Data driven recovery of local volatility surfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines issues of data completion and location uncertainty, popular in many practical PDE-based inverse problems, in the context of option calibration via recovery of local volatility surfaces. While real data is usually more accessible for this application than for many others, the data is often given only at a restricted set of locations. We show that attempts to "complete missing data" by approximation or interpolation, proposed in the literature, may produce results that are inferior to treating the data as scarce. Furthermore, model uncertainties may arise which translate to uncertainty in data locations, and we show how a model-based adjustment of the asset price may prove advantageous in such situations. We further compare a carefully calibrated Tikhonov-type regularization approach against a similarly adapted EnKF method, in an attempt to fine-tune the data assimilation process. The EnKF method offers reassurance as a different method for assessing the solution in a problem where information about the true solution is difficult to come by. However, additional advantage in the latter approach turns out to be limited in our context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it