MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029681675 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.5.625.7803

A Dynamic Programming Procedure for Pricing American-Style Asian Options

2002· article· en· W2029681675 on OpenAlexaff
Hatem Ben‐Ameur, Michèle Breton, Pierre L’Ecuyer

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewiseBellman equationFinite difference methods for option pricingMathematical optimizationDynamic programmingAsian optionConsistency (knowledge bases)Monte Carlo methods for option pricingConvergence (economics)Trinomial treeComputer scienceValuation of optionsBinomial options pricing modelValue (mathematics)Mathematical economicsFunction (biology)Black–Scholes modelMathematicsDynamic pricingApplied mathematicsEconomicsEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pricing European-style Asian options based on the arithmetic average, under the Black and Scholes model, involves estimating an integral (a mathematical expectation) for which no easily computable analytical solution is available. Pricing their American-style counterparts, which provide early exercise opportunities, poses the additional difficulty of solving a dynamic optimization problem to determine the optimal exercise strategy. A procedure for pricing American-style Asian options of the Bermudan flavor, based on dynamic programming combined with finite-element piecewise-polynomial approximation of the value function, is developed here. A convergence proof is provided. Numerical experiments illustrate the consistency and efficiency of the PROCEDURE. Theoretical properties of the value function and of the optimal exercise strategy are also established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207