Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Path-Dependent SDEs: Solutions and Parameter Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Path-signature SDEs get a provably consistent estimator.

desk verdict The existence/uniqueness theory for signature SDEs is new and the consistency proof improves on prior work, but the estimation method is undercut by a proof gap and by experiments that pick the root using the true parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22646 v1 pith:IYT3GFMU submitted 2025-05-28 math.ST math.PRstat.TH

Pardis Semnani , Vincent Guan , Elina Robeva , Darrick Lee This is my paper
classification math.STmath.PRstat.TH MSC 60L2060L9062M9962M09
keywords pathsignaturesroughpathspath-dependentstochasticdifferentialequationssignatureSDEsExpectedMatchingMethodconsistentestimatorparameterestimationidentifiability
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 develops and proves the consistency of a parameter-estimation method for a broad class of path-dependent stochastic differential equations, the linear signature SDEs, whose drift and diffusion are linear functionals of the path signature. The method, Expected Signature Matching, matches the empirical expected signature of observed trajectories to the expected signature of Picard iterations of the model, expressed as explicit polynomials in the unknown parameters. The main theorem states that under a nondegeneracy condition, with enough samples and enough Picard iterations the estimated parameters land arbitrarily close to the true ones, almost surely, with an explicit exponential convergence rate in the number of Picard iterations. If correct, this extends moment-matching parameter estimation from Markovian polynomial SDEs to a flexible class of path-dependent models.

What carries the argument

The central objects are signature SDEs, differential equations whose drift and diffusion are linear functionals of the truncated path signature, and the Expected Signature Matching Method (ESMM). The argument is carried by three pieces: the lifted RDE formulation that turns a path-dependent equation into a path-independent one on the tensor algebra, so the Universal Limit Theorem gives existence, uniqueness, and Picard convergence; the polynomial representation of Picard iterations in the parameter $\theta$, with degree at most $Q(r,|I|)=O(2^r)$; and the Miranda fixed-point theorem, which converts sign conditions on the boundary of a small cube into existence of a nearby solution of the polynomial system.

What would settle it

Construct a linear signature SDE and a word set for which the restricted expected signature map $P$ has a singular Jacobian at the true parameter or is not differentiable there, and show that the polynomial system (5.8) then either has no solution in small neighborhoods of $\theta_0$ or that two different parameters produce the same solution law on $E_\xi$; the paper's own Section 7 construction already gives candidate parameters with identical restricted laws, so testing whether ESMM can separate them would settle the practical reach of the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that for linear signature SDEs, the expected signature of the r-th Picard iteration is a polynomial in the parameter $\theta$ whose coefficients are determined by the expected signature of the driving signal, and that this polynomial approximation converges uniformly to the restricted expected signature of the true solution. The paper then proves that if the limiting map $P(\theta)$ is differentiable at the true parameter with an invertible Jacobian, the polynomial system formed by matching these polynomials to empirical expected signatures admits a solution in any $\varepsilon$-ball around the true parameter, almost surely, for sufficiently large sample size $N$ and Picard depth $r$. Along the way it establishes existence and uniqueness of solutions to signature SDEs on short time intervals through the rough-path Universal Limit Theorem, which legitimizes the Picard expansion on which the estimator relies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the restricted expected signature map $P$ is differentiable at the true parameter with an invertible Jacobian, a condition the model itself does not guarantee because Section 7 exhibits distinct parameters giving the same distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ESMM is consistent: for any $\varepsilon>0$, almost surely there exist $N_0, r_0$ such that for all $N \geq N_0$ and $r \geq r_0$, the polynomial system has a solution within $\varepsilon$ of the true parameter.
  • Existence and uniqueness of solutions of signature SDEs hold on short time intervals, with Picard iterations converging to the unique solution.
  • The method generalizes expected signature matching from path-independent polynomial SDEs to path-dependent signature SDEs, with smaller polynomial degrees than in the earlier setting.
  • The restricted expected signature map $P$ is locally Lipschitz, hence differentiable almost everywhere, so the differentiability assumption is automatically satisfied at Lebesgue-almost every parameter point.
  • The estimator converges exponentially in the Picard depth $r$, with an explicit threshold given in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The choice of words $I_1,\ldots,I_d$ is a practical tuning parameter: the invertibility of the Jacobian and hence the success of ESMM depends on it, so a natural extension is to study data-driven word selection.
  • The non-identifiability examples in Section 7 suggest that ESMM actually identifies an equivalence class of parameters rather than a unique one; characterizing this class or adding regularizers would extend the method's usefulness.
  • The consistency proof appears adaptable to the earlier path-independent polynomial SDE setting, potentially repairing the gap the paper identifies in that prior proof; re-deriving the theorem in that setting would be a concrete test extension.
  • For small time horizons the indicator term $\chi_{E_\xi}$ can be dropped, and the simulations confirm the method still works; probing longer horizons where the bound becomes active would test the scope of the theoretical restriction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory of path-dependent signature SDEs, proves existence and uniqueness of solutions on short time intervals via rough path methods, and introduces an Expected Signature Matching Method (ESMM) for estimating drift and diffusion parameters. The main theoretical result, Theorem 5.11, states that if the restricted expected signature map P is differentiable at the true parameter with invertible Jacobian, then for sufficiently many samples N and Picard iterations r, the polynomial system (5.8) has a solution arbitrarily close to the true parameter. The paper also includes numerical experiments, a non-identifiability construction in Section 7, and explicit rates in the consistency theorem.

Significance. If the central consistency claim were fully established, the paper would be a valuable contribution to statistical inference for path-dependent SDEs. The paper has clear strengths: it gives an explicit polynomial representation of Picard iterations (Theorem 5.4), provides uniform noise bounds for solutions, states an explicit convergence rate in (5.11), and ships reproducible code. The non-identifiability analysis in Section 7 is a useful caveat. However, the consistency theorem as stated proves only existence of a good root, not that the ESMM estimator as used in practice converges, and the proof of the key uniform bounds contains a gap. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proposition 4.1 and Appendix B] The proof that ω(s,t)=C d_p(X|_{Δ_{s,t}},0)^p is a control is not valid as written. The argument shows, for each fixed level i, that V_i(s,u)+V_i(u,t) ≤ V_i(s,t) ≤ d_p(X|_{Δ_{s,t}},0)^p, where V_i is the sum over a partition of the i-th level increments. But d_p^p is the maximum over i of V_i, and the sum of two such maxima need not be bounded by the maximum of the individual sums. Since the superadditivity of ω is used to apply the Universal Limit Theorem and to obtain the uniform bounds in (B.6)-(B.7), this gap propagates to Lemma 5.7 and Theorem 5.11. The authors should either prove the claimed superadditivity, or replace ω by a true control built from level-wise variations and adjust the constants.
  2. [Theorem 5.11 and Section 6, Eq. (6.4)] The consistency theorem establishes only that the polynomial system (5.8) has a solution in B_ε(θ0); it does not define a selection rule for the ESMM estimate. The experiments, however, define the estimate as the real solution closest to the true θ0 in (6.4), which is unavailable in any real estimation problem. Moreover, Remark 6.5 and Section 7 show that multiple real solutions can exist, including sign-flipped diffusion roots and distinct parameters with identical laws. Consequently, the numerical results in Section 6 do not validate ESMM as a standalone consistent estimator; they validate the existence of a good root when the answer key is used. The authors should either provide a selection rule that does not depend on θ0 and prove convergence for that rule, or explicitly reframe the contribution as existence of consistent roots rather than a consistent estimator.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (6.3) and Remark 6.1] The experiments solve the polynomial system (6.3), which omits the indicator χ_{E_ξ} and replaces E[X^J χ_{E_ξ}] by E[X^J] in the coefficients. This differs from the estimating equations (5.8) and (5.7) for which consistency is proven. Remark 6.1 justifies this by the smallness of T, but no rate or verification is provided for the values T=0.1 and T=0.2 used in the experiments. As a result, the experiments are not a direct numerical check of Theorem 5.11, and the discrepancy should be addressed or the claims about empirical validation should be softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption of Figure 3 refers to word sets W1 and W2, but the sets defined in (6.6) are W3 and W4; this should be corrected.
  2. [Experiment 6.4] In the displayed system for Experiment 6.4, the equation for dY_t^{(3)} is missing the dt factor in the drift term; it should read θ_5(Y^{(2,1)}_t - Y^{(1,2)}_t)dt + θ_6 ◦ dW^{(3)}_t.
  3. [Remark 5.1] Remark 5.1 asserts an error in [35, Equation 3.19] and proposes a correction, but no detailed derivation is given. Since this is a strong claim about a published Annals of Statistics paper, the authors should either provide the full counterexample or derivation, or soften the wording.
  4. [Theorem 5.11 statement] In the statement of Theorem 5.11, 'N 0, r0' should read 'N_0, r_0' consistently with the rest of the paper.
  5. [Proposition 5.12] Proposition 5.12 proves only local Lipschitzness and hence differentiability almost everywhere; the experiments do not check the stronger hypothesis of Theorem 5.11 that the Jacobian of P is invertible at the true θ0. A sentence acknowledging this gap for the simulated models would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The numerical validation of ESMM is circular: the reported estimate is defined as the real solution closest to the true parameter, so the experimental accuracy is by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Eq. (6.4)]
    "Furthermore, we let ˆθ := arg min{∥θ − θ0∥1 : θ is a real solution to the polynomial system (6.3). }, (6.4) and report the mean and standard deviation of the obtained estimates ˆθ across all the 100 trials."

    The experimental estimate is defined as the real solution closest to the true parameter θ0. Whenever any root near θ0 exists, as Theorem 5.11 guarantees under its hypotheses, the reported estimates in Tables 1-3 are close to θ0 by construction. Thus the experiments do not validate ESMM as an estimator for an unknown θ0; the true parameter is used in the selection rule, so the empirical accuracy is not an independent check. This does not make the consistency theorem itself circular, but it makes the numerical demonstration of accurate inference circular.

full rationale

The core mathematical derivation is not circular: Theorem 5.11 is a genuine existence result conditional on differentiability and invertibility of the expected-signature map, and the dependence on [12] and [35] is intellectual heritage rather than self-citation. However, the experimental protocol in Eq. (6.4) defines the reported estimate as the real root closest to the true parameter θ0, so the numerical accuracy reported in Section 6 is tautological whenever a good root exists. Since the abstract and introduction present these simulations as demonstrating that ESMM accurately infers parameters, this is a partial circularity in the empirical validation. The consistency theorem itself also leaves the practical estimator unspecified when the polynomial system has multiple real solutions, as Remark 6.5 acknowledges.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard rough-path theory, Lipschitz extension theorems, and two explicit modeling assumptions: differentiability plus invertibility of the Jacobian at the true parameter, and computability of expected Brownian signatures. The word set, truncation level, Picard depth, and noise bound are user-chosen and materially affect the method's performance.

free parameters (4)
  • Word set {I_1,...,I_d} = W1-W6 in experiments, e.g. {(0,1,0),(0,1,1),(1,0,1)}
    The estimator and its consistency require choosing d words from the truncated signature; performance varies substantially with this choice (Tables 2 and 3), and no data-driven selection rule is provided.
  • Truncation level q = 3
    The signature vector field is truncated at level q; the model class and polynomial degree depend on q. Set to 3 in all experiments.
  • Picard depth r = 3
    The method replaces the solution's expected signature by the r-th Picard approximation; consistency requires r large, but experiments use r=3, causing approximation bias.
  • Noise bound xi (and mu) = not specified explicitly
    The estimator restricts samples to E_xi = {dp < xi}; for consistency one needs theta0 in the interior of Theta_xi. The exact choice of xi/mu is not reported in experiments, and the code omits the chi_E_xi indicator.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Universal Limit Theorem for rough differential equations (Theorem 2.15)
    Used to define M-solutions and Picard iterations in Section 3 and to prove their convergence.
  • standard math Lipschitz extension theorem for functions on closed subsets (Theorem 3.1)
    Used to define the modified vector field F_{theta,M} by extending tens|K_M to a Lip function.
  • standard math Universality and characteristic property of signatures (Theorem 2.17)
    Used to motivate modeling drift and diffusion as linear functionals of the signature.
  • domain assumption P is differentiable at theta0 with invertible Jacobian
    This is the core assumption of Theorem 5.11. It is not proven for the models; Section 7 gives examples where it fails.
  • domain assumption Expected signatures of the driving Brownian rough path are known or computable
    The coefficients of the polynomials P^I_r use E[X^J chi_E_xi]; in experiments the indicator is dropped and the explicit formula from [24] is used for Brownian expectations.
  • ad hoc to paper Solutions are defined only after truncating the vector field on a ball of radius M and restricting to bounded driving rough paths
    The M-modification (Definition 3.2) and the admissible set E_xi are artificial but necessary for the fixed-point argument; the resulting notion of solution differs from the classical SDE solution.
invented entities (2)
  • M-solution and modified vector field F_{theta,M}
    purpose: To obtain existence and uniqueness of signature RDEs by replacing the unbounded lifted vector field with a Lipschitz extension on a ball.
    This is a mathematical device introduced in this paper; it has no direct falsifiable handle outside the construction.
  • Hidden dynamics construction (Section 7)
    purpose: To prove that distinct parameter sets can give identical distributions, hence non-identifiability.
    A paper-specific example showing identifiability limits; not a physically postulated entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path-Dependent SDEs: Solutions and Parameter Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IYT3GFMU

@misc{pith2026250522646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path-Dependent SDEs: Solutions and Parameter Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IYT3GFMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22646}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a consistent method for estimating the parameters of a rich class of path-dependent SDEs, called signature SDEs, which can model general path-dependent phenomena. Path signatures are iterated integrals of a given path with the property that any sufficiently nice function of the path can be approximated by a linear functional of its signatures. This is why we model the drift and diffusion of our signature SDE as linear functions of path signatures. We provide conditions that ensure the existence and uniqueness of solutions to a general signature SDE. We then introduce the Expected Signature Matching Method (ESMM) for linear signature SDEs, which enables inference of the signature-dependent drift and diffusion coefficients from observed trajectories. Furthermore, we prove that ESMM is consistent: given sufficiently many samples and Picard iterations used by the method, the parameters estimated by the ESMM approach the true parameter with arbitrary precision. Finally, we demonstrate on a variety of empirical simulations that our ESMM accurately infers the drift and diffusion parameters from observed trajectories. While parameter estimation is often restricted by the need for a suitable parametric model, this work makes progress toward a completely general framework for SDE parameter estimation, using signature terms to model arbitrary path-independent and path-dependent processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The underlying paths in the sampled solutions to the path-dependent SDEs in (7.5) and (7.6) are plotted for each component of the paths over the interval [0, T] for (a) T = 0.3 and (b) T = 2.0. The L 2 distance between the two trajectories evaluated at T is (a) 0.045 and (b) 1.743. Brownian motion on the interval [0, 2]. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The components of all the real solutions to the polynomial system (6.3) over 100 trials in Experiment 6.2 corresponding to the sets of words (a) W1 and (b) W2, defined in (6.5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The components of all the real solutions to the polynomial system (6.3) over 100 trials in Experiment 6.3 corresponding to the sets of words (a) W1 and (b) W2, defined in (6.6) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The components of all the real solutions to the polynomial system (6.3) over 100 trials in Experiment 6.4 corresponding to the sets of words (a) W5 and (b) W6, defined in (6.7). Only a few of the estimated values for θ 5 fall within the interval [−2, 2], and thus, the …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamic Universal Approximation via Signature Controlled Differential Equations

    math.CA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Any well-posed path-dependent controlled differential equation can be uniformly approximated, over bounded control and initial-history sets, by signature-controlled equations with a single monotone activation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Stability of the human respiratory control system I

    Jerry J Batzel and Hien T Tran. Stability of the human respiratory control system I. analysis of a two-dimensional delay state-space model. Journal of mathematical biology, 41:45–79, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Exact and computationally efficient likelihood-based estimation for discretely observed diffusion processes (with discussion)

    Alexandros Beskos, Omiros Papaspiliopoulos, Gareth O Roberts, and Paul Fearnhead. Exact and computationally efficient likelihood-based estimation for discretely observed diffusion processes (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 68(3):333–382, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equations

    Jaya PN Bishwal. Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equations. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    The signature of a rough path: Uniqueness

    Horatio Boedihardjo, Xi Geng, Terry Lyons, and Danyu Yang. The signature of a rough path: Uniqueness. Adv. Math., 293:720–737, April 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Learning controlled stochastic differential equations

    Luc Brogat-Motte, Riccardo Bonalli, and Alessandro Rudi. Learning controlled stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01982, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Euler-Maruyama and Milstein approximations for stochastic functional differential equations with dis- tributed memory term

    Evelyn Buckwar. Euler-Maruyama and Milstein approximations for stochastic functional differential equations with dis- tributed memory term. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Driver, Nengli Lim, and Christian Litterer

    Thomas Cass, Bruce K. Driver, Nengli Lim, and Christian Litterer. On the integration of weakly geometric rough paths. Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan , 68(4):1505–1524, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Integration of paths – a faithful representation of paths by noncommutative formal power series

    Kuo-Tsai Chen. Integration of paths – a faithful representation of paths by noncommutative formal power series. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 89(2):395–407, 1958

    work page 1958

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Characteristic functions of measures on geometric rough paths

    Ilya Chevyrev and Terry Lyons. Characteristic functions of measures on geometric rough paths. The Annals of Probability, 44(6):4049–4082, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Signature moments to characterize laws of stochastic processes

    Ilya Chevyrev and Harald Oberhauser. Signature moments to characterize laws of stochastic processes. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23(176):1–42, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Global universal approximation of functional input maps on weighted spaces

    Christa Cuchiero, Philipp Schmocker, and Josef Teichmann. Global universal approximation of functional input maps on weighted spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03303, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Signature SDEs from an affine and polynomial per- spective

    Christa Cuchiero, Sara Svaluto-Ferro, and Josef Teichmann. Signature SDEs from an affine and polynomial per- spective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01362, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Applied delay differential equations

    Thomas Erneux. Applied delay differential equations. Springer, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Friz and Martin Hairer

    Peter K. Friz and Martin Hairer. A Course on Rough Paths: With an Introduction to Regularity Structures. Universitext. Springer International Publishing, 2 edition, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Friz and Nicolas B

    Peter K. Friz and Nicolas B. Victoir. Multidimensional Stochastic Processes as Rough Paths: Theory and Applications . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    A generalization of the strict topology

    Robin Giles. A generalization of the strict topology. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 161:467–474, 1971

    1971

  9. [17]

    Grayson and Michael E

    Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. Available at http://www2.macaulay2.com

  10. [18]

    Time series in psychology

    Robert Anthony Mills Gregson. Time series in psychology. Psychology Press, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group

    Ben Hambly and Terry Lyons. Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group. Ann. of Math., 171(1):109–167, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Subcritical Hopf bifurcation in the delay equation model for machine tool vibrations

    Tamás Kalmár-Nagy, Gábor Stépán, and Francis C Moon. Subcritical Hopf bifurcation in the delay equation model for machine tool vibrations. Nonlinear Dynamics, 26:121–142, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    Climate models with delay differential equations

    Andrew Keane, Bernd Krauskopf, and Claire M Postlethwaite. Climate models with delay differential equations. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 27(11), 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    On Neural Differential Equations

    Patrick Kidger. On Neural Differential Equations. PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    A multiresolution method for parameter estimation of diffusion processes

    SC Kou, Benjamin P Olding, Martin Lysy, and Jun S Liu. A multiresolution method for parameter estimation of diffusion processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107(500):1558–1574, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Expectation of Stratonovich iterated integrals of Wiener processes, 2010

    Christophe Ladroue. Expectation of Stratonovich iterated integrals of Wiener processes, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Numerical algebraic geometry

    Anton Leykin. Numerical algebraic geometry. Journal of Software for Algebra and Geometry , 3(1):5–10, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    NumericalAlgebraicGeometry: A Macaulay2 package

    Anton Leykin and Robert Krone. NumericalAlgebraicGeometry: A Macaulay2 package. Version 1.21. AMacaulay2 package available at https://github.com/Macaulay2/M2/tree/master/M2/Macaulay2/packages

  19. [27]

    Differential Equations Driven by Rough Paths

    Terry Lyons, Michael Caruana, and Thierry Lévy. Differential Equations Driven by Rough Paths . Éc. Été Probab. St.-Flour. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Terry J. Lyons. Differential equations driven by rough signals. Revista Matemática Iberoamericana , 14(2):215–310, 1998. PATH-DEPENDENT SDES: SOLUTIONS AND PARAMETER ESTIMATION 41

    1998

  21. [29]

    Signature kernel conditional independence tests in causal discovery for stochastic processes

    Georg Manten, Cecilia Casolo, Emilio Ferrucci, Søren Wengel Mogensen, Cristopher Salvi, and Niki Kilber- tus. Signature kernel conditional independence tests in causal discovery for stochastic processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18477, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A generalized theorem of Miranda and the theorem of Newton–Kantorovich

    Jan Mayer. A generalized theorem of Miranda and the theorem of Newton–Kantorovich. Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization, 23(3-4):333–357, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Nonparametric statistical inference for drift vector fields of multi-dimensional diffusions

    Richard Nickl and Kolyan Ray. Nonparametric statistical inference for drift vector fields of multi-dimensional diffusions. The Annals of Statistics, 48(3):1383–1408, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equa- tions: an overview

    Jan Nygaard Nielsen, Henrik Madsen, and Peter C Young. Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equa- tions: an overview. Annual Reviews in Control, 24:83–94, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    17 generalized method of moments: Econometric applications

    Masao Ogaki. 17 generalized method of moments: Econometric applications. In Econometrics, volume 11 of Handbook of Statistics, pages 455–488. Elsevier, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    Applications of Lie groups to differential equations , volume 107

    Peter J Olver. Applications of Lie groups to differential equations , volume 107. Springer Science & Business Media, 1993

    1993

  27. [35]

    Parameter estimation for rough differential equations

    Anastasia Papavasiliou and Christophe Ladroue. Parameter estimation for rough differential equations. Annals of Statistics, 39(4):2047–2073, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Stochastic processes and applications

    Grigorios A Pavliotis. Stochastic processes and applications. Texts in Applied Mathematics, 60, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    A new approach to maximum likelihood estimation for stochastic differential equations based on discrete observations

    Asger Roer Pedersen. A new approach to maximum likelihood estimation for stochastic differential equations based on discrete observations. Scandinavian journal of statistics, pages 55–71, 1995

    1995

  30. [38]

    Causal Models for Dynamical Systems , page 671–690

    Jonas Peters, Stefan Bauer, and Niklas Pfister. Causal Models for Dynamical Systems , page 671–690. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1 edition, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Algorithm 1004: The iisignature library: Efficient calculation of iterated-integral signatures and log signatures

    Jeremy Reizenstein and Benjamin Graham. Algorithm 1004: The iisignature library: Efficient calculation of iterated-integral signatures and log signatures. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Mean, covariance, and effective dimension of stochastic distributed delay dynamics

    Alexandre René and André Longtin. Mean, covariance, and effective dimension of stochastic distributed delay dynamics. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 27(11), 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Parameter estimation for the McKean- Vlasov stochastic differential equation

    Louis Sharrock, Nikolas Kantas, Panos Parpas, and Grigorios A Pavliotis. Parameter estimation for the McKean- Vlasov stochastic differential equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13751, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Elias M. Stein. Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions (PMS-30) . Princeton University Press, 1970

    1970

  35. [43]

    Parameter identification in periodic delay differential equations with distributed delay

    Shahab Torkamani, Eric A Butcher, and Firas A Khasawneh. Parameter identification in periodic delay differential equations with distributed delay. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , 18(4):1016–1026, 2013. Email address: psemnani@math.ubc.ca Departme...

    2013

Pith tools

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