MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300082946

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Option Price Forecasting: Black-Scholes vs. Simple and Hybrid Neural Networks

2007· article· en· W2300082946 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack–Scholes modelImplied volatilityPredictabilityVolatility (finance)Artificial neural networkVolatility smileEconometricsBackpropagationStochastic volatilityEconomicsValuation of optionsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to forecast option prices with simple backpropagation neural networks and to compare the results between conventional Black-Scholes model, the Black-Scholes model with pure implied volatility and neural network models over a seven-year period. This longitudinal study used 64,280 OEX 100 index call option prices trading on the Chicago Board Options Exchange from January 1986 to June 1993. In addition to simple models, two hybrid models were constructed. Using optimal models in each sub-period, the following results are demonstrated: 1. neural networks outperform the conventional Black-Scholes model when using historical volatility as an input; 2. the Black-Scholes model has better predictability when implied volatility is used; and 3. the hybrid neural network model with implied volatility often outperforms the implied volatility version of the Black-Scholes model.

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 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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.326 · 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