MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125255107 · doi:10.1155/s117391260400001x

Three ways to solve for bond prices in the Vasicek model

2004· article· en· W2125255107 on OpenAlexaff
Rogemar Mamon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasicek modelHeath–Jarrow–Morton frameworkForward rateBond valuationMartingale (probability theory)BondShort rateOrdinary differential equationFutures contractMathematical economicsApplied mathematicsEconometricsMathematicsEconomicsDifferential equationInterest rateFinancial economicsMathematical analysisYield curveFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three approaches in obtaining the closed-form solution of the Vasicek bond pricing problem are discussed in this exposition. A derivation based solely on the distribution of the short rate process is reviewed. Solving the bond price partial differential equation (PDE) is another method. In this paper, this PDE is derived via a martingale approach and the bond price is determined by integrating ordinary differential equations. The bond pricing problem is further considered within the Heath-Jarrow-Morton (HJM) framework in which the analytic solution follows directly from the short rate dynamics under the forward measure.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations72
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Mathematics and Decision SciencesSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207