Skip to main content
Log in

How do invariant transformations affect the calibration and optimization of the Kalman filtering algorithm used in the estimation of continuous-time affine term structure models?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In studying affine term structure models (ATSM), researchers have made significant theoretical advances in simplifying the burden of the Kalman filtering algorithm (KF) procedure and its optimization process by incorporating mathematical relationships implied by invariant transformations. Through the usage of National Science Foundation granted supercomputing resources, we assess the effects of invariant transformations on the calibration and optimization of the KF when used in the estimation of three, four, and five factor ATSM. From our analysis, we find that restrictions imposed on ATSM by these transformations do affect the estimation risk in the optimization process of the KF, albeit in different ways. Of all components connected to the optimization process, the prediction error of the measurement of the bond yield constructed by the KF and its affiliated covariance matrix demonstrate the least variability. The conditional covariance of the state vector at the prediction and update step demonstrates the largest variability. Estimation of the Kalman gain and conditional mean of the state vector at both the prediction and update step demonstrate a moderate degree of estimation risk. We interpret from our research that some considerations contributing to variation in the effect of such restrictions include the increase in the number of constraints that come with the greater number of factors and the type of invariant transformation undertaken. Our findings support theoretical predictions made by economic theory. Directions for further research are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please see Ang and Piazzesi (2003), Duffee (2011), Duffee and Stanton (2012), Kim and Orphanides (2012), Filipovic and Willems (2018), or Juneja (2020a) for studies on the optimization of ATSM that have reported facing computational challenges in regards to fitting the yield curve. Please see Hamilton and Wu (2012), Adrian et al. (2013), Joslin et al. (2013a), or Diez de Los Rios (2015) for studies devoted to making advances in the optimization algorithms used in their estimation that do not directly involve the invariant transformation.

  2. Please see Matos et al. (2000) for a study that employs invariant transformations to derive a set of formulae that can be used to derive exact solutions to field equations used in the study of gravitational fields in Physics. Their motivation was to reduce the computational burden of estimation. Please see Kaji and Ochiai (2016) for a study of affine transformations for use among computer graphics researchers that lead to computational tractability with a reduced computational burden. Please see Chiarella et al. (2016) for an application of invariant transformations within the context of continuous-time Wishart-dynamic term structure models.

  3. Without loss of generality, one can apply all these methods and their implications to discrete-time ATSM, see, for example, Joslin et al. (2011) or Diez de los Rios (2015).

  4. In our discussion and presentation of the state space representation and the related implementation of the Kalman filtering algorithm, for convenience, we retain much of the same notation as Juneja (2020b).

  5. Please see Boulder (2001), Christensen et al. (2009), or Dejong (2000) for more details on the implementation of the KF.

  6. We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for providing us with a grant to use a supercomputer through their Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) platform to carry out these experiments.

  7. The implications of the results obtained from the within simulation trial variation computations (i.e., variation in the calibration of the filter at the iteration at which convergence was achieved) are identical to those obtained from across the simulation trial variation reported in this section and so we do not report the results from the within simulation trial variation computations. They are available upon request of the author.

References

  • Adrian T, Crump RK, Moench E (2013) Pricing the term structure with linear regressions. J Financial Econ 110:110–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang A, Piazzesi M (2003) A no-arbitrage vector autoregression of term structure dynamics with macroeconomic and latent variables. J Monet Econ 50:745–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulder D (2001) Affine term structure models: theory and implementation Bank of Canada Working Paper

  • Cattivelli FS, Sayed AH (2010) Diffusion strategies for distributed Kalman filtering and smoothing. IEEE Trans Autom Control 55:2069–2084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheridito P, Filipovic D, Kimmel RL (2010) A note on the Dai–Singleton canonical representations of affine term structure models. Math Finance 20:509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarella C, Hsiao C, Tô T (2016) Stochastic correlation and risk premia in term structure models. J Empir Finance 37:59–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen J, Diebold F, Rudebusch G (2009) An arbitrage-free generalized Nelson–Siegel model. Econom J J12:C33–C64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen J, Diebold F, Rudebusch G (2011) The affine arbitrage-free class of Nelson–Siegel term structure models. J Econom 164:4–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collin-Dufresne P, Goldstein R, Jones C (2008) Identification of maximal affine term structure models. J Finance 63:743–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creal D, Wu C (2015) Estimation of affine term structure models with spanned or unspanned stochastic volatility. J Econom 185:60–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai Q, Singleton K (2000) Specification analysis of affine term structure models. J Finance 55:1943–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Los D, Rios A (2015) A new linear estimator for Gaussian dynamic term structure models. J Bus Econ Stat 33:282–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dejong F (2000) Time series and cross-section information in affine term structure models. J Bus Econ Stat 18:300–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffee G (2011) Information in (and not in) the term structure. Rev Fin Stud 24:2895–2934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffee G, Stanton R (2012) Estimation of dynamic term structure models. Q J Finance 2:1–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipovic D, Willems S (2018) Exact smooth term-structure estimation. SIAM J Financial Math 9:907–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge Q, Shao T, Duan Z, Wen C (2016) Performance analysis of the Kalman filter with mismatched noise covariances. IEEE Trans Autom Control 61:4014–4019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi G, Narduzzi C (2011) Performance analysis of Kalman-filter based clock synchronization in IEEE 1588 networks. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 60:2902–2909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golinski A, Spencer P (2019) Estimating the term structure with linear regressions: getting to the roots of the problem. J Financial Econom. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbz031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasselli M, Tebaldi C (2008) Solvable affine term structure models. Math Finance 18:135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton JD, Wu JC (2012) Identification and estimation of Gaussian affine term structure models. J Econom 168:315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joslin S, Singleton K, Zhu H (2011) A new perspective on Gaussian dtsm’s. Rev Financial Stud 24:926–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joslin S, Le A, Singleton K (2013a) Gaussian macro-finance term structure models with lags. J Financial Econ 11:581–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Joslin S, Le A, Singleton K (2013b) Why Gaussian macro-finance term structure models are (nearly) unconstrained factor-VARS. J Financial Econ 109:604–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juneja J (2017) Invariance, observational equivalence, and identification: some implications for the empirical performance of affine term structure models. Q Rev Econ Finance 64:292–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juneja J (2020a) Dynamic term structure models using principal components analysis near the zero lower bound. In: Handbook of financial econometrics, mathematics, statistics, and technology, edited by Cheng Few Lee (forthcoming)

  • Juneja J (2020b) A computational analysis of the estimation risk tradeoff in the optimization of different Kalman filter implementations of continuous-time affine term structure models. San Diego State University working paper

  • Kaji S, Ochiai H (2016) A concise parametrization of affine transformation. SIAM J Imaging Sci 9:1355–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH, Orphanides A (2012) Term structure estimation with survey data on interest rate forecasts. J Financial Quant Anal 47:241–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos T, Núñez D, Estevez G, Rios M (2000) Rotating 5D-Kaluza–Klein space-times from invariant transformations. Gen Relativ Gravit 32:1499–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monfort A, Pegoraro F, Renne J, Roussellett G (2017) Staying at zero with affine processes: an application to term structure modelling. J Econom 201:348–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasicek O (1977) An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. J Finance Econ 5:177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhaegen M, Dooren PV (1986) Numerical aspects of different Kalman filter implementation. IEEE Trans Autom Control 31:907–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasini S, Pelckmanns K (2018) Worst-case prediction performance analysis of the Kalman filter. IEEE Trans Autom Control 63:1768–1775

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Januj Amar Juneja.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Juneja, J.A. How do invariant transformations affect the calibration and optimization of the Kalman filtering algorithm used in the estimation of continuous-time affine term structure models?. Comput Manag Sci 18, 73–97 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-020-00380-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-020-00380-7

Keywords

Navigation