An Aggregated Ant Colony Optimization approach for pricing options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the current cost of an option by predicting the underlying asset prices is the most common methodology for pricing options. Pricing options has been a challenging problem for a long time due to unpredictability in market which gives rise to unpredictability in the option prices. Also the time when the options have to be exercised has to be determined to maximize the profits. This paper proposes an algorithm for predicting the time and price when the option can be exercised to gain expected profits. The proposed method is based on Nature inspired algorithm i.e. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) which is used extensively in combinatorial optimization problems and dynamic applications such as mobile ad-hoc networks where the objective is to find the shortest path. In option pricing, the primary objective is to find the best node in terms of price and time that would bring expected profit to the investor. Ants traverse the solution space (asset price movements) in the market to identify a profitable node. We have designed and implemented an Aggregated ACO algorithm to price options which is distributed and robust. The initial results are encouraging and we are continuing this work further.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".