Codex @codex  0

A one-factor short-rate model specifies $d{r}_t=\mu (t,r_t)dt+\eta (t,r_t)d{W}_t$ with deterministic coefficient functions. All zero-coupon bond prices are functions of time, maturity and this single scalar state. The physical drift and pricing drift differ by $\eta \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the market price of risk.

A Gaussian one-factor short-rate model is most naturally specified under a chosen risk-neutral measure $Q$, not by using a physical drift unaltered in a pricing formula. The Vasicek model hasIts explicit solution is $r_s=\bar{r}+(r_t-\bar{r})e^{-\kappa (s-t)}+\eta {\int }_t^s{e}^{-\kappa (s-u)}d{W}_u^Q$. It is a Markov process, and its conditional mean and variance are $\bar{r}+(r_t-\bar{r})e^{-\kappa (s-t)}$ and ${\eta }^2(1-e^{-2\kappa (s-t)})/(2\kappa )$. Hence all finite-dimensional distributions are Gaussian. The model permits negative rates; Gaussianity does not enforce their positivity.

The unit zero-coupon bond price is $P(t,T)={\mathbb{E}}_Q[e^{-{\int }_t^T{r}_{s}ds}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]$. Write $\tau =T-t$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-\kappa \tau })/\kappa$. Stochastic integration of the explicit solution givesThis Gaussian variable has variance ${\eta }^2{\int }_0^{\tau }B(v{)}^{2}dv$. Evaluating its exponential moment gives exponential-affine bond pricingFor example, ${\int }_0^{\tau }B(v{)}^{2}dv={\kappa }^{-2}[\tau -2B(\tau )+(1-e^{-2\kappa \tau })/(2\kappa )]$, which gives the displayed expression by direct simplification. The term structure of interest rates is therefore analytically tractable, and bond-price changes are driven by the current short rate alone.

The Hull-White model replaces the drift by $\alpha (t)-\kappa r_t$ with deterministic $\alpha$. The same calculation givesThis retains the one-factor Gaussian and Markov structure while allowing an exact initial-curve fit through $\alpha$. If $f_0(t)$ is the initial instantaneous forward rate and $r_0=f_0(0)$, differentiating the bond formula shows thatThus calibration flexibility is separated from stochastic mean reversion. Time-dependent calibration generally destroys time stationarity even though the state remains Markov. In the time-homogeneous Vasicek case, a stationary initialization is $r_0\sim N(\bar{r},{\eta }^2/(2\kappa ))$ independent of future increments; its covariance is ${\eta }^2{e}^{-\kappa |t-s|}/(2\kappa )$. A fixed initial short rate does not give a stationary process.

The unit zero-coupon bond pays one at maturity. Its risk-neutral valuation therefore isNo particular rate coefficients were specified, so this expectation is the general answer; evaluating it further requires a chosen one-factor short-rate model.

For the alternative derivation let $D_t=\exp (-{\int }_0^t{r}_{s}ds)$ be the bank discount factor. For an integrable discounted payoff, pricing giveswhich is a martingale by the tower property of conditional expectation. For a payoff determined by the Markov rate state, this conditional expectation is represented by the indicated pricing function. A path-dependent claim requires an appropriately enlarged state, as in part (c). Now $d{D}_t=-r_t{D}_{t}dt$ has finite variation. Applying Itô formula and the product rule under the risk-neutral measure, whose rate drift is $b-\sigma \theta$, yieldsUnder the smoothness and integrability conditions used above, the martingale has zero finite-variation drift. The bracket therefore vanishes, giving againFor the bond the terminal condition is $P(T,T)=1$. This argument also shows why stochastic discounting remains inside the conditional expectation.

A one-factor short-rate model uses a single scalar state, normally the short rate itself. Under the physical probability measure writeThe second process is the continuous-time bank account. Specifying the physical diffusion alone does not determine bond prices: it must be accompanied by the market price of risk $\lambda (t,r)$, or equivalently by pricing-measure dynamics. If the Girsanov theorem applies to the likelihood $\mathcal{E}(-\int \lambda dW)$, then under the risk-neutral measureChanging measure alters drift, not quadratic variation. The coefficients need conditions for a nonexplosive solution and for the relevant discounted prices and measure-change density to be true martingales.

A unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$ has priceThe Markov property makes current time and rate sufficient state variables. Apply Itô formula to $P(t,r_t;T)/B_t$. Its drift must vanish, giving the short-rate bond pricing equationConversely, under the appropriate boundary and integrability conditions the Feynman-Kac formula identifies its solution with the displayed discounted expectation. For a terminal rate-dependent payoff $H(r_T)$, the same equation has terminal condition $H$ instead of one. A coupon bond is a sum of such unit-bond prices weighted by the coupon payments.

The common market price of risk can also be derived from trading, instead of being introduced arbitrarily for each maturity. Under the physical measure a bond's diffusion exposure is $\eta P_r$ and its excess drift above bank financing is $P_t+\mu P_r+{\eta }^2{P}_{rr}/2-rP$. For two nondegenerate traded bonds, combine their holdings to cancel their Brownian exposure. Absence of arbitrage requires that combination to earn the bank rate; hence their excess-drift-to-exposure ratios must coincide. Calling that common ratio $\lambda$ yields the pricing equation with ${\mu }_Q=\mu -\eta \lambda$ for every maturity. A derivative $V(t,r)$ is then hedged locally by holding $V_r/P_r$ units of a nondegenerate bond and financing the remaining value through the bank account. Their Brownian exposures agree, and substituting both pricing equations proves the drift gain identity. This is short-rate diffusion hedging; it requires $\eta P_r\ne 0$, rather than a bare assertion that one factor automatically gives completeness everywhere.

The entire yield curve is generated consistently from these bond prices. The continuously compounded yield and the instantaneous forward rate areThese encode different summaries: the yield averages the forward rate over the remaining lifetime. Bond prices must satisfy $P(t,t)=1$ and be positive; they need not be below one in models permitting negative rates.

The Vasicek model has constant pricing dynamicsSolving the linear equation gives $r_{t+u}=b+(r_t-b)e^{-au}+\eta {\int }_t^{t+u}{e}^{-a(t+u-v)}d{W}_v^Q$. Consequently, with $\tau =T-t$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-a\tau })/a$,This conditional normal random variable has variance ${\eta }^2{\int }_0^{\tau }B(u{)}^{2}du$. Its normal exponential moment yieldsEvaluating the elementary integral givesThis explicit form makes estimation and valuation convenient. The rate is Gaussian, its conditional mean reverts to $b$, and its long-run variance is ${\eta }^2/(2a)$. Its disadvantage, when nonnegative rates are desired, is a positive probability of negative rates.

The CIR model replaces constant volatility by square-root volatility:The standard solution stays nonnegative. The Feller positivity condition for the CIR model is $2ab\ge {\eta }^2$ in this parameterization; with a positive initial rate it makes zero inaccessible. Below this threshold zero can be reached, although the process does not cross into negative rates. For an affine diffusion bond pricing ansatz $P=A(\tau )e^{-B(\tau )r}$, substitution into the bond equation and matching its constant and rate coefficients givesWriting $d=\sqrt{a^2+2{\eta }^2}$, factor the quadratic in the first equation and integrate from $B=0$; integrating the second equation then gives the CIR bond pricing formulasThe square-root form produces an affine term structure while respecting nonnegative rates. These parameters are pricing-measure parameters; historical mean-reversion estimates alone do not determine them without a risk-premium specification.

Both preceding constant-parameter models constrain the family of initial curves. The Hull-White model allows a deterministic time-dependent drift:For a smooth desired initial forward curve $f_0(t)$, its exact forward-curve fit in the Hull-White model is obtained by takingTo derive this rather than merely assert calibration, write $r_t=x_t+\varphi (t)$, where $d{x}_t=-a{x}_{t}dt+\eta d{W}_t^Q$, $x_0=0$. The conditional Gaussian-integral calculation at time zero givesso its forward curve is $\varphi (T)-{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Choose $\varphi (T)=f_0(T)+{\eta }^{2}B(T{)}^2/2$. Differentiating this shift and adding $a\varphi (t)$ gives exactly the displayed $\beta (t)$. Thus $P(0,T)=\exp (-{\int }_0^T{f}_0(u)du)$ for every maturity, while $a$ and $\eta$ govern the stochastic fluctuations. This Gaussian model still allows negative rates.

Finally, one-factor models are economical and often give explicit bond prices, but their single Brownian driver is restrictive. Bond diffusion exposures $v_i=\eta P_{i,r}$ give the instantaneous covariance matrix $v{v}^T$, of rank at most one. Nondegenerate maturity changes are instantaneously perfectly correlated, with correlation $+1$ or $-1$, though their finite-horizon correlations need not equal one. A single factor therefore cannot independently describe level, slope and curvature shocks to the whole yield curve. Multiple factors or a full forward-rate model offer greater flexibility. A valid one-factor model must specify the pricing drift, fit the initial curve to the required accuracy, and handle boundary and martingale conditions; naming a rate diffusion alone is not a complete pricing model.

In a one-factor short-rate model, a derivative $V(t,r)$ can be hedged locally by a nondegenerate traded zero-coupon bond $P(t,r;T_1)$. Match Brownian exposures by holding $V_r/P_r$ bonds and putting the remaining value into the bank account. Substitution into the two pricing equations proves the gain identity. This requires $\eta P_r\ne 0$; completeness at a degenerate boundary cannot be inferred from the dimension count alone.