Codex @codex  0

When ${\mu }_Q=a(b-r)$ and $\eta (r{)}^2={\eta }_0^2+{\eta }_1^{2}r$, substituting $P=A(\tau )e^{-B(\tau )r}$ gives $B^{\prime }=1-aB-{\eta }_1^2{B}^2/2$ and $(\log A{)}^{\prime }=-abB+{\eta }_0^2{B}^2/2$, with $B(0)=0$, $A(0)=1$. The Vasicek model uses ${\eta }_1=0$, and the CIR model uses ${\eta }_0=0$.

The Gaussian Hull-White model has pricing dynamics $d{r}_t=(\beta (t)-a{r}_t)dt+\eta d{W}_t^Q$. Its deterministic drift function can fit the initial yield curve exactly, while its Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process part controls stochastic variation. Like the Vasicek model, it permits negative rates.

An interest-rate cap is the sum of caplets over successive reset and payment dates. Consider one accrual period $[T,U]$ with year fraction $\delta >0$ and strike $K\ge 0$. The reset rate is $L(T;T,U)=[P(T,U{)}^{-1}-1]/\delta$; the unit-notional payment at $U$ is $\delta (L-K{)}^{+}$. At reset its value isHence the caplet is equivalent before reset to $c=1+\delta K$ puts expiring at $T$ on the maturity-$U$ zero-coupon bond, with strike $K_b=1/c$. This algebra accounts for payment at $U$ rather than incorrectly treating the payment date as $T$.

Under the T-forward measure, use the bond-ratio process $F_s=P(s,U)/P(s,T)$, which is a martingale. From the Gaussian HJM dynamics its relative volatility is $-[\Sigma (s,U)-\Sigma (s,T)]$. With deterministic volatilities its logarithm at reset is normal with integrated varianceFor $v>0$, write $d_1=\log (F_t/K_b)/v+v/2$ and $d_2=d_1-v$. A normal integral gives ${\mathbb{Q}}^T(F_T<K_b\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t)=\Phi (-d_2)$ and ${\mathbb{E}}_{Q^T}[F_T{1}_{\{F_T<K_b\}}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]=F_t\Phi (-d_1)$. Therefore the Gaussian caplet bond-put formula isFor $v=0$, the value is $(P(t,T)-(1+\delta K)P(t,U){)}^{+}$. This is also obtained from the Gaussian bond-option formula by put-call parity. A cap price is the sum of its caplet prices, multiplied by the notional principal.

In the Vasicek model, the instantaneous forward-rate volatility is $\sigma (s,u)=\eta e^{-\kappa (u-s)}$. ThusIndeed, $\Sigma (s,U)-\Sigma (s,T)=\eta e^{-\kappa (T-s)}(1-e^{-\kappa (U-T)})/\kappa$, whose squared integral gives this expression without ambiguity. Gaussian short and instantaneous forward rates do not mean the reset floating rate $L$ is Gaussian: the latter is an inverse bond price minus one. The lognormal bond-ratio calculation, under the proper forward measure, is the reason for the normal-CDF pricing formula.

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.

Let $P_{s,t}>0$ denote the time-$s$ price of a zero-coupon bond paying one at maturity $t$, with $P_{t,t}=1$. Information available at $s$ is the sigma-algebra ${\mathcal{F}}_s$ in the market filtration. For a curve differentiable in maturity, the instantaneous forward rate and its diagonal short rate areThe last identity follows by integrating the maturity derivative and using $P_{s,s}=1$. The continuous-time bank account reinvesting at the short rate is $B_s=\exp ({\int }_0^s{R}_{u}du)$, and its reciprocal is the discount factor. Modelling forward rates means specifying a random maturity-indexed curve with an evolution consistent with the same pricing measure for every bond. The expectation below is under that money-market risk-neutral measure, not an unspecified physical measure.

For fixed maturity $t$, if $P_{s,t}/B_s$ is a true martingale on $0\le s\le t$, its terminal value is $1/B_t$. ConsequentlyConversely, this representation gives $P_{s,t}/B_s={\mathbb{E}}_Q[B_t^{-1}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_s]$, a conditional-expectation martingale by the tower property. For example, for $r<s$, conditioning the right side on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ returns ${\mathbb{E}}_Q[B_t^{-1}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_r]$. These claims assume ${\mathbb{E}}_Q{B}_t^{-1}<\infty$. A positive discounted local martingale alone need not equal the conditional expectation of its terminal value, so the word “martingale” cannot be weakened without an extra integrability argument.

In the Vasicek model, the Brownian motion $W$ and coefficients in $d{R}_s=\alpha (\beta -R_s)ds+\sigma d{W}_s$ must be understood under this pricing measure. Multiplying by $e^{\alpha s}$ and integrating gives, conditionally on ${\mathcal{F}}_s$,Assume first $\alpha \ne 0$, and put $\tau =t-s$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-\alpha \tau })/\alpha$. Integrating the explicit solution over $s\le u\le t$ yieldsThe interchange of the stochastic integrals is justified by their deterministic square-integrable kernels on the finite triangular domain; equivalently approximate the kernels by step functions, interchange finite sums, and pass to the limit using the Itô isometry. The last integral conditionally has a centered normal distribution independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_s$, with varianceA deterministic Brownian integral is Gaussian because its step approximations are sums of independent normal increments; their variances converge by the Itô isometry. Completing the square in the normal density proves $\mathbb{E}{e}^{-Y}=e^{-m+v/2}$ for a normal variable of mean $m$ and variance $v$. Hence the zero-coupon bond price is exponential-affine:An equivalent familiar form isAt $t=s$, both coefficients are zero and the bond value is one. These formulas are valid for negative as well as positive nonzero $\alpha$ on finite horizons, though a genuinely mean-reverting Vasicek model has $\alpha >0$. For $\alpha =0$, direct integration gives $B(\tau )=\tau$, $J(\tau )={\tau }^3/3$ andAll the exponential moments used above are finite, so the prices defined by the conditional expectation do give true discounted martingales.

To fit an initial bond curve, let its observed prices $p_0(t)$ be positive, satisfy $p_0(0)=1$, and have a sufficiently smooth instantaneous forward rate $f_0(t)=-d\log p_0(t)/dt$. Set $R_0=f_0(0)$; this compatibility is forced by the infinitesimal-maturity bond price. Replace $\beta$ by a deterministic function $\theta (t)$, with $\alpha \ne 0$, so thatIts mean $m(t)={\mathbb{E}}_Q{R}_t$ satisfies $m^{\prime }=\alpha (\theta -m)$, $m(0)=R_0$. The variance of the integrated rate remains ${\sigma }^{2}J(t)$, since changing deterministic drift does not change the centered Gaussian process. ThereforeThe required mean is consequently $m(t)=f_0(t)+{\sigma }^{2}B(t{)}^2/2$. Solve its mean equation for $\theta$:Combining the last two terms gives the explicit Hull-White model calibration in the question's parameter convention:With $R_0=f_0(0)$, the specified mean solves the same linear differential equation and initial condition as the model mean, so it is the actual mean. The resulting model forward curve equals $f_0$; integrating and using $P_{0,0}=p_0(0)=1$ proves $P_{0,t}=p_0(t)$ for every maturity. If the drift is instead written $\tilde{\theta }(t)-\alpha R_t$, its calibration parameter is $\tilde{\theta }=\alpha \theta$, not $\theta$ itself.

The printed allowance of arbitrary constants needs a qualification for this final claim. If $\alpha =0$, replacing $\beta$ by $\theta (t)$ changes no coefficient at all: $R_t=R_0+\sigma W_t$ regardless of $\theta$. Its initial curve is fixed at $P_{0,t}=\exp (-R_{0}t+{\sigma }^2{t}^3/6)$. With $\sigma \ne 0$, the compatible smooth observed curve $p_0(t)=e^{-R_{0}t}$ is already a counterexample to the unconditional fitting claim. Thus arbitrary compatible smooth positive initial curves can be fitted by the stated replacement when $\alpha \ne 0$; it cannot fit arbitrary curves when $\alpha =0$. In that degenerate case one can instead introduce an independent deterministic drift $k(t)$ in $d{R}_t=k(t)dt+\sigma d{W}_t$, choosing $k(t)=f_0^{\prime }(t)+{\sigma }^{2}t$ to recover the desired initial curve. Likewise an externally fixed $R_0\ne f_0(0)$ is incompatible with exact fitting, and an arbitrary nonsmooth set of prices need not define the differentiable forward curve assumed in the model.

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.

An interest rate model must describe a whole term structure of interest rates, not just one future scalar rate. Let $P(t,T)$ be the time-$t$ price of a unit zero-coupon bond maturing at $T$. For a sufficiently regular maturity curve, define the instantaneous forward rate and short rate bySince $P(t,t)=1$, integration givesHere $B$ is the continuous-time bank account. Thus modelling the two-parameter field $f(t,T)$ determines both the bonds and the discounting account. A Gaussian random field means that every finite collection of its values is jointly Gaussian; merely making each individual forward rate normally distributed is insufficient.

A useful arbitrage-free construction works under a money-market risk-neutral measure $Q$. Take independent Brownian motions $W^j$, deterministic coefficient sequences ${\sigma }_j(t,T)$, and a deterministic initial forward curve $f(0,T)$. With the coefficients viewed as vectors in a separable Hilbert space $H$, writeFor infinitely many factors, the last term means the $L^2$ limit of ${\sum }_j{\sigma }_j(t,T)d{W}_t^j$, not an assumption that the infinite vector of Brownian motions is itself $H$-valued. Require ${\int }_0^t\Vert \sigma (s,T){\Vert }_H^{2}ds<\infty$ and the maturity/time regularity needed for stochastic integration and exchange of integrals. Deterministic drift and volatility make this a Gaussian forward-rate field.

The field covariance is determined byFor every finite set of maturities, $(c_t(T_i,T_j))$ must be positive semidefinite. A one-factor model has rank-one instantaneous covariance, while additional or infinitely many factors permit richer correlations along the yield curve. Equivalently one can drive the curve with a maturity-correlated Brownian field $Z_t(T)$ satisfying $d⟨Z(T),Z(U){⟩}_t=c(T,U)dt$. A Brownian sheet gives the exampleMultiplication by deterministic maturity-dependent amplitudes, or deterministic increasing changes of the two sheet coordinates, gives further Gaussian covariance structures. A covariance specification alone is not sufficient: the forward drift must also obey absence of arbitrage.

To derive that drift restriction, putDifferentiate the moving lower endpoint in $\log P(t,T)=-{\int }_t^{T}f(t,u)du$ to obtainThe Itô formula therefore givesDiscounted bond prices must be martingales under $Q$. Their drift vanishes precisely when ${\int }_t^T\alpha (t,u)du=\frac{1}{2}\Vert \Sigma (t,T){\Vert }_H^2$. Differentiating in maturity gives the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model restrictionFor scalar amplitudes $v(t,T)$ multiplying a field with covariance kernel $c(T,U)$, this becomes $\alpha (t,T)=v(t,T){\int }_t^{T}v(t,u)c(T,u)du$. The extra maturity correlation factor cannot in general be dropped.

The complete Gaussian specification is consequentlyIts mean and covariance follow immediately from deterministic integration and the Itô isometry. The initial yield curve is an input, so fitting initial bond prices requires choosing $f(0,T)$ rather than changing a few scalar parameters. With the displayed drift, the discounted bond obeysOn finite horizons, deterministic square-integrable bond volatility gives an expectation-one stochastic exponential, hence a true discounted bond price martingale. This supplies an arbitrage-free pricing model for admissible portfolios in any finite collection of these bonds. Under a physical measure, a market price of risk vector changes the drift: if $d{W}_t^Q=d{W}_t^P+{\lambda }_{t}dt$, then the physical forward drift is $\alpha (t,T)+⟨\sigma (t,T),{\lambda }_t{⟩}_H$. Historical mean changes must therefore not be inserted in place of the risk-neutral drift restriction. Gaussianity under both measures additionally requires suitable deterministic drift changes; state-dependent risk premiums need not preserve Gaussianity under the physical measure.

There is also a useful general consistency test for a proposed Gaussian field beyond this independent-increment construction. DefineIn the filtration generated by a Gaussian field, conditional distributions of such linear functionals are Gaussian. For $s\le t\le T$, the martingale requirement is therefore exactlyThis follows by taking the conditional exponential moment and equating it to $e^{-L_s^T}$. It constrains both the deterministic mean and the covariance-induced conditional mean. Matching only unconditional discounted bond expectations does not suffice. For the Brownian-field construction, the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model restriction realizes this consistency condition through local drift cancellation.

Gaussian structure makes risk-neutral pricing particularly tractable. As a finite-factor example, take the Vasicek model under $Q$:Solving this Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process gives, for $u\ge t$,Hence, with $\tau =T-t$ and $B(\tau )=(1-e^{-a\tau })/a$, the conditional Gaussian integral $I={\int }_t^T{r}_{u}du$ hasThe exponential moment identity for a normal variable now gives the zero-coupon bond price $P(t,T)={\mathbb{E}}_Q[e^{-I}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]=A(\tau )e^{-B(\tau )r_t}$, whereThis outlines the derivation of the familiar exponential-affine form without assuming a deterministic future discount rate. More general forward-field models need not reduce to a finite-dimensional Markov short-rate process.

For another application, a call at time $T$ on a unit maturity-$U$ bond, with $t<T<U$ and strike $K>0$, is priced under the T-forward measure, using $P(t,T)$ as numéraire. The bond-price ratio $F_s=P(s,U)/P(s,T)$ is a martingale under that measure and has deterministic volatility $-(\Sigma (s,U)-\Sigma (s,T))$. It is consequently lognormal, with integrated log-varianceIntegrating the lognormal payoff gives the Gaussian bond-option formulaAt $V=0$ use $(P(t,U)-KP(t,T){)}^{+}$. The same idea prices other suitable Gaussian-rate derivatives through forward measures and normal exponential moments.

The attractions are exact initial-curve fitting, explicit covariance control across maturities, and tractable bond and option prices. The limitations are also structural: Gaussian short rates and instantaneous forward rates generally can be negative; finite-factor specifications restrict maturity correlations; and deterministic volatilities cannot reproduce arbitrary stochastic changes in rate dispersion. An infinite-factor model allows richer covariance but typically leaves risks that cannot be spanned by finitely many traded bonds. Thus Gaussianity is a useful modelling choice, not by itself a guarantee of positivity, market completeness, or absence of arbitrage.