MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2371604242

European option pricing for GARCH dynamic infinite activity Lévy processes based on parameter learning

2014· article· en· W2371604242 on OpenAlexaff
WU Heng-y

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Engineering - Theory & Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLévy processValuation of optionsStochastic volatilityEconometricsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityJumpValuation (finance)MathematicsVolatility (finance)Black–Scholes modelEconomicsApplied mathematicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper,we consider a three-dimension state space model for establishing a discrete-time dynamic Levy process,including time-varying drift,conditional volatility and stochastic jump activity.Then we obtain the equivalent non-arbitrage pricing model through local risk-neutral valuation relationship(RNVR).Taking non-Gaussian ARMA-NGARCH model as our benchmark,we construct a discrete time dynamic Levy process with GARCH effect for modeling SP500 index.Furthermore we jointly estimate the parameters of the model and study the option pricing performance based on Bayesian learning approach.Research results show that our dynamic Levy process can depict the time-varying drift rate,conditional volatility and infinite activity styles.Meanwhile,Bayesian approach improves the option valuation ability of our model.Infinite jump models are significant superior and increase the pricing accuracy of implied volatility.We also find that unscented particle filtering(UPF) has the best estimation performance,nonGaussian models in the yield prediction are of no significant difference,but the rapidly decreasing tempered stable processes(RDTS) have minimum errors for option pricing.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystems Engineering - Theory & PracticeSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207