Numerische Mathematik

, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 443–467 | Cite as

Random weights, robust lattice rules and the geometry of the cbcrc algorithm



In this paper we study lattice rules which are cubature formulae to approximate integrands over the unit cube [0,1] s from a weighted reproducing kernel Hilbert space. We assume that the weights are independent random variables with a given mean and variance for two reasons stemming from practical applications: (i) It is usually not known in practice how to choose the weights. Thus by assuming that the weights are random variables, we obtain robust constructions (with respect to the weights) of lattice rules. This, to some extend, removes the necessity to carefully choose the weights. (ii) In practice it is convenient to use the same lattice rule for many different integrands. The best choice of weights for each integrand may vary to some degree, hence considering the weights random variables does justice to how lattice rules are used in applications. In this paper the worst-case error is therefore a random variable depending on random weights. We show how one can construct lattice rules which perform well for weights taken from a set with large measure. Such lattice rules are therefore robust with respect to certain changes in the weights. The construction algorithm uses the component-by-component (cbc) idea based on two criteria, one using the mean of the worst case error and the second criterion using a bound on the variance of the worst-case error. We call the new algorithm the cbc2c (component-by-component with 2 constraints) algorithm. We also study a generalized version which uses r constraints which we call the cbcrc (component-by-component with r constraints) algorithm. We show that lattice rules generated by the cbcrc algorithm simultaneously work well for all weights in a subspace spanned by the chosen weights γ (1), . . . , γ (r). Thus, in applications, instead of finding one set of weights, it is enough to find a convex polytope in which the optimal weights lie. The price for this method is a factor r in the upper bound on the error and in the construction cost of the lattice rule. Thus the burden of determining one set of weights very precisely can be shifted to the construction of good lattice rules. Numerical results indicate the benefit of using the cbc2c algorithm for certain choices of weights.

Mathematics Subject Classification

65D30 65D32 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aronszajn N.: Theory of reproducing kernels. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 68, 337–404 (1950)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cools R., Kuo F.Y., Nuyens D.: Constructing embedded lattice rules for multivariable integration. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 28, 2162–2188 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dick J.: On the convergence rate of the component-by-component construction of good lattice rules. J. Complexity 20, 493–522 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dick J., Pillichshammer F.: Digital Nets and Sequences. Discrepancy Theory and Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dick J., Pillichshammer F., Waterhouse B.: The construction of good extensible rank-1 lattices. Math. Comput. 77, 2345–2373 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickernell, F.J.: Lattice rules: how well do they measure up? Random and quasi-random point sets, pp. 109–166. Lecture Notes in Statist., vol. 138. Springer, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hickernell F.J.: A generalized discrepancy and quadrature error bound. Math. Comput. 67, 299–322 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hickernell F.J., Woźniakowski H.: Integration and approximation in arbitrary dimensions. High dimensional integration. Adv. Comput. Math. 12, 25–58 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korobov N.M.: Approximate evaluation of repeated integrals. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 124, 1207–1210 (1959)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korobov N.M.: Teoretiko-chislovye metody v priblizhennom analize. Gosudarstv. Izdat. Fiz.-Mat. Lit., Moscow (1963)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuo F.Y.: Component-by-component constructions achieve the optimal rate of convergence for multivariate integration in weighted Korobov and Sobolev spaces. Numerical integration and its complexity (Oberwolfach, 2001). J. Complexity 19, 301–320 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larcher G., Leobacher G., Scheicher K.: On the tractability of the Brownian bridge algorithm. J. Complexity 19, 511–528 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niederreiter, H.: Random number generation and quasi-Monte Carlo methods. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 63. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Novak E., Woźniakowski H.: Tractability of Multivariate Problems. Linear Information, vol. 1. EMS Tracts in Mathematics, 6. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Novak E., Woźniakowski H.: Tractability of Multivariate Problems. Standard Information for Functionals, vol. II. EMS Tracts in Mathematics, 12. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuyens D., Cools R.: Fast algorithms for component-by-component construction of rank-1 lattice rules in shift-invariant reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. Math. Comput. 75, 903–920 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nuyens D., Cools R.: Fast component-by-component construction of rank-1 lattice rules with a non-prime number of points. J. Complexity 22, 4–28 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nuyens, D., Cools, R.: Fast component-by-component construction, a reprise for different kernels. In: Niederreiter, H., Talay, D. (eds.) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2004, pp. 373–387. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosser J.B., Schoenfeld L.: Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers. Ill. J. Math. 6, 64–94 (1962)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sinescu V., L’Ecuyer P.: Existence and construction of shifted lattice rules with an arbitrary number of points and bounded weighted star discrepancy for general decreasing weights. J. Complexity 27, 449–465 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinescu, V., L’Ecuyer, P.: Variance bounds and existence results for randomly shifted lattice rules. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2012, to appear)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sloan I.H.: Finite-order integration weights can be dangerous. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 7, 239–254 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sloan I.H., Joe S.: Lattice Methods for Multiple Integration. Oxford Science Publications/The Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New York (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sloan I.H., Kuo F.Y., Joe S.: On the step-by-step construction of quasi-Monte Carlo integration rules that achieve strong tractability error bounds in weighted Sobolev spaces. Math. Comput. 71, 1609–1640 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sloan I.H., Kuo F.Y., Joe S.: Constructing randomly shifted lattice rules in weighted Sobolev spaces. SIAM J. Numer. Anal 40, 1650–1665 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sloan I.H., Reztsov A.V.: Component-by-component construction of good lattice rules. Math. Comput. 71, 263–273 (2002)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sloan I.H., Woźniakowski H.: When are quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for high-dimensional integrals?. J. Complexity 14, 1–33 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang X.: Constructing robust good lattice rules for computational finance. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 29, 598–621 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang X., Sloan I.H.: Efficient weighted lattice rules with applications to finance. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 28, 728–750 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and StatisticsThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations