Modelling Financial High Frequency Data Using Point

Processes∗
Luc Bauwens
Université catholique de Louvain, CORE†

Nikolaus Hautsch
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, CASE, CFS‡

November 2007

Abstract
In this paper, we give an overview of the state-of-the-art in the econometric literature
on the modeling of so-called financial point processes. The latter are associated with the
random arrival of specific financial trading events, such as transactions, quote updates,
limit orders or price changes observable based on financial high-frequency data. After
discussing fundamental statistical concepts of point process theory, we review duration-
based and intensity-based models of financial point processes. Whereas duration-based
approaches are mostly preferable for univariate time series, intensity-based models pro-
vide powerful frameworks to model multivariate point processes in continuous time.
We illustrate the most important properties of the individual models and discuss major
empirical applications.
Keywords: Financial point processes, dynamic duration models, dynamic intensity mod-
els.
JEL Classification: C22, C32, C41

1 Introduction

Since the seminal papers by Hasbrouck (1991) and Engle and Russell (1998) the modelling of
financial data at the transaction level is an ongoing topic in the area of financial economet-
rics. This has created a new body of literature which is often referred to as ”the econometrics
of (ultra-)high-frequency finance” or ”high-frequency econometrics”. The consideration of
the peculiar properties of financial transaction data, such as the irregular spacing in time,
∗
The paper is written as a contribution to the Handbook of Financial Time Series, Springer, 2008. This
research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the SFB 649 ”Economic Risk”.
†
Université catholique de Louvain and CORE. Address: Voie du Roman Pays 34, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium. Email: [email protected]
‡
Institute for Statistics and Econometrics and CASE – Center for Applied Statistics and Economics,
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin as well as Center for Financial Studies (CFS), Frankfurt. Address: Span-
dauer Str. 1, D-10178 Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected].

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162
the discreteness of price changes, the bid-ask bounce as well as the presence of serial de-
pendence, provoked the surge of new econometric approaches. One important string of the
literature deals with the irregular spacing of data in time. Taking into account the latter
is indispensable whenever the full amount of information in financial transaction data has
to be exploited and no loss of information due to fixed-interval aggregation schemes can
be accepted. Moreover, it has been realized that the timing of trading events, such as the
arrival of particular orders and trades, and the frequency in which the latter occur have
information value for the state of the market and play an important role in market mi-
crostructure analysis, for the modelling of intraday volatility as well as the measurement of
liquidity and implied liquidity risks.
Taking into account the irregular occurrence of transaction data requires to consider it
as a point process, a so-called financial point process. Depending on the type of the financial
”event” under consideration, we can distinguish between different types of financial point
processes or processes of so-called financial durations. The most common types are trade
durations and quote durations as defined by the time between two consecutive trade or quote
arrivals, respectively. Price durations correspond to the time between absolute cumulative
price changes of given size and can be used as an alternative volatility measure. Similarly,
a volume duration is defined as the time until a cumulative order volume of given size is
traded and captures an important dimension of market liquidity. For more details and
illustrations, see Bauwens and Giot (2001) or Hautsch (2004).
One important property of transaction data is that market events are clustered over time
implying that financial durations follow positively autocorrelated processes with a strong
persistence. Actually, it turns out that the dynamic properties of financial durations are
quite similar to those of daily volatilities. Taking into account these properties leads to
different types of dynamic models on the basis of a duration representation, an intensity
representation or a counting representation of a point process.
In this chapter, we review duration-based and intensity-based models of financial point
processes. In Section 2, we introduce the fundamental concepts of point process theory and
discuss major statistical tools. In Section 3, we review the class of dynamic duration models.
Specifying a (dynamic) duration model is presumably the most intuitive way to characterize
a point process in discrete time and has been suggested by Engle and Russell (1998), which
was the starting point for a huge body of literature. Nevertheless, Russell (1999) realized
that a continuous-time setting on the basis of the intensity function constitutes a more
flexible framework which is particularly powerful for the modelling of multivariate processes.
Different types of dynamic intensity models are presented in Section 4.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162
2 Fundamental Concepts of Point Process Theory

In this section, we discuss important concepts and relationships in point process theory
which are needed throughout this chapter. In Section 2.1, we introduce the notation and
basic definitions. The fundamental concepts of intensity functions, compensators and hazard
rates are defined in Section 2.2, whereas in Section 2.3 different classes and representations
of point processes are discussed. Finally, in Section 2.4, we present the random time change
theorem which yields a powerful result for the construction of diagnostics for point process
models. Most concepts discussed in this section are based upon Chapter 2 of Karr (1991).

2.1 Notation and Definitions

Let {ti }i∈{1,...,n} denote a random sequence of increasing event times 0 < t1 < . . . < tn
P
associated with an orderly (simple) point process. Then, N (t) := i≥1 1l {ti ≤t} defines the
right-continuous (càdlàg) counting function. Throughout this chapter, we consider only
point processes which are integrable, i.e. E[N (t)] < ∞ ∀ t ≥ 0. Furthermore, {Wi }i∈{1,...,n}
denotes a sequence of {1, . . . , K}-valued random variables representing K different types
of events. Then, we call the process {ti , Wi }i∈{1,...,n} an K-variate marked point process
on (0, ∞) as represented by the K sequences of event-specific arrival times {tki }i∈{1,...,nk } ,
k = 1, . . . , K, with counting functions N k (t) := i≥1 1l {ti ≤t} 1l {Wi =k} .
P

The internal history of an K-dimensional point process N (t) is given by the filtration FtN
with FtN = σ(N k (s) : 0 ≤ s ≤ t, k ∈ Ξ), N k (s) = i≥1 1l {ti ≤s} 1l {Wi ∈Ξ} , where Ξ denotes
P

the σ-field of all subsets of {1, . . . , K}. More general filtrations, including e.g. also processes
of explanatory variables (covariates) {zi }i∈{1,...,n} are denoted by Ft with FtN ⊆ Ft .
Define xi := ti − ti−1 with i = 1, . . . , n and t0 := 0 as the inter-event duration from
P
ti−1 until ti . Furthermore, x(t) with x(t) := t − tN̆ (t) , with N̆ (t) := i≥1 1l {ti <t} denoting
the left-continuous counting function, is called the backward recurrence time. It is a left-
continuous function that grows linearly through time with discrete jumps back to zero after
each arrival time ti . Finally, let θ ∈ Θ denote model parameters.

2.2 Compensators, Intensities, and Hazard Rates

In martingale-based point process theory, the concept of compensators plays an important

role. Using the property that an Ft -adapted point process N (t) is a submartingale1 , it can
be decomposed into a zero mean martingale M (t) and a (unique) Ft -predictable increasing
process, Λ̃(t), which is called the compensator of N (t) and can be interpreted as the local
conditional mean of N (t) given the past. In statistical theory, this decomposition is typically
1
An Ft -adpated càdlàg process N (t) is a submartingale if E[|N (t)|] < ∞ for each t and if s < t implies
that E[N (t)|Fs ] ≥ N (s).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

referred to as the Doob-Meyer decomposition.
Define λ(t) as a scalar, positive Ft -predictable process, i.e. λ(t) is adapted to Ft , and
left-continuous with right hand limits. Then, λ(t) is called the (Ft -conditional) intensity of
N (t) if
Z t
Λ̃(t) = λ(u)du, (1)
0

where Λ̃(t) is the (unique) compensator of N (t). This relationship emerges from the in-
terpretation of the compensator as integrated (conditional) hazard function. Consequently,
λ(t) can be also defined by the relation
Z s 
E[N (s) − N (t)|Ft ] = E λ(u)du Ft (2)
t

which has to hold (almost surely) for all t, s with 0 ≤ t ≤ s. Letting s ↓ t leads to the
heuristic representation which is more familiar in classical duration analysis. Then, λ(t) is
obtained by
1
λ(t+) := lim E [ N (t + ∆) − N (t)| Ft ] , (3)
∆↓0 ∆

where λ(t+) := lim∆↓0 λ(t + ∆). In case of a stationary point process, λ̄ := E[dN (t)]/dt =
E[λ(t)] is constant.
Equation (3) manifests the close analogy between the intensity function and the hazard
function which is given by
1
h(x) := f (x)/S(x) = lim Pr[x ≤ X < x + ∆|X ≥ x] (4)
∆→0 ∆
with x denoting the (inter-event) duration as represented by the realization of a random
variable X with probability density function f (x), survivor function S(x) = 1 − F (x), and
cumulative distribution function (cdf) F (x) = Pr[X ≤ x]. Whereas the intensity function
is defined in (continuous) calendar time, the hazard rate is typically defined in terms of the
length of a duration x and is a key concept in (cross-section) survival analysis.

2.3 Types and Representations of Point Processes

The simplest type of point process is the homogeneous Poisson process defined by

Pr [(N (t + ∆) − N (t)) = 1 |Ft ] = λ∆ + o(∆), (5)

Pr [(N (t + ∆) − N (t)) > 1 |Ft ] = o(∆), (6)

with ∆ ↓ 0. Then, λ > 0 is called the Poisson rate corresponding to the (constant)
intensity. Accordingly, equations (5) and (6) define the intensity representation of a Poisson
process. A well-known property of homogenous Poisson processes is that the inter-event

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

waiting times xi = ti − ti−1 are independently exponentially distributed, leading to the
duration representation. In this context, λ is the hazard rate of the exponential distribution.
Furthermore, it can be shown (see e.g. Lancaster (1997)) that the number of events in
an interval (a, b], N (a, b) := N (b) − N (a) is Poisson distributed with Pr[N (a, b) = k] =
exp[−λ(b − a)][λ(b − a)]k /k!, yielding the counting representation. All three representations
of a Poisson process can be used as the starting point for the specification of a point process
model.
Throughout this chapter we associate the term duration models to a model of the
(discrete-time) duration process observable at the event-times {ti }i=1,...,n . Then, researchers
parameterize the conditional distribution function F (xi |Fti−1 ) or, alternatively, the condi-
tional hazard rate h(xi |Fti−1 ). Generally, such a model should aim, in particular, at fitting
the dynamical and distributional properties of durations. The latter is often character-
ized by the excess dispersion, corresponding to the ratio between the standard deviation
to the mean. In classical hazard rate models employed in traditional survival analysis, the
hazard rate is typically parameterized in terms of covariates, see e.g. Kalbfleisch and Pren-
tice (1980), Kiefer (1988) or Lancaster (1997). The most well-known hazard model is the
proportional hazard model introduced by Cox (1972) and is given by

h(x|z; θ) = h0 (x|γ1 )g(z, γ2 ), (7)

where θ = (γ1 , γ2 ), h0 (·) denotes the so-called baseline hazard rate and g(·) is a function
of the covariates z and parameters γ2 . The baseline hazard rate may be parameterized
in accordance with a certain distribution, like e.g., a Weibull distribution with parameters
λ, p > 0 implying
h0 (x|γ1 ) = λp(λx)p−1 . (8)

For p = 1 we obtain the exponential case h0 (x|γ1 ) = λ, implying a constant hazard rate.
Alternatively, if p > 1, ∂h0 (x|γ1 )/∂x > 0, i.e. the hazard rate is increasing with the length of
the spell which is referred to as ”positive duration dependence”. In contrast, p < 1 implies
”negative duration dependence”. Non-monotonic hazard rates can be obtained with more
flexible distributions, like the generalized F and particular cases thereof, including the
generalized gamma, Burr, Weibull and log-logistic distributions. We refer to the Appendix
to Chapter 3 of Bauwens and Giot (2001) and to the Appendix of Hautsch (2004) for
definitions and properties. Alternatively, the baseline hazard may be left unspecified and
can be estimated nonparametrically, see Cox (1975).
An alternative type of duration model is the class of accelerated failure time (AFT)
models given by
h(x|z; θ) = h0 [xg(z, γ2 )|γ1 ]g(z, γ2 ). (9)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Here, the effect of the exogenous variables is to accelerate or to decelerate the time scale
on which the baseline hazard h0 is defined. As illustrated in Section 3.1, AFT-type models
are particularly attractive to allow for autocorrelated duration processes.
Because of their discrete-time nature, duration models cannot be used whenever the
information set has to be updated within a duration spell, e.g. caused by time-varying
covariates or event arrivals in other point processes. For this reason, (discrete-time) duration
models are typically used in a univariate framework.
Whenever a continuous-time modelling is preferential (as e.g. to account for the asyn-
chronous event arrivals in a multivariate framework), it is more natural to specify the
intensity function directly. This class of models is referred to as intensity models. One im-
portant extension of a homogenous Poisson process it to allow the intensity to be directed
by a real-valued, non-negative (stationary) random process λ∗ (t) with (internal) history Ft∗
leading to the class of doubly stochastic Poisson processes (Cox processes). In particular,
N (t) is called a Cox process directed by λ∗ (t) if conditional on λ∗ (t), N (t) is a Poisson
process with mean λ∗ (t), i.e. Pr[N (a, b) = k|Ft∗ ] = exp[−λ∗ (t)] [λ∗ (t)]k /k!. The doubly
stochastic Poisson process yields a powerful class of probabilistic models with applications
in seismology, biology and economics. For instance, specifying λ∗ (t) in terms of an autore-
gressive process yields a dynamic intensity model which is particularly useful to capture
the clustering in financial point processes. For a special type of doubly stochastic Poisson
process see Section 4.2.
A different generalization of the Poisson process is obtained by specifying λ(t) as a
(linear) self-exciting process given by
Z t X
λ(t) = ω + w(t − u)dN (u) = ω + w(t − ti ), (10)
0 ti <t

Rt
where ω is a constant, w(s) denotes a non-negative weight function, and 0 w(s)dN (s)
is the stochastic Stieltjes integral of the process w with respect to the counting pro-
cess N (t). The process (10) was proposed by Hawkes (1971) and is therefore named a
Hawkes process. If w(s) declines with s, then, the process is self-exciting in the sense that
Cov[N (a, b), N (b, c)] > 0, where 0 < a ≤ b < c. Different types of Hawkes processes and
their applications to financial point processes are presented in Section 4.1. A further type
of intensity models which is relevant in the literature of financial point processes is given
by a specification where the intensity itself is driven by an autoregressive process which is
updated at each point of the process. This leads to a special type of point process models
which does not originate from the classical point process literature but originates from the
autoregressive conditional duration (ACD) literature reviewed in Section 2 and brings time
series analysis into play. Such a process is called an autoregressive conditional intensity

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

model and is considered in Section 4.2.
Finally, starting from the counting representation of a Poisson process leads to the
class of count data models. Dynamic extensions of Poisson processes in terms of counting
representations are not surveyed in this chapter. Some references reflecting the diversity
of approaches are Rydberg and Shephard (2003), Heinen and Rengifo (2003), Liesenfeld,
Nolte, and Pohlmeier (2006), and Quoreshi (2006).

2.4 The Random Time Change Theorem

One fundamental result of martingale-based point process theory is the (multivariate) ran-
dom time change theorem by Meyer (1971) which allows to transform a wide class of point
processes to a homogeneous Poisson process:

Theorem (Meyer, 1971, Brown and Nair, 1988): Assume a multivariate point process
(N 1 (t), . . . , N K (t)) is formed from the event times {tki }i∈{1,...,nk } , k = 1, . . . , K, and has
continuous compensators (Λ̃(t)1 , . . ., Λ̃(t)K ) with Λ̃k (∞) = ∞ for each k = 1, . . . , K, then
the point processes formed from {Λ̃k (tki )}{i=1,...,nk } , k = 1, . . . , K, are independent Poisson
processes with unit intensity.
Proof: See Meyer (1971) or Brown and Nair (1988) for a more accessible and elegant
proof.

Define τ k (t) as the (Ft -)stopping time obtained by the solution of

R τ k (t) k
0 λ (s)ds = t. Applying the random time change theorem to (1) implies that the
point processes Ñ k (t) with Ñ k (t) := N k (τ k (t)) are independent Poisson processes with
unit intensity and event times {Λ̃k (tki )}{i=1,...,nk } for k = 1, . . . , K. Then, the so-called
integrated intensities
Z tki
Λk (tki−1 , tki ) := λk (s)ds = Λ̃k (tki ) − Λ̃k (tki−1 ) (11)
tki−1

correspond to the increments of independent Poisson processes for k = 1, . . . , K. Conse-

quently, they are independently standard exponentially distributed across i and k. For more
details, see Bowsher (2006). The random time change theorem plays an important role in
order to construct diagnostic tests for point process models (see Section 4.3) or to simulate
point processes (see e.g. Giesecke and Tomecek (2005)).

3 Dynamic Duration Models

In this section, we discuss univariate dynamic models for the durations between consecutive
(financial) events. In Section 3.1, we review in detail the class of ACD models, which is
by far the most used class in the literature on financial point processes. In Section 3.2,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

we briefly discuss statistical inference for ACD models. In Section 3.3, we present other
dynamic duration models, and in the last section we review some applications.

3.1 ACD Models

The class of ACD models has been introduced by Engle and Russell (1997, 1998) and Engle
(2000). In order to keep the notation simple, define xi in the following as the inter-event
duration which is standardized by a seasonality function s(ti ), i.e. xi := (ti − ti−1 )/s(ti ).
The function s(ti ) is typically parameterized according to a spline function capturing time-
of-day or day-of-week effects. Time-of-day effects arise because of systematic changes of the
market activity throughout the day and due to opening of other related markets. In most
approaches s(ti ) is specified according to a linear or cubic spline function and is estimated
separately in a first step yielding seasonality adjusted durations xi . Alternatively, a non-
parametric approach has been proposed by Veredas, Rodriguez-Poo, and Espasa (2002).
For more details and examples regarding seasonality effects in financial duration processes,
we refer the reader to Chapter 2 of Bauwens and Giot (2001) or to Chapter 3 of Hautsch
(2004).
The key idea of the ACD model is to model the (seasonally adjusted) durations {xi }i=1,...,n
in terms of a multiplicative error term model in the spirit of Engle (2002), i.e.

xi = Ψi i , (12)

where Ψi denotes a function of the past durations (and possible covariates), and εi defines
an i.i.d. random variable for which it is assumed that

E[i ] = 1, (13)

so that Ψi corresponds to the conditional duration mean (the so-called ”conditional dura-
tion”) with Ψi := E[xi |Fti−1 ]. The ACD model can be rewritten in terms of the intensity
function as
!
x(t) 1
λ(t|Ft ) = λ , (14)
ΨN̆ (t)+1 ΨN̆ (t)+1

where λ (s) denotes the hazard function of the ACD error term. This formulation clearly
demonstrates that the ACD model belongs to the class of AFT models. Assuming i to
be standard exponentially distributed yields the so-called Exponential ACD model. More
flexible specifications arise by assuming i to follow a more general distribution, see the
discusssion after equation (8). It is evident that the ACD model is the counter-part to the
GARCH model (Bollerslev (1986)) for duration processes. Not surprisingly, many results
and specifications from the GARCH literature have been adapted to the ACD literature.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

 The conditional duration, Ψi , is defined as a function Ψ of the information set Fti−1 and
provides therefore the vehicle for incorporating the dynamics of the duration process. In
this respect it is convenient to use an ARMA-type structure of order (p, q), whereby

Ψi = Ψ(Ψi−1 , . . . , Ψi−p , xi−1 , . . . , xi−q ). (15)

For simplicity, we limit the exposition in the sequel to the case p = q = 1.

The first model put forward in the literature is the linear ACD model, which specializes
(15) as
Ψi = ω + βΨi−1 + αxi−1 . (16)

Since Ψi must be positive, the restrictions ω > 0, α ≥ 0 and β ≥ 0 are usually imposed. It
is also assumed that β = 0 if α = 0, otherwise β is a redundant parameter. The process
defined by (12), (13) and (16) is known to be covariance-stationary if

(α + β)2 − α2 σ 2 < 1, (17)

where σ 2 := Var[i ] < ∞, and to have the following moments and autocorrelations:

(1) E[xi ] := µx = ω/(1 − α − β),

2
1−β −2αβ
(2) Var[xi ] := σx2 = µ2x σ 2 1−(α+β) 2 −α2 σ 2 ,

α (1−β 2 −α β)
(3) ρ1 = 1−β 2 −2 α β
and ρn = (α + β)ρn−1 (n ≥ 2).

The condition (17) ensures the existence of the variance. These results are akin to those for
the GARCH(1,1) zero-mean process. They can be generalized to ACD(p,q) processes when
p, q > 1. It is usually found empirically that the estimates of the parameters are such that
α + β is in the interval (0.85,1) while α is in the interval (0.01,0.15). Since the ACD(1,1)
model can be written as

xi = ω + (α + β)xi−1 + ui − βui−1 , (18)

where ui := xi − Ψi is a martingale difference innovation, the resulting autocorrelation

function (ACF) is that of an ARMA(1,1) process that has AR and MA roots close to each
other. This type of parameter configuration generates the typical ACF shape of clustered
data. Nevertheless, the ACF decreases at a geometric rate, though it is not uncommon
to find duration series with an ACF that decreases at a hyperbolic rate. This tends to
happen for long series and may be due to parameter changes that give the illusion of long
memory in the process. In order to allow for long range dependence in financial duration
processes, Jasiak (1998) extends the ACD model to a fractionally integrated ACD model.
For alternative ways to specify long memory ACD models, see Koulikov (2002).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

 A drawback of the linear ACD model is that it is difficult to allow Ψi to depend on
functions of covariates without violating the non-negativity restriction. For this reason,
Bauwens and Giot (2000) propose a class of logarithmic ACD models, where no parametric
restrictions are needed to ensure positiveness of the process:

ln Ψi = ω + β ln Ψi−1 + αg(i−1 ), (19)

where g(i−1 ) is either ln i−1 (log-ACD of type I) or i−1 (type II). Using this setting, it
is convenient to augment Ψi by functions of covariates, see e.g. Bauwens and Giot (2001).
The stochastic process defined by (12), (13) and (19) is covariance-stationary if

β < 1, E [i exp[αg(i )]] , E [exp[2αg(i )]] < ∞. (20)

Its mean, variance and autocorrelations are given in Section 3.2 in Bauwens and Giot (2001),
see also Fernandes and Grammig (2006) and Bauwens, Galli, and Giot (2008). Drost and
Werker (2004) propose to combine one of the previous ACD equations for the conditional
duration mean with an unspecified distribution for i , yielding a class of semi-parametric
ACD models.
The augmented ACD (AACD) model introduced by Fernandes and Grammig (2006)
provides a more flexible specification of the conditional duration equation than the previous
models. Here, Ψi is specified in terms of a Box-Cox transformation yielding

Ψδi 1 = ω + βΨδi−1
1
+ αΨδi−1
1
[|i−1 − ξ| − ρ(i−1 − ξ)]δ2 ,

where δ1 > 0, δ2 > 0, ξ, and ρ are parameters. The so-called news impact function
[|i−1 − ξ| − ρ(i−1 − ξ)]δ2 allows for a wide variety of shapes of the curve tracing the impact
of i−1 on Ψi for a given value of Ψi−1 and the remaining parameters. The parameter ξ is a
shift parameter and the parameter ρ is a rotation parameter. If ξ = ρ = 0, the linear ACD
model is obtained by setting δ1 = δ2 = 1, the type I logarithmic ACD model by letting
δ1 and δ2 tend to 0, and the type II version by letting δ1 tend to 0 and setting δ2 = 1.
Fernandes and Grammig (2006) compare different versions of the AACD model using IBM
price durations arising from trading at the New York Stock Exchange. Their main finding
is that ”letting δ1 free to vary and accounting for asymmetric effects (by letting ξ and ρ
free) seem to operate as substitute sources of flexibility”. Hautsch (2006) proposes an even
more general augmented ACD model that nests in particular the so-called EXponential
ACD model proposed by Dufour and Engle (2000) implying a kinked news impact function.
As a counterpart to the semiparametric GARCH model proposed by Engle and Ng (1993),
Hautsch (2006) suggests specifying the news impact function in terms of a linear spline
function based on the support of εi . He illustrates that the high flexibility of this model is
needed in order to appropriately capture the dynamic properties of financial durations.

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

 Another way to achieve flexibility in ACD models is to use the idea of mixtures. The
mixture may apply to the error distribution alone, as in De Luca and Zuccolotto (2003),
Hujer and Vuletic (2005), De Luca and Gallo (2004) and De Luca and Gallo (2006), or
may involve the dynamic component as well. Zhang, Russell, and Tsay (2001) propose a
threshold ACD model (TACD), wherein the ACD equation and the error distribution change
according to a threshold variable such as the previous duration. For J regimes indexed by
j = 1, . . . , J, the model is defined as

(j) (j)
xi = Ψi i , (21)
(j)
Ψi = ω (j) + β (j) Ψi−1 + α(j) xi−1 (22)

when xi−1 ∈ [rj−1 , rj ), and 0 = r0 < r1 < . . . < rJ = ∞ are the threshold parameters.
The superscript (j) indicates that the distribution or the model parameters can vary with
the regime operating at observation i. This model can be viewed as a mixture of J ACD
models, where the probability to be in regime j at i is equal to 1 and the probabilities to
be in each of the other regimes is equal to 0. Hujer, Vuletic, and Kokot (2002) extend this
model to let the regime changes be governed by a hidden Markov chain.
While the TACD model implies discrete transitions between the individual regimes,
Meitz and Teräsvirta (2006) propose a class of smooth transition ACD (STACD) models
which generalize the linear and logarithmic ACD models in a specific way. Conditions for
strict stationarity, ergodicity, and existence of moments for this model and other ACD
models are provided in Meitz and Saikkonen (2004) using the theory of Markov chains. A
motivation for the STACD model is, like for the AACD, to allow for a nonlinear impact of
the past duration on the next expected duration.

3.2 Statistical Inference

The estimation of most ACD models can be easily performed by maximum likelihood (ML).
Engle (2000) demonstrates that the results by Bollerslev and Wooldridge (1992) on the
quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) property of the Gaussian GARCH(1,1) model extend to
the Exponential-ACD(1,1) model. Then, QML estimates are obtained by maximizing the
quasi-loglikelihood function given by
n  

X xi
ln L θ; {xi }{i=1,...,n} =− ln Ψi + . (23)
Ψi
i=1

For more details we refer to Chapter 3 of Bauwens and Giot (2001), Chapter 5 of Hautsch
(2004), and to the survey of Engle and Russell (2005).
Residual diagnostics and goodness-of-fit tests are straightforwardly performed by eval-
uating the stochastic properties of the ACD residuals ˆi = xi /Ψ̂i . The dynamic properties

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

are easily analyzed based on Portmanteau statistics or tests against independence such
as proposed by Brock, Scheinkman, Scheinkman, and LeBaron (1996). The distributional
properties can be evaluated based on Engle and Russell’s (1998) test for no excess disper-
p
sion using the asymptotically standard normal test statistic n/8 σ̂ 2 , where σ̂ 2 denotes
the empirical variance of the residual series. Dufour and Engle (2000) and Bauwens, Giot,
Grammig, and Veredas (2004) evaluate the model’s goodness-of-fit based on the evalua-
tion of density forecasts using the probability integral transform as proposed by Diebold,
Gunther, and Tay (1998). A nonparametric test against distributional misspecification
is proposed by Fernandes and Grammig (2005) based on the work of Aı̈t-Sahalia (1996).
Statistics that exclusively test for misspecifications of the conditional mean function Ψi have
been worked out by Meitz and Teräsvirta (2006) using the Lagrange Multiplier principle
and by Hautsch (2006) using (integrated) conditional moment tests. A common result is
that too simple ACD specifications, such as the ACD or Log-ACD model are not flexible
enough to adequately capture the properties of observed financial durations.

3.3 Other Models

ACD models strongly resemble ARCH models. Therefore it is not surprising that Taylor’s
(1986) stochastic volatility model for financial returns has been a source of inspiration of
similar duration models. Bauwens and Veredas (2004) propose the stochastic conditional
duration model (SCD) as an alternative to ACD-type models. The SCD model relates to
the logarithmic ACD model in the same way as the stochastic volatility model relates to
the exponential GARCH model of Nelson (1991). Thus the model is defined by equations
(12), (13), and
ln Ψi = ω + β ln Ψi−1 + γi−1 + ui , (24)

where ui is iid N(0, σu2 ) distributed. The process {ui } is assumed to be independent of
the process {i }. The set of possible distributions for the duration innovations i is the
same as for ACD models. This model allows for a rich class of hazard functions for xi
through the interplay of two distributions. The latent variable Ψi may be interpreted as
being inversely related to the information arrival process which triggers bursts of activity
on financial markets. The ”leverage” term γi−1 in (24) is added by Feng, Jiang, and Song
(2004) to allow for an intertemporal correlation between the observable duration and the
conditional duration, and the correlation is found to be positive. Bauwens and Veredas
(2004) use a logarithmic transformation of (12) and employ QML estimation based on
the Kalman filter. Knight and Ning (2005) use the empirical characteristic function and
the method of generalized moments. Strickland, Forbes, and Martin (2003) use Bayesian
estimation with a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. For the model with leverage term,

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Feng, Jiang, and Song (2004) use the Monte Carlo ML method of Durbin and Koopman
(2004).
The ACD and SCD models reviewed above share the property that the dynamics of
higher moments of the duration process are governed by the dynamics of the conditional
mean. Ghysels, Gourieroux, and Jasiak (2004) argue that this feature is restrictive and
introduce a nonlinear two factor model that disentangles the movements of the mean and of
the variance of durations. Since the second factor is responsible for the variance heterogene-
ity, the model is named the stochastic volatility duration (SVD) model. The departure point
for this model is a standard static duration model in which the durations are independently
and exponentially distributed with a gamma heterogeneity, i.e.

Ui H(1, F1i )
xi = = , (25)
aVi aH(b, F2i )

where Ui and Vi are two independent variables which are gamma(1,1) (i.e. exponential) and
gamma(b, b) distributed, respectively. The last ratio in (25) uses two independent Gaussian
factors F1i and F2i , and H(b, F ) = G(b, ϕ(F )), where G(b, .) is the quantile function of the
gamma(b, b) distribution and ϕ(.) the cdf of the standard normal distribution. Ghysels,
Gourieroux, and Jasiak (2004) extend this model to a dynamic setup through a VAR model
for the two underlying Gaussian factors. Estimation is relatively difficult and requires
simulation methods.

3.4 Applications

ACD models can be used to estimate and predict the intra-day volatility of returns from
the intensity of price durations. As shown by Engle and Russell (1998), a price intensity is
closely linked to the instantaneous price change volatility. The latter is given by
" #
p(t + ∆) − p(t) 2

2 1
σ̃ (t) := lim E Ft , (26)
∆↓0 ∆ p(t)

where p(t) denotes the price (or midquote) at t. By denoting the counting process associated
with the event times of cumulated absolute price changes of size dp by N dp (t), we can
formulate (26) in terms of the intensity function of the process of dp-price changes. Then,
the dp-price change instantaneous volatility can be computed as

dp 2
 
2 1
σ̃(dp) (t) = lim Pr [|p(t + ∆) − p(t)| ≥ dp |Ft ] ·
∆↓0 ∆ p(t)
1 h i  dp 2
dp dp
= lim Pr (N (t + ∆) − N (t)) > 0 |Ft ·
∆↓0 ∆ p(t)
 2
dp
:= λdp (t) · , (27)
p(t)

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

where λdp (t) denotes the corresponding dp-price change intensity. Hence, using (14), one
can estimate or predict the instantaneous volatility of the price process p(t) at any time
point. Giot (2005) compares these estimates with usual GARCH based estimates obtained
by interpolating the prices on a grid of regularly spaced time points. He finds that GARCH
based predictions are better measures of risk than ACD based ones in a Value-at-Risk (VaR)
evaluation study.
ACD and related models have been typically used to test implications of asymmetric
information models of price formation. For example, the model of Easley and O‘Hara (1992)
implies that the number of transactions influences the price process through information
based clustering of transactions. Then, including lags as well as expectations of the trading
intensity as explanatory variables in a model for the price process allows to test such theo-
retical predictions. For a variety of different applications in market microstructure research,
see Engle and Russell (1998), Engle (2000), Bauwens and Giot (2000), Engle and Lunde
(2003), and Hafner (2005) among others. Several authors have combined an ACD model
with a model for the marks of a financial point process. The idea is generally to model
the duration process by an ACD model, and conditionally on the durations, to model the
process of marks. Bauwens and Giot (2003) model the direction of the price change between
two consecutive trades by formulating a competing risks model, where the direction of the
price movement is triggered by a Bernoulli process. Then, the parameters of the ACD pro-
cess depend on the direction of the previous price change, leading to an asymmetric ACD
model. A related type of competing risks model is specified by Bisière and Kamionka (2000).
Prigent, Renault, and Scaillet (2001) use a similar model for option pricing. Russell and
Engle (2005) develop an autoregressive conditional multinomial model to simultaneously
model the time between trades and the dynamic evolution of (discrete) price changes.
A related string of the literature studies the interaction between the trading intensity and
the trade-to-trade return volatility. Engle (2000) augments a GARCH equation for returns
per time by the impact of the inverse of the observed and expected durations (xi and Ψi ),
and of the surprise xi /Ψi . A decrease in xi or Ψi has a positive impact on volatility while
the surprise has the reverse impact. Dionne, Duchesne, and Pacurara (2005) use a related
model to compute an intraday VaR. Ghysels and Jasiak (1998) and Grammig and Wellner
(2002) study a GARCH process for trade-to-trade returns with time-varying parameters
which are triggered by the trading intensity. Meddahi, Renault, and Werker (2006) derive
a discrete time GARCH model for irregularly spaced data from a continuous time volatility
process and compare it to the ACD-GARCH models by Engle (2000) and Ghysels and
Jasiak (1998).

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

4 Dynamic Intensity Models

In this section, we review the most important types of dynamic intensity models which
are applied to model financial point processes. The class of Hawkes models and extensions
thereof are discussed in Section 4.1. In Section 4.2, we survey different autoregressive
intensity models. Statistical inference for intensity models is presented in Section 4.3,
whereas the most important applications in the recent literature are briefly discussed in
Section 4.4.

4.1 Hawkes Processes

Hawkes processes originate from the statistical literature in seismology and are used to
model the occurrence of earthquakes, see e.g. Vere-Jones (1970), Vere-Jones and Ozaki
(1982), and Ogata (1988) among others. Bowsher (2006) was the first applying Hawkes
models to financial point processes. As explained in Section 3.2, Hawkes processes belong
to the class of self-exciting processes, where the intensity is driven by a weighted function
of the time distance to previous points of the process. A general class of univariate Hawkes
processes is given by
P

λ(t) = ϕ µ(t) + ti <t w(t − ti ) , (28)

where ϕ denotes a possibly nonlinear function, µ(t) is a deterministic function of time,

and w(s) denotes a weight function. If ϕ : R → R+ , we obtain the class of nonlinear
Hawkes processes considered by Brémaud and Massoulié (1996). In this case, µ(t) and w(t)
can take negative values since the transformation ϕ(·) preserves the non-negativity of the
process. Such a specification is useful whenever the intensity may be negatively affected
by the process history or covariates. For instance, in the context of financial duration
processes, µ(t) can be parameterized as a function of covariates. Stability conditions for
nonlinear Hawkes processes are derived by Brémaud and Massoulié (1996). For the special
case where ϕ is a linear function, we obtain the class of linear Hawkes processes originally
considered by Hawkes (1971). They are analytically and computationally more tractable
than their nonlinear counterparts, however, they require µ(t) > 0 and w(t) > 0 in order to
ensure non-negativity.
As pointed out by Hawkes and Oakes (1974), linear self-exciting processes can be viewed
as clusters of Poisson processes. Then, each event is one of two types: an immigrant process
or an offspring process. The immigrants follow a Poisson process and define the centers of
so-called Poisson clusters. If we condition on the arrival time, say ti , of an immigrant,
then independently of the previous history, ti is the center of a Poisson process, Υ(ti ), of
offspring on (ti , ∞) with intensity function λi (t) = λ(t − ti ), where λ is a non-negative

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

function. The process Υ(ti ) defines the first generation offspring process with respect to ti .
Furthermore, if we condition on the process Υ(ti ), then each of the events in Υ(ti ), say tj ,
generates a Poisson process with intensity λj (t) = λ(t − tj ). These independent Poisson
processes build the second generation of offspring with respect to ti . Similarly, further
generations arise. The set of all offspring points arising from one immigrant are called
a Poisson cluster. Exploiting the branching and conditional independence structure of a
(linear) Hawkes process, Møller and Rasmussen (2004) develop a simulation algorithm as
an alternative to the Shedler-Lewis thinning algorithm or the modified thinning algorithm
by Ogata (1981) (see e.g. Daley and Vere-Jones (2003)). The immigrants and offsprings can
be referred to as ”main shocks” and ”after shocks” respectively. This admits an interesting
interpretation which is useful not only in seismology but also in high-frequency finance.
Bowsher (2006), Hautsch (2004) and Large (2007) illustrate that Hawkes processes capture
the dynamics in financial point processes remarkably well. This indicates that the cluster
structure implied by the self-exciting nature of Hawkes processes seem to be a reasonable
description of the timing structure of events on financial markets.
The most common parameterization of w(t) has been suggested by Hawkes (1971) and
is given by
P
X
w(t) = αj e−βj t , (29)
j=1

where αj ≥ 0, βj > 0 for j = 1, . . . , P are model parameters, and P denotes the order of the
process and is selected exogenously (or by means of information criteria). The parameters
αj are scale parameters, whereas βj drive the strength of the time decay. For P > 1, the
intensity is driven by the superposition of differently parameterized exponentially decaying
weighted sums of the backward times to all previous points. In order to ensure identification
we impose the constraint β1 > . . . > βP . It can be shown that the stationarity of the process
R∞
requires 0 < 0 w(s)ds < 1, which is ensured only for Pj=1 αj /βj < 1, see Hawkes (1971).
P

While (29) implies an exponential decay, the alternative parameterization

H
w(t) = , (30)
(t + κ)p

with parameters H, κ, and p > 1 allows for a hyperbolic decay. Such weight functions are
typically applied in seismology (see e.g. Vere-Jones and Ozaki (1982) and Ogata (1988))
and allow to capture long range dependence. Since financial duration processes also tend to
reveal long memory behavior (see Jasiak (1998)), specification (30) might be an interesting
specification in financial applications.
Multivariate Hawkes models are obtained by a generalization of (28). Then, λ(t) is given

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

by the (K × 1)-vector λ(t) = (λ1 (t), . . . , λK (t))0 with
 
λk (t) = ϕ µk (t) + K k r
P P
r=1 tr <t wr (t − ti ) ,
i
(31)

where wrk (s) is a k-type weight function of the backward time to all r-type events. Using
an exponential decay function, Hawkes (1971) suggests to parameterize wrk (s) as
P
k
k −βr,j t
X
wrk (t) = αr,j e , (32)
j=1

k ≥ 0 and β k > . . . > β k > 0 drive the influence of the time distance to past
where αr,j r,1 r,P
r-type events on the k-type intensity. Thus, in the multivariate case, λk (t) depends not
only on the distance to all k-type points, but also on the distance to all other points of the
pooled process. Hawkes (1971) provides a set of linear parameter restrictions ensuring the
stationarity of the process.
Bowsher (2006) proposes a generalization of the Hawkes model which allows to model
point processes which are interrupted by time periods where no activity takes place. In
high-frequency financial time series these effects occur because of trading breaks due to
trading halts, nights, weekends or holidays. In order to account for such effects, Bowsher
proposes to remove all non-activity periods and to concatenate consecutive activity periods
by a spill-over function.

4.2 Autoregressive Intensity Processes

Hamilton and Jordà (2002) establish a natural link between ACD models and intensity
models by extending the ACD model to allow for covariates which might change during a
duration spell (time-varying covariates). The key idea of their so-called autoregressive con-
ditional hazard (ACH) model is to rely on the fact that in the ACD model with exponential
error distribution, the intensity (or the hazard function, respectively) corresponds to the
inverse of the conditional duration, i.e. λ(t) = Ψ−1 . They extend this expression by a
N̆ (t)+1
function of variables which are known at time t − 1,
1
λ(t) = 0 γ, (33)
ΨN̆ (t)+1 + zt−1

where zt are time-varying covariates which are updated during a duration spell.
An alternative model which can be seen as a combination of a duration model and an
intensity model is introduced by Gerhard and Hautsch (2007). They propose a dynamic
extension of a Cox (1972) proportional intensity model, where the baseline intensity λ0 (t)
is non-specified. Their key idea is to exploit the stochastic properties of the integrated
intensity and to re-formulate the model in terms of a regression model with unknown left-
hand variable and Gumbel distributed error terms – see Kiefer (1988) for a nice illustration

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

of this relation. To identify the unknown baseline intensity at discrete points, Gerhard
and Hautsch follow the idea of Han and Hausman (1990) and formulate the model in
terms of an ordered response model based on categorized durations. In order to allow for
serial dependence in the duration process, the model is extended by an observation-driven
ARMA dynamic based on generalized errors. As a result, the resulting semiparametric
autoregressive conditional proportional intensity (ACPI) model allows to capture serial
dependence in duration processes and to estimate conditional failure probabilities without
requiring explicit distributional assumptions.
In autoregressive conditional intensity (ACI) models as introduced by Russell (1999),
the intensity function is directly modeled in terms of an autoregressive process which is
updated by past realizations of the integrated intensity. Let λ(t) = (λ1 (t), . . . , λK (t))0 .
Then, Russell (1999) proposes to specify λk (t) in terms of a proportional intensity structure
given by

λk (t) = ΦkN̆ (t)+1 λk0 (t)sk (t), k = 1, . . . K, (34)

where ΦN̆ (t)+1 captures the dynamic structure, λk0 (t) is a baseline intensity component cap-
turing the (deterministic) evolution of the intensity between two consecutive points and
sk (t) denotes a deterministic function of t capturing, for instance, possible seasonality ef-
fects. The function ΦN̆ (t) is indexed by the left-continuous counting function and is updated
instantaneously after the arrival of a new point. Hence, Φi is constant for ti−1 < t ≤ ti .
Then, the evolution of the intensity function between two consecutive arrival times is gov-
erned by λk0 (t) and sk (t).
In order to ensure the non-negativity of the process, the dynamic component Φki is
specified in log-linear form, i.e.
 
Φki = exp Φ̃ki + zi−1
0 γk , (35)

where zi denotes a vector of explanatory variables observed at arrival time ti and γ k the
corresponding parameter vector. Define εi as a (scalar) innovation term which is computed
from the integrated intensity function associated with the most recently observed process,
i.e.
 
K Z tk
N k (ti )
X
εi = 1 − λk (s; Fs )ds yik , (36)
k=1 tk
N k (ti )−1

where yik defines an indicator variable that takes the value 1 if the i-th point of the pooled
process is of type k. Using the random time change argument presented in Section 2.4, εi
corresponds to a random mixture of i.i.d. centered standard exponential variates and thus

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

  0
is itself an i.i.d. zero mean random variable. Then, the (K × 1) vector Φ̃i = Φ̃1i , . . . , Φ̃K
i
is parameterized as
K 
X 
Φ̃i = Ak εi−1 + B k Φ̃i−1 yi−1
k
, (37)
k=1

where Ak = {akj } denotes a (K ×1) innovation parameter vector and B k = {bkij } is a (K ×K)
matrix of persistence parameters. Hence, the fundamental principle of the ACI model is that
at each event ti all K processes are updated by the realization of the integrated intensity with
respect to the most recent process, where the impact of the innovation on the K processes
can be different and also varies with the type of the most recent point. As suggested by
Bowsher (2006), an alternative specification of the ACI innovation term might be ε̃i =
1 − Λ(ti−1 , ti ), where Λ(ti−1 , ti ) := K k
P
k=1 Λ (ti−1 , ti ) denotes the integrated intensity of the
pooled process computed between the two most recent points. Following the arguments
above, ε̃i is also a zero mean i.i.d. innovation term. Because of the regime-switching nature
of the persistence matrix, the derivation of stationarity conditions is difficult. However, a
sufficient (but not necessary) condition is that the eigenvalues of the matrices B k for all
k = 1, . . . , K lie inside the unit circle.
As proposed by Hautsch (2004), the baseline intensity function λk0 (t) can be specified
as the product of K different Burr hazard rates, i.e.
K s
Y xr (t)pr −1
λk0 (t) = exp(ω ) k
, (psr > 0, ηrs ≥ 0). (38)
1 + ηrs xr (t)psr
r=1

According to this specification λk (t) is driven not only by the k-type backward recurrence
time but also by the time distance to the most recent point in all other processes r = 1, . . . , K
with r 6= k. A special case occurs when psr = 1 and ηrs = 0, ∀ r 6= s. Then, the k-th process
is affected only by its own backward recurrence time.
Finally, sk (t) is typically specified as a spline function in order to capture intraday
seasonalities. A simple parameterization which is used in most studies is given by a linear
spline function of the form sk (t) = 1 + Sj=1 νjk (t − τj ) · 1l {t>τj } , where τj , j = 1 . . . , S,
P

denote S nodes within a trading period and νj the corresponding parameters. A more
flexible parameterization is e.g. given by a flexible Fourier form (Gallant (1981)) as used by
Andersen and Bollerslev (1998) or Gerhard and Hautsch (2002) among others.
If K = 1 and η11 = 0, the ACI model and the ACD model coincide. Then, the ACI
model corresponds to a re-parameterized form of the Log-ACD model. If the ACI model is
extended to allow for time-varying covariates (see Hall and Hautsch (2007)), it generalizes
the approach by Hamilton and Jordà (2002). In this case, all event times associated with
(discrete time) changes of time-varying covariates are treated as another point process that

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

is not explicitly modelled. Then, at each event time of the covariate process, the multivariate
intensity process is updated, which requires a piecewise computation of the corresponding
integrated intensities.
A generalization of the ACI model has been proposed by Bauwens and Hautsch (2006).
The key idea is that the multivariate intensity function λ(t) = (λ1 (t), . . . , λK (t))0 is driven
not only by the observable history of the process but also by a common component. The
latter may be considered as a way to capture the unobservable general information flow
in a financial market. Such a setting turns out to be useful for the modelling of high-
dimensional point processes which are driven by an unobservable common random process.
By assuming the existence of a common unobservable factor λ∗ (t) following a pre-assigned
structure in the spirit of a doubly stochastic Poisson process (see Section 2.3), we define
the internal (unobservable) history of λ∗ (t) as Ft∗ . Then, we assume that λ(t) is adapted
to the filtration Ft := σ(Fto ∪ Ft∗ ), where Fto denotes some observable filtration. Then, the
so-called stochastic conditional intensity (SCI) model is given by
 σ ∗
k
λk (t) = λo,k (t) λ∗N̆ (t)+1 , (39)

where λ∗N̆ (t)+1 := λ∗ (tN̆ (t)+1 ) denotes the common latent component which is updated
at each point of the (pooled) process {ti }i∈{1,...,n} . The direction and magnitude of the
process-specific impact of λ∗ is driven by the parameters σk∗ . The process-specific function
λo,k (t) := λo,k (t|Fto ) denotes a conditionally deterministic idiosyncratic k-type intensity
component given the observable history, Fto .
Bauwens and Hautsch (2006) assume that λ∗i has left-continuous sample paths with
right-hand limits and in logarithm is the zero mean AR(1) process given by

ln λ∗i = a∗ ln λ∗i−1 + u∗i , u∗i ∼ i.i.d. N (0, 1). (40)

Because of the symmetry of the distribution of ln λ∗i , Bauwens and Hautsch impose an
identification assumption which restricts the sign of one of the scaling parameters σk∗ . The
observation-driven component λo,k (t) is specified in terms of an ACI parameterization as
described above. However, in contrast to the basic ACI model, in the SCI model, the
innovation term is computed based on the observable history of the process, i.e.
K n
X  o
εi = −$ − ln Λo,k tkN k (ti )−1 , tkN k (ti ) yik , (41)
k=1

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

where $ denotes Euler’s constant, $ = 0.5772, and Λo,k tki−1 , tki is given by

  N (tki )−1 Z tj+1

X
o,k
Λ tki−1 , tki := λo,k (u)du
tj
j=N (tki−1 )

N (tki )−1
X
−σ∗
= λ∗j k
Λk (tj , tj+1 ) (42)
j=N (tki−1 )

corresponding to the sum of (piecewise) integrated k-type intensities which are observed
through the duration spell and are standardized by the corresponding (scaled) realizations
of the latent component. This specification ensures that εi can be computed exclusively
based on past observables implying a distinct separation between the observation-driven
and the parameter-driven components of the model. Bauwens and Hautsch (2006) analyze
the probabilistic properties of the model and illustrate that the SCI model allows for a wide
range of (cross-)autocorrelation structures in multivariate point processes. In an application
to a multivariate process of price intensities, they find that the latent component captures
a substantial part of the cross-dependences between the individual processes resulting in a
quite parsimonious model. An extension of the SCI model to the case of multiple states
is proposed by Koopman, Lucas, and Monteiro (2005) and is applied to the modelling of
credit rating transitions.

4.3 Statistical Inference

Karr (1991) shows that valid statistical inference can be performed based on the intensity
function solely, see Theorem 5.2. in Karr (1991) or Bowsher (2006). Assume a K-variate
point process N (t) = {N k (t)}K
k=1 on (0, T ] with 0 < T < ∞, and the existence of a K-
variate Ft -predictable process λ(t) that depends on the parameters θ. Then, it can be
shown that a genuine log likelihood function is given by
K
"Z #

X T Z
k k k
ln L θ; {N (t)}t∈(0,T ] = (1 − λ (s))ds + ln λ (s)dN (s) ,
k=1 0 (0,T ]

which can be alternatively computed by

n X
K h i

X
ln L θ; {N (t)}t∈(0,T ] = (−Λk (ti−1 , ti )) + yik ln λk (ti ) + T K. (43)
i=1 k=1

Note that (43) differs from the standard log likelihood function of duration models by the
additive (integrating) constant T K which can be ignored for ML estimation. By apply-
ing the so-called exponential formula (Yashin and Arjas (1988)), the relation between the
integrated intensity function and the conditional survivor function is given by

S(xi |Fti−1 +xi ) = exp (−Λ(ti−1 , ti )) , (44)

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

which is the continuous counterpart to the well-known relation between the survivor function
Rx
and the hazard rate, S(xi ) = exp(− 0 i h(u)du). Hence, by ignoring the term T K, (43)
corresponds to the sum of the conditional survivor function and the conditional intensity
function. However, according to Yashin and Arjas (1988), the exponential formula (44)
is only valid if S(xi |Fti−1 +xi ) is absolutely continuous in xi , which excludes jumps of the
conditional survivor function induced by changes of the information set during a spell.
Therefore, in a continuous, dynamic setting, the interpretation of exp (−Λ(ti−1 , ti )) as a
survivor function should be done with caution.
The evaluation of (43) for a Hawkes model is straightforward. In the case of an ex-
ponential decay function, the resulting log likelihood function can be even computed in a
recursive way (see e.g. Bowsher (2006)). An important advantage of Hawkes processes is
that the individual intensities λk (t) do not have parameters in common and the parameter
vector can be expressed as θ = θ1 , . . . , θK , where θk denotes the parameters associated

with the k-type intensity component. Given that the parameters are variation free, the
log likelihood function can be computed as ln L θ; {N (t)}t∈(0,T ] = K k k

P
k=1 l (θ ) and can
be maximized by maximizing the individual k-type components lk (θk ) separately. This fa-
cilitates the estimation particularly when K is large. In contrast, ACI models require to
maximize the log likelihood function with respect to all the parameters jointly. This is due
to the fact that the ACI innovations are based on the integrated intensities which depend
on all individual parameters. The estimation of SCI models is computationally even more
demanding since the latent factor has to be integrated out resulting in a n-dimensional
integral. Bauwens and Hautsch (2006) suggest to evaluate the likelihood function numeri-
cally using the efficient importance sampling procedure introduced by Richard and Zhang
(2005). Regularity conditions for the maximum likelihood estimation of stationary simple
point processes are established by Ogata (1981). For more details, see Bowsher (2006).
Diagnostics for intensity based point process models can be performed by exploiting
the stochastic properties of compensators (see Bowsher (2006)) and integrated intensities
given in Section 2.4. The model goodness-of-fit can be straightforwardly evaluated through
the estimated integrated intensities of the K individual processes, eki,1 := Λ̂k (tki−1 , tki ), the
integrated intensity of the pooled process ei,2 := Λ̂(ti−1 , ti ) = K k
P
  k=1 Λ̂ (ti−1 , ti ), or of the
PK
(non-centered) ACI residuals ei,3 := k=1 Λ̂k (tki−1 , tki ) yik . Under correct model specifica-
tion, all three types of residuals must be i.i.d. standard exponential. Then, model evaluation
is done by testing the dynamic and distributional properties. The dynamic properties are
easily evaluated with Portmanteau statistics or tests against independence such as proposed
by Brock, Scheinkman, Scheinkman, and LeBaron (1996). The distributional properties can
be evaluated using Engle and Russell’s (1998) test against excess dispersion (see Section

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

3.2). Other alternatives are goodness-of-fit tests based on the probability integral trans-
form (PIT) as employed for diagnostics of ACD models by Bauwens, Giot, Grammig, and
Veredas (2004).

4.4 Applications

For financial point processes, dynamic intensity models are primarily applied in multivari-
ate frameworks or whenever a continuous-time setting is particularly required, like, for
instance, in order to allow for time-varying covariates. One string of applications focusses
on the modelling of trading intensities of different types of orders in limit order books. Hall
and Hautsch (2007) apply a bivariate ACI model to study the intensities of buy and sell
transactions in the electronic limit order book market of the Australian Stock Exchange
(ASX). The buy and sell intensities are specified to depend on time-varying covariates cap-
turing the state of the market. On the basis of the buy and sell intensities, denoted by
λB (t) and λS (t), Hall and Hautsch (2007) propose a measure of the continuous net buy
pressure defined by ∆B (t) := ln λB (t) − ln λS (t). Because of the log-linear structure of the
ACI model, the marginal change of ∆B (t) induced by a change of the covariates is computed
as γ B − γ S , where γ B and γ S denote the coefficients associated with covariates affecting
the buy and sell intensity, respectively (see eq. (35)). Hall and Hautsch (2006) study the
determinants of order aggressiveness and traders’ order submission strategy at the ASX by
applying a six-dimensional ACI model to study the arrival rates of aggressive market orders,
limit orders as well as cancellations on both sides of the market. In a related paper, Large
(2007) studies the resiliency of an electronic limit order book by modelling the processes
of orders and cancellations on the London Stock Exchange using a ten-dimensional Hawkes
process. Finally, Russell (1999) analyzes the dynamic interdependences between the sup-
ply and demand for liquidity by modelling transaction and limit order arrival times at the
NYSE using a bivariate ACI model.
Another branch of the literature focusses on the modelling of the instantaneous price
change volatility which is estimated on the basis of price durations, see (27) in Section
3.4. This relation is used by Bauwens and Hautsch (2006) to study the interdependence
between instantaneous price change volatilities of several blue chip stocks traded at the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) using a SCI model. In this setting, they find a strong
evidence for the existence of a common latent component as a major driving force of the
instantaneous volatilities on the market. In a different framework, Bowsher (2006) analyzes
the two-way interaction of trades and quote changes using a two-dimensional generalized
Hawkes process.

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

References

Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. (1996): “Testing Continuous-Time Models of the Spot Interest Rate,”

Review of Financial Studies, 9, 385–426.

Andersen, T. G., and T. Bollerslev (1998): “Deutsche Mark-Dollar Volatility: Intra-

day Activity Patterns, Macroeconomic Announcements, and Longer Run Dependencies,”
Journal of Finance, 53, 219–265.

Bauwens, L., F. Galli, and P. Giot (2008): “The Moments of Log-ACD Models,”
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis in Social Sciences, forthcoming.

Bauwens, L., and P. Giot (2000): “The Logarithmic ACD Model: An Application to
the Bid/Ask Quote Process of two NYSE Stocks,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique,
60, 117–149.

(2001): Econometric Modelling of Stock Market Intraday Activity. Kluwer Aca-

demic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht, London.

(2003): “Asymmetric ACD Models: Introducing Price Information in ACD Models

with a Two State Transition Model,” Empirical Economics, 28, 1–23.

Bauwens, L., P. Giot, J. Grammig, and D. Veredas (2004): “A Comparison of

Financial Duration Models Via Density Forecasts,” International Journal of Forecasting,
20, 589–609.

Bauwens, L., and N. Hautsch (2006): “Stochastic Conditional Intensity Processes,”

Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4, 450–493.

Bauwens, L., and D. Veredas (2004): “The Stochastic Conditional Duration Model: A
Latent Factor Model for the Analysis of Financial Durations,” Journal of Econometrics,
119, 381–412.

Bisière, C., and T. Kamionka (2000): “Timing of Orders, Order Aggressiveness and the
Order Book at the Paris Bourse,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 60, 43–72.

Bollerslev, T. (1986): “Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity,”

Journal of Econometrics, 31, 307–327.

Bollerslev, T., and J. Wooldridge (1992): “Quasi-Maximum Likelihood Estimation

and Inference in Dynamic Models with Time Varying Covariances,” Econometric Reviews,
11, 143–172.

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Bowsher, C. G. (2006): “Modelling Security Markets in Continuous Time: Intensity
based, Multivariate Point Process Models,” Journal of Econometrics, forthcoming.

Brémaud, P., and L. Massoulié (1996): “Stability of Nonlinear Hawkes Processes,”

Annals of Probability, 24, 1563–1588.

Brock, W., W. Scheinkman, J. Scheinkman, and B. LeBaron (1996): “A Test for

Independence Based on the Correlation Dimension,” Econometric Reviews, 15, 197–235.

Brown, T. C., and M. G. Nair (1988): “A Simple Proof of the Multivariate Random
Time Change Theorem for Point Processes,” Journal of Applied Probability, 25, 210–214.

Cox, D. R. (1972): “Regression Models and Life Tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.

(1975): “Partial Likelihood,” Biometrika, 62, 269.

Daley, D., and D. Vere-Jones (2003): An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes,
vol. 1. Springer, New York.

De Luca, G., and G. Gallo (2004): “Mixture Processes for Financial Intradaily Du-
rations,” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 8 (2), Downloadable under
http://www.bepress.com/snde/vol8/iss2/art8.

(2006): “Time-Varying Mixing Weights in Mixture Autoregressive Conditional

Duration Models,” Manuscript, University of Florence.

De Luca, G., and P. Zuccolotto (2003): “Finite and Infinite Mixtures for Financial
Durations,” Metron, 61, 431–455.

Diebold, F. X., T. A. Gunther, and A. S. Tay (1998): “Evaluating Density Forecasts,

with Applications to Financial Risk Management,” International Economic Review, 39,
863–883.

Dionne, G., P. Duchesne, and M. Pacurara (2005): “Intraday Value at Risk (IVaR)
Using Tick-by-Tick Data with Application to the Toronto Stock Exchange,” Mimeo, HEC
Montréal.

Drost, F. C., and B. J. M. Werker (2004): “Semiparametric Duration Models,” Jour-

nal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22, 40–50.

Dufour, A., and R. F. Engle (2000): “The ACD Model: Predictability of the Time
between Consecutive Trades,” Working Paper, ISMA Centre, University of Reading.

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Durbin, J., and S. Koopman (2004): “Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood Estimation for
Non-Gaussian State Space Models,” Biometrika, 84, 669–684.

Easley, D., and M. O‘Hara (1992): “Time and Process of Security Price Adjustment,”
The Journal of Finance, 47, 577–605.

Engle, R. F. (2000): “The Econometrics of Ultra-High-Frequency Data,” Econometrica,

68, 1, 1–22.

(2002): “New Frontiers for ARCH Models,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 17,
425–446.

Engle, R. F., and A. Lunde (2003): “Trades and Quotes: A Bivariant Point Process,”
Journal of Financial Econometrics, 11, 159–188.

Engle, R. F., and V. K. Ng (1993): “Measuring and Testing the Impact of News on
Volatility,” Journal of Finance, 48, 1749–1778.

Engle, R. F., and J. R. Russell (1998): “Autoregressive Conditional Duration: A New

Model for Irregularly Spaced Transaction Data,” Econometrica, 66, 1127–1162.

(2005): Analysis of High Frequency Financial DataHandbook of Financial Econo-

metrics. Yacine Ait-Sahalia and Lars Hansen (eds.), North-Holland.

Feng, D., G. J. Jiang, and P. X.-K. Song (2004): “Stochastic Conditional Duration
Models with ‘Leverage Effect’ for Financial Tranbsaction Data,” Journal of Financial
Econometrics, 2, 390–421.

Fernandes, M., and J. Grammig (2005): “Non-parametric Specification Tests for Con-
ditional Duration Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 127, 35–68.

Fernandes, M., and J. Grammig (2006): “A Family of Autoregressive Conditional Du-

ration Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 130, 1–23.

Gallant, R. A. (1981): “On the Bias in Flexible Functional Forms and an Essential
Unbiased Form: The Fourier Flexible Form,” Journal of Econometrics, 15, 211–245.

Gerhard, F., and N. Hautsch (2002): “Volatility Estimation on the Basis of Price
Intensities,” Journal of Empirical Finance, 9, 57–89.

(2007): “A Dynamic Semiparametric Proportional Hazard Model,”

Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 11(2), Downloadable under
http://www.bepress.com/snde/vol11/iss2/art1.

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Ghysels, E., C. Gourieroux, and J. Jasiak (2004): “Stochastic Volatility Duration
Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 119, 413–433.

Ghysels, E., and J. Jasiak (1998): “GARCH for Irregularly Spaced Financial Data: The
ACD-GARCH Model,” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 2, 133–149.

Giesecke, K., and P. Tomecek (2005): “Dependent Events and Changes of Time,”
Working Paper, Cornell University.

Giot, P. (2005): “Market Risk Models for Intraday Data,” European Journal of Finance,
11, 187–212.

Grammig, J., and M. Wellner (2002): “Modeling the Interdependence of Volatility and
Inter-Transaction Duration Process,” Journal of Econometrics, 106, 369–400.

Hafner, C. M. (2005): “Durations, Volume and the Prediction of Financial Returns in

Transaction Time,” Quantitative Finance, 5.

Hall, A. D., and N. Hautsch (2006): “Order Aggressiveness and Order Book Dynamics,”
Empirical Economics, 30, 973–1005.

(2007): “Modelling the Buy and Sell Intensity in a Limit Order Book Market,”
Journal of Financial Markets, 10, 249–286.

Hamilton, J. D., and O. Jordà (2002): “A Model of the Federal Funds Rate Target,”
Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1135–1167.

Han, A., and J. A. Hausman (1990): “Flexible Parametric Estimation of Duration and
Competing Risk Models,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 5, 1–28.

Hasbrouck, J. (1991): “Measuring the Information Content of Stock Trades,” Journal of

Finance, 46, 179–207.

Hautsch, N. (2004): Modelling Irregularly Spaced Financial Data. Springer, Berlin.

(2006): “Testing the Conditional Mean Function of Autoregressive Conditional

Duration Models,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen.

Hawkes, A. G. (1971): “Spectra of Some Self-Exciting and Mutually Exciting Point Pro-
cesses,” Biometrika, 58, 83–90.

Hawkes, A. G., and D. Oakes (1974): “A Cluster Process Representation of a Self-

Exciting Process,” Journal of Applied Probability, 11, 493–503.

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Heinen, A., and E. Rengifo (2003): “Multivariate Autoregressive Modelling of Time
Series Count Data Using Copulas,” Revision of CORE Discussion Paper 2003/25, forth-
coming in Journal of Empirical Finance.

Hujer, R., and S. Vuletic (2005): “Econometric Analysis of Financial Trade Processes
by Discrete Mixture Duration Models,” Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=766664.

Hujer, R., S. Vuletic, and S. Kokot (2002): “The Markov Switching ACD Model,” Fi-
nance and Accounting Working Paper 90, Johann Wofgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=332381.

Jasiak, J. (1998): “Persistence in Intratrade Durations,” Finance, 19, 166–195.

Kalbfleisch, J. D., and R. L. Prentice (1980): The Statistical Analysis of Failure

Time Data. Wiley.

Karr, A. F. (1991): Point Processes and their Statistical Inference. Dekker, New York.

Kiefer, N. M. (1988): “Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions,” Journal of

Economic Literature, 26, 646–679.

Knight, J., and C. Ning (2005): “Estimation of the Stochastic Conditional Duration
Model via Alternative Methods – ECF and GMM,” Mimeo, University of Western On-
tario.

Koopman, S. J., A. Lucas, and A. Monteiro (2005): “The Multi-State Latent Factor
Intensity Model for Credit Rating Transitions,” Discussion Paper TI2005-071/4, Tinber-
gen Institute.

Koulikov, D. (2002): “Modeling Sequences of Long Memory Positive Weakly Stationary

Random Variables,” Discussion Paper 493, William Davidson Institute, University of
Michigan Business School.

Lancaster, T. (1997): The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Large, J. (2007): “Measuring the Resiliency of an Electronic Limit Order Book,” Journal
of Financial Markets, 10, 1–25.

Liesenfeld, R., I. Nolte, and W. Pohlmeier (2006): “Modelling Financial Transaction

Price Movements: a Dynamic Integer Count Model,” Empirical Economics, 30, 795–825.

Meddahi, N., E. Renault, and B. J. Werker (2006): “GARCH and Irregularly Spaced
Data,” Economics Letters, 90, 200–204.

28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Meitz, M., and P. Saikkonen (2004): “Ergodicity, mixing, and existence of moments
of a class of Markov models with applications to GARCH and ACD models,” SSE/EFI
Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 573, Stockholm School of Economics.

Meitz, M., and T. Teräsvirta (2006): “Evaluating Models of Autoregressive Conditional

Duration,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 24, 104–124.

Meyer, P. A. (1971): “Démonstration simplifiée d’un théorème Knight,” in Lecture Notes

in Mathematics, vol. 191, pp. 191–195. Springer.

Møller, J., and J. Rasmussen (2004): “Perfect Simulation of Hawkes Processes,” Work-
ing Paper, Aalborg University.

Nelson, D. (1991): “Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach,”

Journal of Econometrics, 43, 227–251.

Ogata, Y. (1981): “On Lewis’ Simulation Method for Point Processes,” IEEE Transactions
of Information Theory, IT-27, 23–31.

Ogata, Y. (1988): “Statistical Models for Earthquake Occurrences and Residual Analysis
for Point Processes,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 9–27.

Prigent, J., O. Renault, and O. Scaillet (2001): An Autoregressive Conditional

Binomial Option Pricing Model Selected Papers from the First World Congress of the
Bachelier Finance Society. Geman and Madan and Pliska and Vorst (eds), Springer Ver-
lag, Heidelberg.

Quoreshi, A. S. (2006): “Long Memory, Count Data, Time Series Modelling for Financial
Application,” Umea Economic Studies 673, Department of Economics, Umea University.

Richard, J.-F., and W. Zhang (2005): “Efficient High-Dimensional Importance Sam-

pling,” Working Paper Pittsburgh University.

Russell, J. R. (1999): “Econometric Modeling of Multivariate Irregularly-Spaced High-

Frequency Data,” Working Paper, University of Chicago.

Russell, J. R., and R. F. Engle (2005): “A Discrete-State Continuous-Time Model

of Financial Transactions Prices and Times: The Autoregressive Conditional Multino-
mial Autoregressive Conditional Duration Model,” Journal of Business and Economic
Statistics, 23, 166–180.

Rydberg, T. H., and N. Shephard (2003): “Dynamics of Trade-by-Trade Price Move-

ments: Decomposition and Models,” Journal of Financial Econometrics, 1, 2–25.

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162

Strickland, C. M., C. S. Forbes, and G. M. Martin (2003): “Bayesian Analysis of the
Stochastic Conditional Duration Model,” Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics
Working Paper 14/03, Monash University.

Taylor, S. J. (1986): Modelling Financial Time Series. Wiley, New York.

Vere-Jones, D. (1970): “Stochastic Models for Earthquake Occurrence,” Journal of the

Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 32, 1–62.

Vere-Jones, D., and T. Ozaki (1982): “Some Examples of Statistical Inference Applied
to Earthquake Data,” Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 34, 189–207.

Veredas, D., J. Rodriguez-Poo, and A. Espasa (2002): “On the (Intradaily) Sea-
sonality, Dynamics and Durations Zero of a Financial Point Process,” CORE Discussion
Paper 2002/23, Louvain-La-Neuve.

Yashin, A., and E. Arjas (1988): “A Note on Random Intensities and Conditional
Survival Functions,” Journal of Applied Probability, 25, 630–635.

Zhang, M. Y., J. Russell, and R. S. Tsay (2001): “A Nonlinear Autoregressive Con-

ditional Duration Model with Applications to Financial Transaction Data,” Journal of
Econometrics, 104, 179–207.

30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1206162