Larger than One Probabilities in Mathematical and Practical Finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally probability is considered as a function that takes values in the interval [0, 1]. However, researchers found that negative, as well as larger than 1 probabilities could be a useful tool in making financial modeling more exact and flexible. Here we show how larger than 1 probabilities could be handy for financial modeling. First, we define and mathematically rigorously derive the properties of larger than 1 probabilities based on their frequency interpretation. We call these probabilities inflated probabilities because conventional probabilities are never larger than 1. It is transparently demonstrated that inflated probabilities emerge in various real life situations. We then explain how inflated probabilities can be applied to modeling financial options such as Caps and Floors. In trading practice, these options are typically valued in a Black-Scholes-Merton framework, which assumes a lognormal distribution for the price of underlying assets. Since negative values are not defined in the lognormal framework, negative interest rates cannot be modeled. However interest rates have been negative several times in financial practice in the past. We show that applying inflated probabilities to the Black-Scholes-Merton model implies negative interest rates. Hence with this extension, Caps and Floors with negative interest rate can be conveniently modeled closed form.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".