4.6 Article

Exact and Approximate Methods for Bayesian Inference: Stochastic Volatility Case Study

Journal

ENTROPY
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e23040466

Keywords

Bayesian inference; Markov Chain Monte Carlo; Sequential Monte Carlo; Riemann Manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo; integrated nested laplace approximation; fixed-form variational Bayes; stochastic volatility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study empirically illustrates the performance of different classes of Bayesian inference methods in estimating stochastic volatility models, comparing their adaptability to various model specifications and dimensions. The research emphasizes the importance of considering various data-generating processes for a fair assessment of the methods used in comparing models.
We conduct a case study in which we empirically illustrate the performance of different classes of Bayesian inference methods to estimate stochastic volatility models. In particular, we consider how different particle filtering methods affect the variance of the estimated likelihood. We review and compare particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), RMHMC, fixed-form variational Bayes, and integrated nested Laplace approximation to estimate the posterior distribution of the parameters. Additionally, we conduct the review from the point of view of whether these methods are (1) easily adaptable to different model specifications; (2) adaptable to higher dimensions of the model in a straightforward way; (3) feasible in the multivariate case. We show that when using the stochastic volatility model for methods comparison, various data-generating processes have to be considered to make a fair assessment of the methods. Finally, we present a challenging specification of the multivariate stochastic volatility model, which is rarely used to illustrate the methods but constitutes an important practical application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available