MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470369492 · doi:10.21314/jcf.2007.163

Numerical methods for controlled Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman PDEs in finance

2007· article· en· W2470369492 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

VenueThe Journal of Computational Finance · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equationDiscretizationViscosity solutionValuation of optionsNonlinear systemMathematicsPiecewiseMonotone polygonConvergence (economics)Mathematical optimizationOptimal controlApplied mathematicsComputer scienceEconomicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many nonlinear option pricing problems can be formulated as optimal control problems, leading to Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) or Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs (HJBI) equations. We show that such formulations are very convenient for developing monotone discretization methods which ensure convergence to the financially relevant solution, which in this case is the viscosity solution. In addition, for the HJB type equations, we can guarantee convergence of a Newton-type (Policy) iteration scheme for the nonlinear discretized algebraic equations. However, in some cases, the Newton-type iteration cannot be guaranteed to converge (for example, the HJBI case), or can be very costly (for example for jump processes). In this case, we can use a piecewise constant control approximation. While we use a very general approach, we also include numerical examples for the specific interesting case of option pricing with unequal borrowing/lending costs and stock borrowing fees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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