Stable Approximation for Call Function Via Stein's method

Peng Chen; Tianyi Qi; Ting Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Stable Approximation for Call Function Via Stein's method

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For iid sums in the domain of normal attraction of an α-stable law with $1 < \alpha < 2$, the expected call payoff can be replaced by the stable-law call price with an explicit error bound, requiring no second moment.

desk verdict Plausible non-uniform stable call-function bound, but the key lemma's M-rate for general δ is not supported by the proved f'' estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15881 v1 pith:ULUNADDZ submitted 2024-11-24 math.PR math.STstat.TH

Peng Chen , Tianyi Qi , Ting Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 60F0560E07

keywords stableapproximationcallfunctionStein'smethoddomainofnormalattractionheavy-taileddistributionsnon-uniformboundsCDOpricingWasserstein-1distance

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 proves that when independent identically distributed summands lie in the domain of normal attraction of an $\alpha$-stable law with $1<\alpha<2$, the expected call payoff $\mathbb{E}[(S_n-M)_+]$ is close to the stable-law expectation $\mathbb{E}[(S_\alpha(1,\delta)-M)_+]$, with an explicit error of order $R_n$. The bounds require only a finite first moment, so heavy-tailed models that previously fell outside Gaussian or Poisson approximation theory are now covered. The non-uniform version shows the error constant decays polynomially in the strike $M$, and in the symmetric case $\delta=0$ the decay exponent is improved through sharper heat-kernel estimates. The sample-size rates match the optimal rate known for Kolmogorov-distance stable convergence.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the Stein equation for the $\alpha$-stable generator $\mathcal{A}_{\alpha,\delta}f(y)=d_\alpha\int (f(y+u)-f(y)-uf'(y))/(2|u|^{1+\alpha})$ with skewness weights, together with the solution representation $f_g(y)=-\int_0^\infty\int p_{(1-e^{-t})^{1/\alpha},\delta}(u-e^{-t/\alpha}y)(g(u)-\nu(g))\,du\,dt$. The proof controls the approximation error by a Taylor-like expansion of $\mathbb{E}[X f'_{g_M}(Y+aX)]-\mathbb{E}[X]\mathbb{E}[f'_{g_M}(Y)]$, using a zero-biased coupling and the decay of $B$. The load-bearing estimates are the uniform and non-uniform bounds on the second derivative of the Stein solution: $\|f''_g\|_\infty\le 4\eta_{2,\alpha,\delta}$ uniformly, and $\|f''_{g_M}\|_\infty\le \eta_{3,\alpha,\delta}M^{-2(\alpha-1)/(3\alpha-1)}$, improved to $\eta_{4,\alpha}M^{-(\alpha^2-1)/(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)}$ when $\delta=0$.

What would settle it

For the Pareto example with $\alpha=1.5$ (Example 1.6), compute $|\mathbb{E}[(S_n-M)_+]-\mathbb{E}[(S_{1.5}(1,0)-M)_+]|$ by high-precision simulation across $n=10^2$ to $10^5$; the bound predicts decay like $n^{-1/3}$ jointly with a polynomial improvement in $M$, and an observed slower decay would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a pair of error bounds, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4, for the call function $g_M(x)=(x-M)_+$. If $X_1$ has the distribution (1.1) with a bounded tail-bias term $B$ satisfying $|B(x)|\le L/|x|^\gamma$, and $S_n$ is the centered, $\sigma$-normalized sum of $n$ iid copies, then $|\mathbb{E}[(S_n-M)_+]-\mathbb{E}[(S_\alpha(1,\delta)-M)_+]|\le c_1 R_n$ uniformly, where $R_n$ is given by (1.6). The non-uniform version replaces $c_1$ by a constant $c_{2,M}$ that decays like $M^{-2(\alpha-1)/(3\alpha-1)}$, and for symmetric $\delta=0$ by a smaller $c_{3,M}$ decaying like $M^{-(\alpha^2-1)/(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)}$. The point of these bounds is that they require only a finite first moment, not finite variance, so the approximation applies to heavy-tailed summands.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on assuming the summands have the exact Pareto-like tail shape (1.1) with a bounded correction $B(x)$ that decays like $|x|^{-\gamma}$; if the true distribution's tail deviates from that form, or $B$ decays too slowly, the stated sample-size rates degrade or stop being explicit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Finite first moment suffices: heavy-tailed summands with infinite variance are admitted, provided the tail shape matches (1.1) with $B$ decaying as in (1.2).
The uniform bound gives a call-payoff error of order $R_n$, and in the regimes $\gamma\in(2-\alpha,\infty)$ and $\gamma=2-\alpha$ that rate is $n^{1-2/\alpha}$ (up to a logarithmic factor), matching the optimal Kolmogorov rate for stable convergence.
The non-uniform bound makes the error smaller as the strike $M$ grows, with polynomial decay of the constant, and the symmetric stable limit ($\delta=0$) enjoys a better decay exponent from sharper heat-kernel estimates.
The results extend call-function approximation theory to lower-moment settings, so CDO tranche pricing and risk-theory calculations can use stable models where Gaussian or Poisson approximations require second moments.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the proof uses only the Lipschitz property of $g_M$ and derivative regularity of the Stein solution, the same machinery should yield analogous bounds for other Lipschitz or piecewise-linear payoffs, such as put payoffs $(M-x)_+$ or butterfly spreads.
The exponents in $M$ come from a truncation argument that the paper itself flags as possibly suboptimal, so sharper estimates of the Stein solution away from the strike should improve the polynomial decay, particularly for $\gamma>0$.
When $\gamma=0$, the sample-size rate contains an integral of $|B(x)|/|x|^{\alpha-1}$ and a supremum term, so in applications one must quantify the decay of $B$ before the bound becomes a literal power of $n$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Chen, Qi, and Zhang extend the Stein's-method stable CLT of [12] to the call function g_M(x) = (x-M)_+ without finite second moments. The genuinely new piece is Theorem 1.4, a non-uniform bound whose constant decays in M, plus a better M-rate in the symmetric case using improved heat-kernel bounds. That fills a real gap: all earlier call-function approximations assumed finite variance. Lemma 2.2's heat-kernel estimates and Lemma 2.5's non-uniform f'' bound are derived carefully, and the constants are internally consistent; those parts give me some confidence in the overall approach.

But the stress-test note is right, and the problem is load-bearing. The proof of Theorem 1.4 is a single sentence: 'by the same argument' as [12], from Lemmas 2.5 and 3.1. Lemma 3.1, the workhorse, states error terms for γ=2−α and γ=0 whose first term contains the improved δ=0 exponent M^{-(α^2−1)/(α^2+2α−1)} multiplied by the general-δ constant η3,α,δ. That exponent is proved only in Lemma 2.6, for δ=0, using η4,α. For general δ, Lemma 2.5 gives the worse rate M^{-2(α−1)/(3α−1)}. So as written, Lemma 3.1 claims a stronger decay than the available estimates support. The theorem may still be true, but the chain does not follow.

Two other gaps, minor but real: the Stein solution representation (2.3) is imported from [12, Lemma 2.3] without checking it applies to the unbounded, non-smooth call function, and the differentiation under the integral in (2.8) is not justified. Both are likely fixable with a few lines, but they need to be stated.

The uniform bound Theorem 1.3 is essentially a corollary of [12, Theorem 1.4] with a Lipschitz function, and the paper only half-acknowledges this. The simulation is not a direct test of the theorem and lacks error bars; treat it as illustrative.

Overall: the core idea is sound and the topic is well-motivated for heavy-tailed finance, but the central theorem's proof is not in a citable state. It deserves a serious referee, and the authors should be asked to repair Lemma 3.1 and fill the technical gaps before publication. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies stable approximation for expectations of the call function g_M(x)=(x-M)_+ for sums of i.i.d. heavy-tailed random variables in the domain of normal attraction of an α-stable law with α∈(1,2). Under the distributional assumption (1.1) and the tail-bias condition (1.2), it claims a uniform bound in Theorem 1.3 and a non-uniform bound in Theorem 1.4. The non-uniform constant c_{2,M} decays like a power of M in general, with an improved decay c_{3,M} in the symmetric case δ=0. The proof strategy follows the Stein method developed by Chen, Nourdin and Xu [12]: it imports the Stein equation and solution representation, derives new heat-kernel estimates for stable densities in Appendix A, obtains non-uniform bounds for the second derivative of the Stein solution in Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.6, and then applies a zero-bias based Taylor-like extension in Lemma 3.1. The claimed n-rates match the optimal Kolmogorov rates of [31], and a Pareto example is provided with numerical support.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would provide the first non-uniform stable-approximation bound for the call function without a second-moment assumption, which is a genuine extension of the existing CDO-oriented normal and Poisson approximation results and is relevant for heavy-tailed financial applications. The explicit constants, the treatment of the asymmetric case, and the improved symmetric-case rate are valuable. The paper also contains original heat-kernel estimates in Appendix A. The main caveat is that the currently written proof does not fully support the central non-uniform theorem: several load-bearing estimates are either imported without checking their hypotheses or stated with an internal exponent/constant mismatch. These are fixable but require substantial revision of Section 3.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.1(i), (iii)] Lemma 3.1 is stated for general δ, but its first error term in case (i) is bounded by a constant times a/M^{(α^2-1)/(α^2+2α-1)}. This is the improved exponent from Lemma 2.6, which is proved only for δ=0 and has constant η_{4,α}; the only general-δ non-uniform estimate available, Lemma 2.5, gives M^{-2(α-1)/(3α-1)} with constant η_{3,α,δ}. Moreover, case (iii) uses η_{4,α} in its first term even though no δ=0 restriction is present. Since Theorem 1.4 is stated to follow from Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 3.1, the general-δ constant c_{2,M} does not follow as written. The authors must either restrict the improved terms to the symmetric case with the correct constants or redo the general-δ estimates using Lemma 2.5.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.3) and Lemma 2.4] The solution representation (2.3) and the uniform bounds ‖f'_g‖_∞≤α and ‖f''_g‖_∞≤4η_{2,α,δ} are imported from [12, Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 1.2], but the hypotheses of those results are not checked for g_M(x)=(x-M)_+. This function is unbounded and only Lipschitz, not C^2_b, so differentiating the representation under the integral in the proof of Lemma 2.5 needs justification. Since every non-uniform constant in Theorems 1.4 relies on estimates for f''_{g_M}, the authors should either state the exact hypotheses of the imported results and verify them for unbounded Lipschitz test functions, or give a truncation/approximation argument.
[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.1 vs Theorem 1.4] Lemma 3.1 is proved only for γ∈[0,2−α], while Theorem 1.4 also contains the branch γ∈(2−α,∞). The proof of Theorem 1.4 says it follows from Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 3.1, but no argument is supplied for γ>2−α. This branch appears with its own M-dependence in c_{2,M} and c_{3,M}, so an explicit treatment or an extension of Lemma 3.1 to this range is needed.
[Lemma 2.5] As printed, the statement of Lemma 2.5 has a sign inconsistency in the exponent. The denominator M^{2(1-α)/(3α-1)} would make the displayed upper bound for f''_{g_M} grow like M^{2(α-1)/(3α-1)}, which contradicts the intended decay and the bound used in Theorem 1.4. The proof-ending display uses the reciprocal exponent M^{-2(α-1)/(3α-1)}. This must be corrected in the statement; the current wording makes the central non-uniform estimate ambiguous.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1] In the bound for R, direct computation gives Aα∫_{-(2A)^{1/α}}^{(2A)^{1/α}} (1+δ)1_{(0,∞)}(u)+(1−δ)1_{(-∞,0)}(u) over |u|^{α-1} du equal to α/(2−α)(2A)^{2/α}‖f''_{g_M}‖_∞ a, not 2α/(2−α)(2A)^{2/α}‖f''_{g_M}‖_∞ a. The displayed constant appears to be too large by a factor of 2, so the explicit constants in the following display should be rechecked.
[Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.6] The notation ‖f''_{g_M}(y)‖_∞ in the statements is not standard: the left side contains a free variable y while the norm is in y. The statements should read ‖f''_{g_M}‖_∞.
[Theorem 1.4] The phrase 'Rn is defined by 1.6' should read 'Rn is defined by (1.6)'; the equation number is missing parentheses in this and several other references.
[Example 1.6 and Figure 1] Figure 1 labels one curve 'Density of Z', but the random variable Z is not defined in the text; it should be S_α(1,0) or another explicitly defined quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new non-uniform bounds are derived from heat-kernel estimates and a Taylor-type expansion, with prior self-citations used only as independent tooling.

full rationale

The paper's main theorems are not obtained by fitting a parameter and then predicting it. The distributional assumption (1.1)-(1.2) is a fixed domain-of-attraction condition; the constants in Theorem 1.4 are explicit functions of A, L, alpha, delta, gamma, M and R_n, and no quantity entering the bound is calibrated to the target difference. The tools imported from the authors' earlier work ([12, Lemma 2.3] for the Stein solution representation, [12, Theorem 1.2] for uniform f' and f'' bounds, and the proof template of [12, Theorem 1.4]) are prior published results with stated assumptions that do not include the new non-uniform call-function bound; the present paper supplies the new ingredients, Lemma 2.5/2.6 (non-uniform f'' estimates proved from the heat-kernel bounds) and Lemma 3.1 (Taylor-type extension proved in Appendix B). The delta=0 improvement rests on the separately stated heat-kernel estimate (2.5) from [13], again an independent published result. There is no step where the claimed error is equivalent by construction to an input, nor a parameter fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction. The proof of Theorem 1.4 is compressed by delegation to '[12, Theorem 1.4]' and Lemma 3.1, and there may be a technical mismatch in the exponents of Lemma 3.1 relative to Lemma 2.5 for general delta, but that is a correctness/rigor concern, not circularity: the argument does not assume the conclusion. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

No phenomenological constants are fitted, and the paper introduces no new entities. The central claim rests on the domain-of-attraction form (1.1), the tail condition (1.2), and the imported Stein machinery of [12].

assumptions (4)

domain assumption X_1 has the distributional form (1.1) with A>0, δ∈[-1,1], B bounded and vanishing at ±∞.
Definition 1.2 is the central structural assumption; all theorems are stated under it.
domain assumption The tail-bias function B satisfies |B(x)| ≤ L/|x|^γ for some L>0 and γ≥0.
Equation (1.2); the rates R_n in (1.6) depend on γ, and γ=0 is the case of no extra decay.
domain assumption The Stein solution representation (2.3) from [12, Lemma 2.3] applies to the unbounded, non-smooth call function g_M.
The paper imports (2.3) without re-derivation; its validity for g_M is not checked.
domain assumption The Wasserstein-1 stable CLT bound from [12, Theorem 1.4] is valid for Lipschitz functions.
Proof of Theorem 1.3 invokes [12, Theorem 1.4] with g = g_M, relying on the Lipschitz property of the call function.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stable Approximation for Call Function Via Stein's method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULUNADDZ

@misc{pith2026241115881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stable Approximation for Call Function Via Stein's method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULUNADDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15881}
}

abstract

Let $S_{n}$ be a sum of independent identically distribution random variables with finite first moment and $h_{M}$ be a call function defined by $g_{M}(x)=\max\{x-M,0\}$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $M>0$. In this paper, we assume the random variables are in the domain $\mathcal{R}_{\alpha}$ of normal attraction of a stable law of exponent $\alpha$, then for $\alpha\in(1,2)$, we use the Stein's method developed in \cite{CNX21} to give uniform and non uniform bounds on $\alpha$-stable approximation for the call function without additional moment assumptions. These results will make the approximation theory of call function applicable to the lower moment conditions, and greatly expand the scope of application of call function in many fields.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[12]

and Xu, L

Chen, P., Nourdin, I. and Xu, L. (2021). Stein’s method for asymmetricα-stable distributions, with application to the stable CLT.Journal of Theoretical Probability. 34(3), pp. 1382-1407

work page 2021
[31]

Hall, P. (1981). Two-sided bounds on the rate of convergence to a stable law. Probability Theory and Related Fields. 57(3), pp. 349-364

work page 1981
[1]

and Laurent, J

Amraoui, S., Cousot, L., Hitier, S. and Laurent, J. P. (2012). Pricing CDOs with state-dependent stochastic recovery rates. Quantitative Finance. 12(8), pp. 1219-1240

work page 2012
[2]

and Houdré, C

Arras, B. and Houdré, C. (2019). On Stein’s method for infinitely divisible laws with finite first moment. Springer International Publishing

work page 2019
[3]

and Houdré, C

Arras, B. and Houdré, C. (2019). On Stein’s method for multivariate self-decomposable laws with finite first moment. Electronic Journal of Probability. 24(29), pp. 1-63

work page 2019
[4]

V ., Furman, E

Asimit, A. V ., Furman, E. and Vernic, R. (2010). On a multivariate pareto distribution.Insurance: Mathematics and Economics. 46(2), pp. 308-316

work page 2010
[5]

Banis, I. I. (1973). Estimation of the rate of convergence in the metric Lp in the case of a limiting stable law. Mathematical transactions of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR. 13(3), pp. 379-384

work page 1973
[6]

D., Ross, N

Barbour, A. D., Ross, N. and Zheng, G. (2024). Stein’s method, smoothing and functional approximation. Electronic Journal of Probability. 29, pp. 1-29

work page 2024

Show all 41 references

[7]

and Upadhye, N

Barman, K. and Upadhye, N. S. (2020). Stein’s method for tempered stable distributions. arxiv preprint arxiv:2008.05818

2020 arXiv
[8]

Bonis, T. (2020). Stein’s method for normal approximation in Wasserstein distances with application to the multivariate central limit theorem. Probability Theory and Related Fields. 178(3), pp. 827-860

2020
[9]

Chatterjee, S. (2007). Stein’s method for concentration inequalities. Probability Theory and Related Fields . 138, pp. 305-321

2007
[10]

H., Goldstein, L

Chen, L. H., Goldstein, L. and Shao, Q. M. (2010). Normal approximation by Stein’s method. Springer Sci- ence & Business Media

2010
[11]

and Zhang, T

Chen, P., Liu, J., Lu, Y . and Zhang, T. (2024). Normal approximation for call function by refined Lindeberg principle. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods . 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2024.2369312

2024
[13]

and Yang, X

Chen, P., Nourdin, I., Xu, L. and Yang, X. (2024). Multivariate stable approximation by Stein’s method. Journal of Theoretical Probability. 37(1), pp. 446-488

2024
[14]

and Zhang, R

Chen, P., Nourdin, I., Xu, L., Yang, X. and Zhang, R. (2022). Non-integrable stable approximation by Stein’s method. Journal of Theoretical Probability. 35, pp. 1137-1186

2022
[15]

W., Wang, B

Chen, S., Zhao, Y ., Huang, F. W., Wang, B. and Lin, J. H. (2024). Carbon leakage perspective: Unveiling policy dilemmas in emission trading and carbon tariffs under insurer green finance. Energy Economics. 130, 107292

2024
[16]

and Nagaev, A

Davydov, Y . and Nagaev, A. V . (2002). On two aproaches to approximation of multidimensional stable laws. Journal of multivariate analysis. 82(1), pp. 210-239

2002
[17]

and Jiao, Y

El Karoui, N. and Jiao, Y . (2009). Stein’s method and zero bias transformation for CDO tranche pricing. Finance and Stochastics. 13, pp. 151-180

2009
[18]

and Kurtz, D

El Karoui, N., Jiao, Y . and Kurtz, D. (2008). Gaussian and Poisson approximation: applications to CDO tranche pricing. Journal of Computational Finance. 12(2), pp. 31-59

2008
[19]

Fang, X., Liu, S. H. and Shao, Q. M. (2024). Normal approximation for exponential random graphs. arxiv preprint arxiv:2404.01666

2024 arXiv
[20]

and Peluchetti, S

Favaro, S., Fortini, S. and Peluchetti, S. (2023). Deep stable neural networks: large-width asymptotics and convergence rates. Bernoulli. 29(3), pp. 2574-2597

2023
[21]

and Coutin, L

Huang, L., Decreusefond, L. and Coutin, L. (2024). Rate of convergence in the functional central limit theorem for stable processes. arxiv preprint arxiv:2401.16834. 14

2024
[22]

Jagannathan, R. (1984). Call options and the risk of underlying securities. Journal of Financial Economics. 13(3), pp. 425-434

1984
[23]

and Yang, H

Jung, P., Lee, H., Lee, J. and Yang, H. (2023). α-Stable convergence of heavy-/light-tailed infinitely wide neural networks. Advances in Applied Probability. 55(4), pp. 1415-1441

2023
[24]

Kumar, A. N. (2024). Bounds on negative binomial approximation to call function.REVSTAT-Statistical Jour- nal. 22(1), pp. 25-43

2024
[25]

Mandelbrot, B. (1963). New methods in statistical economics. Journal of political economy. 71(5), pp. 421- 440

1963
[26]

and Yonghint, N

Neammanee, K. and Yonghint, N. (2020). Poisson approximation for call function via Stein-Chen method. Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. 43(2), pp. 1135-1152

2020
[27]

Nolan, J. P. (2014). Financial modeling with heavy-tailed stable distributions.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 6(1), pp. 45-55

2014
[28]

Nolan, J. P. (2020). Univariate stable distributions: models for heavy tailed data. In Springer Series in Opera- tions Research and Financial Engineering, Springer, Cham

2020
[29]

and Uryasev, S

Pertaia, G., Prokhorov, A. and Uryasev, S. (2021). A new approach to credit ratings. Journal of Banking & Finance. 140, 106097

2021
[30]

and Peccati, G

Nourdin, I. and Peccati, G. (2009). Stein’s method on Wiener chaos. Probability Theory and Related Fields. 145, pp. 75-118

2009
[32]

and Mitnik, S

Rachev, S. and Mitnik, S. (2000). Stable paretian models in finance. Wiley, New York

2000
[33]

Rollin, A. (2022). Kolmogorov bounds for the normal approximation of the number of triangles in the Erdos- Renyi random graph. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences. 36(3), pp. 747-773

2022
[34]

Sato, K. I. (1999). Lévy processes and infinitely divisible distribution. Cambridge Studies in Advances Math- ematics 68, Cambridge University Press

1999
[35]

Song, Y . (2020). Normal approximation by Stein’s method under sublinear expectations.Stochastic Processes and their Applications. 130(5), pp. 2838-2850

2020
[36]

Stein, C. (1972). A bound for the error in the normal approximation to the distribution of a sum of depen- dent random variables. In: Proc. Sixth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Probab. II. Probability Theory, Univ. California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 583-602

1972
[37]

and Xiao, X

Vasquez, A. and Xiao, X. (2024). Default risk and option returns.Management Science. 70(4), pp. 2144-2167

2024
[38]

and Kumakiri, Y

Wang, Q., Chu, B., Wang, J. and Kumakiri, Y . (2012). Risk analysis of supply contract with call options for buyers. International Journal of Production Economics. 139(1), pp. 97-105

2012
[39]

Xu, L. (2019). Approximation of stable law in Wasserstein-1 distance by Stein’s method. The Annals of Applied Probability. 29(1), pp. 458-504

2019
[40]

and Neammanee, K

Yonghint, N. and Neammanee, K. (2024). Poisson approximation for the expectation of call function with application in collateralized debt obligation. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods . 53(14), pp. 5265-5279

2024
[41]

and Chaidee, N

Yonghint, N., Neammanee, K. and Chaidee, N. (2022). Poisson approximation for locally dependent CDO. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 51(7), pp. 2073-2081. (P. Chen) S CHOOL OF MATHEMATICS , N ANJING UNIVERSITY OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS , NANJING 211106, ...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

and Xu, L

Chen, P., Nourdin, I. and Xu, L. (2021). Stein’s method for asymmetricα-stable distributions, with application to the stable CLT.Journal of Theoretical Probability. 34(3), pp. 1382-1407

work page 2021

[2] [31]

Hall, P. (1981). Two-sided bounds on the rate of convergence to a stable law. Probability Theory and Related Fields. 57(3), pp. 349-364

work page 1981

[3] [1]

and Laurent, J

Amraoui, S., Cousot, L., Hitier, S. and Laurent, J. P. (2012). Pricing CDOs with state-dependent stochastic recovery rates. Quantitative Finance. 12(8), pp. 1219-1240

work page 2012

[4] [2]

and Houdré, C

Arras, B. and Houdré, C. (2019). On Stein’s method for infinitely divisible laws with finite first moment. Springer International Publishing

work page 2019

[5] [3]

and Houdré, C

Arras, B. and Houdré, C. (2019). On Stein’s method for multivariate self-decomposable laws with finite first moment. Electronic Journal of Probability. 24(29), pp. 1-63

work page 2019

[6] [4]

V ., Furman, E

Asimit, A. V ., Furman, E. and Vernic, R. (2010). On a multivariate pareto distribution.Insurance: Mathematics and Economics. 46(2), pp. 308-316

work page 2010

[7] [5]

Banis, I. I. (1973). Estimation of the rate of convergence in the metric Lp in the case of a limiting stable law. Mathematical transactions of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR. 13(3), pp. 379-384

work page 1973

[8] [6]

D., Ross, N

Barbour, A. D., Ross, N. and Zheng, G. (2024). Stein’s method, smoothing and functional approximation. Electronic Journal of Probability. 29, pp. 1-29

work page 2024