MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520075599 · doi:10.3968/8730

Option Pricing Model Based on Newton-Raphson Iteration and RBF Neural Network Using Implied Volatility

2016· article· en· W2520075599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Lin, Jianhui Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkBlack–Scholes modelImplied volatilityValuation of optionsVolatility (finance)Computer scienceEconometricsStock exchangeEconomicsArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As option is a kind of significant financial derivatives, option pricing will affect both the risk and profit of the investment. This paper proposed an option pricing model based on RBF neural network combined with the Newton-Raphson iteration method which is used to obtain the implied volatility. First, considering implied volatility includes investors’ expectation about the changes of future price options. Newton-Raphson iteration method is used to obtain the implied volatility by rolling estimation which is also added into the RBF neural network model. Then, RBF neural network is trained based on Black-Scholes model. Self-organizing learning and the least square method are used to optimize the parameters of RBF neural network. At last, empirical study and analysis with 10 50ETF stock options chosen from Shanghai Stock Exchange market have been performed, the result shows that the accuracy of the proposed model is better than the traditional BP neural network and B-S model and the effect of option pricing using by implied volatility is also better than others.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207