arxiv: v2 [math.na] 12 Mar 2014

Transcription

1 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm Nathan Coier Abdu Lateef Haji Ai Fabio Nobie Erik von Schwerin Raú Tempone arxiv:14.463v [math.na] 1 Mar 14 Abstract We propose a nove Continuation Muti Leve Monte Caro (CMLMC) agorithm for weak approximation of stochastic modes that are described in terms of differentia equations either driven by random measures or with random coefficients. The CMLMC agorithm soves the given approximation probem for a sequence of decreasing toerances, ending with the desired one. CMLMC assumes discretization hierarchies that are defined a priori for each eve and are geometricay refined across eves. The actua choice of computationa work across eves is based on parametric modes for the average cost per sampe and the corresponding weak and strong errors. These parameters are caibrated using Bayesian estimation, taking particuar notice of the deepest eves of the discretization hierarchy, where ony few reaizations are avaiabe to produce the estimates. The resuting CMLMC estimator exhibits a non-trivia spitting between bias and statistica contributions. We aso show the asymptotic normaity of the statistica error in the MLMC estimator and justify in this way our error estimate that aows prescribing both required accuracy and confidence in the fina resut. Numerica exampes substantiate the above resuts and iustrate the corresponding computationa savings. Keywords Mutieve Monte Caro Monte Caro Partia Differentia Equations with random data Mathematics Subject Cassification () 65C5 65N N. Coier (E-mai: nathanie.coier@gmai.com) Oak Ridge Nationa Lab, Cimate Change Science Institute (CCSI), Environmenta Sciences Division A. Haji Ai (E-mai: abduateef.hajiai@kaust.edu.sa) R. Tempone (E-mai: rau.tempone@kaust.edu.sa) Appied Mathematics and Computationa Sciences, KAUST, Thuwa, Saudi Arabia. F. Nobie E. Schwerin MATHICSE-CSQI, EPF de Lausanne, Switzerand.

2 Nathan Coier et a. 1 Introduction Mutieve Monte Caro Samping was first introduced for appications in the context of parametric integration by Heinrich [, 1]. Later, to consider weak approximation of stochastic differentia equations (SDEs) in mathematica finance, Kebaier [6] introduced a two-eve Monte Caro technique in which a coarse grid numerica approximation of an SDE was used as a contro variate to a fine grid numerica approximation, thus reducing the number of sampes needed on the fine grid and decreasing the tota computationa burden. This idea was extended to a mutieve Monte Caro (MLMC) method by Gies in [14], who introduced a fu hierarchy of discretizations with geometricay decreasing grid sizes. By optimay choosing the number of sampes on each eve this MLMC method decreases the computationa burden, not ony by a constant factor as standard contro variate techniques do, but even reducing the rate in the computationa compexity from O ( 3) of the standard Euer-Maruyama Monte Caro method to O ( og () ), assuming that the work to generate a singe reaization is O ( 1). For one-dimensiona SDEs, the computationa compexity of MLMC was further reduced to O ( ) by using the Mistein Scheme [13]. Moreover, the same computationa compexity can be achieved by using antithetic contro variates with MLMC in muti-dimensiona SDEs with smooth and piecewise smooth payoffs [18]. This standard MLMC method has since then been extended and appied in a wide variety of contexts, incuding jump diffusions [34] and Partia Differentia Equations (PDEs) with random coefficients [7,8,9,15,33]. The goa in these appications is to compute a scaar quantity of interest that is a functiona of the soution of a stochastic PDE (SPDE). It is proved in [33, Theorem.5] that there is an optima convergence rate that is simiar to the previousy mentioned compexity rates, but that depends on the reation between the rate of strong convergence of the discretization method of the SPDE and the work compexity associated with generating a singe sampe of the quantity of interest. In fact, in certain cases, the computationa compexity can be of the optima rate, namey O ( ). To achieve the optima MLMC compexity rate and to obtain an estimate of the statistica error, sufficienty accurate estimates of the variance on each eve must be obtained. Moreover, finding the optima number of eves requires a sufficienty accurate estimate of the bias. As such, an agorithm is needed to find these estimates without incurring a significant overhead to the estimation of the wanted quantity of interest. In [14], Gies proposed an agorithm, henceforth referred to as Standard MLMC or SMLMC, that works by iterativey increasing the number of eves and using sampe variance estimates across eves. Moreover, SMLMC uses an arbitrary fixed accuracy spitting between the bias and the statistica error contributions. Other works [3, 16, 17, 9] isted simiar versions of this agorithm. We outine this agorithm in Section 3. In Section 4, we propose a nove continuation type of MLMC agorithm that uses modes for strong and weak convergence and for average computationa work per sampe. We refer to this agorithm as Continuation MLMC or CMLMC. The CMLMC agorithm soves the given probem for a sequence of decreasing toerances, which pay the roe of the continuation parameter, ending with the prescribed toerance. Soving this sequence of probems aows CMLMC to find in-

3 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 3 creasingy accurate estimates of the bias and variances on each eve, in addition to the quantity of interest, which is the goa of the computation. In each case, an optimizied MLMC hierarchy is generated given the current estimate of parameters. Moreover, we use a Bayesian inference approach to robusty estimate the various probem parameters. The CMLMC agorithm is abe to reax the statistica error bound given the bias estimate, to achieve the optima spitting between the two. These techniques improve the computationa compexity of the CMLMC agorihtm and increase the overa stabiity of the agorithm. The outine of this work is as foows: We start in Section by recaing the MLMC method and the assumed modes on work, and on weak and strong convergence. After introducing the agorithms in Sections 3 and 4, Section 5 presents numerica exampes, which incude three-dimensiona PDEs with random inputs and Itô SDEs. Finay, we finish by offering concusions and suggesting directions for future work in Section 6. Mutieve Monte Caro.1 Probem Setting Let g(u) denote a rea vaued functiona of the soution, u, of an underying stochastic mode. We assume that g is either a bounded inear functiona or Lipschitz with respect to u. Our goa is to approximate the expected vaue, E[g(u)], to a given accuracy and a given confidence eve. We assume that individua outcomes of the underying soution u and the evauation of the functiona g(u) are approximated by a discretization-based numerica scheme characterized by a mesh size, h. The vaue of h wi govern the weak and strong errors in the approximation of g(u) as we wi see beow. To motivate this setting, we now give two exampes and identify the numerica discretizations, the discretization parameter, h, and the corresponding rates of approximation. The first exampe is common in engineering appications ike heat conduction and groundwater fow. Here, the vaue of the diffusion coefficient and the forcing are represented by random fieds, yieding a random soution and a functiona to be approximated in the mean. The second exampe is a simpe one-dimensiona geometric Brownian motion with European ca option. Exampe.1 Let (Ω, F, P ) be a compete probabiity space and D be a bounded convex poygona domain in R d. Find u : D Ω R that soves amost surey (a.s.) the foowing equation: (a(x; ω) u(x; ω)) = f(x; ω) for x D, u(x; ω) = for x D. Here, we make the standard assumptions on the coefficients: there exist two positive random variabes, < a min a max < such that a min (ω) a(x, ω) a max (ω) a.s. and amost everywhere (a.e.) on D. With respect to the right-hand side, f : D Ω R, we here assume that there exists a random variabe, C f (ω) <, such that f(, ω) L (D) < C f (ω) a.s. Denote the space H 1 (D) = {v H 1 (D) : v ϕ n H 1 (D) as n, for some sequence (ϕ n ) C (D)}

4 4 Nathan Coier et a. endowed with the norm v H 1 (D) = v L (D). Under the previous assumptions, there exists a unique soution, u(, ω) H 1 (D) H 1 (D), such that u(ω) H 1 (D) C P f L (D) a min (ω) a.s., where C P is the Poincaré constant of the domain D, i.e., v L (D) C P v H 1 (D), for a v H 1 (D). We aso assume that there exists a random variabe, C a (ω) <, such that a(, ω) L (D) C a (ω) a.s. Thus, there exists a random variabe, < C u (ω), such that u(ω) H (D) C u (ω) a.s. A standard approach to approximate the soution of this probem is to use Finite Eements on reguar trianguations. In such a setting, the parameter h > refers to either the maximum eement diameter or another characteristic ength and the corresponding approximate soution is denoted by u h (ω). If g is an L (D) continuous functiona and with the assumptions in this exampe, then, for piecewise inear or piecewise biinear continuous finite eement approximations, the foowing approximation rates hod: there exist a random variabe, C g (ω) < such that g(u) g(u h ) C g h a.s. By assuming extra integrabiity on the coefficients a and f, we can even obtain the estimates E[g(u) g(u h )] = Q W h + o ( h ) and E [ (g(u) g(u h )) ] = Q S h 4 + o ( h 4) for some constants < Q W, Q S <. Exampe. Here we study the weak approximation of Itô stochastic differentia equations (SDEs), du(t) = a(t, u(t))dt + b(t, u(t))dw (t), < t < T, where u(t; ω) is a stochastic process in R d, with randomness generated by a k- dimensiona Wiener process with independent components, W (t; ω), cf. [5, 8], and a(t, u) R d and b(t, u) R d k are the drift and diffusion fuxes, respectivey. For any given sufficienty we behaved function, g : R d R, our goa is to approximate the expected vaue, E[g(u(T ))]. A typica appication is to compute option prices in mathematica finance, cf. [4, 19], and other reated modes based on stochastic dynamics. When one uses a standard Euer Maruyama (Forward Euer) method based on uniform time steps of size h to approximate (.), then the foowing rates of approximation hod: E[g(u(T )) g(u h (T ))] = Q W h+o (h) and E [ (g(u(t )) g(u h (T ))) ] = Q S h + o (h), for some constants, < Q W, Q S <. For suitabe assumptions on the functions a, b and g, we refer to [7,31]. To avoid cuttering the notation, we omit the reference to the underying soution from now on, simpy denoting the quantity of interest by g. Foowing the standard MLMC approach, we assume, for any given non-negative integer L N, that we have a hierarchy of L + 1 meshes defined by a decreasing sequence of mesh sizes {h } L = where h = h β for some h > and a constant integer β > 1. We denote the resuting approximation of g using mesh size h by g, or by g (ω) when we want to stress the dependence on an outcome on the underying random mode. Using the foowing notation: { g if =, G = g g 1 if >,

5 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 5 the expected vaue of the finest approximation, g L, can be expressed as E[g L ] = L E[G ], = where the MLMC estimator is obtained by repacing the expected vaues in the teescoping sum by sampe averages. Denoting the sampe averages by G as G = { M 1 M M 1 m=1 ( g (ω,m ) ) if =, g (ω,m ) g 1 (ω,m ) if >, M m=1 the MLMC estimator can be written as A = L G. (.) = Each sampe average, G, is computed using M independent identicay distributed (i.i.d.) outcomes, {ω,m } M m=1, of the underying, mesh-independent, stochastic mode; the outcomes are aso assumed to be independent between the different sampe averages. The number of sampes on any eve is a positive integer, M Z +. We use the foowing mode for the expected vaue of the cost associated with generating one sampe of G, incuding generating a the underying random variabes: { h γ W if =, + h γ 1 if >, h γ for a given γ. Note the cost of generating a sampe of G might differ for different reaizations, for exampe due to different number of iterations in an iterative method or due to adaptivity of the used numerica method. The parameter γ depends on the number of dimensions of the underying probem and the used numerica method. For exampe, γ = 1 for the one-dimensiona SDE in Exampe.. For the SPDE in Exampe.1, if the number of dimensions is d = 3 then γ = 3 γ, where γ depends on the sover used to sove the resuting inear system. In that exampe, iterative methods may have a smaer vaue of γ than direct methods. The theoretica best-case scenario for iterative methods woud be γ = 1 for mutigrid methods. On the other hand, we woud have γ = 3 if one used a direct method using a naive Gaussian eimination on dense matrices. The tota work of the estimator (.) is W = L M W. = We want our estimator to satisfy a toerance with prescribed faiure probabiity < α < 1, i.e., P[ E[g] A > ] α, (.3)

6 6 Nathan Coier et a. whie minimizing the work, W. Here, we spit the tota error into bias and statistica error, E[g] A E[g A] + E[A] A, }{{}}{{} Bias Statistica error and use a spitting parameter, θ (, 1), such that = θ }{{} + (1 θ). }{{} Statistica error toerance Bias toerance The MLMC agorithm shoud bound the bias, B = E[g A], and the statistica error as foows: B = E[g A] (1 θ), E[A] A θ, (.4a) (.4b) where the atter bound shoud hod with probabiity 1 α. Note that θ does not have to be a constant, indeed it can depend on as we sha see in Section 4. In the iterature [14], some authors have controed the mean square error (MSE), [ MSE = E[g A] + E E[A] A ], rather than working with (.3). We prefer to work with (.3) since it aows us to prescribe both the accuracy and the confidence eve, 1 α, in our resuts. The bound (.4b) eads us to require ( ) θ Var[A], (.5) for some given confidence parameter, C α, such that Φ(C α ) = 1 α ; here, Φ is the cumuative distribution function of a standard norma random variabe. The bound (.5) is motivated by the Lindeberg Centra Limit Theorem in the imit, cf. Lemma A.1 in the Appendix. By construction of the MLMC estimator, E[A] = E[g L ], and denoting V = Var[G ], then by independence, we have Var[A] = L = V M 1, and the tota error estimate can be written as C α Tota error estimate = B + C α Var[A]. (.6) Given L and < θ < 1 and minimizing W subject to the statistica constraint (.5) for {M } L = RL+1 gives the foowing optima number of sampes per eve : ( ) ( L ) Cα V M = V W. (.7) θ W When substituting the optima number of sampes in a eves the optima work can be written in terms of L as foows W (, L) = = ( ) ( L ) Cα V W. (.8) θ =

7 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 7 Of course, the number of sampes on each eve is a positive integer. To obtain an approximate vaue of the optima integer number of sampes, we take the ceiing of the rea-vaued optima vaues in (.7). In this work, we assume the foowing modes on the weak error and variance: E[g g ] Q W h q 1, Var[g g ] Q S h q, (.9a) (.9b) for some constants Q W, Q S >, q 1 > and < q q 1. For exampe, the SPDE in Exampe.1 has q = q 1 and in Section 5, the SPDE is soved using a finite eement method with standard triinear basis and it has q 1 =. For the SDE in Exampe. with Euer discretization, q 1 = q = 1. Coectivey, we refer to the parameters q 1, q, Q S, Q W and {V } L = as probem parameters. Based on these modes, we can write for > E[G ] Q W h q 1 Var[G ] = V Q S h q Specificay, as a consequence of (.9a), the bias mode is ( ) 1 β q 1, (.1a) ( ) 1 β q. (.1b) B Q W h q 1 L. (.11) Finay, we note that the agorithms presented in this work are iterative. We therefore denote by M, G and V the tota number of sampes of G generated in a iterations and their sampe average and sampe variance, respectivey. Expicity, we write G = 1 M V = 1 M M m=1 M m=1 G,m, (.1a) ( G,m G ). (.1b) 3 Standard MLMC 3.1 Overview Whie minor variations exist among MLMC agorithms isted in [14, 17, 18], we beieve that there is sufficient commonaity in them for us to outine here the overarching idea and refer to this coection of methods as the Standard MLMC agorithm or simpy SMLMC. SMLMC soves the probem by iterativey increasing the number of eves of the MLMC hierarchy. In order to find the optima number of sampes of each eve, an estimate of the variance V is needed. If there were previousy generated sampes in previous iterations for a eve, the sampe variance V is used. Otherwise, an initia fixed number of sampes, M, is generated. Moreover, in most works, the spitting between bias and statistica error, θ, is chosen to be.5.

8 8 Nathan Coier et a. After running the hierarchy, an estimate of the tota error is computed. To this end, the work [14] approximates the absoute vaue of the constant, Q W, using a simiar expression to the foowing: ( Q W max G L h q 1 L (1, βq 1 ) G L 1 h q 1 L 1 (1 βq 1 ) ) := Q W. In other words, the absoute vaue of the constant Q W is estimated using the sampes generated on the ast two eves. Thus, this estimate is ony defined for L. Next, the variance of the estimator, Var[A], is approximated by Var[A] L = V M := V. Finay, a tota error estimate can be computed as outined by (.6) Tota error estimate = Q W h q 1 L + C α V. (3.1) The compete agorithm is outined in Agorithm 1. Agorithm 1 1: function StandardMLMC(, M, θ) : Start with L =. 3: oop 4: Generate hierarchy {h } L =. 5: Generate M sampes for eve L and estimate V L. 6: Using sampe variance estimates, {V } L = from a iterations, and the constant θ, compute optima number of sampes, {M } L =, according to (.7). 7: Compute with the hierarchy using the optima number of sampes. 8: If L and the tota estimate error (3.1) is ess than, then END 9: Otherwise, set L = L : end oop 11: end function Usuay a sampes from previous iterations are used in the agorithm to run the hierarchy in step 7 to cacuate the required quantity of interest. However, the anaysis of the bias and the statistica error of the resuting estimator is difficut and has not been done before, to the best of our knowedge. 3. Accuracy of the parameter estimates In the standard agorithm, Q W and the variances {V } L = are needed and estimated. In this section, we ook at the accuracy of the estimators for these probem parameters.

9 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 9 We examine the accuracy of the sampe variance by computing its squared reative error for > 1: Var [ ] ( V M 1 ) ( V = M 3 E [(G E[G ]) 4] V ) (M 3) V M 1 ( M 1 ) ( [ = C M 3 E (G E[G ]) 4] V M ) 3 M 1 ( M 1 ) ( [ C E (G E[G ]) 4] Q S h q M ) 3. M 1 M 3 Uness E [ (G E[G ]) 4] Ch q, for some constant C >, or M increases sufficienty fast, the reative error in the estimator V can become unbounded as. Simiary, the reative error of the sampe variance at eve = can be shown to be bounded for instance by assuming that the second and fourth centra moments of G are bounded. Next, for simpicity, we ook at the squared reative error estimate of Q W by assuming that it is estimated using sampes on a singe eve, L, ony. Var[ G L h q 1 L (1 β q 1 ) Q W ] V L = Q W M Lh q 1 L (1 βq 1 ) ( ) = Q h q S L 1 β q Q W M L h q 1 L (1 βq 1 ) ( ) = Q S(1 β q ) Q W (1 βq 1 ) h q q 1 L M L Observe now that if q < q 1, then, for the previous reative error estimate to be o (1), we must have M L h q q 1 L as L. The anaysis shows that in some cases, M L wi have to grow to provide an accurate estimate to Q W, regardess of the optima choice of the number of sampes outined in (.7).. 4 Continuation MLMC (CMLMC) In this section we discuss the main contribution of this work, a continution MLMC (CMLMC) agorithm that approximates the vaue E[g(u)]. We begin in the next subsection by giving an overview of the genera idea of agorithm. Subsequent subsections discuss how to estimate a the required probem parameters that are necessary for running the agorithm. CMLMC is isted in Agorithm. We aso ist the parameters that contro the agorithm in Tabe Overview The main idea is to sove for E[g(u)] with a sequence of decreasing toerances, ending with the desired accuracy requirement,. By doing this, CMLMC is abe

10 1 Nathan Coier et a. to improve estimates of severa probem dependent parameters whie soving reativey inexpensive probems corresponding to arge toerances. These parameters estimates are crucia to optimay distribute computationa effort when soving for the ast toerance, which is the desired one. Assuming that we want to approximate E[g(u)] with toerance, we make the foowing choice for the sequence of decreasing toerances i for i =, 1, { r i E i 1 r 1 i = i < i E, r i E i r 1 i i E, where r 1 r > 1. By imposing = max for some maximum toerance, we have og() + og(r ) + og( max ) i E =, og(r 1 ) Iterations for which i i E are meant to obtain increasingy more accurate estimates of the probem parameters. The iteration i E soves the probem for the toerance r 1. Notice that the probem is soved for a sighty smaer toerance than the required toerance. This toerance reduction is to prevent extra unnecessary iterations due to sight variations in estimates of the probem parameters. This technique improves the overa average running time of the agorithm. Simiary, iterations i > i E have toerances that are even smaer to account for cases in which estimates of the probem parameters are unstabe. The parameters r 1 and r are chosen such that the tota work of the agorithm does not exceed by much the work of the hierarchy that soves the probem with the required toerance,. For exampe, if the work of the MLMC estimator is O( ), we choose r 1 = to ensure that the work of iteration i is roughy four times the work of iteration i 1 for iterations for which i. The choice of r = 1.1, on the other hand, ensures that for iterations for which i <, the work of iterations of i is roughy 1. times the work of iteration i 1. Consider now the i-th iteration of CMLMC and assume that estimates for Q := {q 1, q, Q W, Q S } and {V } L = are avaiabe from previous iterations; we wi discuss how to obtain these estimate in Section 4.. The i-th iteration begins by seecting the optima number of eves L[i] that soves the probem for the given toerance, i, as foows L[i] = argmin Lmin [i] L L max [i] W ( i, L), (4.1) where W is defined by (.8) and depends on a the parameters Q and {V } L = and θ = θ(l) given by θ = 1 Q W h q 1 L, (4.) i which comes from enforcing that the bias mode (.11) equas (1 θ) i. Moreover, L min shoud satisfy Q W h q 1 L min = i or, since we have h = h β, ( ) q 1 og(h ) og i Q W L min [i] = max L[i 1],, q 1 og β where L[i 1] is the number of eves from the previous iteration. This ensures that L does not decrease from one iteration to the next, which agrees with our

11 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 11 intuition that L increases with og ( 1 ) i. On the other hand, Lmax is given by other considerations. For instance, it coud be reated to the minimum mesh size imposed by memory or computationa restrictions. More practicay, to ensure robustness, L max can be chosen to be L min + L inc, for a given fixed integer L inc, so that L has imited increments from one iteration to the next. Since ony few vaues of L are considered in the optimization (4.1), it is easy to find the optima L by exhaustive search. The choice (4.) impies that the statistica constraint (.5) is reaxed (or tightened) depending on the estimated bias of each hierarchy. The iteration then continues by buiding the hierarchy {h } L = and computing with the optima number of sampes {M } L = according to (.7). Finay the iteration ends by improving the estimates of the probem parameters Q and {V } L = as we as the quantity of interest based on the newy avaiabe sampes as described in Section 4.. To start CMLMC we compute with an initia, reativey inexpensive, hierarchy. The purpose of using this initia hierarchy is to obtain rough estimates of the probem parameters. Such a hierarchy cannot depend on estimates of probem parameters and shoud have at east three eves to aow estimating Q. The agorithm stops when the tota error estimate is beow the required toerance. 4. Parameters estimation In this section, we discuss how to improve estimates of the parameters Q as we as the variances V base on the generated sampes in a iterations and a eves. For easier presentation, we wi aso use the foowing notation w (q 1 ) = h q 1 (1 β q 1 ), ( ) s (q ) = h q 1 β q. Thus, using the notation above, (.1) becomes E[G ] Q W w (q 1 ), (4.3a) Var[G ] = V Q S s 1 (q ). (4.3b) 4..1 Estimating variances V We first assume that we have estimates of q 1, q, Q W and Q S and discuss estimating the variances, {V } L =, and the tota statistica error after computing with a given hierarchy. Estimating q 1, q, Q W and Q S is discussed in the next subsection. Usuay the variances {V } L = are estimated by using the sampe variance estimator (.1b) to estimate the statistica error as we as the optima number of sampes {M } L =. However, sometimes there are too few sampes in a given eve to give a corresponding accurate variance estimate. This is speciay acute on the deepest eves, and unike the standard MLMC agorithm, we do not impose a minimum number of sampes across eves to obtain a stabe estimate of the sampe variance. Recaing that we have the variance mode (4.3b) at our disposa, we

12 1 Nathan Coier et a. can use this mode to estimate the variance at a eves >. However, the mode (4.3b) is ony accurate asymptoticay. We can use the generated sampes on each eve to ocay improve the accuracy of the V estimates. To this end, we use a Bayesian setting [3]. We assume that G foows a norma distribution with mean µ and precision λ (precision is simpy the inverse of the variance). To simpify the computation, we choose a norma-gamma prior on (µ, λ ) the conjugate prior of the norma ikeihood. The resuting posterior probabiity density function (pdf) is aso a normagamma distribution function. We choose the parameters ( µ, κ,.5+ λ i κ 1, κ 1 ) for the norma-gamma prior, such that it is maximized at µ i and λ i. The parameter µ and λ serve as initia guesses for µ and λ, respectivey. Moreover, κ and κ 1 are positive constants that mode our certainty in those respective guesses. We use the assumed modes of the weak and strong errors (4.3) to give the initia guesses µ = Q W w (q 1 ), (4.4a) λ = Q 1 S s (q ). (4.4b) As mentioned, the posterior ( pdf is aso a norma-gamma with parameters (Υ 1,, Υ,, Υ 3,, Υ 4, ) and it is maximized at Υ 1,, Υ 3,.5 Υ 4 ). Specificay Υ 3, =.5 + κ 1 λ + M, Υ 4, = κ M ( ) G,m G + κ M (G µ ). (κ + M ) m=1 As such, we use the foowing estimate of the variance V for > V Υ 4, Υ 3,.5. (4.5) Estimating the variance at the coarsest mesh, V, can be done using the sampe variance. The number of sampes on the coarsest eve, M, is usuay arge enough to produce a stabe and accurate estimate. Using these estimates and the bias estimate (.11), the tota error can be estimated as (.6). 4.. Estimating Q To incorporate prior knowedge on q 1 and q incuding initia guesses and the reation q q 1, we again foow a Bayesian setting to estimate these parameters and assume that G foows a Gaussian distribution with mean Q W w (q 1 ) and variance Q S s 1 (q ). In what foows, is a non-negative integer. With these assumptions, the corresponding ikeihood is L L = = ( πq S s 1 (q ) ) M exp 1 Q S L = s (q ) M m=1 (G,m Q W w (q 1 )). (4.6)

13 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 13 Assuming a improper prior on Q W and Q S and maximizing the resuting posterior pdf with respect to Q W and Q S gives the foowing weighted east-squares soution: L Q W = M w (q 1 )s (q ) = 1 L L Q S = M s (q ) = = 1 L = w (q 1 )s (q )M G, M m=1 (4.7a) (G,m Q W w (q 1 )). (4.7b) We can substitute the previous Q S and Q W in (4.6) to obtain a ikeihood in terms of q 1 and q. Denoting M = L = M, we write ( L(q 1, q ) = exp M ) L M = m= s (q )G,m ( L = s (q )w (q 1 )M G ) L = M w (q 1 ) s (q ) M. We can then assume a prior on q 1 and q. However, remember that q q 1, and q 1 >. As such, we introduce the unconstrained parameters x (q 1 ) = og(q 1 ) R and x 1 (q 1, q ) = og(q 1 q ) R and assume a Gaussian prior on them 1 ρ prior (q 1, q ) = π exp ( (x (q 1 ) x ) σ σ σ 1 (x 1(q 1, q ) x 1 ) σ 1 Here, x and x 1 represent our initia guesses of x and x 1, respectivey, which we can obtain from a rough anaysis of the probem. Moreover, σ 1 and σ mode our confidence in those guesses. The more accurate our initia guesses are, the faster the agorithm converges. Finay, we numericay maximize the og of the posterior pdf with respect to (x, x 1 ) R using a suitabe numerica optimization agorithm. For robustness, we choose = 1 to estimate q 1 and q. In other words we incude sampes from a eves > for this estimation. Given estimates of q 1 and q, we can produce estimates of Q S and Q W by using the east-squares estimates (4.7). However, usuay not a eves foow the assumed asymptotic modes (.1) and as such specia care must be taken to choose in these estimates. The parameter Q W must be accurate on deeper eves since it is used to compute the bias (.11). Simiary, Q S must be accurate on deeper eves where not many sampes are avaiabe and the variance estimate (4.5) is mainy determined by the initia guess (4.4b). For these reasons, when estimating Q S and Q W, we choose = max(1, L L) in (4.7) for some positive integer L that denotes the maximum number of eves use to compute the estimates. Finay, Since Q W has an improper prior, its posterior is aso the Gaussian (4.6) with variance V W := L = Q S Mw (q )s (q 1 ). With 1 α confidence, the samping error of Q W is C α VW. Motivated by the accuracy anaysis of the Q W estimate in Section 3., we produce a worst estimate of Q W by adding the samping error mutipied by the sign of Q W estimate. ).

14 14 Nathan Coier et a. Agorithm 1: function CMLMC(Parameters summarized in Tabe 4.1) : Compute with an initia hierarchy. 3: Estimate probem parameters {V } L =, Q S, Q W, q 1 and q according to section 4: 4.. Set i =. 5: repeat 6: Find L according to (4.1). 7: Generate hierarchy {h } L =. 8: Using the variance estimates (4.5) and θ from (4.), compute the optima number of sampes according to (.7). 9: Compute with the resuting hierarchy using the optima number of sampes. 1: Estimate probem parameters, {V } L =, Q S, Q W, q 1 and q, according to section : Estimate the tota error according to (.6). 1: Set i = i : unti i > i E and the tota error estimate is ess than 14: end function Parameter x, x 1, σ and σ 1 κ and κ 1 max r 1 and r Initia hierarchy Purpose Parameters to mode the initia guess of q 1 and q and the confidence in those estimates. The confidence in the weak and strong error modes, respectivey. The maximum toerance with which to start the agorithm. Contros the computationa burden to caibrate the probem parameters compared to the one taken to sove the probem. The initia hierarchy to start the agorithm. Must be reativey inexpensive and has at east three eves. L inc Maximum number of vaues to consider when optimizing for L. L Maximum number of eves used to compute estimates of Q W and Q S. C α Parameter reated to the confidence in the statistica constraint. Tabe 4.1 Summary of parameters in CMLMC 5 Numerica Tests In this section, we first introduce the test probems. We then describe severa impementation detais and finish by presenting the actua numerica resuts. 5.1 Test Probems We ook at three test probems: the first two are PDEs with random inputs and the ast one is an Itô SDE Ex.1 This probem is based on Exampe.1 in Section.1 with some particuar choices that satisfy the assumptions therein. First, we choose D = [, 1] 3 and assume that the forcing is f(x; ω) = f + f K K K Φ ijk (x)z ijk, i= j= k=

15 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 15 where and Φ ijk (x) = λ i λ j λ k φ i (x 1 )φ j (x )φ k (x 3 ), { ( cos 1Λi φ i (x) = ( πx) ) i is even, sin 1Λ(i+1), πx i is odd, 1 ( i =, λ i = (π) 14 1 Λ 1 exp ( ) π i Λ) i is even, ( exp ( ) π i+1 Λ) i is odd, for given Λ >, and positive integer K and Z = {Z ijk } a set of (K + 1) 3 i.i.d. standard norma random variabes. Moreover, we choose the diffusion coefficient to be a function of two random variabes as foows: ( ) a(x; ω) = a + exp 4Y 1 Φ 11 (x) + 4Y Φ 877 (x). Here, Y = {Y 1, Y } is a set of i.i.d. norma Gaussian random variabes, aso independent of Z. Finay we make the foowing choice for the quantity of interest, g: g = (πσ) 3 D ( exp x x ) σ u(x)dx, and seect the parameters a =.1, f = 5, f = 1, Λ =., K = 1, σ =.6863 and x = [.56695,.64876, ]. Since the diffusion coefficient, a, is independent of the forcing, f, a reference soution can be cacuated to sufficient accuracy by scaing and taking expectation of the weak form with respect to Z to obtain a formua with constant forcing for the conditiona expectation with respect to Y. We then use stochastic coocation [3] with a sufficienty accurate quadrature to produce the reference vaue E[g]. From this method, the reference vaue 1.66 is computed with an error estimate of Ex. The second exampe is a sight variation of the first. First, we choose the foowing diffusion coefficient instead: ( ) a(x; ω) = 1 + exp Y 1 φ 11 (x) + Y φ 877 (x). Moreover, in this exampe Y is a set of two i.i.d. uniform random variabes in the range [ 1, 1], again independent of Z. We aso make the foowing choice for the quantity of interest g g = 1 (πσ) 3 D ( exp x x ) σ u(x)dx, and seect the parameters a = 1, f = 1, f = 1, Λ =., K = 1, σ = and x = [.64861, , ]. The computed reference soution E[g] in this case is.367 with an error estimate of 1 4.

16 16 Nathan Coier et a. d γ q 1 q s 1 s Ex.1 and Ex. with GMRES sover Ex.1 and Ex. with MUMPS sover Ex Tabe 5.1 Summary of probem parameters Ex.3 The third exampe is a one-dimensiona geometric Brownian motion based on Exampe.. We make the foowing choices: T = 1, a(t, u) =.5u, b(t, u) =.u, g(u) = 1 max(u(1) 1, ). The exact soution can be computed using a standard change of variabes and Itô s formua. For the seected parameters, the soution is E[g] = Impementation and Runs A the agorithms mentioned in this work were impemented using the C programming anguage, with the goa that the software be as optima as possibe, whie maintaining generaity. For impementing the sover for the SPDE test probems (Ex.1 and Ex.), we use PetIGA [11,1]. Whie the primary intent of this framework is to provide high-performance B-spine-based finite eement discretizations, it is aso usefu for appications where the domain is topoogicay square and subject to uniform refinements. As its name suggests, PetIGA is designed to tighty coupe to PETSc [5, 6,4]. The framework can be thought of as an extension of the PETSc ibrary, which provides methods for assembing matrices and vectors reated to the discretization of integra equations. In our SPDE numerica tests (Ex.1 and Ex.), we use a standard triinear basis to discretize the weak form of the mode probem, integrating with eight quadrature points. We aso generate resuts for two inear sovers that PETSc provides an interface to. The first sover is an iterative GMRES sover that soves a inear system in amost inear time with respect to the number of degrees of freedom for the mesh sizes of interest; in other words γ = 1 in this case. The second sover we tried is a direct one, caed MUMPS [1,]. For the mesh sizes of interest, the running time of MUMPS varies from quadratic to inear in the tota number of degrees of freedom. The best fit turns out to be γ = 1.5 in the case. From [33, Theorem.5], the compexity rate for a the exampes is expected to be O ( T OL s 1 og() s ), where s1 and s depend on q 1, q and dγ. These and other probem parameters are summarized in Tabe 5.1 for the different exampes. We run each agorithm 1 times and show in pots in the next section the medians with vertica bars spanning from the 5% percentie to the 95% percentie. Finay, a resuts were generated on the same machine with 5 gigabytes of memory

17 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 17 Parameter Vaue for SPDE exampes (Ex.1 Vaue for SDE exampe (Ex.3) and Ex.) h 1/4 for Ex.1, 1/8 for Ex. 1 β κ and κ 1.1 for both.1 for both max.5.1 r 1 and r and 1.1, respectivey and 1.1, respectivey Initia hierarchy L = and h = {4, 6, 8} and M = 1 for a. L = and h = {1,, 4} and M = 1 for a. L inc L 3 5 C α Tabe 5. Summary of parameters vaues to used in numerica tests to ensure that no overhead is introduced due to hard disk access during swapping that coud occur when soving the three-dimensiona SPDEs with a fine mesh. In order to compare CMLMC to SMLMC, and since the atter does not incude a step to fit q 1 and q, we assume that these parameters are both known as discussed in Exampe.1 and Exampe.. Moreover, we use the parameters isted in Tabe Resuts Figure 5.1 shows that the running time of CMLMC foows the expected compexity rates O ( s 1 og() s ) as summarized in Tabe 5.1. Next, Figure 5. shows the number of eves, L, in the ast iteration of CMLMC for different toerances. As expected, even though L depends on the particuar reaization, it is we approximated by a inear function of og( 1 ). Next, Figure 5.3 shows the computationa errors of CMLMC that were computed using the reference soutions as isted in Section 5.1. This indicates that the imposed accuracy is achieved with the required confidence of 95% since C α =. Compare this figure to Figure 5.4 which shows the computationa errors of SMLMC. One can see that, in certain cases, SMLMC soves the probem for a smaer toerance than the imposed. This is because θ is fixed and the statistica error is not reaxed when the bias is sma. This can be especiay seen in Ex. where the choice h = 1/8 produces a bias much smaer than.5 for the shown toerances. On the other hand, Figure 5.5 is a QQ-pot showing that the empirica cumuative distribution function (CDF) of the MLMC estimates is we approximated by the standard norma CDF, even for finite toerances. Figure 5.6 shows a comparison of the running time of CMLMC and SMLMC. Notice that a good vaue of M in SMLMC is not known a priori and the computationa time varies consideraby for different vaues of M, especiay for smaer toerances in Ex.1 and Ex.. Specificay, a arger M in SMLMC increases the computationa time of the agorithm, but aso its stabiity. A smaer M gives a smaer computationa time at the expense of increased variation. The variation of the running time is due to inaccurate estimates of V due to the smaer number of initia sampes. On the other hand, the running time of CMLMC is more stabe, which is a refection of the stabiity of the estimates of V. The computationa savings of CMLMC over SMLMC is an aggregate effect of the different improvements.

18 18 Nathan Coier et a. This incudes 1) a more stabe variance and bias estimates as aready discussed, ) a better spitting of bias and statistica toerances. This second point can be seen in Figure 5.7, which shows the toerance spitting parameter, θ, used in CMLMC as computed by (4.). We can ceary see here that θ is not trivia and changes with the toerance. Looking cosey, one can notice sudden jumps in the vaues of θ due to changes in the discrete number of eves, L. Between jumps, θ changes continuousy due to inaccuracies in the estimation of the weak error constant, Q W. Specificay, notice that for =.14 in Ex.1 when using the direct sover, the spitting parameter θ used in CMLMC is very cose to.5 which expains why, for this case, the computationa time of SMLMC is very cose to the computationa time of CMLMC as shown in Figure 5.6. Finay, the bias of the MLMC estimator when using sampes generated in previous iterations to compute the quantity of interest is not we understood. Using CMLMC, generating new sampes at each iteration, instead of using sampes from previous iterations, does not add a significant overhead to the tota running time of the agorithm. Figure 5.8 expains this point by comparing the running time of CMLMC for both cases for both CMLMC and SMLMC. This figure shows that computationa savings of CMLMC over SMLMC whether we reuse sampes or not in the former, mainy due to better spitting of the toerance between bias and statistica errors. Moreover, it shows that reusing sampes in CMLMC does not offer significant computationa savings that justify the increased compexity in the anaysis of the resuting estimator. 6 Concusions We have proposed a nove Continuation Muti Leve Monte Caro (CMLMC) agorithm for weak approximation of stochastic modes that are described in terms of differentia equations either driven by random measures or with random coefficients. Our agorithm uses discretization hierarchies that are defined a priori for each eve and are geometricay refined across eves. These hierarchies are either uniform at each eve or obtained by reguar subdivision of a non-uniform mesh. The actua choice of computationa work across eves uses the optima amount of sampes per eve given the variance and the work contribution from each eve. Accurate computation of these reevant quantities is based on parametric modes. These parameters are caibrated using approximate sampes, either produced before running the CMLMC and/or during the actua runs. We aso propose a nove Bayesian estimation of the strong and weak error mode parameters, taking particuar notice of the deepest eves of the discretization hierarchy, where ony a few reaizations are avaiabe to produce the required estimates. The idea is to use resuts from coarser eves, where more sampes are avaiabe, to stabiize the estimates in the deeper eves. The resuting MLMC estimator exhibits a nontrivia spitting between bias and statistica contributions. Indeed, the actua spit depends on the given accuracy and other probem parameters. In fact, as the numerica exampes show, there are cases where most of the accuracy budget is devoted to the statistica error. Finay, using the Lindeberg-Feer theorem, we aso show the asymptotic normaity of the statistica error in the MLMC estimator and justify in this way our error estimate that aows prescribing both required accuracy and confidence in the fina resut.

19 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 19 We presented three numerica exampes to substantiate the above resuts, exhibiting the robustness of the new CMLMC Agorithm and to demonstrate its corresponding computationa savings. Other aspects of MLMC estimators can aso be expored, such as the optimaity of geometric hierarchies compared to non-geometric ones. This wi be the subject of a forthcoming work, where extensions of the CMLMC to that setting wi be considered. A Normaity of MLMC estimator Theorem A.1 [1, Lindeberg-Feer Theorem, p. 114] For each n, et X n,m, for 1 n m, be independent random variabes (not necessariy identica). Denote a n = n X n,m, m=1 Y n,m = X n,m E[X n,m], s n = n E [ Yn,m]. m=1 Suppose the foowing Lindeberg condition is satisfied for a ɛ > : Then, im n s n n m=1 ] E [Y n,m 1 Y n,m >ɛs n =. (A.1) [ ] im P an E[a n] z = Φ(z), n s n where Φ(z) is the norma cumuative density function of a standard norma random variabe. Lemma A.1 For the MLMC estimator A given by A = L M = m=1 G (ω,m ) M, where G (ω,m ) denote as usua i.i.d. sampes of the random variabe G. The the famiy of random variabes, (G ), is aso assumed independent. Denoting Y = G E[G ] and assuming < E [ Y ], (A.a) [ ] E Y +δ <, (A.b) C 1 β q3 E [ Y ] for a >, (A.c) [ ] E Y +δ C β τ for a >, (A.d) for some β > 1 and stricty positive constants C 1, C, q 3, δ and τ. Choose the number of sampes on each eve M to satisfy, for q > and a stricty positive sequence {H } ( H 1 L = ) M ( H β q H 1 L = ) H if =, for a >, (A.3)

20 Nathan Coier et a. If, in addition to the above, we have that either τ ( + δ)q 3 + δq, (A.4a) or L max (, c og ( 1) ) + C (A.4b) og β for some constants C, and c satisifying < c < δ (( + δ)q 3 + δq τ) (A.5) then im P [ ] A E[A] z Var[A] = Φ (z). Proof We prove this theorem by ensuring that the Lindeberg condition (A.1) is satisfied. The condition becomes in this case M [ ] 1 L Y im E Var[A] M 1 Y >ɛ Var[A] = m=1 M }{{} :=F for a ɛ >. Beow we make repeated use of the foowing identity for non-negative sequences {a } and {b } and q. ( ) q a q b a b. (A.6) First we use the Markov inequaity to bound M [ ] 1 L Y F = E Var[A] M 1 Y >ɛ Var[A]M = m=1 ɛ δ L [ ] Var[A] 1+δ/ M 1 δ E Y +δ. = Using (A.6) and substituting for the variance Var[A] where we denote Var[G ] = E [(G E[G ]) ] by V, we find =, ( L ) 1+δ/ ɛ δ = M 1 V L [ ] F ( L ) 1+δ/ V 1 δ/ = V M 1 M δ/ E Y +δ = ɛ δ L = V 1 δ/ [ M δ/ E Y +δ Using the ower bound on the number of sampes M (A.3) and (A.6) again yieds F ɛ δ δ ( ɛ δ δ ( V 1 δ/ H δ/ E V 1 δ/ E [ [ Y +δ Y +δ ] + ] + L =1 ]. L V 1 δ/ β δq [ H δ/ E =1 [ ] ) V 1 δ/ β (δ/)q E Y +δ. Y +δ ] ) ( L ) δ/ H =

21 A Continuation Mutieve Monte Caro agorithm 1 Finay using the bounds (A.c) and (A.d) where F ɛ δ δ ( V 1 δ/ E ( [ = ɛ δ δ V 1 δ/ E [ Y +δ Y +δ We distinguish two cases here, namey: ] + C 1 δ/ 1 C =1 ] + C 1 δ/ 1 C β p βlp 1 β p 1 p = (1 + δ/)q 3 + (δ/)q τ. ) L β (1+δ/)q 3 β (δ/)q β τ If (A.4a) is satisfied then im F = for any choice of number of eves L. Otherwise, substituting (A.4b) gives ( F ɛ δ δ V 1 δ/ E ( = O δ cp), [ Y +δ ), ] + C 3 β p cp β Cp ) 1 β p 1 and since in this case (A.5) is satisfied then im F =. Remark A.1 The choice (A.3) mirrors the choice (.7) up to constants, the atter being the optima number of sampes to bound the statisitca error of the estimator by. Specificay, H V W where W is the work per sampe on eve. Moreover, the choice (.7) uses the variances {V } L = or an estimate of it in the actua impementation. On the other hand, the choice (A.3) uses the upper bound of V instead, if q is the rate of strong convergence therein. Furthermore, if we assume the weak error mode (.9a) hods and h L = h β L then we must have Q W h q 1 L = Q W h q 1 β Lq 1 (1 θ), which gives a ower bound on the number of eves L, namey L og( 1 ) q 1 og(β) + og(1 θ) + og(q W ) + q 1 og(h ), q 1 og(β) to bound the bias by. Finay, in Exampe.1 the conditions (A.) are satisfied for q 3 = and, for exampe, δ = and τ = 4. Simiary, Exampe. satisfies the conditions (A.) are for q 3 = 1 and δ = and τ =, cf. []. Remark A. The assumption (A.c) can be reaxed. For instance, one can assume instead that V +1 V for a 1, < im Var[Y ]β q 3 <, and sighty different conditions than (A.4) and (A.5). Acknowedgements The fifth author is a member of the Research Center on Uncertainty Quantification in Computationa Science and Engineering at KAUST (SRI-UQ). The authors woud ike to recognize the support of King Abduah University of Science and Technoogy (KAUST) AEA project Predictabiity and Uncertainty Quantification for Modes of Porous Media and University of Texas at Austin AEA Rnd 3 Uncertainty quantification for predictive modeing of the dissoution of porous and fractured media. We woud aso ike to acknowedge the foowing open source software packages that made this work possibe: PETSc [5], PetIGA [1], NumPy [9], matpotib [3].

22 Nathan Coier et a. References 1. Amestoy, P.R., Duff, I.S., L Exceent, J.Y., Koster, J.: A fuy asynchronous mutifronta sover using distributed dynamic scheduing. SIAM J. Matrix Ana. App. 3, (1). DOI /S URL id= Amestoy, P.R., Guermouche, A., L Exceent, J.Y., Praet, S.: Hybrid scheduing for the parae soution of inear systems. Parae Computing 3(), (6). DOI DOI: 1.116/j.parco URL pii/s Parae Matrix Agorithms and Appications (PMAA 4) 3. Babuška, I., Nobie, F., Tempone, R.: A stochastic coocation method for eiptic partia differentia equations with random input data. SIAM review 5(), (1) 4. Baay, S., Brown, J.,, Buscheman, K., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W.D., Kaushik, D., Knepey, M.G., McInnes, L.C., Smith, B.F., Zhang, H.: PETSc users manua. Tech. Rep. ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.4, Argonne Nationa Laboratory (13) 5. Baay, S., Brown, J., Buscheman, K., Gropp, W.D., Kaushik, D., Knepey, M.G., McInnes, L.C., Smith, B.F., Zhang, H.: PETSc Web page (13) Baay, S., Gropp, W.D., McInnes, L.C., Smith, B.F.: Efficient management of paraeism in object oriented numerica software ibraries. In: Arge, E., Bruaset, A.M., Langtangen, H.P. (eds.) Modern Software Toos in Scientific Computing, pp Birkhäuser Press (1997) 7. Barth, A., Schwab, C., Zoinger, N.: Muti-eve Monte Caro finite eement method for eiptic PDEs with stochastic coefficients. Numerische Mathematik 119(1), (11) 8. Charrier, J., Scheich, R., Teckentrup, A.: Finite eement error anaysis of eiptic PDEs with random coefficients and its appication to mutieve Monte Caro methods. SIAM Journa on Numerica Anaysis 51(1), 3 35 (13) 9. Ciffe, K., Gies, M., Scheich, R., Teckentrup, A.: Mutieve Monte Caro methods and appications to eiptic PDEs with random coefficients. Computing and Visuaization in Science 14(1), 3 15 (11) 1. Coier, N., Dacin, L., Cao, V.: PetIGA: High-performance isogeometric anaysis. arxiv ( ) (13) Dacin, L., Coier, N.: PetIGA: A framework for high performance isogeometric anaysis (13) Durrett, R.: Probabiity: theory and exampes. second edn. Duxbury Press, Bemont, CA (1996) 13. Gies, M.: Improved mutieve monte caro convergence using the mistein scheme. In: Monte Caro and quasi-monte Caro methods 6, pp Springer (8) 14. Gies, M.: Mutieve Monte Caro path simuation. Operations Research 56(3), (8) 15. Gies, M., Reisinger, C.: Stochastic finite differences and mutieve Monte Caro for a cass of SPDEs in finance. SIAM Journa of Financia Mathematics 3(1), (1) 16. Gies, M., Szpruch, L.: Antithetic mutieve Monte Caro estimation for mutidimensiona SDEs. In: Monte Caro and Quasi-Monte Caro Methods 1 (submitted). Springer (13) 17. Gies, M., Szpruch, L.: Mutieve Monte Caro methods for appications in finance, pp Word Scientific (13) 18. Gies, M., Szpruch, L.: Antithetic mutieve Monte Caro estimation for muti-dimensiona SDEs without Lévy area simuation. To appear in Annas of Appied Probabiity (13/4) 19. Gasserman, P.: Monte Caro methods in financia engineering, Appications of Mathematics (New York), vo. 53. Springer-Verag, New York (4). Stochastic Modeing and Appied Probabiity. Heinrich, S.: Monte Caro compexity of goba soution of integra equations. Journa of Compexity 14(), (1998) 1. Heinrich, S., Sindambiwe, E.: Monte Caro compexity of parametric integration. Journa of Compexity 15(3), (1999). Hoe, H., Schwerin, E.v., Szepessy, A., Tempone, R.: Adaptive mutieve Monte Caro simuation. In: Engquist, B., Runborg, O., Tsai, Y.H. (eds.) Numerica Anaysis of Mutiscae Computations, no. 8 in Lecture Notes in Computationa Science and Engineering, pp Springer (1) 3. Hunter, J.D.: Matpotib: A D graphics environment. Computing In Science & Engineering 9(3), 9 95 (7)