I'm trying to solve the following PDE numerically using an implicit FD scheme:

\begin{equation} \frac{\sigma_s^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S^2} + \rho \sigma_S \sigma_\alpha\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial S \partial \alpha} + \frac{\sigma_\alpha^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \alpha^2} + \mu_s \frac{\partial V}{\partial S} + \mu_\alpha \frac{\partial V}{\partial \alpha} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial t} - rV \end{equation}

This raises the following two questions I have not been able to find out yet:

  • When substituting the derivatives with FD approximations, is the part $rV$ replaced by $rV_{i,j,k}$ or $rV_{i,j,k+1}$?

  • When rewriting FD formula in the form of $V_{k}=AV_{k+1} - C$, are the boundary values needed to calculate $C$ taken from $V_{k+1}$ or $V_k$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you clarify your time notation: is $k+1$ before or after $k$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2018 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ In my setup $k+1$ is before $k$. More precisely, I express the time dimension in terms of time to maturity $\tau$. Hence, in my code $k=0$ corresponds to $\tau_0=0$ (which corresponds to $t=T$, where $T$ denotes expiration). Similarly, $\tau_{max}=T$ (corresponding to $t=0$). $\endgroup$
    – Pim
    Commented Jun 8, 2018 at 14:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Then you need to replace it by $rV_{i,j,k+1}$: if you consider two instants $t$ and $s$, $s>t$, the position $V_t$ earns the rate $r$ from $t$ to $s$ hence it is earned on the value $V_t$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2018 at 14:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ alternatively you can get rid of the $rV$ term by solving the PDE for $U = e^{-rt}V$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2018 at 14:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Improved accuracy you don't add the extra error that comes from the scheme approximating $e^{-rdt}$ with $1-rdt$ or $1/(1+rdt)$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2018 at 18:25

1 Answer 1


When using the (Euler) Implicit scheme, the only thing that's taken at the previous time level (the one for which you have the solution already), is the $V_{i,j,k}$ that comes from the time derivative. Everything else in the discretized equation is taken at the next time level. So, for both your questions, it's k+1.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.