Pricing and hedging derivative securities with neural networks: Bayesian regularization, early stopping, and bagging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the effectiveness of cross validation, Bayesian regularization, early stopping, and bagging to mitigate overfitting and improving generalization for pricing and hedging derivative securities with daily S&P 500 index daily call options from January 1988 to December 1993. Our results indicate that Bayesian regularization can generate significantly smaller pricing and delta-hedging errors than the baseline neural-network (NN) model and the Black-Scholes model for some years. While early stopping does not affect the pricing errors, it significantly reduces the hedging error (HE) in four of the six years we investigated. Although computationally most demanding, bagging seems to provide the most accurate pricing and delta hedging. Furthermore, the standard deviation of the MSPE of bagging is far less than that of the baseline model in all six years, and the standard deviation of the average HE of bagging is far less than that of the baseline model in five out of six years. We conclude that they be used at least in cases when no appropriate hints are available.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it