MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795119224 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n5p1

American Option Valuation Methods

2018· article· en· W2795119224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jinsha Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrinomialBinomial options pricing modelValuation (finance)MathematicsComputationMonte Carlo methods for option pricingApplied mathematicsQuadratic equationMonte Carlo methodBinomial (polynomial)Finite differenceTrinomial treeFinite difference methods for option pricingFinite difference methodValuation of optionsEconometricsMathematical optimizationStatisticsAlgorithmEconomicsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisBlack–Scholes modelFinanceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper implements and compares eight American option valuation methods: binomial, trinomial, explicit finite difference, implicit finite difference and quadratic approximation methods. And three Monte Carlo methods: bundling technique of Tilley (1993), simulated tree (ST) of Broadie, Glasserman, and Jain (1997), and least square regression method (LSM) of Longstaff and Schwartz (2001). Methods are compared in terms of computation efficiency and price accuracy. The findings suggest that binomial is the best performing numerical method in terms of accuracy and efficiency. LSM beats the other two simulation methods in terms of efficiency, accuracy and number of discrete exercise opportunities.

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)0.001
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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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