MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High Performance Computing for a Financial Application Using Fast Fourier Transform

2014· article· en· W2327377056 on OpenAlexafffund
Sajib Barua, Ruppa K. Thulasiram, Parimala Thulasiraman

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Technology & Quantitative Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFast Fourier transformComputer sciencePrime-factor FFT algorithmComputationCooley–Tukey FFT algorithmAlgorithmSelection (genetic algorithm)Fourier transformSplit-radix FFT algorithmExploitParallel computingMathematicsFourier analysisShort-time Fourier transformArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) has been used in many scientific and engineering applications. In the current study, we have applied the FFT for a novel application in finance. We have improved a mathematical model of Fourier transform technique for pricing financial derivatives to help design an effective parallel algorithm. We have then developed a new parallel algorithm for FFT using a swapping technique that exploits data locality. We have analyzed our algorithm theoretically and have reported the significance of the new algorithm. We have implemented our algorithm on 20 node SunFire 6800 high performance computing system and compared the new algorithm with the traditional Cooley-Tukey algorithm both as stand alone comparison of the performance and in relation to our theoretical analysis and showed higher efficiency of our algorithm. We have presented the computed option values for various strike prices with a proper selection of strike-price spacing to ensure fine-grid integration for FFT computation as well as to maximize the number of strikes lying in the desired region of the asset price.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Technology & Quantitative ManagementSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207