Rough volatility: fact or artefact?
Rama Cont, Purba Das

TL;DR
This paper develops a non-parametric method to estimate the roughness of volatility signals and finds that observed roughness in realized volatility may be due to microstructure noise rather than the underlying volatility process.
Contribution
It introduces a new estimator for roughness based on normalized p-th variation and demonstrates its effectiveness through extensive numerical experiments.
Findings
Realized volatility appears rough with H<0.5 regardless of the underlying process.
Microstructure noise likely causes the observed roughness in realized volatility.
The method accurately estimates roughness in simulated stochastic processes.
Abstract
We investigate the statistical evidence for the use of `rough' fractional processes with Hurst exponent for the modeling of volatility of financial assets, using a model-free approach. We introduce a non-parametric method for estimating the roughness of a function based on discrete sample, using the concept of normalized -th variation along a sequence of partitions. We investigate the finite sample performance of our estimator for measuring the roughness of sample paths of stochastic processes using detailed numerical experiments based on sample paths of fractional Brownian motion and other fractional processes. We then apply this method to estimate the roughness of realized volatility signals based on high-frequency observations. Detailed numerical experiments based on stochastic volatility models show that, even when the instantaneous volatility has diffusive dynamics with…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMarket Dynamics and Volatility
