The acceptance-rejection method for low-discrepancy sequences
-
Nguyet Nguyen
Abstract
Generation of pseudorandom numbers from different probability distributions has been studied extensively in the Monte Carlo simulation literature. Two standard generation techniques are the acceptance-rejection and inverse transformation methods. An alternative approach to Monte Carlo simulation is the quasi-Monte Carlo method, which uses low-discrepancy sequences, instead of pseudorandom numbers, in simulation. Low-discrepancy sequences from different distributions can be obtained by the inverse transformation method, just like for pseudorandom numbers. In this paper, we present an acceptance-rejection algorithm for low-discrepancy sequences. We prove a convergence result, and present error bounds. We then use this acceptance-rejection algorithm to develop quasi-Monte Carlo versions of some well-known algorithms to generate beta and gamma distributions, and investigate the efficiency of these algorithms numerically. We also consider the simulation of the variance gamma model, a model used in computational finance, where the generation of these probability distributions are needed. Our results show that the acceptance-rejection technique can result in significant improvements in computing time over the inverse transformation method in the context of low-discrepancy sequences.
We thank Dr. Burkardt, Department of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, for the inverse transformation codes used in this paper.
References
1 A. N. Avramidis, P. L'Ecuyer and P. A. Tremblay, Efficient simulation of gamma and variance-gamma processes, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway (2003), 319–326. 10.1109/WSC.2003.1261439Search in Google Scholar
2 R. E. Caflisch, W. Morokoff and A. B. Owen, Valuation of mortgage backed securities using Brownian bridges to reduce effective dimension, J. Comput. Finance 1 (1997), 27–46. 10.21314/JCF.1997.005Search in Google Scholar
3 R. C. H. Cheng, The generation of gamma variables with non-integral shape parameter, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 26 (1977), 1, 71–75. 10.2307/2346871Search in Google Scholar
4 G. W. Cran, K. J. Martin and G. E. Thomas, Remark AS R19 and algorithm AS 109: A remark on algorithms: AS 63: The incomplete beta integral AS 64: Inverse of the incomplete beta function ratio, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 26 (1977), 1, 111–114. 10.2307/2346887Search in Google Scholar
5 R. B. D'Agostino and M. A. Stephens, Goodness-of-Fit Techniques, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1986. Search in Google Scholar
6 L. Devroye, Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation, Springer, Berlin, 1986. 10.1007/978-1-4613-8643-8Search in Google Scholar
7 G. Fishman, Monte Carlo, Springer, New York, 1996. 10.1007/978-1-4757-2553-7Search in Google Scholar
8 M. C. Fu, Variance-Gamma and Monte Carlo, Adv. Math. Finance, Birkhauser, Boston (2007), 21–34. 10.1007/978-0-8176-4545-8_2Search in Google Scholar
9 A. Göncü and G. Ökten, Uniform point sets and the collision test, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 259 (2014), 798–804. 10.1016/j.cam.2013.07.019Search in Google Scholar
10 C. L. Lau, Algorithm AS 147: A simple series for the incomplete gamma integral, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 29 (1980), 113–114. 10.2307/2346431Search in Google Scholar
11 D. B. Madan, P. P. Carr and E. C. Chang, The variance gamma process and option pricing, Eur. Finance Rev. 2 (1998), 79–105. 10.1023/A:1009703431535Search in Google Scholar
12 D. B. Madan and E. Senta, The variance gamma (v.g.) model for share market returns, J. Business 63 (1990), 4, 511–524. 10.1086/296519Search in Google Scholar
13 K. L. Majumder and G. P. Bhattacharjee, Algorithm AS 63: The incomplete beta integral, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 22 (1973), 3, 409–411. 10.2307/2346797Search in Google Scholar
14 M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, Mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator, ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 8 (1998), 1, 3–30. 10.1145/272991.272995Search in Google Scholar
15 A. Mcleod, Algorithm AS 245: A robust and reliable algorithm for the logarithm of the gamma function, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 38 (1989), 2, 397–402. 10.2307/2348078Search in Google Scholar
16 B. Moskowitz and R. E. Caflisch, Smoothness and dimension reduction in quasi-Monte Carlo methods, Math. Comput. Modelling 23 (1996), 37–54. 10.1016/0895-7177(96)00038-6Search in Google Scholar
17 H. Niederreiter, Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992. 10.1137/1.9781611970081Search in Google Scholar
18 H. Niederreiter, Error bounds for quasi-Monte Carlo integration with uniform point sets, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 150 (2003), 283–292. 10.1016/S0377-0427(02)00665-9Search in Google Scholar
19 H. Niederreiter and R. F. Tichy, Beiträge zur Diskrepanz bezüglich gewichteter Mittel, Manuscripta Math. 42 (1983), 85–99. 10.1007/BF01171749Search in Google Scholar
20 G. Ökten, Error reduction techniques in quasi-Monte Carlo integration, Math. Comput. Modelling 30 (1999), 7–8, 61–69. 10.1016/S0895-7177(99)00164-8Search in Google Scholar
21 G. Ökten, Generalized von Neumann–Kakutani transformation and random-start scrambled Halton sequences, J. Complexity 25 (2009), 4, 318–331. 10.1016/j.jco.2008.11.003Search in Google Scholar
22 G. Ökten and A. Göncü, Generating low-discrepancy sequences from the normal distribution: Box–Muller or inverse transformation?, Math. Comput. Modelling 53 (2011), 1268–1281. 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.12.011Search in Google Scholar
23 A. Owen, Multidimensional variation for quasi-Monte Carlo, Contemporary Multivariate Analysis and Design of Experiments, World Scientific, Hackensack (2005), 49–74. 10.1142/9789812567765_0004Search in Google Scholar
24 A. Papageorgiou and J. F. Traub, Beating Monte Carlo, Risk 9 (1996), 6, 63–65. Search in Google Scholar
25 S. H. Paskov and J. F. Traub, Faster valuation of financial derivatives, J. Portfolio Manag. 22 (1995), 1, 113–123. 10.3905/jpm.1995.409541Search in Google Scholar
26 I. H. Sloan and H. Woźniakowski, When are quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for high dimensional integrals?, J. Complexity 14 (1998), 1, 1–33. 10.1006/jcom.1997.0463Search in Google Scholar
27 X. Wang, Improving the rejection sampling method in quasi-Monte Carlo methods, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 114 (2000), 231–246. 10.1016/S0377-0427(99)00194-6Search in Google Scholar
28 X. Wang and F. J. Hickernell, Randomized Halton sequences, Math. Comput. Modelling 32 (2000), 887–899. 10.1016/S0895-7177(00)00178-3Search in Google Scholar
29 N. Webber and C. Riveiro, Valuing path dependent options in the variance-gamma model by Monte Carlo with a gamma bridge, J. Comput. Finance 7 (2003), 81–100. 10.21314/JCF.2003.110Search in Google Scholar
30 H. Zhu and J. Dick, Discrepancy bounds for deterministic acceptance-rejection samplers, Electron. J. Stat. 8 (2014), 678–707. 10.1214/14-EJS898Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Information geometry, simulation and complexity in Gaussian random fields
- On the complexity of binary floating point pseudorandom generation
- Random walk on semi-cylinders for diffusion problems with mixed Dirichlet–Robin boundary conditions
- The acceptance-rejection method for low-discrepancy sequences
- Study and simulation of the sputtering process of material layers in plasma
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Information geometry, simulation and complexity in Gaussian random fields
- On the complexity of binary floating point pseudorandom generation
- Random walk on semi-cylinders for diffusion problems with mixed Dirichlet–Robin boundary conditions
- The acceptance-rejection method for low-discrepancy sequences
- Study and simulation of the sputtering process of material layers in plasma
