J.Q. Smith and Antonio Santos
ple, in the second sub-sample we compared the density f (α852∖y 1,... ,y852,θ) with
f (α852∖y 1,... ,y1000,θ), which we might have expected to be close. The difference
between the filter distribution obtained using the first order particle filter was enor-
mous in comparison with the smoothing distribution. The same did not occur with
the second order particle filter, which is a clear indication of the feasibility of the
procedures presented in this paper.

Figure 4: Comparison of particle filter procedures using the first and second order ap-
proximation to the log-likelihood function in a SV model. Left: mean evolution; Right:
standard deviation evolution; exact path (solid line); first order (dotted line); second order
(dashed line).
To better understand the infeasibility of using the first order APF to forecast the
variance evolution associated with stock returns within a standard SV model, we
present here a simple simulation that highlights the problems associated with the
existence of outliers. We illustrate these problems applied to update the distribution
of the first state, α1 , in a standard SV model. It is supposed that α0 follows a
Gaussian distribution with mean m0 and variance C0 . In the univariate model, the
updated distribution of α1∖D1, up to a normalizing constant c, has a known form
G.E.M.F - F.E.U.C.
18
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Thresholds for Employment and Unemployment - a Spatial Analysis of German Regional Labour Markets 1992-2000
3. The name is absent
4. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
10. The name is absent