MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2241608286

Empirical Performance of Levy Option Pricing Models

2008· article· en· W2241608286 on OpenAlexaff
Ji Ming, Fernando Zapatero

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingRobustness (evolution)Stochastic volatilityValuation of optionsEconometricsLévy processBlack–Scholes modelVolatility (finance)EconomicsFutures contractEmpirical researchImplied volatilityComputer scienceFinancial economicsMathematicsApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are a number of recent models that extend the Black and Scholes (1973) model by considering stochastic volatility and/or jumps, and appear to show good empirical performance. In this paper we consider some of the most successful models, all of them belonging to the class of Levy processes, and further study their empirical performance; in particular we consider their pricing performance for American options and their performance in terms of their put-call robustness; we find that their performance is good on the call side, but their put-call robustness gets lower scores than Black and Scholes (1973) with the possible exception of Carr, Geman, Madan and Yor (2002); we interpret our results as evidence of overfitting.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicStochastic processes and financial applications→French-language works237,207→