MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788096234 · doi:10.1142/s0219024918500061

EXPLICIT HESTON SOLUTIONS AND STOCHASTIC APPROXIMATION FOR PATH-DEPENDENT OPTION PRICING

2018· article· en· W2788096234 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. Kouritzin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStochastic volatilityHeston modelStochastic differential equationValuation of optionsJump diffusionApplied mathematicsSABR volatility modelBarrier optionMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationVolatility (finance)JumpEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New simulation approaches to evaluating path-dependent options without matrix inversion issues nor Euler bias are evaluated. They employ three main contributions: (1) stochastic approximation replaces regression in the LSM algorithm; (2) explicit weak solutions to stochastic differential equations are developed and applied to Heston model simulation; and (3) importance sampling expands these explicit solutions. The approach complements Heston [(1993) A closed-form solutions for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options, Review of Financial Studies 6, 327–343] and Broadie & Kaya [(2006) Exact simulation of stochastic volatility and other affine jump diffusion processes, Operations Research 54 (2), 217–231] by handling the case of path-dependence in the option’s execution strategy. Numeric comparison against standard Monte Carlo methods demonstrates up to two orders of magnitude speed improvement. The general ideas will extend beyond the important Heston setting.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207