arxiv: v1 [q-fin.cp] 14 Feb 2018

Transcription

1 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION FOR EFFICIENT RISK ESTIMATION arxiv: v1 [q-fin.cp] 14 Feb 2018 By Michae B. Gies and Abdu-Lateef Haji-Ai University of Oxford We investigate the probem of computing a nested expectation of the form P[E[X Y] 0]=E[H(E[X Y])] where H is the Heaviside function. This nested expectation appears, for exampe, when estimating the probabiity of a arge oss from a financia portfoio. We present a method that combines the idea of using Mutieve Monte Caro (MLMC) for nested expectationswith the idea of adaptivey seecting the number of sampes in the approximation of the inner expectation, as proposed by (Broadie et a., 2011). We propose and anayse an agorithm that adaptivey seects the number of inner sampes on each MLMC eve and prove that the resuting MLMC method with adaptive samping has an O(ε 2 ogε 2 ) compexity to achieve a root mean-squared error ε. The theoretica anaysis is verified by numerica experiments on a simpe mode probem. We aso present a stochastic root-finding agorithm that, combined with our adaptive methods, can be used to compute other risk measures such as Vaue-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditiona Vaue-at-Risk (CVaR), with the atter being achieved with O(ε 2 ) compexity. 1. Introduction. Our focus in the current work is on computing the foowing quantity of interest (1) η = E[H(E[X Y])]. where H is the Heaviside step function (i.e., H(x) = 1 for x 0 and 0 otherwise) and the inner expectation of the random variabe X is conditiona on the vaue of the outer random variabe, Y. This probem appears in many settings. However, our main motivation for ooking at this probem is to compute the probabiity of a arge oss from a financia portfoio, see for exampe [2, 11]. In such a context, X woud be the sum of osses at maturity from the options in the portfoio in excess of some threshod vaue, whie Y woud be the vaue of the underying stocks and other risk factors at some short risk horizon. Our approach to approximating η in (1) draws from the work of Gordy & Juneja [11]. There, the authors expressed the probabiity of a arge oss MSC 2010 subject cassifications: Primary 65C05, 62P05 Keywords and phrases: Mutieve Monte Caro, Nested simuation, Risk estimation 1

2 2 GILES, HAJI-ALI as a nested expectation then proposed using nested Monte Caro sampers to estimate both the outer and inner expectations. They proved that using O(ε 1 ) sampesin theinnermonte Carosamper ando(ε 2 ) sampes in the outer Monte Caro samper is sufficient, under certain conditions, to achieve a root mean squared (RME) error of O(ε) in the estimation of η. Thus the tota cost of their method is O(ε 3 ). See [10] for sharper and extended anaysis of their resuts. In [2], Broadie et. a. improved the compexity of the nested Monte Caro method by adapting the number of sampes in the inner Monte Caro samper to the specific sampe of the outer random variabe, Y. The basic idea reies on the fact that the step function in (1) does not change vaue when a arge error is committed in the estimation of the inner conditiona expectation, E[X Y], provided it is sufficienty far from 0. Hence, depending on E[X Y] and the size of the statistica error that is committed when approximating E[X Y] with a Monte Caro samper, the required number of sampes is determined with a cap which is again O(ε 1 ). Using this idea, it was shown in [2] that, under certain conditions, the expected required number of sampes in the inner Monte Caro estimator is O(ε 1/2 ), bringing the tota cost of the nested Monte Caro method down to O(ε 5/2 ). We wi review in more detais the nested Monte Caro method and the adaptive method to seect the number of inner sampes in Section 2.1. In parae, the Mutieve Monte Caro (MLMC) method was introduced in [7] to reduce the compexity of Monte Caro methods when ony approximate sampes of a random variabe can be generated and, hence, Monte Caro approximations are necessariy biased. Assume we wish to estimate E[g] for some random variabe, g. Denoting the th eve approximation of E[g] by E[g ] such that E[g ] E[g] =O(2 α ) 0 for some α>0, the first step to approximate E[g], up to a RMS error ε, is to seect the approximation eve, L, such that E[g] E[g L ] =O(ε). A standard Monte Caro method then approximates E[g L ] with a sufficient number of sampes such that the standard deviation of the approximation is aso O(ε). If we assume that the cost of computing a singe sampe of g is O(2 γ ), the compexity of this Monte Caro method is O(ε 2 γ/α ). On the other hand, MLMC is based on the teescopic sum E[g L ] = E[g 0 ]+ L E[g g 1 ]. Then, we estimate E[g 0 ] and E[g g 1 ], for L, with independent Monte Caro sampers with a number of sampes that is decreasing as 0. Provided that g and g 1 are sufficienty correated such that V[g g 1 ] = =1

3 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 3 O(2 β ) for β > 0, the compexity of MLMC is O(ε 2 max(0,(γ β)/α) ) for γ β and O(ε 2 ogε 2 ) for γ=β [8]. Bujok et. a. [3] appied MLMC to nested expectations of the form E[φ(E[X Y])] for a piece-wise inear function, φ, and X being a Bernoui random variabe. Gies [8] considers the case in which X is a more genera random variabe with φ being a twice differentiabe function. In any case, approximate sampes of the random variabe E[X Y] are generated with a Monte Caro samper with N =2 sampes and then a hierarchy of approximations based on the number of inner sampes is used in an MLMC setting. The authors of both papers proved that MLMC in this case has an O(ε 2 ogε 2 ) compexity. Moreover, they showed that using an antithetic estimator improves the compexity of MLMC to O(ε 2 ). On the other hand, if φ is a step function, as is the case when computing the probabiity of arge oss, then we wi prove in Section 2.2 and show numericay in Section 3that MLMC with deterministic samping has O(ε 5/2 ) compexity. Moreover, in this case, using antithetic samping does not improve the compexity. The main contribution of this work is to further reduce the compexity of the MLMC method for step functions to O(ε 2 ogε 2 ), by using ideas from [2] to adapt the number of inner sampes, on each eve of the MLMC method, based on the particuar reaisation of the random variabe, Y, of the outer Monte Caro samper. We start in Section 2 where we reca in more detai the work and resuts of [2, 11] on nested Monte Caro estimators (see aso [14] for a more thorough review) and [8] on using MLMC to estimate nested expectations. Then, in Section 2.3 we start by motivating an agorithm, inspired by [2], that seects the number of inner sampes given a reaisation of the outer random variabe, Y. Section 2.3 aso incudes an anaysis of the adaptive agorithm to show that a MLMC estimator that uses this adaptive strategy has eves whose variance of differences converges with rate O(2 ) whie the work increases with rate O(2 ) as increases, hence the compexity of MLMC is O(ε 2 ogε 2 ) in this case. In Section 3, a mode probem that mimics the probem of computing the probabiity from a arge oss from a financia portfoio is presented. We appy the MLMC method with adaptive and deterministic samping and show that our anaysis matches we with numerica experiments. In Section 4 we discuss how our methods can be combined with a simpe root-finding agorithm to compute other risk measures, namey, the Vaue-at-Risk (VaR) and the Conditiona Vaue-at-Risk (CVaR). Sighty surprisingy, we prove in the case of CVaR that the compexity of MLMC with deterministic samping is the optima O(ε 2 ). Finay, concusions and future work directions are discussed in Section 5.

4 4 GILES, HAJI-ALI 2. Nested estimators for nested expectations Nested MC estimators. In this section we review the works of Gordy & Juneja [11] and Broadie et. a [2] which are based on approximating the inner and outer expectations in (1) using Monte Caro. In [11], the conditiona inner expectation E[X Y =y], for a given y, is estimated using an unbiased Monte Caro estimator with N sampes as foows: (2) Ê N (y) = 1 N N x (n) (y) n=1 where x (n) (y) is the n th sampe of the random variabe X given Y =y and {x (n) } n are mutuay independent, conditiona on Y =y. Then, Monte Caro is used again to approximate the outer expectation as foows: (3) η 1 M M m=1 ) H(ÊN (y (m) ) where y (m) is the m th sampe of the random variabe Y and {y (m) } m are mutuay independent. Denote the joint density of the two random variabes E[X Y] and ÊN(Y) by p N (y,z). Moreover, for i=0,1 and 2, assume that i p y i N (y,z) exists and that there exist a non-negative function, p i,n, such that i y ip N(y,z) p i,n(z) for a N,y and z, and sup N z q p i,n (z)dz, then, by [11, Proposition 1], the RMS error of the estimator (3) is O(M 1/2 +N 1 ).Hence, toget anrmserrorofo(ε),werequirem=o(ε 2 ) and N=O(ε 1 ), and the tota compexity is O(ε 3 ). Note that, given a sampeof therandomvariabe Y, we want to evauate a stepfunctionthatisbasedontheexpectation E[X Y]whichisapproximated using a Monte Caro estimator with N sampes. However, depending on how far the expectation E[X Y] is from zero, where the step function changes vaue, a very rough approximation of E[X Y] might sti give the correct vaue for thestep function H(E[X Y]). This motivates adaptingthenumber of sampes based on the vaue of E[X Y]. Such a method was introduced and anaysed in [2] for a nested Monte Caro approximation. Heuristicay, assuming that given Y we have an estimate ÊN(Y) > 0, then the authors in [2] ask: what is the probabiity that adding an extra

5 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 5 sampe wi produce a negative estimate? Denoting the random variabes µ := E[X Y] and σ 2 := V[X Y] and using Chebyshev s inequaity yieds [ ] P[ÊN+1(Y) 0 ÊN(Y)] = P NÊN(Y)+ µ x (N+1) (Y) ÊN(Y) [ ] P NÊN(Y)+µ µ x (N+1) (Y) ÊN(Y) σ 2 (NÊN(Y)+µ) 2 σ2 N 2 µ 2. Then, for d:= µ, we ony need N ε 1/2 σ/d in order to ensure that adding a new inner sampedoes not change the vaue ) of the step function ) with probabiity ε, i.e., that our estimate H(ÊN (Y) =H(ÊN+1 (Y) H(E[X Y]) is correct with probabiity ε. In [2], two agorithms were introduced to adaptivey determine the number of sampes in the inner Monte Caro samper of a nested Monte Caro method. The first is based on minimising the tota required number of sampes for a inner Monte Caro sampers subject to some error toerance. The second agorithm is iterative, such that in every iteration estimates of d and σ given Y are computed using N inner sampes, then more inner sampes are added unti Nd/σ exceeds some error margin threshod. In the current work, we instead start by adding a cap on the number of sampes and set ( (4) N = max O(ε 1 ),ε 1/2σ ). d Hence when δ := d/σ = o(ε 1/2 ), we woud use the maximum number of sampes, otherwise, ) fewer sampes are used and we sti get the same estimate for H(ÊN (Y) with probabiity ε. Assuming that the random variabe δ has a distribution with a bounded density near 0, the average number of sampes is then O(ε 1/2 ) and the compexity of the nested Monte Caro method with this choice of number of sampes is O(ε 5/2 ) MLMC for nested expectation. In this section, based on ideas in [3, 8, 13], we wi use a MLMC estimator to approximate the outer expectation, using the number of sampes in the inner Monte Caro as a discretization parameter, as foows (5) η := L 1 M M =0 m=1 (Ê(f,,m) ) H N (y (,m) (Ê(c,,m) ) ) H N 1 (y (,m) )

6 6 GILES, HAJI-ALI where the estimator of the inner expectation, ÊN, is as defined in (2) where, as before, (6) Ê (f,,m) N (y) := 1 N N x (f,,m,n) (y) ) (Ê(c,0, ) with Ê(c,,m) N 1 defined simiary but with H N 1 ( ) := 0. Here, {x (,,m,n) (y)} n are i.i.d. sampes of X given Y =y. Moreover, the sampes of the random variabe, X, used in Ê(f,,m) N and Ê(c,,m) N 1 are mutuay independent, but conditiona on the same y, and independent from the sampes,m used in ),m Ê(f, N and ) Ê(c, N 1 for any or m m. Again, due to[11, Proposition 1] and under the assumptions isted therein, and recaed in Section 2.1, we have [ ) ] (7) E H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) = O(N 1 ) ) Moreover, the cost to generate sampes of H(ÊN ( ) is O(N ). Unike standard Monte Caro, MLMC aso requires strong convergence) of the estimators. ) More specificay, the variance of the difference H(ÊN (y) H (ÊN 1 (y) must converge sufficienty fast. At this point, we wi prove another genera resut regarding nested Monte Caro sampers. First, we ist the first of two main assumptions in the current work. In what foows, we define the random variabes d := E[X Y], σ 2 := V[X Y] and δ := d/σ. Assumption 2.1. We assume that the probabiity density function of the non-negative random variabe, δ, denoted by ρ, exists. Moreover, we assume that there exist constants ρ 0 > 0 and δ 0 > 0 such that ρ(δ) ρ 0 for a δ [0,δ 0 ]. Based on this assumption and for a positive, non-increasing function a, we have (8) a(δ)ρ(δ)dδ ρ 0 a(δ)dδ +a(δ 0 ), 0 which can beshownby spitting the integra at δ 0 andthen boundingρusing Assumption 2.1. We wi aso make repeated use of the foowing identity for a q>1 and a constant b > 0 (9) 0 n=1 0 min ( 1,bx q) dx = qb1/q q 1 which can be shown by spitting the integra at b 1/q.

7 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 7 Proposition 2.2 (Variance of the inner MC). Let X,Y be two random variabes satisfying Assumption 2.1. Then ) ( ) ) ] 2 V[H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y])] E[ H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) (10) = O(N 1/2 ) Proof. We start from ( ) ] 2 E[ H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y])) Y ) ] H = P[ (ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) = 1 Y ] P[ Ê N (Y) E[X Y] d Y, where, by Chebyshev s inequaity and bounding the probabiity by 1, we have [ ] ( ]) P ÊN(Y) E[X Y] d Y min 1,d 2 V[ÊN (Y) Y (11) = min ( 1,δ 2 N 1). Taking expectation over Y yieds ( ) ) ] 2 E[ H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) ρ min ( 1,δ 2 N 1) ρ(δ)dδ min ( 1,δ 2 N 1) dδ+min ( 1,δ 2 0 N 1) 2ρ 0 N 1/2 +δ 2 0 N 1. Here we first used (8) and then (9). Hence, the variance is O(N 1/2 ). Based on this proposition and under Assumptions 2.1, for a deterministic choice of N, increasing with eve, we have [ ) )] (12) V H(ÊN (Y) H (ÊN 1 (Y) = O(N 1/2 1 ) since for any two random variabes V and W, we have V[V +W] 2V[V]+ 2V[W]. Hence, if we make a simpe choice of N =N 0 2 and provided the assumptions of [11, Proposition 1] are satisfied so that we have (7), we can concude, according to standard MLMC compexity anaysis (with α = 2β = γ=1), that the cost to approximate η to an error toerance of ε is O(ε 5/2 ).

8 8 GILES, HAJI-ALI Remark 2.3 (Using antithetic samping). In some nested simuation appications, it is possibe to use an antithetic estimator, where a sampes in the fine estimator, Ê(f, ), are used in the coarse estimator, Ê(c, ), in each eve to increase the correation between the fine and coarse estimators of the inner conditiona expectation; see, for exampe, [8] or Section 3 for more detais. In fact, such an estimator was used to compute the moments of the tota oss from a portfoio at a risk horizon, in [12]. However, using antithetic samping does not change the variance convergence rate in our setting because the discontinuity in the step function vioates the differentiabiity requirements of the antithetic estimator. In fact, the main correation between the fine and coarse sampes is due to the strong convergence of the inner Monte Caro estimator (10) and using independent sampes is sufficient to get the rate in (12). Nevertheess, using an antithetic estimator might reduce the variance by a constant, as we wi discuss in Section 3. We do not emphasise this in the presented theorems for carity of presentation Adaptive Samping for MLMC. In this section, we appy the adaptive samping method mentioned in Section 2.1 to the MLMC estimator of the outer expectation and anayse the resuting agorithm. Our aim is to increase the variance convergence to O(2 ) whie sti using O(2 ) inner sampes per eve on average, so that the MLMC compexity is O(ε 2 ogε 2 ). In this section, in addition to Assumption 2.1, we aso work under the foowing assumption. Assumption 2.4. We assume that for some 2 < q <, the q th normaised, centra moment of X given Y is uniformy bounded for a vaues of Y, i.e. κ q := supe [σ ] q X E[X Y] q Y =y <. y Moreover, we wi make repeated use of the foowing emma: Lemma 2.5. Let Z N be an average of N i.i.d. sampes of a random variabe, Z, with zero mean and finite q th moment. Then for any z > 0 there exists a constant, C q, depending ony on q, such that and E[ Z N q ] C q N q/2 E[ Z q ], ( ) P[ Z N >z] min 1,C q z q N q/2 E[ Z q ].

9 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 9 Proof. Denoting by {Z n } N n=1 the N sampes of Z, the discrete Burkhoder-Davis-Gundy inequaity gives ( ) N q/2 E[ Z N q ] C q E N 2 C q E [ n=1 Z 2 n ] N N q/2 1 Z n q n=1 = C q N q/2 E[ Z q ], where C q is a constant depending ony on q [4]. The second resut foows immediatey using Markov s inequaity and bounding the probabiity by 1. In particuar, given Y, etting Z = X(Y) E[X Y] and Z N =ÊN(Y) E[X Y] and using the definition of κ q, we have ] ( (13) P[ Ê N (Y) E[X Y] >d Y min (1,C q κ q δn 1/2) ) q. This is a generaisation of (11) when we have bounded q-moments Agorithm. Reca the choice (4) for the adaptive number of sampes that was made in [2]. Another choice can be motivated by the Centra Limit Theorem. We know that a Monte Caro estimate of E[X Y] with N sampes, denoted by ÊN, has an error that is roughy bounded by C V[X Y]/N, where C is a confidence constant. Then, ) we ony need N C 2 σ 2 /d 2 in order to ensure that our estimate H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) is correct. Imposing, again, a maximum number of sampes of O(ε 1 ), we get ) (14) N = max (O(ε 1 ),C 2σ2 Compare this to (4) and note the different power of (d/σ) and the introduction of the confidence constant C. More generay, in the context of MLMC, the agorithm we woud ike to use shoud ensure, conditioned on Y, that the number of sampes, N, on eve, satisfies N = N where ( ( ( N = N 0 4 max 2,min 1, C 1 N 1/2 0 2 d ) )) r (15) σ d 2

10 10 GILES, HAJI-ALI N fixed, decreasing r fixed r, increasing Fig 1: The function N in (15) as a function of δ = d/σ for different vaues of and r. δ for some given confidence constant C and 1<r<2 as we sha see ater. The choice (15) is motivated from (4) and (14), with the foowing changes: i) the number of sampes on eve is now bounded beow by N 0 2 and bounded above by N 0 4, ii) we introduce a generic power r, where, for a given vaue of Y, the number of sampes increases as r decreases, see Figure 1, and iii) we introduce a confidence constant C 1. The difficuty with (15) is that we do not know a-priori the vaues of d and σ, given Y, so instead we use an iterative agorithm, inspired by [2, Agorithm 3], that doubes the number of sampes N at every iteration, then estimates d and σ. The agorithm then terminates when N satisfies N N, where N is the same as N, but computed with the current estimates of d and σ, denoted by d and σ, respectivey. Hence, the output of the agorithm, N satisfies (16) N N < 2 N. The fu agorithm is isted in Agorithm 1. Note that the number of inner sampes this agorithm uses to determine N is, at most, (2 2 )N 2N Numerica anaysis. In this section we wi show that, under Assumptions2.1and2.4,theadaptiveagorithm hasarandomoutput,n,that satisfiese[n ] = O(2 ).Moreover, wewishowthat,withthisrandomchoice

11 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 11 ALGORITHM 1: Adaptive agorithm to determine N. Data:,y,N 0,r Resut: N set N := N 0 2 ; set done := fase; repeat /* If we continue the adaptive agorithm, at east 2N inner sampes wi be used (N sampes in this step and then another N sampes when computing the Monte Caro estimate). Hence, terminate if 2N is greater than the maximum number of inner sampes. */ if 2N N 0 4 then set N := N 0 4 ; set done := true ; ese generate N new, and independent, inner sampes; compute new estimates d and σ 2 given Y = y; d C 1 N 1/2 0 2 σ set done := true; ese set N := 2N end end unti done; return N ; if N N 0 4 ( ) r then [ ) ] ofnumberofinnersampes,wehavev H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) =O(2 ). From here, using standard MLMC compexity anaysis, the compexity of our methodis O(ε 2 ogε 2 ). Westart inlemma2.6by provingtheresutswhen we have perfect knowedge of d and σ 2, then in Theorem 2.7 we consider the case when d and σ 2 are Monte Caro estimates of d and σ 2, given Y. Lemma 2.6 (Perfect adaptive samping). Under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.4, for the estimator (6) and the number of sampes N obtained using Agorithm 1 for 1<r<2 2/q, d=d= E[X Y], and σ 2 =σ 2 =V[X Y] we have [ ) ] E[N ] = O(2 ) and V H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) = O(2 ).

12 12 GILES, HAJI-ALI Comment. Even though the setting of this emma is ideaistic, in that it assumes perfect knowedge of d and σ 2, its proof sti iustrates important points. The first point is the usage of (13) to bound the tai probabiity of a Monte Caro average. The second point is that the bounds on the vaue of r (1,2 2/q) are needed even with such perfect knowedge. As stated previousy, as r increases, the required number of inner sampes, for the same vaue of y, decreases. This means that, subject to the condition r < 2 2/q or when q, we want to take r as cose as possibe to 2 to reduce the tota number of needed inner sampes whie sti maintaining the same variance convergence rate. On the other hand, if, for exampe, we ony have bounded fourth moments, i.e., q = 4, then we must have r < 3/2 to have the same convergence rate of the variance. Proof. In this emma, we are supposing that we have perfect knowedge of d and σ, and hence N = N. Reca that the output of the adaptive agorithm satisfies (16). Then, given N < 2N we have, ( ( ( ) )) E[N ] 2N 0 4 max 2,min 1, C 1 N 1/2 r (17) 0 2 δ ρ(δ) dδ 0 ( ( ) ) 2N N 0 4 min 1, C 1 N 1/2 r (18) 0 2 δ ρ(δ) dδ 0 ( ( ) ) 2N N 0 4 ρ 0 min 1, C 1 N 1/2 r 0 2 δ dδ 0 ( ( ) ) +2N 0 4 min 1, C 1 N 1/2 r (19) 0 2 δ 0 2N CN 1/2 0 ρ 0 r r C r N (2 r)/2 0 δ r 0 2(2 r) where we first used (8) and then (9). Since 2 r < 1, we have E[N ] = O(2 ). On the other hand, by (13), [ ) ] [ ]] V H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) E P[ Ê N (Y) E[X Y] >d Y [ ( ) )] q Letting E min (20) z := C 1 N 1/2 0 2 δ, 1, C q κ q ( d σ N1/2.

13 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 13 and since N N, we have [ ( ) ( ) )] q/2 V[H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y])] E min 1, C q κ q C q z q N N 0 4 [ ( ( ))] E min 1, C q κ q C q z q min 2 q/2,max(1,z rq/2 ) ( ( ρ 0 min 1, C q κ q C q z q max 1,z rq/2)) dδ 0 ( ) +min 1, C q κ q 2 q/2 N q/2 0 δ q 0 ( ρ 0 CN 1/2 0 2 min 1, C q κ q C q z q( 1+z rq/2)) dz 0 + C q κ q 2 q/2 N q/2 0 δ q 0 where we first used (8) and then changed the variabe of integration from δ to z. The integra in the first term is a constant independent of and can be computed using (9) since q rq/2>1. Hence, since q > 2 the variance is O(2 ). Theorem 2.7 (Adaptive samping with d and σ-estimators). Let Assumptions 2.1 and 2.4 and consider the estimator (6) and the number of sampes N obtained using Agorithm 1 for 4q +1 1 (21) 1 < r < 2. q Assume further that in every iteration of the agorithm given Y, the current number of sampes, N, and {x (m) (Y)} N n=1 being i.i.d. sampes of X given Y, we estimate d and σ 2 by 1 N d = ÊN (Y) = x (n) (22) (Y) (23) and N n=1 σ 2 = 1 N ( 2, x (n) (Y) ÊN N (Y)) n=1 respectivey. Then we have [ ) E[N ] = O(2 ) and V H(ÊN (Y) ] H(E[X Y]) = O(2 ). Before proving this theorem, we prove a coroary to Lemma 2.5 that bounds the probabiity of incurring a given error when estimating the variance, σ 2, with (23).

14 14 GILES, HAJI-ALI Coroary 2.8. Let Assumption 2.4 hod, and consider Agorithm 1 for a given Y where σ is estimated with (23) at every iteration. Then, for any constant c 1 > 0, there exists a constant c 2, depending ony on N 0,κ q,q and c 1, such that P[ σ 2 σ2 > c 1 σ 2 Y] c 2 2 q /4, where σ is the estimate of σ at the ( ) th iteration of the agorithm, for =...2. Moreover P[ σ 2 σ 2 > c 1 σ 2 Y] c 2 2 q/4, where σ is the fina estimate of σ that uses N inner sampes. Proof. We can write σ 2 = 1 N 0 2 N 0 2 n=1 ( x (n) (Y) E[X Y]) 2 (ÊN0 2 (Y) E[X Y] ) 2. Next, using Lemma 2.5 and the fact that E[(X E[X Y]) 2 Y] = σ 2, yieds P [ 2 σ σ 2 > c1 σ 2] N P ( ) 2 x (n) (Y) E[X Y] σ 2 N 0 2 i=1 > 1 2 c 1σ 2 ( c1 ) ] 1/2σ +P[ Ê N0 2 (Y) E[X Y] > 2 ( 2 q/2 C q/2 c q/2 1 κ q N 0 2 ) q/4 c 2 2 q /4. +2 q/2 C q c q/2 1 κ q ( N 0 2 ) q/2 Then, for the estimate σ using N inner sampes, we have P [ σ σ 2 > c1 σ 2] 2 P [ σ σ 2 > c1 σ 2] = 2 c 2 = 2 q /4 c q/42 q/4

15 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 15 We are now ready to prove Theorem 2.7. Proof. First, for a given vaue of Y and a corresponding δ = d/σ, assume that with perfect knowedge of δ the adaptive agorithm woud return N 0 2 as the number of inner sampes, for 2. Given the stopping condition, we have (24) 2 ( 1) 4 < ( ) C 1 N 1/2 r δ 4, whenever < 2 for the eft inequaity and whenever < 2 for the right inequaity. Moreover, suppose that the adaptive agorithm, with the estimates d and σ 2 for a given Y, returns N 0 2 for 2. The proof proceeds by anaysing the probabiity that differs significanty from to bound the variance and work. In what foows, the constants in the O( ) notation depend on κ q,q,n 0,C and r ony. Bounding the work. To bound the work, we consider the case in which the adaptive agorithm terminates on a eve such that + 3 for 2 3, i.e., the case of using too many inner sampes. This impies that the termination condition of the adaptive agorithm was not satisfied in each ( ) th iteration of the agorithm where + 2 <. This, with the right inequaity in (24), yied ( C 1 N 1/2 0 2 δ ) r 2 ( C 1 N 1/2 r 0 2 δ) = δ < 4 1/r δ, where δ = d / σ and d and σ 2 denote the Monte Caro estimates of d and σ 2, respectivey, using N 0 2 inner sampes. Then, since the inner sampes used in the iterations of Agorithm 1 are mutuay independent, we have P[ = Y] 1 = +2 1 = +2 [ d P d ( [ P σ σ > 41/r d > 2 1/r d ] Y ] ]) Y +P [ σ 2 > 41/r σ 2 Y,

16 16 GILES, HAJI-ALI for any such that +3. Using the right inequaity in (24) and (13), yieds [ ] [ P d > 2 1/r d Y = P d d ( > 1 2 1/r) ] d Y [ ( P Ê N02 (Y) E[X Y] > 1 2 1/r) ] CσN 1/ (2 )/r Y ( 1 2 1/r) q Cq κ q C q 2 q((2 )/r (2 )/2) O(2 q( )/2 ) Moreover, using Coroary 2.8, we have, for any Y, ] ] P [ σ 2 > 41/r σ 2 Y P [ σ 2 σ2 > (4 1/r 1)σ 2 Y O(2 q( )/4 ). Hence for any such that +3 2 and 2 3, we have (25) P[ = Y] 1 = +2 O(2 q( )/4 ) O(2 q( ) 2 /8 ). In genera, this bounds P[ = Y] for a 2 since P[ = Y] = 0 for +3 2 whenever 2 3 < 2. Next, conditiona on Y we compute the expected number of sampes, N, as foows [ ] N E N 0 4 Y 2 = P[N = N 0 2 Y]2 2 = = O (2 ) 2 2 P[ = Y]2 2. = +3 2 q( ) 2 /8+, where we substituted (25) in the ast step. Since the sum in the previous equation is bounded for any q, we have, using the bound on in (24), the fact that 2 and and the definition of z in (20), that [ ] N E N 0 4 Y = O (2 ) 2 ( ( = O(min 1,max 2,z r)) ), for a vaues of z, and a simiar cacuation to (17) gives the desired bound on the overa expected number of inner sampes.

17 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 17 Bounding the variance. When bounding the variance, we want to contro the probabiity of being significanty smaer than, i.e., the probabiity of using significanty fewer inner sampes than we woud have had we used d and σ instead of their approximations, d and σ, respectivey. In particuar, < impies that d over-estimates d and/or σ under-estimates ) σ. We first dea with the atter case by denoting G := H(ÊN (Y) H(E[X Y]) and writing the variance as V[G ] E [ E[G 2 (26) Y]] = E [ E[G 2 Y, b2 σ 2 > σ 2 ] P[b 2 σ 2 > σ 2 Y] ] +E [ E[G 2 I b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] ]. for some constant 0<b<1, independent of, and. The first term in (26) deas with the case when σ under-estimates σ whie the second term deas with the opposite case. Using Coroary 2.8, we have, for any Y, P [ b 2 σ 2 > σ 2 Y ] P [ σ 2 σ 2 > ( 1 b 2) σ 2 Y ] O(2 q/4 ). On the other hand, since the inner sampes used to compute G are independent from those used to compute N, we can bound, for any Y, E[G 2 Y, bσ2 > σ 2 ] = E[E[G 2 N ] Y, bσ 2 > σ 2 ] = E[P[ ÊN (Y) E[X Y] d N ] Y, bσ 2 > σ 2 ] E[min ( 1,δ 2 N 1 ) Y, bσ 2 > σ 2 ] ( min 1,δ 2 N0 1 2 ) Here, we used (11), then the fact that N N 0 2. Taking expectation with respect to Y and and using (8) and (9) we have that E [ E[G 2 Y, bσ2 > σ 2 ] ] 2ρ 0 N 1/2 0 2 /2 +δ 2 0 N Hence, we have that the first term in (26) is O(2 /2 q/4 ) = O(2 ), since q 2. Now, weturnourattention tothesecondterm in(26) wheretheestimator σ does not significanty under-estimate σ, i.e., given b 2 σ 2 σ 2. First, for

18 18 GILES, HAJI-ALI some p (2/(2 r),q), we bound by (13) [ E[G 2 I b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] = E E[G 2 Y, d, σ ] 2 Y ] I b 2 σ 2 σ 2 [ = E P[ Ê N (Y) E[X Y] >d Y, d, σ 2] ] Y I b 2 σ 2 σ 2 [ ( ) ) ] E min (1, C p κ p δn 1/2 p I b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y [ ( ) ) E min (1, C p κ p δn 1/2 pib 2 σ 2 σ Y] 2 ( [ ( ) ]) p/2 min 1, C p κ p C p z p N E N 0 4 I b 2σ2 σ 2 Y. Here we used that fact that the inner sampes used to compute G are independent from those used to compute d and σ. We wi proceed by bounding the probabiity of N being too[ sma, then using this probabiity to bound (N the conditiona expectations E /4 ) ] p/2 Y Ib 2 σ 2 σ 2. Finay, we concude by foowing the same steps as in the proof of Lemma 2.6. To start, the question we wi address is: what is the probabiity that the adaptive agorithm terminates on a eve given that 3 and b 2 σ 2 σ 2? In this case, the termination condition in Agorithm 1 and the eft inequaity in (24) impy that ( C 1 N 1/2 0 2 δ ) r ( 1) 4 < 1 ( C 1 N 1/2 r 0 2 δ) = 4 δ > 4 1/r,δ for 3 and Hence, choosing b such that 4 1/r < b < 1, we have [ ] d P[ =, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] P d σ σ > 41/r, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y ] P [ d > 4 1/r bd, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y P [ d d > (1 4 1/r b 1) d, ] b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y [ ( P d d > b 4 1/r) ] CσN 1/ (2 )/r, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y [ ( P Ê N02 (Y) E[X Y] > b 4 1/r) ] CσN 1/ (2 )/r Y ( b 4 1/r) q Cq κ q C q 2 q(2 )(1/r 1/2)

19 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 19 Moreover, P[ = Y] = 0 for 3 whenever < + 3. Hence (27) P[ =, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] = O(2 q(2 )(1/r 1/2) ), for 3 and 2. Now, we have that [ ( ) ] p/2 N E N 0 4 I b 2σ2 σ 2 Y = 2 = P[N = N 0 2, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] 2 p(2 )/2 3 2 p(2 +2)/2 + P[ =, b 2 σ 2 σ 2 Y] 2 p(2 )/2. = Substituting (27) and denoting u := q(r 2)/r +p yieds [ ( ) ] p/2 N E N 0 4 I b 2σ2 σ 2 Y 3 2 p(2 +2)/2 + O(2 u(2 )/2 ) = ( ) 2 p(2 +2)/2 2 u(2 +2)/2 2 u/2 +O 2 u/2. 1 Note that (2 r) 2 q = 2r has roots r = 2 (± 4q +1 1)/q and hence from (21) we have that q>2r/(2 r) 2. Therefore, we can choose p to satisfy 2/(2 r)<p<q(2 r)/r in which case we have u<0<p and the previous conditiona expectation is O(2 p(2 )/2 ) whenever 2. Using the bound on in (24), the fact that 2 and and the definition of z in (20), yieds [ ( ) ] p/2 N E N 0 4 I b 2σ2 σ 2 Y = O(2 p(2 )/2 ) ( ( ( = O max 1,min 2 p/2,z rp/2))). for a vaues of z. The condition p > 2/(2 r) impies that r < 2 2/p and hence a simiar cacuation to (21) yieds that the second term in (26) is again O(2 ). Hence V[G ] = O(2 ).

20 20 GILES, HAJI-ALI 3. A Mode Probem. In this section, we wi ook at a simpe exampe that mimics many of the chaenges of computing the probabiity of a arge oss from a financia portfoio. In fact, the underying mode probem can be seen as the oss from a singe option with a stock foowing a Brownian Motion and a fina payoff function, f(x) = x 2 evauated at maturity, T = 1. This is a mode for a deta-hedged portfoio with negative Gamma such that a arge oss is incurred with very ow probabiity under extreme circumstances. Probem setup. Defining, for τ 1, ( ) 2 P(y,z) := τ 1/2 y +(1 τ) 1/2 z = τy 2 2τ 1/2 (1 τ) 1/2 yz (1 τ)z 2, we wi compute the foowing [ ( [P(Ỹ,Z) )] (28) η = E H E ] E[P(Y,Z) Y] L η. where Ỹ,Y and Z are independent standard norma random variabes and L η is a constant. In financia appications, η corresponds to the probabiity the portfoiooss exceeding a given oss eve, L η, over a shortriskhorizon, τ, with the portfoio oss defined as the difference between current and future risk-neutra portfoio expectations. Aternativey, we wi ater specify η 1 and determine the corresponding oss eve, L η using the reation (28). Note that ony the second inner expectation in (28) is conditioned on sampes of the outer random variabe, Y. Since E[P(Ỹ,Z)] = 1 and E[P(Y,Z) Y] = τy 2 (1 τ), the exact vaue of η can be computed anayticay as [ [P(Ỹ,Z) ] ] η = P E E[P(Y,Z) Y] L η 0 [ ( ) ] τ 1/2 +Lη = P Y τ ( ( = 2 Φ 1+ L ) ) 1/2 η, τ where Φ is the standard norma cumuative distribution function. When approximating the inner expectations for a given Y, we coud use the exact vaue of E[P(Ỹ,Z)] = 1 and set X := 1 P(Y,Z) L η. However, the variance is V[X Y] = 4τ(1 τ)y 2 + 2(1 τ) 2 = O(1).

21 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 21 [P(Ỹ,Z) ] We coud aso use independent sampes of Z to compute both E and E[P(Y,Z) Y], setting X := P(Ỹ, Z) P(Y,Z) L η for independent standard norma variabes Z, Z and Ỹ. The variance woud then be V[X Y] = 2(1 τ) 2 +4τ(1 τ)y 2 +2 = O(1). Instead, we use the same sampes of Z when estimating both inner expectations. Moreover, for increased variance reduction, we aso use an antithetic contro variate based on the fact that Ỹ is identicay distributed to Ỹ. In summary, we set, for a given Y, (29) X := 1 (P(Ỹ,Z)+P( Ỹ,Z) ) P(Y,Z) L η 2 = τ(y 2 Ỹ2 )+2τ 1/2 (1 τ) 1/2 YZ L η. Here, again, Ỹ and Z are independent standard norma random variabes. The variance in this case is reduced to σ 2 = V[X Y] = 2τ 2 +4τ(1 τ)y 2 = O(τ). and we can aso compute anayticay d = E[X Y] = τ ( Y 2 1 ) L η. Figure 2-(a) shows the cumuative distribution function of E[X Y] and iustrates the inverse square-root singuarity at τ L η. Verifying the Assumptions. Figure 2-(b) shows the density ρ of δ. Despite the inverse square-root singuarity at around 3.5, the density is bounded near 0, hence Assumption 2.1 is verified. On the other hand, to verify Assumption 2.4, we bound { [ X E[X Y] q ]} κ q = sup E y σ q Y = y = sup y sup y 2τ E[ 1/2 (1 τ) 1/2 Zy τ(ỹ 2 1) q] (2τ 2 +4τ(1 τ)y 2 ) q/2 2 q 1 2 q τ q/2 (1 τ) q/2 y q E[ Z q ]+2 q 1 τ E[ q Ỹ 2 1 q] (4τ(1 τ)y 2 +2τ 2 ) q/2 2 q 1 E[ Z q ]+2 E[ q/2 1 Ỹ 2 1 q ] for any q > 0. <

22 22 GILES, HAJI-ALI CDF = Φ(Y) ( τ L η,0) (0,1 η) (a) E[X Y] ρ δ (b) Fig 2: (a) The cumuative density function of E[X Y] with X as defined in (29) and Y a standard norma variabe. This figure iustrates the inverse square-root singuarity starting at τ L η. (b) shows the density, ρ, of δ = d/σ. This figure shows that the density is bounded near 0, hence Assumption 2.1 is satisfied. For both figures, we use τ = 0.02 and L η so that η = Antithetic estimators. The MLMC estimator in (5) uses independent sampes of X, conditioned on the same vaue of Y, for the fine and coarse estimators of the conditiona inner expectation on each MLMC eve. We can reduce the variance of the difference by a constant factor by instead using an antithetic estimator [8, 9]. The antithetic estimator uses the same set of independent sampes to compute both the coarse and fine approximations. For a deterministic number of inner sampes, N = N 0 2, we observe a variance reduction factor of approximatey 3.5 compared to using separate independent sampes for the fine and coarse estimators. To present the antithetic estimator when using an adaptive number of inner sampes, as returned by Agorithm 1, first et J 0 = N 0 and J = max(n,n 1 ) for > 0. Since Agorithm 1 returns N that is a mutipe of N 1 or vice versa, then we have that both J /N and J /N 1 are integers. The antithetic estimator can then be written as (30) η := L 1 M M =0 m=1 Ĥ (,m) (,m),n (y ) Ĥ(,m),N 1 (y (,m) ), where, the J sampes for the eve correction are spit into subsets of size

23 N and N 1 to give the estimator MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 23 Ĥ (,m),n (y) := N J /N (Ê(,m) ) H N,i (y) J i=1 with Ĥ0,N 1 ( ) := 0 and, simiar to (6), we define Ê (,m) N,i (y) := 1 N N x (,m,(i 1)N+n) (y). n=1 Here {x (,m,n) (y)} J n=1 are i.i.d. sampes of X conditioned on Y = y. Moreover, these sampes are independent from x (, m,n) for, m m and any n. Starting MLMC eve. The MLMC estimator in (30) incudes the eves 0,1,...,L. However, this might be sub-optima in some cases. To see this, denote G (y) = Ĥ,N (y) Ĥ,N 1 (y), and et V = V[G (Y)] and V f = V[Ĥ,N (Y)]. Moreover, et W = E[N ] denote the expected number of inner sampes, which, in our case, is the average work required to compute a sampe of G. Reca that, to approximate a quantity of interest with RMS error ε, the tota work of MLMC is approximatey [8] ε 2 V f 0 W 0 + L = 0 +1 V W for 0 0 < L. Here, we are assuming that we ony incude the eves 0,,L in the MLMC estimator. Then incuding the eve 0 in the MLMC estimator is optima if V f 0 W 0 + V 0 +1W 0 +1 (31) R 0 := 1. V f 0 +1 W 0 +1 Otherwise, discarding that eve and starting from woud yied ess computationa work. Note that if V f = V f and W 2 γ for a, then the previous inequaity simpifies to ( V γ/2) 2 V f. 2,

24 24 GILES, HAJI-ALI For exampe, for γ = 1, the variance of the first eve-difference, V 0 +1, to be incuded in the MLMC estimator shoud be more than 11 times smaer than the variance of the quantity of interest. To dea with this issue, our MLMC agorithm starts from some eve, 0, and approximates the variance estimates and average work for eves 0 and 0 +1usingsomesma numberofouter sampes. Thenif (31) is not satisfied, eve 0 is discardedand themlmc agorithm is restarted with thefirsteve being This process is repeated unti (31) is satisfied. Resuts. We appy MLMC with deterministic and adaptive samping. The deterministic samping agorithm is run with either N = N 0 2 or N = N 0 4 for N 0 = 32. On the other hand, the adaptive samping agorithm is run with different vaues of r = 1.25,1.5 and 1.75, the same vaue of N 0 and the confidence constant C = 3. On every iteration of the adaptive agorithm, we use the same estimator for d and σ as defined in (22) and (23), respectivey. Our theory on the adaptive samping method requires bounded q normaised moments, κ q, for q > 2r/(2 r) 2, reca (21) in Theorem 2.7. In our tests, we use r = 1.25,1.5 and 1.75 which requires q > 4.45,12 and 56, respectivey, but, reca that for our mode probem, κ q is bounded for a q 2. As with Figure 2, we set τ := 0.02 and L η so that our goa is to estimate η = Figure 3-(a) shows the average number of used inner sampes per eve for the different methods. For the adaptive agorithm, the average number of inner sampes is around 10 times arger than N 0 2, which is used in the deterministic agorithm, but grows at the same rate with respect to, as proved in Theorem 2.7. On the other hand, Figure 3-(b) pots V := V[G ] and V f := V[Ĥ,N (Y)] versus. This figure shows that the variance of the MLMC eves with adaptive samping is the same as the variance when using deterministic samping with N = N 0 4, i.e., the variance converges ike O(2 ) in both cases as proved in Theorem 2.7, even though MLMC with adaptive samping uses fewer inner sampes per eve on average. The variance convergence rate of the deterministic agorithm with N = N 0 2 is shown to be O(2 /2 ), as proved in Proposition 2.2. Note aso that the variance of the quantity of interest, V f, decreases sighty as increases but converges to the same vaue for a methods for sufficienty arge. Figure 3-(c) pots E := E[G ] and E f := E[Ĥ,N (Y)] versus. The pot paints the same reative picture as the variance pot Figure 3-(b). However, reca that the compexity of MLMC when using adaptive samping, is O(ε 2 ogε 2 ), does not depend on the convergence rate of E since the variance, V, converges at the same rate that the average number of inner

25 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 25 sampes, E[N ] increases. For thedeterministic agorithm, on theother hand, since N = N 0 2, V = O(2 /2 ) and E = O(2 ), the compexity of MLMC is O(ε 5/2 ). When using N = N 0 4, MLMC has the same compexity. Figure 3-(d) pots the ratio R, as defined in (31), versus. This figure shows the first eve, 0, that shoud be incuded in the MLMC estimator for the different methods, namey the first eve for which R 0 < 1. Hence, for theadaptive method, 0 = 4isoptima, whieforthedeterministicagorithm 0 = 2 when N = N 0 4 and 0 = 7 when N = N 0 2 are optima. Finay, Figure 4-(a) shows the tota number of used inner sampes for the different methods for mutipe toerances. This number corresponds to the tota work of each method and incudes both the sampes that are used to compute the MLMC estimator and the sampes that were used in the adaptive agorithm (as detaied in Agorithm 1). This figure, and Figure 4- (b) which shows the tota running time, verify that the actua work foows the predicted work compexities for each of the considered methods. The running times of the simuations were obtained using a C++ impementation of the adaptive agorithm and the sampers of Y and X. Moreover, CUDA was used to paraeise the computation of the inner and outer sampes on a Tesa P100 GPU with 3584 cores. 4. Beyond Probabiities. Using the adaptive method that we deveoped in the previous section and denoting the random variabe L := E[X Y], for X := 1 (P(Ỹ,Z)+P( Ỹ,Z) ) P(Y,Z) 2 we can estimate η = P[L > L η ] = E[H(L L η )] for a given L η up to an error toerance ε with a compexity O(ε 2 ogε 2 ). Usingtheseestimates, wecan sove theinverse probemtofindl η foragiven η, i.e., compute the (1 η)-quantie. In the context of financia appications, L η is caed the Vaue-at-Risk (VaR) of a financia portfoio. Finding L η can be formuated as finding the root of f(l η ) = η P[L > L η ]. To that end, we can use a stochastic root finding agorithm such as the Stochastic Approximation Method [1, 15] and its mutieve extensions [5, 6]. Instead, since our probem is one-dimensiona and P[L > L η ] is monotonicay decreasing with respect to L η, we use in the current work the simpified agorithm isted in Agorithm 2. The agorithm starts with an estimate of L η, denoted by L η, then depending on where η := P[L > L η ] ies with respect to η, L η is adjusted. To account for the fact that η can ony be estimated with a specified RMS error toerance, whenever η is cose to η, the RMS error toerance is

26 26 GILES, HAJI-ALI N = N 02 N = N 04 r = 1.25 r = 1.5 r = E[N] 10 4 V soid V dashed V f (a) (b) E R soid E dashed E f (c) (d) Fig 3: (a) average number of sampes, (b) variance and (c) absoute error per eve for the MLMC estimator of E[H(E[X Y])] for the mode probem described in Section 3 using deterministic and adaptive samping with different vaues of r. Note that the average number of sampes in the adaptive method increases ike O(2 ) whie the variance decreases ike O(2 ).

27 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 27 N = N 02 N = N 04 r = 1.25 r = 1.5 r = 1.75 Tota work ε ε 2 ogε 2 ε 5/2 Running time [s] ε ε 2 ogε 2 ε 5/ Normaised ε (a) Normaised ε (b) Fig4:The(a) tota workand(b)tota runningtimeforthemlmcestimator of E[H(E[X Y])] versus mutipe error toerances, normaised by the exact vaue, i.e., η, with deterministic and adaptive samping. We aso pot the expected work compexities in each case, as predicted in theory. haved. We eave the anaysis of the root finding agorithm and comparison to other agorithms in the iterature to future work. Numericay, the compexity of the agorithm seems to becose to O(ε 2 ogε 2 ), see Figure 5. Another important quantity to compute is E[L L > L η ] for a given η. In the context of finance appication, this quantity is the Conditiona Vaue-at- Risk (CVaR), aso known as the expected shortfa, which is the expected oss from a portfoio, given that the oss exceeds the (1 η)-quantie for a given η. In[16], it was shownthat by denotingf(x) := x+ 1 η E[max(L x,0)], CVaR can be written as E[L L > L η ] = f(l η ) = inf x f(x) since, for the cumuative distribution function, F(x) := P[L < x], and the corresponding probabiity density function, := df dx, we have df(x) dx = F(x) E[H(L x)] = 1, η η d 2 ( f(x) d dx 2 = 1 1 F(x) ) df(x) 1 = 0, df(x) η dx η (x) and df(x) dx x=lη =0. Hence if L η is approximated with L η, using, for exampe, Agorithm 2, and the CVaR vaue, f(l η ), is approximated with f( L η ), then

28 28 GILES, HAJI-ALI ALGORITHM 2: Stochastic root-finding agorithm. Data: η, ε, λ 0, L 0, h 0 > ε/2 Resut: L η s.t. L η L η ε L η := L 0 ; λ := λ 0 ; Compute η P[L > L η ] with RMS error λ; h := h 0 sign( η η); whie 2 h > ε do L η := L η +h; Compute η P[L > L η ] with RMS error λ; if hsign( η η) < 0 then h := h/2; end if η η < 3λ then set λ := λ/2; end end return L η ; the error is ( ( f(l η ) f( L η ) = O L η L ) ) 2 η That ( is, an O(ε 1/2 ) error in the approximation of the VaR, L η, with O ε 1 ogε 2) compexity yieds an O(ε) error in the approximation of the CVaR f(l η ) = E[L L > L η ]. To approximate CVaR given [ L η ( by computing f( L η ), we sti need to approximate the expectation E max E[X Y] L )] η,0 where the outer expectation is with respect to Y whie the inner conditiona expectation is with respect to X. Without oss of generaity, we can set L η := 0 by defining X new := X od L η. The resuting probem, to compute E[max(E[X Y],0)], is simiar to (1) but with a maximum function instead of a step function. Hence, we can again use the MLMC method, as described Section 2.2, with an antithetic samper, as mentioned in Remark 2.3 and expained in Section 3. Using the notation in Section 3, we set (32) Ĥ (,m),n (y) := N P /N (Ê(,m) ) max N,i (y),0. P i=1

29 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 29 ε 2 og(ε) 10 6 ε 2 og(ε) Tota work ε Running time [s] ε Normaised ε (a) Normaised ε (b) Fig 5: The compexity of Agorithm 2 to compute the L η that satisfies η = P[L > L η ]foragiven η.in(a) thetota workisthetota numberofgenerated sampes of X. Note that, for a given y, whenever the estimates Ê(,m) N,i (y) and Ê(,m) N 1,i(y) fa on the same side of 0 for a i, then the difference Ĥ(,m),N (y) Ĥ(,m),N 1 (y) is exacty zero. Using a deterministic number of sampes N = N 0 2 resuts in an error O(2 /2 ) in estimating the inner expectation, E[X Y]. Therefore, the two estimates, ÊN and ÊN 1, might fa on different sides of 0 whenever the exact vaue, E[X Y], is O(2 /2 ). Hence the variance of the MLMC difference is O(2 3/2 ) and its absoute expectation is O(2 ). This is made more precise in the foowing theorem. Theorem 4.1. Assume that Assumptions 2.1 and 2.4 hod and assume further that E[σ 2 ] < and that there exists σ 0 such that σ σ 0 given δ < δ 0. Then denoting G := Ĥ,N (Y) Ĥ,N 1 (Y) where Ĥ,N is defined in (32) and N = N 0 2, we have E[ G ] = O(N 1 ) and E[G 2 ] = O(N min(3,q)/2 ) Comment. The proof foows the same ideas as in [9, Theorem 5.2] where a simiar resut was derived for an antithetic estimator with respect to timediscretisation. The same proof idea was aso empoyed in [3, Theorem 2.3]

30 30 GILES, HAJI-ALI where the resut was shown for the same antithetic estimator considered here, a more generic piece-wise inear function, and X being a Bernoui random variabe. Proof. Since N = 2N 1, the antithetic estimator is ( ) G = max 0, 1 2 Ê N 1,i(Y) 1 2 ( ) max 0,ÊN 2 2 1,i(Y) i=1 i=1 ( ( ) ) = max 0, 1 2 Ê N 1,i(Y) max(0,e[x Y]) 2 i=1 ( ) 1 2 ( ) max 0,ÊN 2 1,i(Y) max(0,e[x Y]) i=1 For a given Y, define the random event Then B = 2 i=1 { } ÊN 1,i(Y) E[X Y] E[X Y]. E[G 2 ] = E[G2 I B]+E[G 2 I B c], where I B = 1 if B is non-empty and 0 otherwise. First note that for the second term when I B c = 1, we have that both ÊN 1,i for i = 1 and 2 and hence ÊN 1,i are a on the same side of 0. Therefore, in this case, G =0 and the expected vaue is zero. On the other hand, for the first term, using the Höder inequaity gives [ (33) E[G 2 I B] = E E [ G 2 I ] ] B Y E [E[ G q Y] 2/q P[B Y] 1 2/q] where using (13) yieds P[B Y] 2P[ ÊN 1 (Y) E[X Y] E[X Y] ] ( ) 2min 1,C q κ q δ q N q/2 1. On the other hand, note that for ( ( f(x 1,x 2 ) = max 0, x ) ) 1 +x 2 max(0,x) (max(0,x i ) max(0,x)) 2 i=1

31 MULTILEVEL NESTED SIMULATION 31 we have that f(x,x) = 0 and f x i 1/2. Then [ ( 2 q E[ G q Y] 2/q E 2 q ÊN 1,i (Y) E[X Y] ) Y i=1 [ E Ê (Y) E[X Y] q ] 2/q N 1 Y Using Lemma 2.5, yieds E[ G q Y] 2/q Cq 2/q κ 2/q q σ 2 N 1 1 = 2C2/q q κ 2/q q σ 2 N 1 ] 2/q Substituting back into (33), there exist constants c 1,c 2 and p = q(1 2/q), independent of, such that [ ( )] E[E[G 2 I B Y]] c 1 E σ 2 N 1 min 1,c 2 δ p N p/2 [ ( ] c 1 N 1 E σ 2 min 1,c 2 δ p N p/2 )I δ<δ0 [ ( ] +c 1 N 1 E σ 2 min 1,c 2 δ p N p/2 )I δ>δ0 ( ] c 1 N 1 σ0 [min 2 E 1,c 2 δ p N p/2 )I δ<δ0 +c 1 c 2 δ p 0 N 1 p/2 E [ σ 2 ] I δ>δ0 c 1 N 1 ρ 0 σ ( min 1,c 2 δ p N p/2 ) dδ +c 1 c 2 δ p 0 N 1 p/2 E[σ 2 ] p p 1 c 1c 1/p 2 ρ 0 σ0n 2 3/2 +c 1 c 2 δ p 0 N 1 p/2 E[σ 2 ] Substituting p and assuming that E[σ 2 ] is bounded, yieds E[G 2 I B] O(N min(3,q)/2 ) A simiar computation gives the second resut for q 2, E[ G I B ] E[ G q ] 1/q P[B] 1 1/q = O(N 1 ). Hence, for q > 2, the compexity of the resuting MLMC method is then O(ε 2 ) since α = 1 and β > γ = 1 using the notation of [8]. This compexity was aso shown in [3]. This is aso the optima compexity of MLMC and

32 32 GILES, HAJI-ALI therefore using adaptive samping does not improve the compexity. Nevertheess, we can use exacty the same adaptive Agorithm 1 to seect a random number of sampes, N, depending on Y. We omit the anaysis of the resuting MLMC method and refer instead to the numerica resuts in Figure 6. This figure shows that the variance and absoute errors converge ike O(2 3 ) and O(2 2 ), respectivey, when using an adaptive number of sampes. Even though this is faster than O(2 3/2 ) and O(2 ), respectivey, that are observed when using a deterministic number of sampes (and proved intheorem4.1),theovera compexity ofthemlmcisthesamewhenusing the two samping methods, as shown in Figure 6-(d). 5. Concusions. In this work, we presented a MLMC method for nested expectations with a step function, in which deeper eves use more sampes for a Monte Caro estimator of the inner conditiona expectation. We aso presented an adaptive agorithm that seects the number of inner sampes given a sampe of the outer random variabe. We showed that under certain assumptions, the variance of the MLMC eves decreases at the same rate that the work increases and hence the MLMC method achieves a nearoptima O(ε 2 ogε 2 ) compexity for a RMS error toerance ε. We aso showed how our methods can be combined with a root-finding agorithm to compute more compicated risk measures, namey, the Vaue-at-Risk (VaR) and the Conditiona Vaue-at-Risk (CVaR) with the atter being obtained with O(ε 2 ) compexity. The next step in our our work is to appy MLMC with adaptive samping to the probem of estimating the probabiity of arge oss from a financia portfoio consisting of many financia options based on underying assets described by genera SDEs. Using unbiased MLMC, this probabiity can be written as a nested expectation even in the case when paths of the underying stochastic differentia equation must be estimated using a time-stepping scheme. Moreover, various contro variates and samping strategies make computing this probabiity more efficient. The resut is that the compexity of computing CVaR is aso O(ε 2 ), independent of the number of options in the portfoio. References. [1] Bardou, O., Frikha, N., and Pages, G. Computing VaR and CVaR using stochastic approximation and adaptive unconstrained importance samping. Monte Caro Methods and Appications 15, 3 (2009), [2] Broadie, M., Du, Y., and Moaemi, C. C. Efficient risk estimation via nested sequentia simuation. Management Science 57, 6 (2011),