The Sobol Brownian Bridge Generator on a GPU

The biggest mistake that can be made with quasi random numbers is to just use them in the same way as one uses pseudo random numbers. The real advantage of quasi Monte-Carlo shows up only after

N\sim e^d

samples, where d is the number of dimensions of the problem. If one is using significantly less samples then it becomes very likely that the results are totally wrong. Therefore a dimensional reduction of the problem is often the first step when applying quasi Monte-Carlo methods.

The Brownian bridge is tailor-made to reduce the number of significant dimensions of a Monte-Carlo integration of a stochastic differential equation  In his recent text-book [1] Mark Joshi shows how to use Brownian bridges efficiently for quasi Monte-Carlo pricing and he also outlines the QuantLib implementation. It has been shown in [3] that the overall statistical error of a structured equity portfolio has been reduced by a factor of three when switching from a pseudo random number generator to a Sobol Brownian bridge generator, which in turn means a speed-up factor of nine leaving the Monte Carlo error unchanged.

An efficient implementation of a Sobol Brownian bridge generator is therefore a standard building block for quasi Monte-Carlo option pricing. A CUDA 4.2 implementation for nVIDIA GPUs based on QuantLib 1.2 is available here. The interface and usage are closely related to QuantLib’s Sobol Brownian bridge generator for CPUs. The memory layout of the results on the GPU is CURAND_ORDERING_QUASI_DEFAULT. The zip file also contains a validation program, which checks that both versions of the Sobol Brownian bridge are generating the same results.

As the diagram above shows, the GPU (GTX 560) out-performance the CPU (i3@3.0GHz) on average by a factor of 50 for single precision and by a factor of 12 for double precision.

[1] Mark Joshi, More Mathematical Finance
[2] Sebasien Gurrieri, An Analysis of Sobol Sequence and the Brownian Bridge
[3] Andre Bernemann, Raplh Schreyer, Klaus Spanderen, Accelerating Exotic Option Pricing and Model Calibration Using GPUs


VPP Pricing V: Least-Squares Monte-Carlo

For the sake of completeness please find here the code for the evaluation of the virtual power plant (VPP) using a least-squares Monte-Carlo algorithm. The code depends on the latest QuantLib version from the SVN trunk or the upcoming QuantLib 1.2 release. The model and power plant specifications can be found in the previous blog entries. A more general description  of the problem and the algorithms can be found e.g. here [1]. Test forward curves can be taken e.g. from the Kyos example download page.

The regression polynomials are of third order in the spark spread x and the stochastic component of the gas price y.

p_a(x,y)=a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 +a_3x^3 + a_4y + a_5y^2 + a_6y^3 + a_7xy+a_8x^2y+a_9xy^2

The regression is carried out for every exercise right (every hour) and every possible VPP state separately. The calibration phase is based on ordinary Monte-Carlo scenarios, whereas the pricing is done using Quasi Monte-Carlo scenarios (Sobol sequence) and a Brownian Bridge (BB).

The following table summarizes the performance of the different pricing algorithms for the example contract and maturity of six month. Target accuracy is around 1% relative error in the NPV. The timings are given for a Core i5@3GHz CPU using four threads or a GTX560@0.8/1.6GHz GPU with 336 cores.

\footnotesize{  \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Algorithm & Optimisaton & Approximation & Hardware & Runtime & Comment\\ \hline \hline Quasi-MC + BB & dyn. prog. & perfect foresight & GPU & 0.19s & single precision \\ Quasi-MC + BB & dyn. prog. & perfect foresight & CPU & 20.3s & \\ Monte-Carlo & dyn. prog. & perfect foresight & CPU & 286.3s & \\ Finite Difference & dyn. prog.& no & CPU & 487.7s & \\ Least-Squares MC & dyn. prog. & no & CPU & 645.6s & \\ Quasi-MC + BB & linear prog. & perfect foresight & CPU & 4198s & using GLPK \\ \hline \end{tabular} }

I don’t know the reason for the bad performance of the Gnu Linear Programming Kit for these kind of problems. Some commercial linear optimizer are much faster but they can not compete with dynamic programming for a simple VPP. As soon as e.g. time integral constraints are involved linear programming might become the method of choice.

[1] H. van Dijken, The value of starting up the power plant.

VPP Pricing IV: Variance Reduction for Perfect Foresight

Even though perfect foresight provides only an upper bound to the real VPP value the differences are often neglectable and the implementation efforts  are small compared with “exact” pricing based on finite difference methods or least square Monte-Carlo. Perfect foresight is the method of choice in conjunction with a linear programming optimizer if the problem contains time-integral constraints. Therefore it is worth to test the efficiency of two standard variance reduction techniques, namely antithetic sampling and quasi Monte-Carlo (QMC) together with a Brownian Bridge. Both methods are explained in [1], antithetic sampling in chapter 4.2 and quasi Monte-Carlo in section 5. Randomized QMC is used to calculate the error estimates for QMC as it is outlined in chapter 5.4.

Using the parameterization of the previous section VPP Pricing III, QMC in conjunction with a Brownian Bridge clearly out-performance the other algorithms for a 6 month contract as can be seen in the diagrams below. The code is available here. It depends on the latest QuantLib version from the SVN trunk or the upcoming QuantLib 1.2 release. If you want to generate the plots you’ll also need R.

[1] P. Glasserman, Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering.  ISBN-0387004513

Scrambled Sobol Sequences

The authors of [1][2] presented an efficient way to create scrambled Sobol numbers and have shown that their scrambling algorithm can lead to a significantly higher convergence speed. The upcoming CUDA 4.0 Release provides an implementation of the scrambling algorithm outlined in [2].

The aim is now to compare the order of convergence of a PRNG (Merssenne-Twister),  a QRNG (Sobol) and this scrambled-QRNG for the pricing of a portfolio of geometric Asian options. To number of observation dates of the Asian options in the benchmark portfolio varies between 45 and 120 observation dates. The dimensionality of the pricing problem is considerably large. We’ll use a Brownian bridge to construct the paths. This ensures that the first coordinates of a Sobol sequence are used to sample the most important modes.

The error analysis is not an easy task.  Simply applying another randomized shift is not sufficient as this transformation changes the discrepancy of a point-set (A shifted (t,m,d)-net does not need to be a (t,m,d)-net.). In [3] this problem was overcome by looking on the RMS relative error

\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\frac{\hat{C}_i -C_i}{C_i}\right)^2}

of a set of benchmark options with true prices given by C_1,...,C_m and the Monte-Carlo approximations \hat{C}_1,...,\hat{C}_m.

We are in particular interest in ratios between the PRNG, QRNG and scrambled QRNG errors and in the order \alpha of the convergence.  For PRNG we are expecting a convergence of order err \simeq N^{\alpha} with  \alpha=-0.5 and N being the number of paths.

As can be seen in the diagram the scrambled Sobol sequence provides the smallest overall error bounds but the convergence order between scrambled and non-scrambled Sobol does not differ significantly. As the implementation comes more or less for free it’s definitely worth to check scrambled Sobol sequences out.

C++ and CUDA code is available here.  It depends on QuantLib 1.1 and CUDA 4.0. If you want to generate the plot directly out of the C++ program you also need R, RCPP and RInside.

[1] J. Dick, Higher order scrambled digital nets achieve the optimal rate of the root mean square error for smooth integrands. ArXiv, 8 July 2010.

[2] A.B. Owen, Local antithetic sampling with scrambled nets. ArXiv, 28 May 2008

[3] P. Glasserman, Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering.  ISBN-0387004513