we consider the problem of european and american option pricing and refer to  @xcite and the references therein for an introduction into computational methods for option pricing . while european options can be modeled by a parabolic partial differential equation , american options result in additional inequality constraints .
different models can be used to price european and american options .
the simplest ones , e.g. , the black - scholes model  @xcite , assume that the volatility is constant .
however , in most of the cases , the real market violates this assumption due to its stochastic nature .
thus , alternative models , which try to capture this phenomenon are frequently used , e.g. , the heston stochastic volatility model  @xcite .
another difficulty which arises with solving partial differential equations ( pdes ) for option pricing , in particular for pricing american options , is that for most of the models no closed form solution exists .
thus one has to develop appropriate numerical methods .
the common methods to solve pricing equations with the heston model are finite differences , cf .
@xcite and finite elements , cf .
we refer to  @xcite for a possible numerical treatment of basket options with the black - scholes model by primal - dual finite elements and to  @xcite for an abstract framework on the theory of constrained variational problems .
we are interested in providing fast numerical algorithms to accurately solve the variational equality and inequality systems associated with european and american call and put options for a large variety of different parameter values such as , e.g. , interest rate , dividend and correlation . reduced basis ( rb ) methods
are an appropriate means for standard parametrized parabolic partial differential equations , cf . @xcite and the references therein .
these techniques are based on low - dimensional approximation spaces , that are constructed by greedy procedures .
convergence behavior is known in some cases @xcite .
the computational advantage of rb - methods over standard discretization methods is obtained by its possible offline / online decomposition : first , a typically expensive offline - phase involving the computation of the reduced spaces is performed .
this phase only needs to be precomputed once .
then , the online phase allows an extremely fast computation of the rb solutions for many new parameters as only low dimensional systems need to be solved .
recently , we adopted the rb methodology to constrained stationary elliptic problems @xcite , which we extend here to the instationary case .
we refer to the recent contribution  @xcite for a tailored rb approach in option pricing with diffusion and jump - diffusion models , which later was generalized to basket options  @xcite and , in fact , was shown to be a variant of a proper orthogonal decomposition method ( pod )  @xcite .
the application of the reduced basis method can be also extended to the calibration of option pricing models , e.g. ,  @xcite .
in contrast to our setting , no inequality constraints are taken into account there .
further work relevant for rb - methods and variational inequalities comprises @xcite , which addresses a time - space formulation of the problem and corresponding analysis .
also , recently , ongoing work has been presented in  @xcite , which alternatively treats the inequality constraints both by a primal - dual technique and a penalization approach .
one main challenge in our problem setting is the construction of a suitable low dimensional approximation of the dual cone required for the treatment of the constraints . in this work
, we present an algorithm to overcome this difficulty which is based on the greedy procedure and tries to capture as much `` volume '' as possible in the construction of the dual cone .
this is obtained by iteratively selecting snapshots maximizing the angle to the current space . as second main ingredient for treatment of additional inequality constraints , we provide analytical results , in particular a posteriori error control .
let us briefly relate the current presentation to our previous works .
in contrast to @xcite , which dealt with rb methods for stationary variational inequalities , we treat here instationary problems . in this way , we apply sharper a posteriori error estimator strategies , which can straightforwardly be applied to the stationary case and gives improvements over @xcite .
in @xcite we presented an rb procedure for american option pricing with a black - scholes model and gave first simple examples .
the current presentation considerably extends this by including the heston model and both european and american options and providing an analysis for the corresponding rb scheme .
the content of this paper is structured as follows : in section  [ sec : var_form ] , we present both a strong and a variational formulation of pricing of european and american options with the black - scholes and heston model . in section  [ sec : rb ] , a reduced basis method is introduced together with the construction of the primal and dual reduced basis spaces .
section  [ sec : error_analysis ] contains the a posteriori error analysis induced by the method and derived from equality and inequality residuals .
the implementational aspects of the reduced basis method together with the construction algorithms for reduced basis spaces are presented in section  [ sec : implementation ] .
numerical results , given in section  [ sec : results ] , illustrate the performance of the method for pricing options in one dimensional black - scholes and two dimensional heston models .
in this section , we give a brief introduction to the theory of option pricing .
an option is a contract which permits its owner the right to buy or sell an underlying asset ( a stock , or a parcel of shares ) at a prespecified fixed strike price @xmath0 before or at a certain time @xmath1 , called maturity .
there are two basic types of an option : a _ call _ option which gives a holder a right to buy and a _ put _ option which allows an owner to sell an underlying asset .
also one distinguishes between european options , where exercise is only permitted at maturity @xmath2 and american options which can be exercised at any time before an expiration time @xmath2 . we will denote the price of the underlying asset by @xmath3 , where @xmath4 is the time to maturity @xmath2 .    in standard option pricing models , e.g. , the black - scholes model  @xcite
, a price of the underlying asset @xmath5 follows a stochastic process , governed by the following stochastic differential equation @xmath6 with a wiener process @xmath7 , a drift @xmath8 and a volatility @xmath9 .
one of the main limitations of these models is the assumption that the volatility of the return on the underlying asset is constant @xmath10 , while in financial markets , the volatility is not a constant , but a stochastic variable .
the heston stochastic volatility model  @xcite takes into account the randomness of the volatility and is based on the following stock price and variance dynamics @xmath11 where @xmath12 follows a square root process ( known as a cox - ingersoll - ross ( cir ) process ) with the mean variance @xmath13 , rate of mean reversion @xmath14 and so called volatility of volatility @xmath15 .
the wiener processes @xmath16 and @xmath17 are correlated with the correlation parameter @xmath18 $ ] .    with the use of ito s formula  @xcite
, each model can be formulated in terms of a partial differential equation ( pde ) . for purposes of brevity
, we omit the derivation of the equations .
the reader is referred to  @xcite for further details .
we define the spatial differential operators corresponding to the black - scholes and heston model as follows @xmath19 where @xmath20 is the interest rate and @xmath21 is the dividend payment . then the value of an option @xmath22 in the black - scholes model and @xmath23 in the heston model paying @xmath24 at maturity time @xmath2 must satisfy the following partial differential equation @xmath25 where the value @xmath24 is called a payoff function and @xmath26 , @xmath27 for the black - scholes and the heston model , respectively .
[ remark : bs ] assuming a constant volatility in the heston model and no dividend payment in the black - scholes model , @xmath28 , we have @xmath29 and @xmath30 , and the heston equation reduces to the black - scholes equation with the constant volatility @xmath31 .    for further derivation of the weak formulation of the problem ( [ eq : heston1 ] ) , we introduce the following notation .
let @xmath32 , @xmath33 , be a bounded open domain with lipschitz continuous boundary @xmath34 .
we consider @xmath35 for the black - scholes model and @xmath36 for the heston model .
note that this is not a limitation for the rb - approach that we present .
higher dimensional problems can readily be treated , as soon as suitable solvers for the discretized pde are available .
we introduce the following functional space @xmath37 where @xmath38 denotes a dirichlet portion of the boundary @xmath39 .
further @xmath40 and @xmath41 denote the inner product and norm of @xmath42 , similar for other spaces . in the error analysis ,
we make use of a norm bound , i.e. we denote by @xmath43 a constant that satisfies , for any @xmath44 : @xmath45 in the experiments , we use @xmath46 or weighted @xmath46 norms for @xmath42 , but for the sake of generality of our analysis , we introduce this generic constant that includes other frameworks , e.g. , @xmath47 norm for which @xmath43 is the friedrichs - poincar constant .
we define a backward time variable @xmath48 which we will use throughout the paper .
this transforms the pde ( [ eq : heston1 ] ) into a standard forward evolution problem .
we denote by @xmath49 , by  @xmath50 " the hadamard product and introduce a parameter @xmath51 , @xmath52 , which parametrizes ( [ eq : heston1 ] ) .
we set @xmath53 for the black - scholes model and @xmath54 for the heston model .
we start our consideration with the simplest case of pricing the european type of options .
since puts and calls of the european option can be easily interchanged via a put - call parity relation  @xcite , it suffices for us to consider , e.g. , only call options .
in addition , there exists a semi - closed analytical solution for these options in the black - scholes and heston models .
however , while the black - scholes formula  @xcite provides almost the exact value of the european option , the heston semi - analytical formula  @xcite requires some numerical techniques to approximate the integral .
thus , it is more interesting to consider the case of the heston model
. then the value of a european call option @xmath55 , @xmath56 ( the relation to @xmath57 being established soon ) satisfies the following linear equation @xmath58 , \label{eq : eo1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] subject to initial and boundary conditions @xmath59 the description of the boundary conditions can be interpreted as follows : for a large stock price @xmath60 , we use a neumann boundary condition which establishes a linear growth of an option price .
when the volatility @xmath61 is 0 , we can not impose any boundary conditions and assume that the equation ( [ eq : eo1 ] ) is satisfied on the line @xmath62 . when the stock price is worthless @xmath63 ,
it is natural to assume that the value of the call is also worthless .
the option price is increasing with the volatility but it remains bounded by the stock price , hence when the volatility @xmath61 is large , we assume the value of the option tends to reach the value of the stock price @xmath60 .
note , this is not the only way to prescribe boundary conditions for the problem , other types of boundary conditions can be found , e.g. , in  @xcite .
the variance process ( [ eq : varprocess ] ) is strictly positive if the condition on the parameters @xmath64 is satisfied , which is often referred as the feller condition , see , e.g. ,  @xcite .
this condition plays a crucial role in the calibration process of the heston model , and it is uncommon that the parameters violate it .
thus we restrict ourselves to the choice of model parameters , such that the feller condition is fulfilled .
since the operator @xmath65 in ( [ eq : heston ] ) is a degenerate parabolic differential operator , the standard way to eliminate the variable coefficient @xmath60 is to perform the log - transformation of @xmath60 by introducing a new variable @xmath66 .
then we are looking for the solution @xmath67 , with the initial condition @xmath68 which satisfies the transformed heston equation @xmath69 for all @xmath70 .
the operator @xmath71 corresponds to the operator @xmath65 in ( [ eq : heston ] ) with respect to a change of variables and is defined as follows @xmath72 with @xmath73 and first oder spatial differential operator @xmath74 . to perform a numerical simulation
, we localize the problem ( [ eq : heston_tr ] ) to a bounded computational domain @xmath75 with the variance @xmath76 .
then the boundary conditions transform into @xmath77 with @xmath78 being an outward normal vector at the boundary , @xmath31 and @xmath79 and a cumulative distribution function @xmath80 defined as @xmath81 using the test function @xmath82 yields the following weak formulation of ( [ eq : heston_tr ] ) @xmath83 where @xmath84 various methods can be applied to solve this problem numerically , e.g. ,  @xcite . in what follows we use a @xmath85-scheme for the discretization in time and conforming piecewise linear finite elements for the discretization in spatial direction .
we divide @xmath86 $ ] into @xmath87 subintervals of equal length @xmath88 and define @xmath89 , @xmath90 , @xmath91 . then , for given @xmath92 we are looking for @xmath93 that satisfy for all @xmath82 @xmath94 in order to ensure dirichlet boundary conditions we set @xmath95 , where @xmath96 solves ( [ eq : heston_tr ] ) with homogeneous dirichlet boundary conditions and @xmath97 is a dirichlet lift function , which extends non - homogeneous boundary conditions to the interior of the domain .
then ( [ eq : eodisc1 ] ) becomes @xmath98 where @xmath99      we extend our considerations to american options based on the black - scholes and heston model , for which , in general , a closed form solution does not exist .
since american calls are equal to european calls on non - dividend paying stocks  @xcite , we will focus only on american put options in both models .
the value @xmath100 of an american put paying @xmath101 at @xmath102 is a solution of the following problem @xmath103 where the differential operator @xmath104 is defined in ( [ eq : bs ] ) and ( [ eq : heston ] ) for the black - scholes and heston model , respectively .
we specify the boundary conditions for the black - scholes model @xmath105 and for the heston model @xmath106 following the same arguments as in section [ sec : eo ] , we consider the price of the american put in the log - transformed variable @xmath107 with a log - transformed payoff @xmath108 which solves the following problem @xmath109 the operator @xmath110 , @xmath27 for the black - scholes or heston model , where @xmath111 the boundary conditions for the heston model are set to @xmath112 on @xmath113 and @xmath114 on @xmath115 . for the black - scholes model we define @xmath116 and on this boundary we prescribe @xmath112 .    our aim is to reformulate the system ( [ eg : ao1_trans])([eq : ao2_trans ] ) in a variational saddle point form  @xcite .
define @xmath117 to be the dual space of @xmath42 and @xmath118 to be a dual cone . for
all @xmath119 , @xmath44 introduce a duality pairing @xmath120 , @xmath121 and @xmath122 .
the bilinear form of the black - scholes equation reads @xmath123 with the use of these notations we are ready to recast the problem ( [ eg : ao1_trans])([eq : ao2_trans ] ) in a saddle point form : find @xmath124 such that @xmath125 with @xmath126 in ( [ eq : bilbs ] ) or @xmath127 in ( [ eq : bilheston ] ) for the black - scholes or heston model , respectively . to treat the problem numerically
, we use a @xmath85-scheme for the discretization in time and conforming piecewise linear finite elements for the discretization in spatial direction .
we divide @xmath86 $ ] into @xmath87 subintervals of equal length @xmath88 and define @xmath89 , @xmath90 , @xmath91 . in order to ensure dirichlet boundary conditions , we set @xmath128 , where @xmath129 solves   with homogeneous dirichlet boundary conditions and @xmath130 is a dirichlet lift function , which extends non - homogeneous boundary conditions to the interior of the domain . for @xmath131
we introduce the operators @xmath132 and the discrete problem in a saddle point form reads :    for @xmath133 and given initial data @xmath134 find @xmath135 for @xmath131 and @xmath136 satisfying @xmath137    the bilinear form @xmath138 , @xmath27 is specified for each model in   or  . here and in the following , we frequently omit the argument @xmath139 whenever the parameter value is clear from the context . the problem ( [ eq : aodisc1])([eq : aodisc2 ] ) can be considered as a model independent formulation for pricing american put options . moreover ,
the european call option is also enclosed in this formulation by the exchange of @xmath140 with @xmath141 , initial conditions and omitting @xmath142 and @xmath143 terms .
therefore , in the further discussions of the implementation aspects and analysis , we will focus only on the general american put option case , and we will not distinguish the models which are used to price the option .
however in section [ sec : results ] , we present and compare numerical results for european and american options in both models .    by a generalized lax - milgram argument , a problem of type  ( [ eq : aodisc1])([eq : aodisc2 ] ) is well - posed if the bilinear form @xmath144 is continuous and coercive , @xmath145 , @xmath146 are linear and continuous and @xmath142 is inf - sup stable . in particular , for the heston model , if @xmath147 the matrix @xmath148 in ( [ eq : heston_coef ] ) is positive definite on @xmath149 and under the suitable relation on the coefficients , we obtain the coercivity and continuity of @xmath150 .
this issue for the european call option was studied in great detail in  @xcite .
the well - posedness of the problem in the black - scholes settings can be found , e.g. , in  ( * ? ? ?
* ch . 6 ) .
the coercivity , continuity , and inf - sup constants are defined as follows @xmath151 also , for our choice of a dual space and cone we assume @xmath152
in this section , we provide the rb - scheme for the variational inequality problem and present the main analytical results .
standard finite element approaches do not exploit the structure of the solution manifold under parameter variation and for a given parameter value , a high dimensional system has to be solved . in what follows
, we introduce a specific galerkin approximation of the solution , based on the reduced basis method .
the first step of the reduced basis method mainly consists in computing parametric solutions in low dimensional subspaces of @xmath42 and @xmath153 , defined in section  [ sec : var_form ] , that are generated with particular solutions , the so - called _ snapshots _ , of our problem .
let us explain the corresponding formulation in more detail .
for @xmath154 , consider a finite subset @xmath155 with @xmath156 .
the reduced spaces @xmath157 and @xmath158 are defined by @xmath159 and @xmath160 where @xmath161 and @xmath162 are suitably constructed from the large set of snapshot solutions @xmath163 , @xmath164 , @xmath165 and @xmath166 , @xmath164 , @xmath167 and the reduced dimensions @xmath168 are preferably small . both families @xmath169 and @xmath170 are supposed to be composed of linearly independent functions , hence are so - called _
reduced bases_. numerical algorithms to build these two sets will be presented in section  [ sec : rbcomp ] .
we define the reduced cone as @xmath171 which satisfies @xmath172 due to the assumption of @xmath173 . in this
setting , the reduced problem reads :    given @xmath174 , find @xmath175 and @xmath176 for @xmath177 that satisfy @xmath178 for all @xmath179 and the initial value @xmath180 is chosen as an orthogonal projection of @xmath181 on @xmath157 , i.e. , @xmath182 for all @xmath183 .      by the construction procedure for @xmath184 in section  [ sec : implementation ] , we will assure inf - sup stability of @xmath142 on @xmath185 and guarantee that @xmath186 , where @xmath187 which implies the well - posedness of our reduced problem  ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) with identical arguments as for the detailed saddle point problem .
hence , we ensure existence and uniqueness of the reduced solution . for the details of the proof
, we refer to  @xcite .
a further useful property is a basic consistency argument , the reproduction of solutions :    if for some @xmath139 holds @xmath188 and @xmath189 for @xmath131 and @xmath190 then @xmath191    we prove this property by induction . for @xmath192 , @xmath193 and for @xmath194
we have @xmath195 , for all @xmath183 .
set @xmath196 , then @xmath197 which is true only for @xmath198 . for the induction step ,
we assume that @xmath199 , @xmath200
. then , choosing @xmath201 , @xmath202 , we directly obtain @xmath203 which implies that @xmath204 solves the reduced problem . due to the uniqueness of the solution , we obtain @xmath205 and @xmath206 .
in this section , we present an a posteriori analysis of our rb - scheme .
in particular , only the more challenging constraint case of american options is considered , as for the european option model , the well established standard rb - error analysis for linear parabolic problems @xcite can be applied , which we omit in this work .    again , to simplify the presentation , we omit the parameter vector @xmath139 in the notation of @xmath207 . in the same way , we only consider the case @xmath208 , that is , an implicit euler time discretization .
however the analysis presented hereafter holds for any @xmath209 $ ] , up to technical supplementary computations .
we start by introducing relevant residuals and preliminary results .      in order to evaluate the approximation errors induced by our method
, we define , for @xmath210 , the equality and inequality residuals by : @xmath211 we also introduce the primal and dual errors @xmath212 using the linearity of @xmath213 , one finds that : @xmath214 as a consequence of inf - sup stability , one can bound the dual error by the primal error , as stated in the next lemma .
[ lemma : pderror ] for @xmath210 , the dual error at time step @xmath215 can be bounded by the primal error as @xmath216    the inf - sup stability of @xmath142 guarantees the existence of a @xmath217 such that @xmath218 using  , we find that : @xmath219 and the result then follows from  .      let us then introduce , for @xmath210 , the riesz - representer @xmath220 of our inequality residual : @xmath221 contrary to @xmath222 , the quantity @xmath223 is not a straightforward error estimator component because of the inequality constraint .
we obviously would correctly penalize if @xmath224 for some @xmath225 as desired , but we would also penalize @xmath226 which is not necessary . hence , we need to cope with the inherent nonlinearity induced by the inequalities . for this purpose , we consider a family of projectors on the cone @xmath227 which are assumed to satisfy , for @xmath210 , @xmath228    having and the characterization of the dual cone @xmath229 we find that @xmath230    projectors satisfying   improve the one proposed in  @xcite , namely one term in the error bound can be cancelled .
we also refer to  @xcite where such techniques are applied for finite element based error estimators in contact mechanics and for obstacle problems .
we are now in a position to define an a posteriori error estimator associated with our method .
[ apostest ] define the a posteriori quantities @xmath231 one has : @xmath232    first , we note that we have for all @xmath233 : @xmath234 and we recall that for all @xmath235 : @xmath236 from  , we then have : @xmath237 let us focus on the term @xmath238 . thanks to ,  , , definition of @xmath239 and the fact that @xmath240 from  , this term can be simplified as follows : @xmath241 this estimate combined with   and the coercivity of @xmath242 , gives rise to : @xmath243 the first term of the inequality   can be expressed as @xmath244 using lemma  [ lemma : pderror ] and young s inequality , we then bound @xmath245 in  : @xmath246 combining this estimate with  , we can simplify   as follows : @xmath247 using young s inequality gives : @xmath248 we get the result by combining the latter with  , summing the resulting inequalities from @xmath192 up to @xmath249 and multiplying the result by @xmath250 .
we point out that @xmath251 can be regarded as measure for the violation of the constraint .
thus it plays a similar role as typical penalty terms in primal methods .
in this section , we mainly discuss the implementational aspects of solving a reduced basis problem ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) associated with our detailed formulation  ( [ eq : aodisc1])([eq : aodisc2 ] ) .
let us give a few remarks about the solvability of the detailed problem .
the differential operator in  ( [ eq : aodisc1 ] ) is of convection - diffusion type with constant ( in the black - scholes model ) or variable ( in the heston model ) coefficients .
thus for the specific range of the parameters , the convective term may dominate the diffusive one , and applying the standard galerkin method might lead to instabilities and inaccurate results . to overcome this difficulty and enhance the quality of the discrete solution , one can use a different discretization scheme , e.g. , a streamline upwind petrov - galerkin method  @xcite .
however , for our numerical simulations , we restrict the parameter range such that the diffusive term is large enough compared to the convective one and a standard galerkin finite element method can be applied .    for the remainder of the paper , @xmath42 is now a standard conforming piecewise linear finite element space used for the discretization of the variational inequality . more precisely , consider a triangulation @xmath252 of @xmath57 , consisting of @xmath253 simplices @xmath254 , @xmath255 , such that @xmath256 .
we then use a standard conforming nodal first order finite element space .
we define the discrete space @xmath257 of dimension @xmath258 . for the sake of simplicity ,
we omit the index @xmath259 and consider @xmath42 to be a discrete finite element space .
we associate the basis functions @xmath260 with its lagrange node @xmath261 , i.e. , @xmath262 .
for the discretization of the lagrange multipliers in @xmath118 , we use dual basis functions  @xcite , that is , we consider a dual finite element basis @xmath263 of @xmath117 , so that @xmath264 , @xmath265 . the cone @xmath229 is defined by : @xmath266    as these spaces are assumed to be sufficiently accurate a priori , that is , the finite element discretization error is neglegible compared to the reduction error , we do not discriminate notationally between the true and the finite element spaces .
however a more extensive analysis has to take into account also the quality of the detailed solution .
we shall now present a method to solve the problem  ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) .
the approach we follow is mainly based on the primal - dual - active - set - strategy  @xcite , which is equivalent to semi - smooth newton method , thus a superlinear convergence of the algorithm can be achieved .
we expand the solution @xmath267 of  ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) as @xmath268 and @xmath269 with the coefficient vectors @xmath270 , @xmath271 .
we also introduce the following set of notations : for @xmath272 $ ] , denote by @xmath273 , @xmath274 and @xmath275 the matrices of coefficients @xmath276 , @xmath277 and @xmath278 with @xmath279 and @xmath280 , respectively .
denote also by @xmath281 and @xmath282 the vectors of components @xmath283 and @xmath284 , respectively .
one can then rewrite equations  ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) in the matricial form : @xmath285 where `` @xmath50 '' denotes the hadamard product , @xmath286 , @xmath287 are the coefficient vectors of @xmath288 and @xmath289 in @xmath157 , respectively , @xmath290 is the coefficient vector of @xmath291 in @xmath158 and the initial data is obtained by solving @xmath292 . to solve efficiently this system , we apply a semi - smooth newton method which can easily be carried out in terms of a primal - dual active set strategy .
thus , a superlinear convergence of the algorithm can be achieved . for the sake of completeness
, we recall here the main features of this method .
let @xmath293 and @xmath294 be generic coefficient vectors of length @xmath295 and @xmath296 , respectively , then we introduce the function @xmath297 , where @xmath298 and @xmath299 applies componentwise . with the use of these notations
, the problem  ( [ eq : virb1])([eq : virb2 ] ) can be rewritten in the algebraic form @xmath300 and the initial data is obtained by solving @xmath292 . to employ the the primal - dual - active - set - strategy
, we introduce the active and inactive sets @xmath301 where we have denoted by @xmath302 the @xmath303-th component of a vector .
the equivalence between equations  ( [ eq : virb3])([eq : virb6 ] ) and equations  ( [ eq : virb7])([eq : virb8 ] ) follows from the fact that if @xmath304 , @xmath305 so that @xmath306 and otherwise , if @xmath307 , @xmath308 so that @xmath309 . a newton iteration can then be applied , which gives rise to the next algorithm .    given a tolerance @xmath310 and initial conditions @xmath311 , the trajectory @xmath312 , @xmath313 is computed recursively as follows .
suppose that at time step @xmath314 , @xmath315 is known .    1 .
set @xmath316 and @xmath317 .
2 .   while @xmath318 , do 1 .
define @xmath319 as the solution of : @xmath320 2 .
set @xmath321 .
3 .   define @xmath322 .
note that @xmath323 and @xmath324 do not appear in the iteration ( except in the definitions of the sets @xmath325 and @xmath326 ) as the functions involved in  ( [ eq : virb7])([eq : virb8 ] ) are either linear or piecewise linear .
using the previous time - step solution as a start iterate the active set is already a very good guess and thus we can expect a good convergence of the newton iteration .      for the a posteriori error estimators
, we require suitable projectors on the cone . in the case of our finite element basis
, we simply choose them by their discrete vectorial representation in the dual finite element space as @xmath327_+\right),\ ] ] where for @xmath328 , @xmath329 is defined by @xmath330 if @xmath331 , and @xmath332 else .
given a coefficient vector @xmath333 , we denote by @xmath334_+$ ] its positive part , that is @xmath335_+\right)_p=0 $ ] , if @xmath336 and @xmath335_+\right)_p=\left(x\right)_p$ ] else . with this definition , the property ( [ prop : pi ] )
is trivially fulfilled .      in this section ,
we present a method to build the reduced primal basis @xmath337 and dual basis @xmath338 .
the approach we follow consists in building iteratively and simultaneously the reduced primal and dual basis in a greedy fashion , as presented in algorithm 2 .
we consider a finite training set @xmath339 small enough such that it can be scanned quickly , but sufficiently large to represent the parameter space well .
after a ( quite arbitrary ) choice of the initial reduced spaces , we proceed in a greedy loop : for a given primal and dual space at stage @xmath340 , we identify the parameter vector @xmath341 in the training set that currently leads to the worst reduced basis approximation . for this
parameter , new primal and dual basis vectors are generated , and this loop is repeated @xmath342 times . to be more precise , the selection of new primal vectors is based on the idea of the pod - greedy procedure , which meanwhile is standard for rb - methods for time - dependent parametric problems @xcite and has provable convergence rates @xcite .
the main step consists in computing the complete simulation of the worst - resolved trajectory , extracting the new information by an orthogonal projection on the current primal space and a compression by a proper orthogonal decomposition ( pod ) to a single vector , the so called dominant pod - mode . in the algorithm
@xmath343 denotes the orthogonal projection on @xmath344 with respect to @xmath345 and the dominant pod - mode is given as @xmath346 the new dual basis vectors are selected using an angle - greedy argument , which aims at maximizing the volume of the resulting cone @xcite .
this means , we include the snapshot showing the largest deviation from the current reduced dual space , that is , the vector @xmath347 that maximizes @xmath348 where @xmath349 denotes the angle between a vector @xmath119 and a linear space @xmath350 .
we point out that our system  has a saddle point structure .
thus ignoring the dual basis in the construction of the primal basis may lead to a reduced system for which the stability can not be guaranteed . to guarantee the inf - sup stability of our approach ,
we follow the `` inclusion of supremizers '' idea introduced in  @xcite for the stokes problem .
this enrichment consists in including @xmath351 into the primal space , where @xmath352 is the solution of @xmath353 , for @xmath44 .
then @xmath354 is the element that supremizes the expression @xmath355 , hence it is called a `` supremizer '' .
this extension ensures that the reduced inf - sup condition ( [ eqn : reduced - inf - sup ] ) is satisfied , which can be proven following the lines of @xcite , and hence the reduced problem is well - posed .
we conclude by defining the final reduced space @xmath356 of dimension @xmath357 .
the selection of the `` worst '' parameter in the greedy loop requires a measure @xmath358 , which is an error estimator that can be chosen as one of these three quantities : @xmath359 hence @xmath360 is the squared true @xmath361-error , @xmath362 is the true error measured in a space - time energy , and @xmath363 is the a posteriori error bound from the previous section , cf .  theorem  [ apostest ] . with these notations ,
the resulting pod - angle - greedy algorithm is fully specified .
[ alg : global - greedy ] given @xmath364 , @xmath339    1
.   choose arbitrarily @xmath365 and @xmath366 2 .
set @xmath367 , @xmath368 , @xmath369 , 3 .
set @xmath370 , @xmath371 , 4 .   for @xmath372 ,
define @xmath373 , 2 .
find @xmath374 3 .
set @xmath375 , + @xmath376 , @xmath377 , 4 .
define @xmath378 , + set @xmath379 , @xmath380 , 5 .
define @xmath381 , @xmath382 , @xmath383 , 6 .
define @xmath384 , @xmath385 , @xmath386 .
let us give some additional comments on this procedure .
first note , that the extension steps in the algorithm are only performed if the sets remain linearly independent .
another way of stating this is to say that if a supremizer is already contained in the current space , it will not be inserted again in order to maintain the linear independence of the reduced bases .
this results in @xmath387 and @xmath388 .    note also that the orthonormalization steps can either be done by a simple gram - schmidt orthonormalization , or a singular value decomposition ( svd ) .
in particular the former is very attractive , as @xmath389 and @xmath390 are already orthonormal , hence in step 4.(d ) it is sufficient to orthonormalize the single vector @xmath351 .
further , we emphasize that the supremizer enrichment in practice also may be skipped : this results in smaller and hence faster reduced models , by accepting the loss of a theoretical stability guarantee , see , e.g. ,  @xcite . using the error estimator @xmath391 or @xmath392 corresponds to work with quantities associated with the true error and is consequently more expensive , as the full trajectories for all parameters in the training set must be precomputed .
this is in contrast to the case of working with @xmath393 , which only involves the reduced solver used in the online phase , and only detailed trajectories for the selected parameters must be computed .
hence , when using @xmath393 , the training set @xmath394 can be potentially chosen much larger and hence much more representative for the complete parameter domain .
we finally give a short comment on the european option case : in that case , we use the @xmath392 measure for selecting the worst parameter . due to the absence of the lagrange multiplier ,
we do not obtain a saddle point structure of the problem .
hence , we omit the supremizer enrichments and the angle - greedy step , and the algorithm then reduces to the classical ( strong ) pod - greedy algorithm .
we use the @xmath85-scheme presented in section  [ sec : var_form ] for the time - discretization with @xmath395 for european and @xmath208 for american options . the time domain @xmath396=[0,1]$ ] is discretized with a uniform mesh of step size @xmath397 , @xmath398 .
the space domain is set to @xmath399 and @xmath400 for the black - scholes and heston model , respectively .
the black - scholes model is treated in the original @xmath60 variable , while the heston model is considered with respect to the log - transformation @xmath401 . as a consequence ,
we use the @xmath46 norm for the heston model and the weighted @xmath46 norm @xmath402 for the black - scholes model .    for the black - scholes model we set @xmath403 nodes and the heston model @xmath404 nodes .
to build the basis , we consider a subset @xmath394 of @xmath405 , which is specified for the black - scholes model as in and for the heston model as in for european options and as in   for american options .
@xmath406\times[0.0014,0.0016]\times[0.4750,0.5250 ] \label{eq : par_dombs}&\subset\mathbb{r}^3,\\ \mathcal{p}&\equiv[0.1,0.4]\times[0.21,0.9]\times[0.08,0.15]\times[1.2 , 3]\times[0.01,0.2]&\subset\mathbb{r}^5,\label{eq : par_domh}\\ \mathcal{p}&\equiv[0.6,0.9]\times[0.21,0.9]\times[0.16,0.25]\times[3 , 5]\times[0.01,0.2]&\subset\mathbb{r}^5\label{eq : par_domha}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the black - scholes setting we use @xmath407 composed of @xmath408 values chosen equidistantly distributed in @xmath409 , while for the heston model the set @xmath407 is varying and specified in every particular case .
we define our model parameters @xmath133 as @xmath410 and @xmath411 for the black - scholes and heston models , respectively .
the strike @xmath412 is not considered as a model parameter , since it scales the value of the option .
we set @xmath413 and @xmath414 for the black - scholes and heston model , respectively . in order to design the reduced primal and dual bases
, we use the pod - angle - greedy algorithm with different error measures @xmath358 .
we first consider the numerical results and a performance of the reduced basis method for the simpler linear case of the european call option with the heston model .
to illustrate the motivation to apply the reduced basis approach , we demonstrate the variability of the solution in parameter and time . in figure
[ fig : snapshots_heston ] ( top left ) the detailed solution for a fixed parameter value at the final time @xmath415 is presented .
the evolution of the solution for different time @xmath416 is shown in figure  [ fig : snapshots_heston ] ( top right ) and the variation with respect to parameters in figure  [ fig : snapshots_heston ] ( bottom ) .     at @xmath417 ( left ) and a time evolution of the option at @xmath418 ( right ) .
bottom : snapshots of the solution for different parameter values extracted at a fixed volatility @xmath418.,title="fig : " ]   at @xmath417 ( left ) and a time evolution of the option at @xmath418 ( right ) .
bottom : snapshots of the solution for different parameter values extracted at a fixed volatility @xmath418.,title="fig : " ] +   at @xmath417 ( left ) and a time evolution of the option at @xmath418 ( right ) .
bottom : snapshots of the solution for different parameter values extracted at a fixed volatility @xmath418.,title="fig : " ]   at @xmath417 ( left ) and a time evolution of the option at @xmath418 ( right ) .
bottom : snapshots of the solution for different parameter values extracted at a fixed volatility @xmath418.,title="fig : " ]    after computing the set of snapshots which consists of the detailed solutions for different @xmath419 , we employ the pod - angle - greedy algorithm with @xmath392 as a selection criterion to construct the reduced basis space @xmath157 .
as mentioned earlier , this procedure corresponds to the standard strong pod - greedy algorithm .
we test the reduced basis approach for different dimension of the parameter domain @xmath420 , @xmath421 , namely we consider @xmath422 , @xmath423 and @xmath424 . for each choice of @xmath139 ,
the remaining parameter values are assumed to be fixed and taking the value from the default parameter vector @xmath425 . in our first test , we consider @xmath426 and @xmath427 equidistantly distributed points .
the first six orthonormal reduced basis vectors produced by the algorithm are presented in figure  [ fig : rb_2d_basis ] .      to quantify the efficiency of the reduced basis method
, we investigate the error decay when increasing the dimension @xmath295 .
for each reduced model , we compute the maximal error @xmath430 over a random test set @xmath431 . in figure
[ fig : rb_2d_error ] , we observe that the error plotted versus the dimension of the reduced model decays exponentially .     for the european option with the heston model and @xmath429 .
the test grid is random @xmath431 .
right : plot of the selected parameters @xmath432 and their frequency of the selection in the construction of the reduced basis in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .
the train set composed of @xmath427 equidistantly distributed points.,title="fig : " ]   for the european option with the heston model and @xmath429 .
the test grid is random @xmath431 .
right : plot of the selected parameters @xmath432 and their frequency of the selection in the construction of the reduced basis in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .
the train set composed of @xmath427 equidistantly distributed points.,title="fig : " ]    the analogous results for other choices of @xmath433 and @xmath434 are presented in figure  [ fig : rb_3d_error ] and figure  [ fig : rb_5d_error ] . for both cases the exponentially decaying behavior of the error is shown , however it can be observed that the convergence is slower for larger dimension of the parameter , which is explained by the increasingly complex parameter dependence of the model . in figure
[ fig : rb_5d_error ] , we also present the evolution of the train error @xmath435 used for the reduced basis construction in the step @xmath436 of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .     for the european call option with the heston model with @xmath437 .
the test grid is random @xmath438 .
right : plot of the selected parameters @xmath432 and their frequency of the selection in the construction of the reduced basis in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .
the train set composed of @xmath439 equidistantly distributed points.,title="fig : " ]   for the european call option with the heston model with @xmath437 .
the test grid is random @xmath438 .
right : plot of the selected parameters @xmath432 and their frequency of the selection in the construction of the reduced basis in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .
the train set composed of @xmath439 equidistantly distributed points.,title="fig : " ]    ( blue stars ) and a test error @xmath430(green crosses ) for the european call option with the heston model with @xmath434 . the test grid is random @xmath440 .
the train set composed of @xmath441 equidistantly distributed points . ]      in this section , we present the numerical results corresponding to the performance of the reduced basis approach for pricing american options with the black - scholes and heston model and the corresponding a posteriori error estimates .      for the american option case with the heston model , we consider the settings of the parameter domain defined in  . for the experiments presented in this section , we consider @xmath442 and , if not stated , the remaining parameter values are set to the corresponding entries of @xmath443 .        in figure
[ fig : ao_snapshots ] , we show the snapshots of the primal solutions and their lagrange multipliers at different parameter values , which motivates us to apply the reduced basis method to this model .
to study the efficiency of the reduced basis approach , we consider the pod - angle - greedy algorithm with the true error indicator @xmath444 .
we build the hierarchical reduced basis with @xmath445 and @xmath446 using the training set @xmath447 uniformly distributed points
. the evolution of the error produced by the algorithm is depicted in figure  [ fig : ao_basis2 ] .
each reduced basis model is tested on the random test set @xmath448 and the corresponding error @xmath449 is also depicted in figure  [ fig : ao_basis2 ] .
now , we restrict ourselves to the black - scholes model .
we first demonstrate the parameter and time dependence of our model . in figure
[ fig : bs_snapshots ] , the examples of the primal and dual solutions at different parameter values @xmath451 and time steps are presented .     at a final time
step @xmath415 .
the evolution of the solution for different times ( right ) .
, title="fig : " ]   at a final time step @xmath415 .
the evolution of the solution for different times ( right ) .
, title="fig : " ]   at a final time step @xmath415 .
the evolution of the solution for different times ( right ) .
, title="fig : " ]    as the next set of experiments , we consider the performance of the reduced basis approach using algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] with the true energy error @xmath452 .
we construct the bases using the proposed algorithm with @xmath453 , @xmath454 and test the reduced basis approach first for a random value of the parameter @xmath455 .
some steps of the simulation are represented in figure  [ fig : simu ] .
the reduced basis and fine detailed simulation curves are hardly distinguishable , that reveals a good reduced basis approximation .    ) at time steps @xmath456 , @xmath457 and @xmath458 for the american put option with the black - scholes model , with @xmath459 .
the payoff function is represented as the black line.,title="fig : " ] ) at time steps @xmath456 , @xmath457 and @xmath458 for the american put option with the black - scholes model , with @xmath459 .
the payoff function is represented as the black line.,title="fig : " ] ) at time steps @xmath456 , @xmath457 and @xmath458 for the american put option with the black - scholes model , with @xmath459 .
the payoff function is represented as the black line.,title="fig : " ]    we then test our algorithm on a larger set of parameters .
we consider @xmath460 , a random set of @xmath461 parameters and estimate the mean value of the error @xmath391 over @xmath462 .
more precisely , we evaluate @xmath463 . the results are plotted in the diagram presented in figure  [ fig : errorcurve ] .
we observe an error decay of several orders in magnitude when simultaneously increasing @xmath295 and @xmath296 .
we now focus on the efficiency of the design procedure and an inclusion of an a posteriori error estimate using as an example the american put option with the black - scholes and heston model . for this
, we consider the pod - angle - greedy algorithm and use alternatively @xmath452 and @xmath464 as selection criterion with @xmath465 , i.e. , @xmath453 , @xmath454 for both models .
the other parameter settings remain the same as introduced in section  [ sec : bs_results ] and section  [ sec : h_results ] .
the visualization of the reduced basis vectors of @xmath466 , @xmath467 for the black - scholes model with @xmath464 is represented in figure  [ fig : basis_bs ] .
we now comment on an employment of the a posteriori error bounds developed in section  [ sec : error_analysis ] .
we consider the values of the quantity @xmath468 along the iterations of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] , choosing either @xmath452 or @xmath464 .
the corresponding results for the black - scholes model are presented in figure  [ fig : convgreedy ] and for the heston model in figure  [ fig : convgreedyh ] .
we observe that for both models using @xmath452 as an error measure in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] results in less monotone error convergence of @xmath393 with respect to @xmath469 and vice versa .
overall we obtain similar accuracy when using the ( cheap ) @xmath393 measure in contrast to the expensive true error @xmath391 , which illustrates the relevance of our a posteriori analysis .     for the american put option with the black - scholes model during the iterations of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] with error estimator @xmath452 ( left ) and with @xmath464 ( right ) .
blue stars : values of @xmath391 , green crosses : values of @xmath393.,title="fig : " ]   for the american put option with the black - scholes model during the iterations of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] with error estimator @xmath452 ( left ) and with @xmath464 ( right ) .
blue stars : values of @xmath391 , green crosses : values of @xmath393.,title="fig : " ]     for the american put option with the heston model during the iterations of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] with error estimator @xmath452 ( left ) and with @xmath464 ( right ) .
blue stars : values of @xmath391 , green crosses : values of @xmath393.,title="fig : " ]   for the american put option with the heston model during the iterations of algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] with error estimator @xmath452 ( left ) and with @xmath464 ( right ) . blue stars : values of @xmath391 , green crosses :
values of @xmath393.,title="fig : " ]    as a measure of the quality of the proposed error estimate , we define the associated effectivities @xmath470 table  [ table : bs ] and table  [ table : heston ] provide the maximum effectivities @xmath471 associated with the error bounds for the black - scholes and heston model using different error measures in the pod - angle - greedy algorithm . note , that the choice of @xmath358 in the algorithm does not have a significant impact on the values of the maximum effectivities .
we also observe that for the heston model the effectivity values are higher than for the black - scholes one , which can be justified by a more complex nature of the model .
overall the effectivities of two orders of magnitude are very well acceptable for instationary rb problems .
.maximum effectivities for the american put with the black - scholes model at different time steps @xmath472 and for different error measures @xmath358 and @xmath465 in algorithm  [ alg : global - greedy ] .
[ cols="^,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]                                                              , _ contact problems in elasticity : a study of variational inequalities and finite element methods _ , vol .  8 of siam studies in applied mathematics , society for industrial and applied mathematics ( siam ) , philadelphia , pa , 1988 .    , _ an introduction to variational inequalities and their applications _ , vol .  31 of classics in applied mathematics , society for industrial and applied mathematics ( siam ) , philadelphia , pa , 2000 .
reprint of the 1980 original .
, _ online - efficient rb methods for contact and other problems in nonlinear solid mechanics_. slides of the presentation on workshop : numerical methods for high - dimensional problems , ecole des ponts paristech , 2014 .    ,
_ a posteriori error bounds for reduced - basis approximation of parametrized noncoercive and nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations _ , in in proceedings of 16th aiaa computational fluid dynamics conference , 2003 .
paper 2003 - 3847 .