θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 1.838178 | 2.039271 | 3.019508 | 7.027331 | 10.01776 |
Median | 1.744118 | 1.906163 | 3.07125 | 7.02379 | 10.02108 |
Std. dev. | 1.211776 | 1.007366 | 0.821718 | 0.1717033 | 0.0257764 |
Let Ba,b:={Ba,bt,t≥0} be a weighted fractional Brownian motion of parameters a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1. We consider a least square-type method to estimate the drift parameter θ>0 of the weighted fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process X:={Xt,t≥0} defined by X0=0; dXt=θXtdt+dBa,bt. In this work, we provide least squares-type estimators for θ based continuous-time and discrete-time observations of X. The strong consistency and the asymptotic behavior in distribution of the estimators are studied for all (a,b) such that a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1. Here we extend the results of [
Citation: Abdulaziz Alsenafi, Mishari Al-Foraih, Khalifa Es-Sebaiy. Least squares estimation for non-ergodic weighted fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process of general parameters[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12780-12794. doi: 10.3934/math.2021738
[1] | Chunhao Cai, Min Zhang . A note on inference for the mixed fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with drift. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6439-6453. doi: 10.3934/math.2021378 |
[2] | Huantian Xie, Nenghui Kuang . Least squares type estimations for discretely observed nonergodic Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes of the second kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 1095-1114. doi: 10.3934/math.2022065 |
[3] | Yajun Song, Ruyue Hu, Yifan Wu, Xiaohui Ai . Analysis of a stochastic two-species Schoener's competitive model with Lévy jumps and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12239-12258. doi: 10.3934/math.2024598 |
[4] | Rou Lin, Min Zhao, Jinlu Zhang . Random uniform exponential attractors for non-autonomous stochastic Schrödinger lattice systems in weighted space. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 2871-2890. doi: 10.3934/math.2023150 |
[5] | Jingwen Cui, Hao Liu, Xiaohui Ai . Analysis of a stochastic fear effect predator-prey system with Crowley-Martin functional response and the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 34981-35003. doi: 10.3934/math.20241665 |
[6] | Chunting Ji, Hui Liu, Jie Xin . Random attractors of the stochastic extended Brusselator system with a multiplicative noise. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3584-3611. doi: 10.3934/math.2020233 |
[7] | Ruyue Hu, Chi Han, Yifan Wu, Xiaohui Ai . Analysis of a stochastic Leslie-Gower three-species food chain system with Holling-II functional response and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 18910-18928. doi: 10.3934/math.2024920 |
[8] | Nelson T. Jamba, Gonçalo Jacinto, Patrícia A. Filipe, Carlos A. Braumann . Estimation for stochastic differential equation mixed models using approximation methods. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 7866-7894. doi: 10.3934/math.2024383 |
[9] | SidAhmed Benchiha, Amer Ibrahim Al-Omari, Naif Alotaibi, Mansour Shrahili . Weighted generalized Quasi Lindley distribution: Different methods of estimation, applications for Covid-19 and engineering data. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 11850-11878. doi: 10.3934/math.2021688 |
[10] | Shaoling Zhou, Huixin Chai, Xiaosheng Wang . Barrier option pricing with floating interest rate based on uncertain exponential Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25809-25833. doi: 10.3934/math.20241261 |
Let Ba,b:={Ba,bt,t≥0} be a weighted fractional Brownian motion of parameters a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1. We consider a least square-type method to estimate the drift parameter θ>0 of the weighted fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process X:={Xt,t≥0} defined by X0=0; dXt=θXtdt+dBa,bt. In this work, we provide least squares-type estimators for θ based continuous-time and discrete-time observations of X. The strong consistency and the asymptotic behavior in distribution of the estimators are studied for all (a,b) such that a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1. Here we extend the results of [
Parameter estimation for non-ergodic type diffusion processes has been developed in several papers. For motivation and further references, we refer the reader to Basawa and Scott [4], Dietz and Kutoyants [5], Jacod [6] and Shimizu [7]. However, the statistical analysis for equations driven by fractional Brownian motion (fBm) is obviously more recent. The development of stochastic calculus with respect to the fBm allowed to study such models. In recent years, several researchers have been interested in studying statistical estimation problems for Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. Estimation of the drift parameters in fractional-noise-driven Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes is a problem that is both well-motivated by practical needs and theoretically challenging.
In this paper, we consider the weighted fractional Brownian motion (wfBm) Ba,b:={Ba,bt,t≥0} with parameters (a,b) such that a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1, defined as a centered Gaussian process starting from zero with covariance
Ra,b(t,s)=E(Ba,btBa,bs)=∫s∧t0ua[(t−u)b+(s−u)b]du,s,t≥0. | (1.1) |
For a=0, −1<b<1, the wfBm is a fBm. The process Ba,b was introduced by [8] as an extension of fBm. Moreover, it shares several properties with fBm, such as self-similarity, path continuity, behavior of increments, long-range dependence, non-semimartingale, and others. But, unlike fBm, the wfBm does not have stationary increments for a≠0. For more details about the subject, we refer the reader to [8].
In this work we consider the non-ergodic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process X:={Xt,t≥0} driven by a wfBm Ba,b, that is the unique solution of the following linear stochastic differential equation
X0=0;dXt=θXtdt+dBa,bt, | (1.2) |
where θ>0 is an unknown parameter.
An example of interesting problem related to (1.2) is the statistical estimation of θ when one observes X. In recent years, several researchers have been interested in studying statistical estimation problems for Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. Let us mention some works in this direction in this case of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process driven by a fractional Brownian motion B0,b, that is, the solution of (1.2), where a=0. Using the maximum likelihood approach (see [9]), the techniques used to construct maximum likelihood estimators for the drift parameter are based on Girsanov transforms for fractional Brownian motion and depend on the properties of the deterministic fractional operators (determined by the Hurst parameter) related to the fBm. In general, the MLE is not easily computable. On the other hand, using leat squares method, in the ergodic case corresponding to θ<0, the statistical estimation for the parameter θ has been studied by several papers, for instance [10,11,12,13,14] and the references therein. Further, in the non-ergodic case corresponding to θ>0, the estimation of θ has been considered by using least squares method, for example in [15,16,17,18] and the references therein.
Here our aim is to estimate the the drift parameter θ based on continuous-time and discrete-time observations of X, by using least squares-type estimators (LSEs) for θ.
First we will consider the following LSE
˜θt=X2t2∫t0X2sds,t≥0, | (1.3) |
as statistic to estimate θ based on the continuous-time observations {Xs, s∈[0,t]} of (1.2), as t→∞. We will prove the strong consistency and the asymptotic behavior in distribution of the estimator ˜θt for all parameters a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. Our results extend those proved in [1,2], where −12<a<0, −a<b<a+1 only.
Further, from a practical point of view, in parametric inference, it is more realistic and interesting to consider asymptotic estimation for (1.2) based on discrete observations. So, we will assume that the process X given in (1.2) is observed equidistantly in time with the step size Δn: ti=iΔn,i=0,…,n, and Tn=nΔn denotes the length of the "observation window". Then we will consider the following estimators
ˆθn=n∑i=1Xti−1(Xti−Xti−1)Δnn∑i=1X2ti−1 | (1.4) |
and
ˇθn=X2Tn2Δnn∑i=1X2ti−1 | (1.5) |
as statistics to estimate θ based on the sampling data Xti,i=0,…,n, as Δn⟶0 and n⟶∞. We will study the asymptotic behavior and the rate consistency of the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn for all parameters a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. In this case, our results extend those proved in [3], where −1<a<0, −a<b<a+1 only.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present auxiliary results that are used in the calculations of the paper. In Section 3, we prove the consistency and the asymptotic distribution of the estimator ˜θt given in (1.3), based on the continuous-time observations of X. In Section 3, we study the asymptotic behavior and the rate consistency of the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn defined in (1.4) and (1.5), respectively, based on the discrete-time observations of X. Our theoretical study is completed with simulations. We end the paper with a short review on some results from [15,17] needed for the proofs of our results.
This section is devoted to prove some technical ingredients, which will be needed throughout this paper.
In the following lemma we provide a useful decomposition of the covariance function Ra,b(t,s) of Ba,b.
Lemma 2.1. Suppose that a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. Then we can rewrite the covariance Ra,b(t,s) of Ba,b, given in (2.1) as
Ra,b(t,s)=β(a+1,b+1)[ta+b+1+sa+b+1]−m(t,s), | (2.1) |
where β(c,d)=∫10xc−1(1−x)d−1 denotes the usual beta function, and the function m(t,s) is defined by
m(t,s):=∫s∨ts∧tua(t∨s−u)bdu. | (2.2) |
Proof. We have for every s,t≥0,
Ra,b(t,s) | (2.3) |
=E(Ba,btBa,bs)=∫s∧t0ua[(t−u)b+(s−u)b]du=∫s∧t0ua[(t∨s−u)b+(t∧s−u)b]du=∫s∧t0ua(t∨s−u)bdu+∫s∧t0ua(t∧s−u)bdu=∫s∨t0ua(t∨s−u)bdu−∫s∨ts∧tua(t∨s−u)bdu+∫s∧t0ua(t∧s−u)bdu. | (2.4) |
Further, making change of variables x=u/t, we have for every t≥0,
∫t0ua(t−u)bdu=tb∫t0ua(1−ut)bdu=ta+b+1∫10xa(1−x)bdu=ta+b+1β(a+1,b+1). | (2.5) |
Therefore, combining (2.4) and (2.5), we deduce that
Ra,b(t,s)=β(a+1,b+1)[(t∨s)a+b+1+(t∧s)a+b+1]−∫s∨ts∧tua(t∨s−u)bdu=β(a+1,b+1)[ta+b+1+sa+b+1]−∫s∨ts∧tua(t∨s−u)bdu, | (2.6) |
which proves (2.1).
We will also need the following technical lemma.
Lemma 2.2. We have as t⟶∞,
It:=t−ae−θt∫t0eθsm(t,s)ds⟶Γ(b+1)θb+2, | (2.7) |
Jt:=t−ae−2θt∫t0∫t0eθseθrm(s,r)drds⟶Γ(b+1)θb+3, | (2.8) |
where Γ(.) is the standard gamma function, whereas the function m(t,s) is defined in (2.2).
Proof. We first prove (2.7). We have,
t−ae−θt∫t0eθsm(t,s)ds=t−ae−θt∫t0eθs∫tsua(t−u)bduds=t−ae−θt∫t0duua(t−u)b∫u0dseθs=t−ae−θt∫t0duua(t−u)b(eθu−1)θ=t−ae−θtθ∫t0ua(t−u)beθudu−t−ae−θtθ∫t0ua(t−u)bdu. |
On the other hand, by the change of variables x=t−u, we get
t−ae−θtθ∫t0ua(t−u)beθudu=t−aθ∫t0(t−x)axbe−θxdx=1θ∫t0(1−xt)axbe−θxdx⟶1θ∫∞0xbe−θxdx=Γ(b+1)θb+2 |
as t⟶∞. Moreover, by the change of variables x=u/t,
t−ae−θtθ∫t0ua(t−u)bdu=e−θtθtb∫t0(u/t)a(1−ut)bdx=e−θtθtb+1∫t0xa(1−x)bdx=e−θtθtb+1β(a+1,b+1)⟶0 |
as t⟶∞. Thus the proof of the convergence (2.7) is done.
For (2.8), using L'Hôpital's rule, we obtain
limt→∞t−ae−2θt∫t0∫t0eθseθrm(s,r)drds=limt→∞2∫t0∫s0eθseθrm(s,r)drdstae2θt=limt→∞2∫t0eθteθrm(t,r)drtae2θt(2θ+at)=limt→∞2(2θ+at)t−ae−θt∫t0eθrm(t,r)dr=Γ(b+1)θb+3, |
where the latter equality comes from (2.7). Therefore the convergence (2.8) is proved.
In this section we will establish the consistency and the asymptotic distribution of the least square-type estimator ˜θt given in (1.3), based on the continuous-time observation {Xs, s∈[0,t]} given by (1.2), as t→∞.
Recall that if X∼N(m1,σ1) and Y∼N(m2,σ2) are two independent random variables, then X/Y follows a Cauchy-type distribution. For a motivation and further references, we refer the reader to [19], as well as [20]. Notice also that if N∼N(0,1) is independent of Ba,b, then N is independent of Z∞, since Z∞:=∫∞0e−θsBa,bsds is a functional of Ba,b.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1, and let ~θt be the estimator given in (1.3). Then, as t⟶∞,
˜θt⟶θalmostsurely. |
Moreover, as t→∞,
t−a/2eθt(˜θt−θ)law⟶2σBa,b√E(Z2∞)C(1), |
where σBa,b=Γ(b+1)θb+1, Z∞:=∫∞0e−θsBa,bsds, whereas C(1) is the standard Cauchy distribution with the probability density function 1π(1+x2); x∈R.
Proof. In order to prove this Theorem 3.1, using Theorem 6.1, it suffices to check that the assumptions (H1), (H2), (H3), (H4) hold.
Using (2.1) and the change of variables x=(t−u)/(t−s), we get, for every 0<s≤t,
E(Ba,bt−Ba,bs)2=2∫tsua(t−u)bdu=2(t−s)b+1∫10[t(1−x)+sx]axbdx=2ta(t−s)b+1∫10[(1−x)+stx]axbdx=:Ia,b. |
Further, using the fact that x→(1−x)+(s/t)x is continuous and doesn't vanish on [0,1], there exists constant Ca depending only on a such that
Ia,b≤2Cata(t−s)b+1∫10xbdx=2Cata(t−s)b+11b+1. |
This implies
E(Ba,bt−Ba,bs)2≤2Cab+1ta(t−s)b+1. |
Furthermore, if −1<a<0, we have ta(t−s)b+1≤(t−s)a+b+1=|t−s|(a+b+1)∧(b+1), and if a≥0, we have ta(t−s)b+1≤Ta(t−s)b+1=Ta|t−s|(a+b+1)∧(b+1).
Consequently, for any fixed T, there exists a constant Ca,b(T) depending only on a,b,T such that, for every 0<s≤t≤T,
E(Ba,bt−Ba,bs)2≤Ca,b(T)|t−s|(a+b+1)∧(b+1), |
Therefore, using the fact that Ba,b is Gaussian, and Kolmogorov's continuity criterion, we deduce that Ba,b has a version with ((a+b+1)∧(b+1)−ε)-Hölder continuous paths for every ε∈(0,(a+b+1)∧(b+1)). Thus (H1) holds for any δ in (0,(a+b+1)∧(b+1)).
On the other hand, according to (2.1) we have for every t≥0,
E(Ba,bt)2=2β(1+a,1+b)ta+b+1, |
which proves that (H2) holds for γ=(a+b+1)/2.
Now it remains to check that the assumptions (H3) and (H4) hold for ν=−a/2 and σBa,b=Γ(b+1)θb+1. Let us first compute the limiting variance of t−a/2e−θt∫t0eθsdBa,bs as t→∞. By (2.1) we obtain
E[(t−a/2e−θt∫t0eθsdBa,bs)2]=E[(t−a/2e−θt(eθtBa,bt−θ∫t0eθsBa,bsds))2]=t−a(Ra,b(t,t)−2θe−θt∫t0eθsRa,b(t,s)ds+θ2e−2θt∫t0∫t0eθseθrRa,b(s,r)dsdr)=t−aΔgBa,b(t)+2θIt−θ2Jt, | (3.1) |
where It, Jt and ΔgBa,b(t) are defined in (2.7), (2.8) and Lemma 6.1, respectively, whereas gBa,b(s,r)=β(a+1,b+1)(sa+b+1+ra+b+1).
On the other hand, since ∂gBa,b∂s(s,0)=β(a+1,b+1)(a+b+1)sa+b, and ∂2gBa,b∂s∂r(s,r)=0, it follows from (6.2) that
t−aΔgBa,b(t)=2β(a+1,b+1)(a+b+1)t−ae−2θt∫t0sa+beθsds≤2β(a+1,b+1)e−θtta+b+1⟶0ast→∞. | (3.2) |
Combining (3.1), (3.2), (2.7) and (2.8), we get
E[(t−a/2e−θt∫t0eθsdBa,bs)2]⟶Γ(b+1)θb+1ast→∞, |
which implies that (H3) holds.
Hence, to finish the proof it remains to check that (H4) holds, that is, for all fixed s≥0
limt→∞E(Ba,bst−a/2e−θt∫t0eθrdBa,br)=0. |
Let us consider s<t. According to (6.4), we can write
E(Ba,bst−a/2e−θt∫t0eθrdBa,br)=t−a/2(Ra,b(s,t)−θe−θt∫t0eθrRa,b(s,r)dr)=t−a/2(Ra,b(s,t)−θe−θt∫tseθrRa,b(s,r)dr−θe−θt∫s0eθrRa,b(s,r)dr)=t−a/2(e−θ(t−s)Ra,b(s,s)+e−θt∫tseθr∂Ra,b∂r(s,r)dr−θe−θt∫s0eθrRa,b(s,r)dr). |
It is clear that t−a/2(e−θ(t−s)Ra,b(s,s)−θe−θt∫s0eθrRa,b(s,r)dr)⟶0 as t→∞. Let us now prove that
t−a/2e−θt∫tseθr∂Ra,b∂r(s,r)dr⟶0 |
as t→∞. Using (1.1) we have for s<r
∂Ra,b∂r(s,r)=b∫s0ua(r−u)b−1du |
Applying L'Hôspital's rule we obtain
limt→∞t−a/2e−θt∫tseθr∂Ra,b∂r(s,r)dr=limt→∞bt−a/2θ+a2t∫s0ua(t−u)b−1du=limt→∞btb−1−a2θ+a2t∫s0ua(1−u/t)b−1du⟶0ast→∞, |
due to b−1−a2<0. In fact, if −1<a<0, we use b<a+1, then b<a+1<a2+1. Otherwise, if a>0, we use b<1, then b−1−a2<b−1−<0. Therefore the proof of Theorem 3.1 is complete.
In this section, our purpose is to study the asymptotic behavior and the rate consistency of the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn based on the sampling data Xti,i=0,…,n of (1.2), where ti=iΔn,i=0,…,n, and Tn=nΔn denotes the length of the "observation window".
Definition 4.1. Let {Zn} be a sequence of random variables defined on a probability space (Ω,F,P). We say {Zn} is tight (or bounded in probability), if for every ε>0, there exists Mε>0 such that,
P(|Zn|>Mε)<ε,foralln. |
Theorem 4.1. Assume that a>−1, |b|<1, |b|<a+1. Let ˆθn and ˇθn be the estimators given in (1.4) and (1.5), respectively. Suppose that Δn→0 and nΔ1+αn→∞ for some α>0. Then, as n→∞,
ˆθn⟶θ,ˇθn⟶θalmostsurely, |
and for any q≥0,
ΔqneθTn(ˆθn−θ)andΔqneθTn(ˇθn−θ)arenottight. |
In addition, if we assume that nΔ3n→0 as n→∞, the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn are √Tn−consistent in the sense that the sequences
√Tn(ˆθn−θ)and√Tn(ˇθn−θ)aretight. |
Proof. In order to prove this Theorem 4.1, using Theorem 6.2, it suffices to check that the assumptions (H1), (H2), (H5) hold.
From the proof of Theorem 3.1, the assumptions (H1), (H2) hold. Now it remains to check that (H5) holds. In this case, the process ζ is defined as
ζt:=∫t0e−θsdBa,bs,t≥0, |
whereas the integral is interpreted in the Young sense (see Appendix).
Using the formula (6.4) and (6.3), we can write
E[(ζti−ζti−1)2]=E[(∫titi−1e−θsdBa,bs)2]=E[(e−θtiBa,bti−e−θti−1Ba,bti−1+θ∫titi−1e−θsBa,bsds)2]=λgBa,b(ti,ti−1)−λm(ti,ti−1)=∫titi−1∫titi−1e−θ(r+u)∂2gBa,b∂r∂u(r,u)drdu−λm(ti,ti−1)=−λm(ti,ti−1), |
where λ.(ti,ti−1) is defined in Lemma 6.2, gBa,b(s,r)=β(a+1,b+1)(sa+b+1+ra+b+1) and ∂2gBa,b∂s∂r(s,r)=0, whereas the term λm(ti,ti−1) is equal to
λm(ti,ti−1)=−2m(ti,ti−1)e−2θ(ti−1+ti)+2θe−θti∫titi−1m(r,ti)e−θrdr−2θe−θti−1∫titi−1m(r,ti−1)e−θrdr+θ2∫titi−1∫titi−1m(r,u)e−θ(r+u)drdu. |
Combining this with the fact for every ti−1≤u≤r≤ti, i≥2,
|m(r,u)|=|∫ruxa(r−x)bdx|≤{|ra∫ru(r−x)bdx|if−1<a<0|ua∫ru(r−x)bdx|ifa>0≤{Δa+b+1nb+1if−1<a≤0(nΔn)aΔb+1nb+1ifa>0 |
together with Δn⟶0, we deduce that there is a positive constant C such that
E[(ζti−ζti−1)2]≤C{Δa+b+1nb+1if−1<a≤0(nΔn)aΔb+1nb+1ifa>0, |
which proves that the assumption (H5) holds. Therefore the desired result is obtained.
For sample size n=2500, we simulate 100 sample paths of the process X, given by (1.2), using software R. The Tables 1–8 below report the mean average values, the median values and the standard deviation values of the proposed estimators ˆθn and ˇθn defined, respectively, by (1.4) and (1.5) of the true value of the parameter θ. The results of the tables below show that the drift estimators ˆθn and ˇθn perform well for different arbitrary values of a and b and they are strongly consistent, namely their values are close to the true values of the drift parameter θ.
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 1.838178 | 2.039271 | 3.019508 | 7.027331 | 10.01776 |
Median | 1.744118 | 1.906163 | 3.07125 | 7.02379 | 10.02108 |
Std. dev. | 1.211776 | 1.007366 | 0.821718 | 0.1717033 | 0.0257764 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 1.259471 | 1.481005 | 2.39942 | 7.01006 | 10.02068 |
Median | 1.170947 | 1.437582 | 2.552394 | 7.014911 | 10.01972 |
Std. dev. | 0.9584086 | 0.8501618 | 1.004956 | 0.08241352 | 0.01018074 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 1.829429 | 2.03153 | 3.014143 | 7.01739 | 9.997761 |
Median | 1.74294 | 1.896568 | 3.069177 | 7.013946 | 10.00107 |
Std. dev. | 1.200806 | 1.008749 | 0.8246725 | 0.1711237 | 0.02569278 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 1.098053 | 1.388654 | 2.326678 | 6.998938 | 10.00066 |
Median | 1.144919 | 1.402191 | 2.53695 | 7.005075 | 9.999712 |
Std. dev. | 0.9961072 | 0.8888663 | 1.077326 | 0.08785867 | 0.01012159 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 6.284526 | 5.944562 | 7.676024 | 7.855939 | 9.586733 |
Median | 5.620266 | 5.235174 | 6.698286 | 8.074982 | 9.919933 |
Std. dev. | 4.851366 | 4.358735 | 6.545987 | 4.19334 | 2.664122 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 4.363369 | 3.81052 | 4.457953 | 6.959573 | 9.817441 |
Median | 3.456968 | 3.650188 | 4.350376 | 7.172276 | 10.02188 |
Std. dev. | 3.492142 | 2.865577 | 2.699623 | 1.759205 | 1.191188 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 5.882283 | 5.609962 | 7.379757 | 7.729786 | 9.526597 |
Median | 5.337299 | 5.041629 | 6.502311 | 8.05469 | 9.900039 |
Std. dev. | 4.882747 | 4.38566 | 6.319027 | 4.253017 | 2.698502 |
θ=0.5 | θ=0.9 | θ=2.5 | θ=7 | θ=10 | |
Mean | 4.328267 | 3.782118 | 4.440072 | 6.946132 | 9.797283 |
Median | 3.451499 | 3.590002 | 4.344927 | 7.161959 | 10.00186 |
Std. dev. | 3.46757 | 2.86794 | 2.688184 | 1.758228 | 1.190694 |
To conclude, in this paper we provide least squares-type estimators for the drift parameter θ of the weighted fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process X, given by (1.2), based continuous-time and discrete-time observations of X. The novelty of our approach is that it allows, comparing with the literature on statistical inference for X discussed in [1,2,3], to consider the general case a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. More precisely,
● We estimate the drift parameter θ of (1.2) based on the continuous-time observations {Xs, s∈[0,t]}, as t→∞. We prove the strong consistency and the asymptotic behavior in distribution of the estimator ˜θt for all parameters a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. Our results extend those proved in [1,2], where −12<a<0, −a<b<a+1 only.
● Suppose that the process X given in (1.2) is observed equidistantly in time with the step size Δn: ti=iΔn,i=0,…,n. We estimate the drift parameter θ of (1.2) on the sampling data Xti,i=0,…,n, as Δn⟶0 and n⟶∞. We study the asymptotic behavior and the rate consistency of the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn for all parameters a>−1, |b|<1 and |b|<a+1. In this case, our results extend those proved in [3], where −1<a<0, −a<b<a+1 only.
The proofs of the asymptotic behavior of the estimators are based on a new decomposition of the covariance function Ra,b(t,s) of the wfBm Ba,b (see Lemma 2.1), and slight extensions of results [15] and [17] (see Theorem 6.1 and Theorem 6.2 in Appendix).
Here we present some ingredients needed in the paper.
Let G=(Gt,t≥0) be a continuous centered Gaussian process defined on some probability space (Ω,F,P) (Here, and throughout the text, we assume that F is the sigma-field generated by G). In this section we consider the non-ergodic case of Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes X={Xt,t≥0} given by the following linear stochastic differential equation
X0=0;dXt=θXtdt+dGt,t≥0, | (6.1) |
where θ>0 is an unknown parameter. It is clear that the linear equation (6.1) has the following explicit solution
Xt=eθtζt,t≥0, |
where
ζt:=∫t0e−θsdGs,t≥0, |
whereas this latter integral is interpreted in the Young sense.
Let us introduce the following required assumptions.
(H1) The process G has Hölder continuous paths of some order δ∈(0,1].
(H2) For every t≥0, E(G2t)≤ct2γ for some positive constants c and γ.
(H3) There is constant ν in R such that the limiting variance of tνe−θt∫t0eθsdGs exists as t→∞, that is, there exists a constant σG>0 such that
limt→∞E[(tνe−θt∫t0eθsdGs)2]=σ2G. |
(H4) For ν given in (H3), we have all fixed s≥0
limt→∞E(Gstνe−θt∫t0eθrdGr)=0. |
(H5)There exist positive constants ρ,C and a real constant μ such that
E[(ζti−ζti−1)2]≤C(nΔn)μΔρne−2θti foreveryi=1,…,n,n≥1. |
The following theorem is a slight extension of the main result in [15], and it can be established following the same arguments as in [15].
Theorem 6.1. Assume that (H1) and (H2) hold and let ~θt be the estimator of the form (1.3). Then, as t⟶∞,
˜θt⟶θalmostsurely. |
Moreover, if (H1)–(H4) hold, then, as t→∞,
tνeθt(˜θt−θ)law⟶2σG√E(Z2∞)C(1), |
where Z∞:=∫∞0e−θsGsds, whereas C(1) is the standard Cauchy distribution with the probability density function 1π(1+x2); x∈R.
The following theorem is also a slight extension of the main result in [17], and it can be proved following line by line the proofs given in [17].
Theorem 6.2. Assume that (H1), (H2) and (H5) hold. Let ˆθn and ˇθn be the estimators of the forms (1.4) and (1.5), respectively. Suppose that Δn→0 and nΔ1+αn→∞ for some α>0. Then, as n→∞,
ˆθn⟶θ,ˇθn⟶θalmostsurely, |
and for any q≥0,
ΔqneθTn(ˆθn−θ)andΔqneθTn(ˇθn−θ)arenottight. |
In addition, if we assume that nΔ3n→0 as n→∞, the estimators ˆθn and ˇθn are √Tn−consistent in the sense that the sequences
√Tn(ˆθn−θ)and√Tn(ˇθn−θ)aretight. |
Lemma 6.1 ([15]). Let g:[0,∞)×[0,∞)⟶R be a symmetric function such that ∂g∂s(s,r) and ∂2g∂s∂r(s,r) integrable on (0,∞)×[0,∞). Then, for every t≥0,
Δg(t):=g(t,t)−2θe−θt∫t0g(s,t)eθsds+θ2e−2θt∫t0∫t0g(s,r)eθ(s+r)drds=2e−2θt∫t0eθs∂g∂s(s,0)ds+2e−2θt∫t0dseθs∫s0dr∂2g∂s∂r(s,r)eθr. | (6.2) |
Lemma 6.2 ([17]). Let g:[0,∞)×[0,∞)⟶R be a symmetric function such that ∂g∂s(s,r) and ∂2g∂s∂r(s,r) integrable on (0,∞)×[0,∞). Then, for every t≥s≥0,
λg(t,s):=g(t,t)e−2θt+g(s,s)e−2θs−2g(s,t)e−2θ(s+t)+2θe−θt∫tsg(r,t)e−θrdr−2θe−θs∫tsg(r,s)e−θrdr+θ2∫ts∫tsg(r,u)e−θ(r+u)drdu=∫ts∫tse−θ(r+u)∂2g∂r∂u(r,u)drdu. | (6.3) |
Let us now recall the Young integral introduced in [21]. For any α∈(0,1], we denote by Hα([0,T]) the set of α-Hölder continuous functions, that is, the set of functions f:[0,T]→R such that
|f|α:=sup0≤s<t≤T|f(t)−f(s)|(t−s)α<∞. |
We also set |f|∞=supt∈[0,T]|f(t)|, and we equip Hα([0,T]) with the norm ‖
Let f\in\mathcal{H}^\alpha([0, T]) , and consider the operator T_f:\mathcal{C}^1([0, T]) \to\mathcal{C}^0([0, T]) defined as
T_f(g)(t) = \int_0^t f(u)g'(u)du, \quad t\in[0,T]. |
It can be shown (see, e.g., [22]HY__HY, Section 3.1]) that, for any \beta\in(1-\alpha, 1) , there exists a constant C_{\alpha, \beta, T} > 0 depending only on \alpha , \beta and T such that, for any g\in\mathcal{H}^\beta([0, T]) ,
\left\|\int_0^\cdot f(u)g'(u)du\right\|_\beta \leq C_{\alpha,\beta,T} \|f\|_\alpha \|g\|_\beta. |
We deduce that, for any \alpha\in (0, 1) , any f\in\mathcal{H}^\alpha([0, T]) and any \beta\in(1-\alpha, 1) , the linear operator T_f:\mathcal{C}^1([0, T])\subset\mathcal{H}^\beta([0, T])\to \mathcal{H}^\beta([0, T]) , defined as T_f(g) = \int_0^\cdot f(u)g'(u)du , is continuous with respect to the norm \|\cdot\|_\beta . By density, it extends (in an unique way) to an operator defined on \mathcal{H}^\beta . As consequence, if f\in\mathcal{H}^\alpha([0, T]) , if g\in\mathcal{H}^\beta([0, T]) and if \alpha+\beta > 1 , then the (so-called) Young integral \int_0^\cdot f(u)dg(u) is well-defined as being T_f(g) (see [21]).
The Young integral obeys the following formula. Let f\in\mathcal{H}^\alpha([0, T]) with \alpha\in(0, 1) and g\in\mathcal{H}^\beta([0, T]) with \beta\in(0, 1) such that \alpha+\beta > 1 . Then \int_0^. g_udf_u and \int_0^. f_u dg_u are well-defined as the Young integrals. Moreover, for all t\in[0, T] ,
\begin{eqnarray} f_tg_t = f_0g_0+\int_0^t g_udf_u+\int_0^t f_u dg_u. \end{eqnarray} | (6.4) |
All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this paper.
[1] | G. Shen, X. Yin, L. Yan, Least squares estimation for Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes driven by the weighted fractional brownian motion, Acta Math. Sci., 36B (2016), 394–408. |
[2] |
G. Shen, X. Yin, L. Yan, Erratum to: least squares estimation for Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes driven by the weighted fractional brownian motion (Acta Mathematica Scientia 2016, 36B(2): 394-408), Acta Math. Sci., 37 (2017), 1173–1176. doi: 10.1016/S0252-9602(17)30065-6
![]() |
[3] | P. Cheng, G. Shen, Q. Chen, Parameter estimation for nonergodic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process driven by the weighted fractional Brownian motion, Adv. Differ. Equ., 366 (2017). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-017-1420-y. |
[4] | I. V. Basawa, D. J. Scott, Asymptotic Optimal Inference for Non-Ergodic Models, New York: Springer 1983. |
[5] |
H. M. Dietz, Y. A. Kutoyants, Parameter estimation for some non-recurrent solutions of SDE, Stat. Decisions, 21 (2003), 29–46. doi: 10.1524/stnd.21.1.29.20321
![]() |
[6] | J. Jacod, Parametric inference for discretely observed non-ergodic diffusions, Bernoulli, 12 (2006), 383–401. |
[7] |
Y. Shimizu, Notes on drift estimation for certain non-recurrent diffusion from sampled data, Stat. Probab. Lett., 79 (2009), 2200–2207. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2009.07.015
![]() |
[8] | T. Bojdecki, L. Gorostiza, A. Talarczyk, Some extensions of fractional Brownian motion and sub-fractional Brownian motion related to particle systems, Electron. Commun. Probab., 12 (2007), 161–172. |
[9] |
M. Kleptsyna, A. Le Breton, Statistical analysis of the fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process, Stat. Inference Stoch. Process., 5 (2002), 229–241. doi: 10.1023/A:1021220818545
![]() |
[10] |
Y. Hu, D. Nualart, Parameter estimation for fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, Statist. Probab. Lett., 80 (2010), 1030–1038. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2010.02.018
![]() |
[11] |
B. El Onsy, K. Es-Sebaiy, F. Viens, Parameter Estimation for a partially observed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with long-memory noise, Stochastics, 89 (2017), 431–468. doi: 10.1080/17442508.2016.1248967
![]() |
[12] |
Y. Hu, D. Nualart, H. Zhou, Parameter estimation for fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes of general Hurst parameter, Stat. Inference Stoch. Process., 22 (2019), 111–142. doi: 10.1007/s11203-017-9168-2
![]() |
[13] |
K. Es-Sebaiy, F. Viens, Optimal rates for parameter estimation of stationary Gaussian processes, Stoch. Process. Appl., 129 (2019), 3018–3054. doi: 10.1016/j.spa.2018.08.010
![]() |
[14] |
S. Douissi, K. Es-Sebaiy, F. Viens, Berry-Esséen bounds for parameter estimation of general Gaussian processes, ALEA-Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat., 16 (2019), 633–664. doi: 10.30757/ALEA.v16-23
![]() |
[15] |
M. El Machkouri, K. Es-Sebaiy, Y. Ouknine, Least squares estimator for non-ergodic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes driven by Gaussian processes, J. Korean Stat. Soc., 45 (2016), 329–341. doi: 10.1016/j.jkss.2015.12.001
![]() |
[16] | R. Belfadli, K. Es-Sebaiy, Y. Ouknine, Parameter Estimation for Fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Processes: Non-Ergodic Case, Front. Sci. Eng., 1 (2011), 1–16. |
[17] |
K. Es-Sebaiy, F. Alazemi, M. Al-Foraih, Least squares type estimation for discretely observed non-ergodic Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, Acta Math. Sci., 39 (2019), 989–1002. doi: 10.1007/s10473-019-0406-0
![]() |
[18] | K. Es-Sebaiy, I. Nourdin, Parameter Estimation for \alpha-Fractional Bridges. In: F. Viens, J. Feng, Y. Hu, E. Nualart, Eds, Malliavin Calculus and Stochastic Analysis, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 34 (2013), 385–412. |
[19] |
T. Pham-Gia, N. Turkkan, E. Marchand, Anosov flows with stable and unstable differentiable distributions, Commun. Stat. Theory Methods, 35 (2006), 1569–1591. doi: 10.1080/03610920600683689
![]() |
[20] |
G. Marsaglia, Ratios of normal variables and ratios of sums of uniform variables, J. Amer. Statist. Asso., 60 (1965), 193–204. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1965.10480783
![]() |
[21] |
L. C. Young, An inequality of the Hölder type connected with Stieltjes integration, Acta Math., 67 (1936), 251–282. doi: 10.1007/BF02401743
![]() |
[22] | I. Nourdin, Selected aspects of fractional Brownian motion, Springer Series 4, Milan: Bocconi University Press, 2012. |
1. | Anas D. Khalaf, Anwar Zeb, Tareq Saeed, Mahmoud Abouagwa, Salih Djilali, Hashim M. Alshehri, A Special Study of the Mixed Weighted Fractional Brownian Motion, 2021, 5, 2504-3110, 192, 10.3390/fractalfract5040192 | |
2. | Litan Yan, Rui Guo, Wenyi Pei, The linear self-attracting diffusion driven by the weighted-fractional Brownian motion II: The parameter estimation, 2025, 1674-7283, 10.1007/s11425-023-2261-5 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.838178 | 2.039271 | 3.019508 | 7.027331 | 10.01776 |
Median | 1.744118 | 1.906163 | 3.07125 | 7.02379 | 10.02108 |
Std. dev. | 1.211776 | 1.007366 | 0.821718 | 0.1717033 | 0.0257764 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.259471 | 1.481005 | 2.39942 | 7.01006 | 10.02068 |
Median | 1.170947 | 1.437582 | 2.552394 | 7.014911 | 10.01972 |
Std. dev. | 0.9584086 | 0.8501618 | 1.004956 | 0.08241352 | 0.01018074 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.829429 | 2.03153 | 3.014143 | 7.01739 | 9.997761 |
Median | 1.74294 | 1.896568 | 3.069177 | 7.013946 | 10.00107 |
Std. dev. | 1.200806 | 1.008749 | 0.8246725 | 0.1711237 | 0.02569278 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.098053 | 1.388654 | 2.326678 | 6.998938 | 10.00066 |
Median | 1.144919 | 1.402191 | 2.53695 | 7.005075 | 9.999712 |
Std. dev. | 0.9961072 | 0.8888663 | 1.077326 | 0.08785867 | 0.01012159 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 6.284526 | 5.944562 | 7.676024 | 7.855939 | 9.586733 |
Median | 5.620266 | 5.235174 | 6.698286 | 8.074982 | 9.919933 |
Std. dev. | 4.851366 | 4.358735 | 6.545987 | 4.19334 | 2.664122 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 4.363369 | 3.81052 | 4.457953 | 6.959573 | 9.817441 |
Median | 3.456968 | 3.650188 | 4.350376 | 7.172276 | 10.02188 |
Std. dev. | 3.492142 | 2.865577 | 2.699623 | 1.759205 | 1.191188 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 5.882283 | 5.609962 | 7.379757 | 7.729786 | 9.526597 |
Median | 5.337299 | 5.041629 | 6.502311 | 8.05469 | 9.900039 |
Std. dev. | 4.882747 | 4.38566 | 6.319027 | 4.253017 | 2.698502 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 4.328267 | 3.782118 | 4.440072 | 6.946132 | 9.797283 |
Median | 3.451499 | 3.590002 | 4.344927 | 7.161959 | 10.00186 |
Std. dev. | 3.46757 | 2.86794 | 2.688184 | 1.758228 | 1.190694 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.838178 | 2.039271 | 3.019508 | 7.027331 | 10.01776 |
Median | 1.744118 | 1.906163 | 3.07125 | 7.02379 | 10.02108 |
Std. dev. | 1.211776 | 1.007366 | 0.821718 | 0.1717033 | 0.0257764 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.259471 | 1.481005 | 2.39942 | 7.01006 | 10.02068 |
Median | 1.170947 | 1.437582 | 2.552394 | 7.014911 | 10.01972 |
Std. dev. | 0.9584086 | 0.8501618 | 1.004956 | 0.08241352 | 0.01018074 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.829429 | 2.03153 | 3.014143 | 7.01739 | 9.997761 |
Median | 1.74294 | 1.896568 | 3.069177 | 7.013946 | 10.00107 |
Std. dev. | 1.200806 | 1.008749 | 0.8246725 | 0.1711237 | 0.02569278 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 1.098053 | 1.388654 | 2.326678 | 6.998938 | 10.00066 |
Median | 1.144919 | 1.402191 | 2.53695 | 7.005075 | 9.999712 |
Std. dev. | 0.9961072 | 0.8888663 | 1.077326 | 0.08785867 | 0.01012159 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 6.284526 | 5.944562 | 7.676024 | 7.855939 | 9.586733 |
Median | 5.620266 | 5.235174 | 6.698286 | 8.074982 | 9.919933 |
Std. dev. | 4.851366 | 4.358735 | 6.545987 | 4.19334 | 2.664122 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 4.363369 | 3.81052 | 4.457953 | 6.959573 | 9.817441 |
Median | 3.456968 | 3.650188 | 4.350376 | 7.172276 | 10.02188 |
Std. dev. | 3.492142 | 2.865577 | 2.699623 | 1.759205 | 1.191188 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 5.882283 | 5.609962 | 7.379757 | 7.729786 | 9.526597 |
Median | 5.337299 | 5.041629 | 6.502311 | 8.05469 | 9.900039 |
Std. dev. | 4.882747 | 4.38566 | 6.319027 | 4.253017 | 2.698502 |
\theta=0.5 | \theta=0.9 | \theta=2.5 | \theta=7 | \theta=10 | |
Mean | 4.328267 | 3.782118 | 4.440072 | 6.946132 | 9.797283 |
Median | 3.451499 | 3.590002 | 4.344927 | 7.161959 | 10.00186 |
Std. dev. | 3.46757 | 2.86794 | 2.688184 | 1.758228 | 1.190694 |