MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159030791 · doi:10.1002/fut.21645

A Stochastic Dynamic Program for Valuing Options on Futures

2013· article· en· W2159030791 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ayadi, Hatem Ben‐Ameur, Tymur Kirillov, Robert Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Canada)HEC MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractBinomial options pricing modelPut optionValuation (finance)EconometricsValuation of optionsEconomicsRobustness (evolution)Financial economicsStochastic volatilityVolatility (finance)Mathematical economicsComputer scienceActuarial scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a stochastic dynamic program (SDP) for valuing options on stock‐index futures. SDP accommodates European‐ as well as American‐style options, and price limits on the underlying futures contracts. Our numerical investigation shows convergence, robustness, and efficiency. SDP presents some advantages and disadvantages with respect to the binomial tree and finite differences, and stands as a viable alternative to these classic numerical methodologies for option valuation. Our empirical investigation, which focuses on American options on the S&P 500 futures contract, is almost perfect for implicit volatilities, but somewhat mitigated for historical volatilities. In volatile markets, we recommend short time windows for the volatility estimation step. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 34:1185–1201, 2014

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Futures MarketsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207