MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124189866 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1568

Pricing and Hedging with Discontinuous Functions: Quasi–Monte Carlo Methods and Dimension Reduction

2012· article· en· W2124189866 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoqun Wang, Ken Seng Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClassification of discontinuitiesDiscontinuity (linguistics)Dimension (graph theory)Variance reductionComputer scienceQuasi-Monte Carlo methodMathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodApplied mathematicsEffective dimensionMathematicsHybrid Monte CarloMathematical analysisMarkov chain Monte CarloStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quasi–Monte Carlo (QMC) methods are important numerical tools in the pricing and hedging of complex financial instruments. The effectiveness of QMC methods crucially depends on the discontinuity and the dimension of the problem. This paper shows how the two fundamental limitations can be overcome in some cases. We first study how path-generation methods (PGMs) affect the structure of the discontinuities and what the effect of discontinuities is on the accuracy of QMC methods. The insight is that the discontinuities can be QMC friendly (i.e., aligned with the coordinate axes) or not, depending on the PGM. The PGMs that offer the best performance in QMC methods are those that make the discontinuities QMC friendly. The structure of discontinuities can affect the accuracy of QMC methods more significantly than the effective dimension. This insight motivates us to propose a novel way of handling the discontinuities. The basic idea is to align the discontinuities with the coordinate axes by a judicious design of a method for simulating the underlying processes. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the proposed method leads to dramatic variance reduction in QMC methods for pricing options and for estimating Greeks. It also reduces the effective dimension of the problem. This paper was accepted by Assaf Zeevi, stochastic models and simulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicMathematical Approximation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207