MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588360417 · doi:10.1109/ssci.2016.7850019

Non-dominant sorting Firefly algorithm for pricing American option

2016· article· en· W2588360417 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsExotic optionValuation of optionsBinomial options pricing modelComputer sciencePut optionSortingTrinomial treeCall optionOrder (exchange)Binary optionFinite difference methods for option pricingDerivative (finance)EconomicsAsian optionEconometricsActuarial scienceFinancial economicsRational pricingAlgorithmCapital asset pricing modelFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An option, a type of a financial derivative, is a contract that creates an opportunity for a market player to avoid risks involved in investing, especially in equities. An investor desires to know the accurate value of an option before entering into a contract to buy/sell the underlying asset (stock). There are various techniques that try to simulate real market conditions in order to price or evaluate an option. However, most of them achieved limited success due to high uncertainty in price behavior of the underlying asset. In this study, we propose a new variant of multi-objective Firefly algorithm to compute the accurate worth of an American option contract and compare the results with the popular option pricing models: Binomial Lattice and Monte-Carlo using the real market data.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207