Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2001 / iii / Paper 23 / 4

For a continuous strictly increasing cumulative distribution function $F$ and a uniform distribution $U$ on $(0,1)$, monotonicity givesThus each transformed draw has distribution function $F$. This is inverse transform sampling. The conclusion extends to discontinuous or non-strictly increasing $F$ by its quantile function $Q(u)=\inf \{x:F(x)\ge u\}$: right continuity gives $Q(u)\le y$ exactly when $u\le F(y)$. Independent uniforms produce independent transformed draws, but marginal uniformity alone does not establish independence.

If “uniformly distributed sequence” instead means deterministic equidistribution, the empirical fraction of ${\eta }_i\le y$ is the empirical fraction of ${\xi }_i\le F(y)$ and tends to $F(y)$. That is an empirical distribution statement, not a claim that the deterministic sequence consists of independent random variables.

One method applies inverse transform sampling to the standard normal cumulative distribution function: $Z_i={\Phi }^{-1}(U_i)$, followed by $X_i=\mu +\sigma Z_i$ for mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma >0$. Numerical approximations to ${\Phi }^{-1}$ are needed, and the endpoints $U=0,1$ must be avoided.

A convenient alternative is the Box-Muller transform. From independent uniforms $U_1,U_2\in (0,1)$ setThe radial probability density function is $r{e}^{-r^2/2}$ for $r>0$, and the angle is independently uniform on $[0,2\pi )$. Dividing their joint density by the polar-coordinate Jacobian determinant $r$ givesThus the outputs are independent standard normal distribution draws. Apply $\mu +\sigma Z_j$ to obtain other normal means and variances. With finite pseudorandom number generators, this is an approximation to the ideal independent-uniform model; poor dependence in the input stream is not cured by the transform.

Let $Y=h(U)$ have finite variance $v$ and mean $I$. An independent-sample Monte Carlo estimator has variance $v/N$, so its root-mean-square random error is $\sqrt{v/N}$. Three techniques reduce the variance coefficient rather than changing this ordinary $N^{-1/2}$ rate.

For antithetic variates, couple $Y=h(U)$ with $Y^{\prime }=h(1-U)$ and average the pair. With $M$ independent pairs, the variance is $(v+\mathrm{Cov}(Y,Y^{\prime }))/(2M)$, compared with $v/(2M)$ for $2M$ independent function evaluations. If $h$ is monotone in a scalar uniform, the covariance is nonpositive: for independent uniforms $U,V$,Opposite fluctuations therefore cancel. The reduction factor at equal evaluation count is $1+\rho$, where $\rho$ is the paired correlation coefficient; it can approach zero, but positive covariance would make the method worse. This is appropriate for monotone or otherwise negatively coupled payoffs, with cheap complementary paths.

For control variates, use a jointly simulated $C$ with known mean $m_C$ and average $Y-\beta (C-m_C)$. It remains an unbiased estimator for fixed $\beta$, andCompleting the square gives ${\beta }_{\ast }=\mathrm{Cov}(Y,C)/\mathrm{Var}C$ and minimal variance $v(1-{\rho }^2)$. For contingent claim simulation, an analytically priced related financial payoff, such as a simpler option or discounted terminal stock, can be a useful control. It works best when correlation has large absolute value and simulation of the control adds little cost. A coefficient fixed from an independent pilot keeps the elementary unbiasedness argument valid; estimating it from the same sample can introduce finite-sample bias.

For stratified sampling, partition the sampling space into strata $A_h$ of probabilities $p_h$, and independently simulate $N_h$ samples conditional on each stratum. The estimator ${\sum }_h{p}_h{\bar{Y}}_h$ is unbiased and has varianceWith proportional allocation $N_h=N{p}_h$, ignoring integer rounding, this equals ${\sum }_h{p}_h{v}_h/N$. The law of total variance shows the reduction from ordinary sampling is $\mathrm{Var}(\mathbb{E}[Y\mid A_h])/N$: fixed representation removes randomness in the stratum counts. At equal per-draw cost, minimizing the displayed variance gives $N_h\propto p_h\sqrt{v_h}$ and minimum $({\sum }_h{p}_h\sqrt{v_h}{)}^2/N$ for positive within-stratum variances. This follows by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and is useful when a low-dimensional coordinate strongly predicts the financial payoff and conditional simulation is easy.

There is no universal ranking. At comparable cost the variance factors depend respectively on paired covariance, squared control correlation, and within-stratum variation. A nearly perfect control can outperform a weak antithetic pair; an appropriate stratification can be almost exact for a nearly stratum-constant financial payoff. Extra construction and sampling costs must be included in a fair accuracy comparison, and the methods can be combined.