J. C. Hull. Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Pearson, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Jiang and M

    G. Jiang and M. C. Fu. Technical note-- O n estimating quantile sensitivities via infinitesimal perturbation analysis. Operations Research, 63 0 (2): 0 435--441, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Joe and F

    S. Joe and F. Y. Kuo. Constructing Sobol sequences with better two-dimensional projections. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 30 0 (5): 0 2635--2654, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    C. Joy, P. P. Boyle, and K. S. Tan. Quasi- M onte C arlo methods in numerical finance. Management Science, 42 0 (6): 0 926--938, 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Kaplan, Y

    Z. Kaplan, Y. Li, M. Nakayama, and B. Tuffin. Randomized quasi- M onte C arlo for quantile estimation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Winter Simulation Conference, pages 1--14, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    L'Ecuyer and C

    P. L'Ecuyer and C. Lemieux. Recent advances in randomized quasi- M onte C arlo methods. In M. Dror, P. L'Ecuyer, and F. Szidarovszky, editors, Modeling Uncertainty: An Examination of Stochastic Theory, Methods, and Applications, pages 419--474. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Matou s ek

    J. Matou s ek. On the L _2 -discrepancy for anchored boxes. Journal of Complexity, 14 0 (4): 0 527--556, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    Niederreiter

    H. Niederreiter. Random Number Generation and Quasi - Monte Carlo Methods . SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992

    1992

  23. [31]

    A. B. Owen. Randomly permuted (t, m, s) -nets and (t, s) -sequences. In H. Niederreiter and P. J.-S. Shiue, editors, Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, pages 299--317. Springer, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    A. B. Owen. Monte C arlo variance of scrambled net quadrature. SIAM Journal Numerical Analysis, 34 0 (5): 0 1884--1910, 1997 a

    1910

  25. [33]

    A. B. Owen. Scrambled net variance for integrals of smooth functions. The Annals of Statistics, 25 0 (4): 0 1541--1562, 1997 b

    1997

  26. [34]

    A. B. Owen. Multidimensional variation for quasi- M onte C arlo. In J. Fan and G. Li, editors, International Conference on Statistics in honour of Professor Kai-Tai Fang's 65th birthday, pages 49--74, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    A. B. Owen. Halton sequences avoid the origin. SIAM Review, 48 0 (3): 0 487--503, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    A. B. Owen. Local antithetic sampling with scrambled nets. The Annals of Statistics, 36 0 (5): 0 2319--2343, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    A. B. Owen and D. Rudolf. A strong law of large numbers for scrambled net integration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07859, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. K. Patel and C. B. Read. Handbook of the Normal Distribution, volume 150. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Y. Peng, M. C. Fu, J.-Q. Hu, and B. Heidergott. A new unbiased stochastic derivative estimator for discontinuous sample performances with structural parameters. Operations Research, 66 0 (2): 0 487--499, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Scaillet

    O. Scaillet. Nonparametric estimation and sensitivity analysis of expected shortfall. Mathematical Finance, 14 0 (1): 0 115--129, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    R. J. Serfling. Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics. Wiley, New York, 1980

    1980

  34. [42]

    I. M. Sobol. Uniformly distributed sequences with an additional uniform property. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 16 0 (5): 0 236--242, 1976

    1976

  35. [43]

    Wang and K

    X. Wang and K. S. Tan. Pricing and hedging with discontinuous functions: Quasi--monte carlo methods and dimension reduction. Management Science, 59 0 (2): 0 376--389, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    C. Weng, X. Wang, and Z. He. An auto-realignment method in quasi- Monte Carlo for pricing financial derivatives with jump structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 254 0 (1): 0 304--311, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    F. Xie, Z. He, and X. Wang. An importance sampling-based smoothing approach for quasi- M onte C arlo simulation of discrete barrier options. European Journal of Operational Research, 274 0 (2): 0 759--772, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Zhang and X

    C. Zhang and X. Wang. Quasi- M onte C arlo-based conditional pathwise method for option greeks. Quantitative Finance, pages 1--19, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.