Skip to main content
Entropy logoLink to Entropy
. 2022 Apr 24;24(5):594. doi: 10.3390/e24050594

Estimating Drift Parameters in a Sub-Fractional Vasicek-Type Process

Anas D Khalaf 1, Tareq Saeed 2, Reman Abu-Shanab 3, Waleed Almutiry 4, Mahmoud Abouagwa 5,*
Editor: Ravi P Agarwal
PMCID: PMC9142111  PMID: 35626479

Abstract

This study deals with drift parameters estimation problems in the sub-fractional Vasicek process given by dxt=θ(μxt)dt+dStH, with θ>0, μR being unknown and t0; here, SH represents a sub-fractional Brownian motion (sfBm). We introduce new estimators θ^ for θ and μ^ for μ based on discrete time observations and use techniques from Nordin–Peccati analysis. For the proposed estimators θ^ and μ^, strong consistency and the asymptotic normality were established by employing the properties of SH. Moreover, we provide numerical simulations for sfBm and related Vasicek-type process with different values of the Hurst index H.

Keywords: parameter estimation, Vasicek-type model, strong consistency, central limit theorem, Berry–Esseen

MSC: 65Mxx, 34A08, 35A08, 35R13

1. Introduction

Modeling a diffusion mechanism that tracks the time evolution of complex phenomena, described by stochastic differential equations (SDEs), is often convenient. Parameters in SDEs are crucial for considering the classification of dynamic phenomena. In most cases, these variables are not precisely defined, although a sample of data is available to specific dynamic occurrences. Generally, more practitioners are interested in using the observation data to obtain accurate estimates of the parameters. In realistic cases, the available data are sampled over a certain time interval by discrete time series data; however, SDEs are almost surely continuous processes. Moreover, no measuring device can consistently track a process trajectory since the process path is too troublesome. Furthermore, El Machkouri et al. [1] and Es-Sebaiy and Viens [2] have shown that many discretization algorithms used to move from continuous trajectory to discrete observation based estimators are inefficient.Therefore, we always prefer to deal with the discreet observed processes directly. All in all, the estimation of parameters for discretely observed processes is not trivial, and it has produced a great deal of research effort over the last few decades.

On the other hand, in 1977, Vasicek introduced a stochastic process, and it was named after him [3]. Since then, the Vasicek process has been employed widely in mathematical finance. Hao et al. [4] utilized it to model the pricing of credit default swaps. In order to explain the dynamics of the short rate in the context of stock warrant pricing, Xiao et al. [5] presented a Vasicek-type process. For more explanation of this work, see also [6,7,8] and the references therein.

The stochastic model of Vasicek-type can be given by the following differential equation.

dxt=θ(μxt)dt+dBtH;t0,x0=0,

Here, BH stands for the fractional-Brownian motion (fBm), and from a purely financial standpoint, θ and μ can be taken to mean the following: Parameter μ represents the interest rate’s long-term-average, while parameter θ can be stand for the speed of recovery that xt comes back to μ from the long-term average’s deviation value.

Recently, many scholars have devoted themselves to investigate the problem of the parameter estimation of SDE. Here are some examples of works in this field:

  • Ref. [9] considers the drift parameter estimation of the sub-fractional Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process based on continuous observation.

  • Parameters estimation for fractional Vasicek process in the ergodic case with continuous time observation has been considered by [10,11,12].

  • Es-Sebaiy and Es-Sebaiy [13] and Alazemi et al. [14] explored the problem of parameter estimation in a Vasicek model in the non-ergodic scenario.

Inspired by works mentioned above, in this article, we aim to present and analyse the parameters’ estimation of a sub-fractional Vasicek-type process given via the unique solution for the following SDE:

dxt=θ(μxt)dt+dStH;t0,x0=0, (1)

where SH is a sfBm, which represents an extension of the celebrated fBm. Similarly, process x can be defined by the following:

xt=μ(1eθt)+eθt0teθvdSvH;t,v0, (2)

where parameters 0<θ and μ are assumed to be unknown and real.

The drift parameters estimation for Vasicek processes is an essential problem that is both theoretically challenging and well-motivated by practical needs. Our practical reason for looking into this estimation challenge in the context of finance is to develop tools to help scientist understand methods for modeling volatility. In fact, any Vasicek process can be used as a stochastic volatility process.

The following is a breakdown of the paper’s structure. Section 2 discusses some aspects in the calculus of Malliavin in terms of sfBm. In Section 3 and Section 4, the strong consistency and asymptotic behavior of the estimators given to estimate the parameters θ and μ are investigated. Section 5 investigates sample route simulations for the sfBm and the process of sub-fractional Vasicek. Finally, we present proofs for various auxiliary results in the Appendix A.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we recall some sfBm concepts and facts, as well as Wiener space analysis. We begin with a definition of sfBm.

The sub-fractional Brownian motion SH=(StH)t0 is a Gaussian process with zero mean, S0H=0, and the covariance is given by the following function [15,16]:

r(t,v):=E[StHSvH]=v2H+t2H12[(v+t)2H+|vt|2H]

for all t,v0. Note that, when H=12,SH corresponds to the well known Brownian motion B. Sub-fractional Brownian motion has properties that are similar to those of fractional Brownian motion, such as the following: long–range dependence, Self–similarity, Hölder pathes, and it satisfies [17,18,19,20,21,22,23].

E[StHSvH][222H1]|vt|2H;v,t0, (3)

It is worth mentioning that according to Kolmogrov’s continuity criterion and Equation (3), sfBm has Hölder continuous pathes of order Hϵ, for all ϵ(0,H).

Now, we let (Ω,,P) be a Wiener space with the process of Wiener W, for any g,hL2(R+):=, we have E[W(g)W(h)]=<g,h> such that that W(g):=R+g(s)dWs.

Define the qth Hermite polynomial by Hq+1:=xHq(x)Hq(x), q1, the linear isometry between Hq and the symmetric tenser product q can be represented by Iq(gq):=q!Hq(W(g)) where we have .q=q!.q. The multiple Wiener integral of fq with respect to W is given by Iq(fq) where fqq. For the sake of brevity, we will not go over all of the tractable aspects of the multiple Wiener integral; instead, interested readers should consult monograph [24] for a thorough exposition.

Now, we will introduce some basic principles that will be useful throughout this paper.

First, The property of isometry and the product formula. g,hq, we have the following.

E[Iq(g)Iq(h)]=q!<g,h>q

In particular, if q equal es one, then the following is the case.

g,h,I1(g)I1(h)=12I2(gh+hg)+<g,h>.

Second, A Hypercontractivity property. q1, 2p<, as well as gq, then the following is the case:

E[|Iq(g)|p]1p(p1)q2E[|Iq(g)|2]12

and for q1, the following is satisfied:

E[|F|p]1pcp,qE[|F|2]12,p2,

with Fl=1ql; cp,q represents a positive constant.

Third, the distances between random variables. The total variation distance between the laws of x and y can be represented as follows:

dTV(x,y)=supAB(R)|P[xA]P[yA]|

where x and y are two real-valued random variables and the supremum is taken across all Borel sets. Moreover, if x and y are two real-valued variables, then the Wasserstein distance between the laws of x and y is defined as follows.

dW(x,y)=supfLip(1)|E[f(x)]E[f(y)]|,

Here, Lip(1) denotes that all functions of Lipschitz with the constant of Lipschitz are less than or equal to one.

3. Strong Consistency of Estimators

This section’s main goal is to address the parameter estimation of the process x=(xt)t0 defined via (2). In other words, by using Wiener space analysis, we aim to demonstrate the estimators’ strong consistency and asymptotic behavior.

Define μ^:=1ni=1nxi. Let 0<H<1, λH(·):=4HΓ(2H)(·)2H, and the following:

V:=1ni=1nxi2i=1nxi2, (4)

then θ^:=λH1(V), where λH1(·) is the inverse function of λH(·). The process x in Equation (2) can be expressed as follows:

xt=μ+ξt+γt, (5)

where the following is the case.

ξt:=eθtteθsdSsH,γt:=eθt(μ+ξ0). (6)

The process ξ represents a Gaussian noise with co-variance rξ(k):=E(ξkξ0), for every kZ, where rξ(0):=E(ξ0)2>0.

Hence, applying (5) and properties of the sfBm (see section 3 in [16]), one obtains, as n

μ^=1ni=1nxiE(μ+ξ0)=μ.

In what follows, let us consider the expression of (4); it follows from the last equation and Lemma A2 below in the Appendix A that as n, the following is the case.

1ni=1nxi2=1ni=1n(μ+ξi+γi)2E(μ+ξ0)2=μ2+rξ(0)=μ2+4HΓ(2H)θ2H,a.s.

Now, using definition of θ^, we obtain the following.

θ^=14HΓ(2H)1ni=1nxi21ni=1nxi212H14HΓ(2H)(μ2+4HΓ(2H)θ(2H)μ2)12H=θ.

By the above discussion, we obtain θ^ and μ^, which are strongly consistent; this is the next result’s message.

Theorem 1.

Let 0<H<1 and the process x defined in (1) and (2) be the case; we then have the following:

(θ^,μ^)(θ,μ) (7)

a.s. as n converges to +.

4. Asymptotic Distribution of θ^, μ^

The asymptotic behavior of estimators θ^ and μ^ is investigated in this section. We assume that the process x in Equation (1) is in the second chaos mode and employ techniques from the calculus of Malliavin.

Now, using the Wiener integral and Hermite polynomial properties, we introduce the following function:

ηi(·):=e(i·)1(,i](·),

hence, ξ in (6) can be given by the following.

ξi=I1(ηi).

Let R:=1ni=1nηi2, then v:=E[I2(nR)2]=2ni,j=1nrξ(ji)2, and we denote the following.

F:=I2(nvR). (8)

Applying the product formula as well as the process x dissection in (5), we obtain the following:

V=1ni=1nxi21ni=1nxi2=1ni=1n(μ+ξi+γi)21n2i,j=1n(μ+ξi+γi)2=1ni=1nξi2+L,

where the following is the case.

L:=2ni=1nξiγi+1ni=1nγi21n2i,j=1nξiξj2n2i,j=1nξiγj1n2i,j=1nγiγj. (9)

Then, we have

nv(VλH(θ))=F+nLv. (10)

Now, let κ3(F):=E[F3],κ4(F):=E[F4]3 and it is equivalent to (8); let the process F=I2(g), where g:=i=1nηi2nv. By Nourdin–Peccati observations [24,25], one has for n1 the following.

κ3(F)=2E(F)(2I2(g˜1g)+2g22)=8<g,g˜1g>22=8g,g1g22=8(nv)32i,j,k=1nηi,ηkηi,ηjηk,ηj=8(nv)32i,j,k=1nE[ξiξk]E[ξiξj]E[ξjξk]

Therefore, using Young integral and the inequality of Hölder yields the following.

|κ3(F)|1(nv)32i,j,k=1n|rξ(ik)rξ(ij)rξ(jk)|n12(v)32|k|<n|rξ(k)|322. (11)

Note that the symbol ⊵ means that the multiplicative universal constant has been excluded.

Similarly, for the fourth cumulant, we have the following.

κ4(F)=1(nv)2k,i,j,l=1nE[ξkξi]E[ξiξj]E[ξjξl]E[ξlξk]κ4(F)1(nv)2k,i,j,l=1n|rξ(kl)rξ(ij)rξ(jl)rξ(lk)|n1(v)2|k|<n|rξ(k)|433. (12)

Note that, there is no need to take the absolute value because the fourth-cumulant of the variable that lie sin the second chaos is positive.

Next, the total-variation distance between process F and the mean zero Normal distribution is provided by the following result.

Theorem 2.

Suppose that H(0,34] and let F be given by (8), then there is apositive constant C that depends only on F:

dTV(F,N(0,1))Cmaxn12v32|k|<n|k|3H32,n12v2|k|<n|k|83(H1)3,

n1. Hence, the following estimates hold.

dTV(F,N(0,1))Cmax{v2,v32}×n12if0<H<23log(n)2nifH=23n3(2H32)if23<H<34log(n)32ifH=34.

Proof. 

By Lemma A4 and estimation (11), we have the following:

  • For 0<H<23
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|32C|k|<n(|k|2H2)32=C|k|<n|k|3H3=C.
  • When H=23
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|32C|k|<n|k|1Clog(n).
  • For 23<H<34
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|32C|k|<n|k|3H3Cn3H2
  • For H=34
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|32C|k|<n|k|3H3Cn4.

Moreover, By Lemma A4, as well as the bound (12), one obtains the following approximation:

  • For 0<H<58
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|43C|k|<n(|k|2H2)43=C|k|<n|k|83H83=C.
  • When H=58
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|43C|k|<n|k|1Clog(n).
  • For H(58,34)
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|43C|k|<n|k|83(H1)Cn83H53
  • For H=34
    |k|<n|rξ(k)|34C|k|<n|k|83(H1)Cn3.

Hence, it isproved.   □

Remark 1.

In last theorem, we restrict the index H to be H34 because this is the well known commencement for the validity limit of CLT. However, non-CLT holds for H(34,1), it has been shown in [26] that the speed of convergence in this case is slower than the case of H34. Up to now, there is no known general framework that shows that the speeds obtained in non-CLT case are optimal or not; see the discussion on this point in Chapter 7 of [24].

Remark 2.

The estimates (11) and (12) can be given in a more accurate manner by letting C=0.4785 (see [27]). It is worth pointing out that, according to Esseen [28], the universal constant 0.4785 cannot be less than 0.40973.

Theorem 3.

Assume H(0,34] is fixed and V is as defined in (4). Set σ1,H:=2kZrξ(k)2. Then, the following convergence holds.

n(VλH(θ))lawN(0,σ1,H2)

Proof. 

By virtue of lemma 9 in [2], it follows from expression (9), Theorem 2, Proposition A1 as well as Lemma A5 that the following is the case:

  • When 0<H<23
    dW(nσ1,H(VλH(θ)),N(0,1))C(nLL1(Ω)+|vσ1,H2|+n12)
  • For H=23
    dW(nσ1,H(VλH(θ)),N(0,1))C(nLL1(Ω)+|vσ1,H2|+log(n)2n)
  • For H(23,34)
    dW(nσ1,H(VλH(θ)),N(0,1))C(nLL1(Ω)+|vσ1,H2|+n3(2H32))
  • For H=34
    dW(nσ1,34log(n)12(Vλ34(θ)),N(0,1))C(nlog(n)12LL1(Ω)+|vlog(n)12σ1,342|+log(n)32).

Thus, the theorem is proved.   □

We are now prepared to prove that the theorem investigates the rate of normal convergence of estimator θ^ toward parameter θ.

Theorem 4.

Let x=(xt)t0 be given by (1) and (2), where SH is a sfBm and parameter H(0,34]. The following convergence takes place as n:

  • If 0<H<12
    dW(8H2Γ(2H)σ1,Hθ2H+1n(θ^θ),N(0,1))Cn12
  • If 12<H<34
    dW(8H2Γ(2H)σ1,Hθ2H+1n(θ^θ),N(0,1))Cn2H32
  • If H=34
    dW(6Γ(32)θ(12)log(n)12n(θ^θ),N(0,1))Clog(n).

Proof. 

The result follows by applying Theorem 3 and using the technique used in Section 5.2.2 of [2] for θ^=λH1(V). Note that we make use of σ1,34=34θ2; see Proposition A1.   □

In what follows, the convergence in the law of μ^ to μ is shown by the next theorem.

Theorem 5.

Consider the process x=(xt)t0 defined by (1) and (2); if 0<H<1, then there is a function denoted by ϕ such that the following is the case:

ϕ(μ^μ)lawN(0,σ2,H2) (13)

where σ2,H2:=2kN+rξ(k)+2Γ(2H+1)θ2H, when 0<H12, N+=N\{0} and σ2,H2:=θ2, when 12<H<1.

Proof. 

For n1, we define the following:

ϕ:=n12if0<H12n(H1)if12<H<1

and let K:=ϕni=1neθ(i·)1[0,i](·).

From Equation (5) and the definition of μ^, we have the following.

ϕ(μ^μ)=ϕni=1n0ieθ(is)dSsHϕni=1neθi=I1(K)ϕni=1neθi

Hence, ϕ(μ^μ) represents a Gaussian process.

Let β:=max{I1(K)L2(Ω),σ2,H2}. Then, by applying Lemma A6, for 0<H12, we obtain the following.

dW(I1(K),N(0,σ2,H2))2/πβE[I1(K)2]σ2,H2C2/πn2H1β

Now, it follows by lemma 9 in [2] that the following is the case.

dW(ϕ(μ^μ),N(0,σ2,H2))C2/πn2H1β+Cn1.

Similarly, for 12<H<1, we conclude the following.

dW(I1(K),N(0,σ2,H2))2/πβE[I1(K)2]θ20,n+

Finally, as n+, we have the following:

dW(ϕ(μ^μ),N(0,θ2))Cn1

which complete the proof.   □

5. Numerical Illustrations

Simulation of the sfBm sample paths [29] is essential for studying SDEs driven by these type of processes. In fact, generating the sample paths of sfBm allows us to investigate the approximation solution and parameter estimation for sfBm-driven SDE. Until now, there are a few studies devoted to simulate sfBm; some of these monographs, such as [30] have used the fact that sfBm can be given by means of fBm, namely the following.

StH=12(WtH+WtH);t0,

However, Brownian motion has been implemented by some scholars to generate the sample paths of sfBm. Different methods are used to construct sfBm with Bm; for instance, in [31], the following equation is applied:

StH=Γ(1+2H)sin(πH)π0tnH(t,s)dWs,

where the following is the case.

nH(t,s)=πs3/2H2HΓ(H+1/2)[(t2s2)H1/2t+st(x2s2)H1/2x2dx];0<s<t<.

The sample paths of sfBm can be approximated by Brownian motion [32]:

StH=KH1R[ts]+H1/2+[ts]+H1/22[s]+H1/2dWs, (14)

where KH=2R|[1s]+H1/2[s]+H1/2|2ds+12H represents the normalization constant.

It is worth mentioning that we have discovered that in comparison with other methods, the last formula is more obedient and implementable in the computation of sfBm.

In the following, we simulate sfBm through the procedures below:

  • 1.

    Set sample size to be NN and the time span is T;

  • 2.

    Choose two different values of parameter H;

  • 3.

    Select a mesh size mN and a cut–off index MN;

  • 4.
    Evaluate the normalization constant;
    KH=1m2j=1mM|[j/m]+H1/2[(j/m)1]+H1/2|2+12H.
  • 5.
    Using its increments, write the sequence SH(N) as follows;
    SH(N)=k=1NSH(k)SH(k1):=k=1NS˜H(k), (15)
  • 6.
    Compute the increments of S˜H by applying the Riemann sum.
    S˜H(k)=KH1j=1mM([j/m]+H1/2[(j/m)1]+H1/2)+([(j/m)2k]+H1/2[(j/m)2k+1]+H1/2)W(mkj),
    W(j):=W(j+1m)W(jm)=j+1mjm×N(0,1).

In what follows, for different values of H, we generate the sample paths of sfBm in Figure 1. Moreover, to compare the trajectories of sfBm and fBm, the paths of fBm have been simulated with two values of H={0.3,0.7}; see Figure 2.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The sample paths of sub-fractional Brownian motions.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Discretized fractional Brownian motion path.

Next, in Figure 3, we generate the sample paths of sub-fractional Vasicek process defined by Equations (8) and (9) for various values of H = 0.3, 0.7, θ = 0.009, 0.003, and μ = 0.004, 0.008.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

The sub-fractional Vasicek process simulation.

From Simulation 4.3, we see clearly that the characterization of the sample path of sub-fractional Vasicek process can be determined by the values of H. In other words, we obtain almost smooth sample paths of xt in the case of the small Hurst parameter: H = 0.3, especially when tT. On the other hand, large values of H (in this case, we choose H to be 0.7) make the sample path of xt fluctuate more wildly particularly when t tends to its final value T. However, by changing the parameters θ and μ, weobtainget different values of mean and standard deviation for xt such that in the case of θ = 0.009 and μ = 0.004; we obtain smaller mean and bigger standard deviation than the second case.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we present a new method for estimating unknown parameters in the Vasicek-type model observed throughout a period of discrete time. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the calculated parameters and the original parameters are similar enough using Malliavin calculus and Nordin–Peccati analysis. The proposed estimators have been demonstrated to be highly consistent and asymptotically normal. Meanwhile, numerical simulations of sub-fractional Brownian motion and sub-fractional Vasicek-type process have been provided for various values of the Hurst index H.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor and anonymous referees for useful comments that led to a great improvement in the paper.

Appendix A

Lemma A1.

Let {StH,t0} be an sfBm with H(0,1]. Let t0[0,) and λ>0. Then, we have for all t>t0 the following.

t0teλudSuH=eλtStHeλt0St0Hλt0teλuSuHdu.

Proof. 

We conclude the result by using the same argument as in the proof of proposition A.1 in [33].   □

Lemma A2.

Let H(0,1)\{1/2} and consider the stochastic process ξ defined in (6), then we have the following.

E[ξ02]=2Γ(2H+1)θ2H.

Proof. 

Suppose that we have two stochastic processes ξλ1, ξλ2 with positive integers λ1,λ2. Then, the expression (6) and Lemma A1 allow us to write the following:

E[ξ0λ1ξ0λ2]=E00eλ1ueλ2vdSuHdSvH=λ1λ200eλ1ueλ2vE[SuHSvH]dudv=λ1λ200eλ1ueλ2v[u2H+v2H12((v+u)2H+|vu|2H)]dudv=2Γ(2H+1)λ1+λ2[λ112H+λ212H].

which complete the proof.   □

Lemma A3.

Suppose that H(0,1)\{1/2} and consider the following constant a<bc<d<, then

EabeλudSuHcdeλvdSvH=H(2H1)×abeλucdeλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdu.

Proof. 

First, by using Lemma A1 and suppose that b=0=c; then we have the following.

Σ:=Ea0eλudSuH0deλvdSvH=EeλaSaHλa0eλuSuHdueλdSdHλ0deλvSvHdv=eλaeλdE[SdHSaH]+λeλa0deλvE[SaHSvH]dvλeλda0eλuE[SuHSdH]du+λ20deλva0eλuE[SuHSvH]dudv=eλaeλd((a)2H+d2H12[(d+a)2H+(da)2H])+λeλa0deλv((a)2H+v2H12[(v+a)2H+(va)2H]dvλeλda0eλu((u)2H+d2H12[(d+u)2H+(du)2H]du+λ20deλva0eλu((u)2H+v2H12[(v+u)2H+(vu)2H]dudv

By applying integration by parts with respect to u first and then with respect to v, we conclude the following.

Σ=2Heλda0eλu((u)2H112[(d+u)2H1+(du)2H1])du+2Hλ0deλva0eλu((u)2H112[(v+u)2H1+(vu)2H1])dudv=H(2H1)a0eλu0deλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdu

In what follows, we let 0<c,b=0, and using the above computation, one obtains the following.

Ea0eλudSuHcdeλvdSvH=Ea0eλudSuH0deλvdSvHa0eλudSuH0ceλvdSvH=H(2H1)[a0eλu0deλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdua0eλu0ceλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdu]=H(2H1)a0eλucdeλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdu.

Generally, in the case of a<bc<d<, we have StH˜:=St+bHSbH;tR represents a sub-fractional Brownian motion too. Therefore, the following is the case.

EabeλudSuHcdeλvdSvH=Eab0eλ(w+b)dS˜wHcbdbeλ(x+b)dS˜xH=H(2H1)abeλucdeλv[(v+u)2H2+(vu)2H2]dvdu.

This completes the proof.   □

Lemma A4.

Assume that H(0,1)\{1/2} and consider the constants λ1,λ2>0. Thus, for large |t|, we have the following:

E[ξ0λ1ξtλ2]2H(2H1)λ1λ2|t|2H2.

where we mean by ab that there are two constants c,C>0 such that cbaCb.

Proof. 

Thanks to Lemma A1, one can write the following:

E[ξ0λ1ξtλ2]=eλ2tE0eλ1udSuHteλ2vdSvH=eλ2tE0eλ1udSuHϵteλ2vdSvH+eλ2tE0eλ1udSuHϵtteλ2vdSvH=:L1+L2

where ϵ(0,1). It is obvious that |L1|=O(eλ2t).

On the other hand, using the calculus of Lemma A3, we obtain the following.

L2=H(2H1)eλ2t0eλ1uϵtteλ2v[(vu)2H2+(v+u)2H2]dvdu=H(2H1)eλ2t0eλ1uϵtteλ2v(vu)2H2dvdu+H(2H1)eλ2t0eλ1uϵtteλ2v(v+u)2H2dvdu=:L21+L22.

Now, by applying change of variables for the portion L21 and using the technique of partial integration, one obtains the following:

L21=H(2H1)λ1+λ2[teλ1(wt)w2H2dw+ϵtteλ2(tw)w2H2dw+eλ2t(1ϵ)ϵteλ1(wϵt)w2H2dw]=H(2H1)λ1+λ2(t2H2λ1+2H2λ1teλ1(wt)w2H3dw+t2H2λ2(ϵt)2H2λ2eλ2t(1ϵ)2H2λ2ϵtteλ2(tw)w2H3dw+eλ2t(1ϵ)ϵteλ1(wϵt)w2H2dw)=H(2H1)λ1λ2t2H2+o(t2H2)H(2H1)λ1λ2t2H2

where

  • teλ1(wt)w2H3dwt10eλ1ydy0 as t;

  • t22Hϵtteλ2(tw)w2H3dwϵ2H3t1ϵtteλ2(tw)dw=ϵ2H3t10t(1ϵ)eλ2ydy0 as t;

  • t22Heλ2t(1ϵ)0 as t.

By the same argument, we deduce that L22H(2H1)λ1λ2t2H2.

Therefore, the result is obtained.   □

Proposition A1.

Let the process ξ as in (6); under the assumptions of Theorem 2, n1, the following statements are true:

  • When 0<H<12
    |vσ1,H2|Cn1
  • When 12<H<34
    |vσ1,H2|Cn4H3.

    where σ1,H=2k=1nrξ2(k).

  • Finally, when H=34, we have the following:
    |vlog(n)σ1,342|Clog(n)1.

    where σ1,34=34θ2.

Proof. 

By definition of variable v, one obtains the following, as n.

v=2ni,k(E[ξiξk])2=4nk=1nrξ2(k)(nk)+2rξ2(0).

It follows by Lemma A4 that the following is the case:

|vσ1,H2|2nk=1n1k4H3+2k=nk4H4

and if H(0,12), one has the following.

|vσ1,H2|Cn1

On the other hand, when H(12,34), we obviously have the following.

|vσ1,H2|Cn4H3.

Moreover, if H=34, we have k=1nrξ2(k)964log(n) for large n.

|vlog(n)916θ4|Clog(n)1

Hence, the proof is completed.   □

Lemma A5.

Let parameter H(0,34] and the random process L be given by (9); then we have the following.

nE|L|n12if0<H<12n2H32if12<H<34

If H=34, then the following is the case.

nlog(n)E|L|log(n)1/2.

Proof. 

The result follows from definition ofthe process L in (9), Lemma A4, and the calculus of Lemma 5.3 in [34].   □

Lemma A6.

Under the assumptions and notions of Theorem 5, the following cases are fulfilling:

  • If H(0,12], then the following is the case;
    χ:=|E[I1(K)2]σ2,H2|Cn2H1
  • If H(12,1), then the following is the case:
    E[I1(K)2]θ2 (A1)

    such that I1(K):=ϕn(i=1nξii=1neθiξ0) and σ2,H2=2kN+rξ(k)+rξ(0).

Proof. 

In order to estimate χ, first, let us compute E[I1(K)2].

By the definition of ϕ (Theorem 5), we obtain the following.

E[I1(K)2]=1ni,j=1nE(ξieθiξ0)(ξjeθjξ0)=1ni,j=1nE[ξiξj]2ni,j=1neθiE[ξjξ0]+1ni=1neθi2E[ξ0]2=rξ(0)+2ni=1n1j=i+1nrξ(ji)2ni,j=1nrξ(j)eθi+rξ(0)ni=1neθi2

Thus, we have the following:

χ|2ni,j=1nrξ(ji)2kN+rξ(k)|+|2ni,j=1nrξ(j)eθi+rξ(0)ni=1neθi2||2nk=1n(nk)rξ(k)2kN+rξ(k)|+|2nj=1nrξ(j)i=1neθi+rξ(0)ni=1neθi2||2nk=1n1krξ(k)|+|2k=nrξ(k)|+|2nj=1nrξ(j)i=1neθi|+|4HΓ(2H)nθ2Hi=1neθi2|C1nk=1n1k2H1+k=nk2H2+n1+n1Cn2H1

where H<12 and krξ(k)<.

Thus, the first part of the lemma is shown.

Now, to prove the second claim of the lemma, we have I1(K):=1nHi=1n(ξieθiξ0), and similarly to the first case, we have the following.

E[I1(K)2]=1n2Hi,j=1nE(ξieθiξ0)(ξjeθjξ0)=1n2Hi,j=1nE[ξiξj]2n2Hi,j=1neθiE[ξjξ0]+1n2Hi=1neθi2E[ξ0]2=rξ(0)n2H1+2n2Hi=1n1j=i+1nrξ(ji)2n2Hi,j=1nrξ(j)eθi+rξ(0)n2Hi=1neθi2

Now, in order to show the convergence (A1), we will verify that each part on the right hand side of the last equation converges to 1θ2, as n tendsto .

2n2Hi=1n1j=i+1nrξ(ji)1θ2=2n2Hk=1n1(nk)rξ(k)1θ2=2n2H1k=1n1rξ(k)2Hθ22n2Hk=1n1krξ(k)2H1θ2

According to Proposition A1, we have rξ(k)k2H2 for large k; then as H>12 and n+, we have k=1nk2H2n2H12H1, which provides the following.

limn2n2H1k=1n1rξ(k)2Hθ20.

On the other hand, as n+, we have krξ(k)k2H1, but k=1nk2H1n2H2H, as n+. Therefore, we conclude the following

limn2n2Hk=1n1krξ(k)2H1θ20.

Similarly, we obtain, as n+, the following.

2n2Hj=1nrξ(j)i=1neθiCn10

Finally, we have the following:

4HΓ(2H)θ2Hn2Hi,j=1neθ(i+j)Cn2H0

as n+.

This completes the proof of the second part. Hence, the Lemma is proved.   □

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, M.A. and A.D.K.; methodology, M.A., A.D.K. and R.A.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.K. and M.A.; software, T.S. and R.A.-S.; writing—review and editing, R.A.-S. and W.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Deanship of Scientific Research (DR) at King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has funded this project, under grant no. (RG-7-130-43).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No data were used to support this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.El Machkouri M., Es-Sebaiy K., Ouknine Y. Least squares estimator for non–ergodic Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes driven by Gaussian processes. J. Korean Stat. Soc. 2016;45:329–341. doi: 10.1016/j.jkss.2015.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Es-Sebaiy K., Viens F. Optimal rates for parameter estimation of stationary Gaussian processes. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 2019;129:3018–3054. doi: 10.1016/j.spa.2018.08.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vasicek O. An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1977;5:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(77)90016-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hao R., Liu Y., Wang S. Pricing credit default swap under fractional Vasicek interest rate model. J. Math. Financ. 2014;4:10–20. doi: 10.4236/jmf.2014.41002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xiao W., Zhang W., Zhang X., Chen X. The valuation of equity warrants under the fractional Vasicek process of the short–term interest rate. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2014;394:320–337. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2013.09.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mehrdoust F., Najafi A.R. A short memory version of the Vasicek model and evaluating European options on zero–coupon bonds. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2020;375:112796. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2020.112796. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhang H., Li X., Harlim J. A parameter estimation method using linear response statistics: Numerical scheme. Chaos. 2019;29:033101. doi: 10.1063/1.5081744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bu H., Xue X. Statistical inference for unknown parameters of stochastic SIS epidemics on complete graphs. Chaos. 2020;30:113110. doi: 10.1063/5.0022421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mendy I. Parametric estimation for sub–fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. J. Stat. Plan. Inference. 2013;143:663–674. doi: 10.1016/j.jspi.2012.10.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dehling H., Franke B., Woerner J.H.C. Estimating drift parameters in a fractional Ornstein Uhlenbeck process with periodic mean. Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. 2017;20:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11203-016-9136-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nourdin I., Tran T.D. Statistical inference for Vasicek–type model driven by Hermite processes. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 2019;129:3774–3791. doi: 10.1016/j.spa.2018.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Xiao W., Yu J. Asymptotic theory for estimating drift parameters in the fractional Vasicek model. Econom. Theory. 2019;35:198–231. doi: 10.1017/S0266466618000051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Es-Sebaiy K., Es.Sebaiy M. Estimating drift parameters in a non–ergodic Gaussian Vasicek–type model. Stat. Methods Appl. 2021;30:409–436. doi: 10.1007/s10260-020-00528-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Alazemi F., Alsenafi A., Es-Sebaiy K. Parameter estimation for Gaussian mean-reverting Ornstein?Uhlenbeck processes of the second kind: Non-ergodic case. Stoch. Dyn. 2020;19:2050011. doi: 10.1142/S0219493720500112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bojdecki T.L.G., Gorostiza L.G., Talarczyk A. Sub–fractional Brownian motion and its relation to occupation times. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2004;69:405–419. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2004.06.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tudor C. Some properties of the sub–fractional Brownian motion. Stochastics. 2007;79:431–448. doi: 10.1080/17442500601100331. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Abouagwa M., Li J. Stochastic fractional differential equations driven by Lévy noise under Carathéodory condtions. J. Math. Phys. 2019;60:022701. doi: 10.1063/1.5063514. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khalaf A.D., Abouagwa M., Wang X. Periodic averaging method for impulsive stochastic dynamical systems driven by fractional Brownian motion under non-Lipscitiz condition. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2019;2019:526. doi: 10.1186/s13662-019-2466-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abouagwa M., Li J. G-neutral stochastic differential equations with variable delay and non-Lipschitz coefficients. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst.-B. 2020;25:1583–1606. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019241. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abouagwa M., Cheng F., Li J. Impulsive stochastic fractional differential equations driven by fractional Brownian motion. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020;2020:57. doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-2533-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khalaf A.D., Zeb A., Saeed T., Abouagwa M., Djilali S., Alshehri H. A special study of the mixed weighted fractional Brownian motion. Fractal Fract. 2021;5:192. doi: 10.3390/fractalfract5040192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Abouagwa M., Bantan R.A.R., Almutiry W., Khalaf A.D., Elgarhy M. Mixed Caputo fractional neutral stochastic differential equations with impulses and variable delay. Fractal Fract. 2021;5:239. doi: 10.3390/fractalfract5040239. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Abouagwa M., Aljoufi L.S., Bantan R.A.R., Khalaf A.D., Elgarhy M. Mixed neutral Caputo fractional stochastic evolution equations with infinite delay: Existence, uniqueness and averaging principle. Fractal Fract. 2022;6:105. doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6020105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nourdin I., Peccati G. Normal Approximations with Malliavin Calculus: From Steins Method to Universality. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2012. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics 192. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nualart D., Peccati G. Central limit theorems for sequences of multiple stochastic integrals. Ann. Probab. 2005;33:177–193. doi: 10.1214/009117904000000621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Douissi S., Es-Sebaiy K., Viens F. Berry–Esseen bounds for parameter estimation of general Gaussian processes. ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 2019;16:633–664. doi: 10.30757/ALEA.v16-23. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tyurin I.S. New estimates of the convergence rate in the Lyapunov theorem. arXiv. 20090912.0726 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Esseen C.G. A moment inequality with an application to the central limit theorem. Scand. Actuar. J. 1956;39:160–170. doi: 10.1080/03461238.1956.10414946. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Khalaf A.D. GitHub; 2021. [(accessed on 21 January 2021)]. Sub-Fractional Brownian Motion. Code. Available online: https://github.com/anasdhyiab/Sub-fractional-Brownian-motion. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cai C., Liu W., Xiao W. Parameter estimation for mixed sub–fractional Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process. arXiv. 20181809.02038 [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kuang N., Xie H. Asymptotic behavior of weighted cubic variation of sub–fractional brownian motion. Commun. Stat.-Simul. Comput. 2017;46:215–229. doi: 10.1080/03610918.2014.957849. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Morozewicz A., Filatova D. On the simulation of sub-fractional Brownian motion; Proceedings of the 2015 20th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR); Miedzyzdroje, Poland. 24–27 August 2015; pp. 400–405. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cheridito P., Kawaguchi H., Maejima M. Fractional Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes. Electron. J. Probab. 2003;8:1–14. doi: 10.1214/EJP.v8-125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Alazemi F., Douissi S., Es-Sebaiy K. Berry–Esseen bounds for drift parameter estimation of discretely observed fractional Vasicek–type process. Theory Stoch. Process. 2019;24:6–18. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data were used to support this work.


Articles from Entropy are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES