Skip to content
All library documents

Why Square-Root Diffusions Are Used in Finance

Article Quant Q&A · Author: user56643

Summary

The document asks why financial models often use a diffusion coefficient proportional to the square root of the state, rather than a more general power. Its answer gives two reasons, using the Cox–Ingersoll–Ross process as an example. First, when the variance of the diffusion is linear in the state and the drift is affine, the process belongs to the affine diffusion class. The answer says this permits an exponential-affine characteristic function and a conditional noncentral chi-square distribution, supporting tractable pricing calculations. A different power generally loses that affine structure and its associated closed-form results.

Second, the answer discusses how the power affects behavior near zero under a mean-reverting drift. It argues that powers above one-half tend to keep the state positive, while powers below one-half create problematic behavior near zero, connecting the square-root specification to positivity constraints in financial modeling. These claims are presented as a concise explanation rather than a full boundary-classification proof; the document does not spell out parameter conditions or establish that the stated behavior applies in every model. Its motivating examples include CIR and Heston-style specifications.

Key ideas

  • The square-root diffusion has variance proportional to the state, which supports an affine model structure.
  • Affine structure can yield tractable characteristic functions and conditional distributions.
  • Changing the diffusion power generally removes the CIR process from the affine class.
  • The answer links the square-root power to state behavior near zero, though it does not fully detail boundary conditions.

Tags

Full text
# justification of square root process


# justification of square root process












In finance, many stochastic processes $X(t)$ are defined via \begin{equation} dX = \text{(some drift term)} dt + \sigma X^\gamma dW_t \end{equation} with $\gamma = 1/2$ (for instance the Heston model or the CIR process). Generally, this is called a square-root process. My question is: How does one justify the choice of $\gamma = 1/2$. I am aware that it is convenient to chose $0 < \gamma < 1$ since for $\gamma > 1$, no unique Martingale measure exists. But why exactly $\gamma = 1/2$ and not, say $\gamma = 6/7$. (I have found one related question here Why square root of volatility in Heston model? but no satisfying answer has been given.)

## Answer by user16891 (score 4, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/18924

- C.I.R Process belongs the class of affine diffusion processes.For processes within this class, a closed form solution of the characteristic function exists(Duffie,et al). For more details, Suppose we have given a scalar SDEs, i.e., $$dX_t=\mu(X_t,t)dt+\sigma(X_t,t)dW_t$$ this process ($\{X_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T}$) is said to be of the affine form if \begin{align} &&\mu(X_t,t)=\alpha_0+\alpha_1X_t\\ &&\sigma^2(X_t,t)=\beta_0+\beta_1X_t \end{align} where $\alpha_j,\beta_j\in R$. We claim C.I.R Process belongs the class of affine diffusion processes,because

\begin{align} & \mu (t,{{r}_{t}})\,\,=\kappa (\theta -{{r}_{t}})=\underbrace{\kappa \theta }_{{{\alpha }_{0}}}+\underbrace{(-\kappa )}_{{{\alpha }_{1}}}\,{{r}_{t}} \\ & {{\sigma }^{2}}(t,{{r}_{t}})=\sigma^2r_t=\underbrace{0}_{\beta_0}+\underbrace{{{\sigma }^{2}}\,}_{\beta {{}_{1}}}\,{{r}_{t}} \\ \end{align} Now, if $\gamma\ne\frac{1}{2}$,then C.I.R Process doesn't belong the class of affine diffusion processes(please check yourself) and the discounted characteristic function is not of the following form $$\Phi(\phi,r_t,t,T)=e^{A(\phi,\tau)+B(\phi,\tau)r_t}$$ Consequently, conditional distribution of on $r_t$ doesn't follow a non-central chi-square distribution.

- If $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$ e.g $\gamma=\frac{6}{7}$ then Feller's Condition holds for any value of $\kappa$ and $\theta$ (we know $\kappa,\theta>0$)

$$\underset{{{r}_{t}}\to 0}{\mathop{\lim }}\,\,\left( \kappa (\theta -{{r}_{t}})-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}(\sigma\,r_{t}^{\,\gamma})^2 \right)=\kappa \theta>0 $$ In other words, $r_t$ is always positive and this is inconsistent with financial Modeling. Also,if $\gamma<\frac{1}{2}$ then

$$\underset{{{r}_{t}}\to 0}{\mathop{\lim }}\,\,\left( \kappa (\theta -{{r}_{t}})-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}(\sigma\,r_{t}^{\,\gamma})^2 \right)\rightarrow-\infty $$ In other words, $r_t$ is always negative and this is inconsistent with reality.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.