MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145444519 · doi:10.1142/s0219024910005735

FAST VALUATION OF FORWARD-STARTING BASKET DEFAULT SWAPS

2010· article· en· W2145444519 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Jackson, Alex Kreinin, Wanhe Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersForeign, Commonwealth and Development Office
KeywordsComputer scienceCredit default swapMonte Carlo methodValuation (finance)Valuation of optionsDerivative (finance)Mathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methods for option pricingSwap (finance)EconometricsCredit riskActuarial scienceMathematicsEconomicsFinancial economicsAccountingFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A basket default swap (BDS) is a credit derivative with contingent payments that are triggered by a combination of default events of the reference entities. A forward-starting basket default swap (FBDS) is a BDS starting at a specified future time. Existing analytic or semi-analytic methods for pricing FBDS are time consuming due to the large number of possible default combinations before the BDS starts. This paper develops a fast approximation method for FBDS based on the conditional independence framework. The method converts the pricing of a FBDS to an equivalent BDS pricing problem and combines Monte Carlo simulation with an analytic approach to achieve an effective method. This hybrid method is a novel technique which can be viewed either as a means to accelerate the convergence of Monte Carlo simulation or as a way to estimate parameters in an analytic method that are difficult to compute directly. Numerical results demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed hybrid method.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207