MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902620140 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v10n6p108

Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method for Estimating Implied Volatility in Option Pricing

2018· article· en· W2902620140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yao Elikem Ayekple, Charles Kofi Tetteh, Prince Kwaku Fefemwole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplied volatilityValuation of optionsStochastic volatilityVolatility smileEconometricsVolatility (finance)Black–Scholes modelLocal volatilityMathematicsCall optionSABR volatility modelMarkov chain Monte CarloForward volatilityStock marketMonte Carlo methodEconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using market covered European call option prices, the Independence Metropolis-Hastings Sampler algorithm for estimating Implied volatility in option pricing was proposed. This algorithm has an acceptance criteria which facilitate accurate approximation of this volatility from an independent path in the Black Scholes Model, from a set of finite data observation from the stock market. Assuming the underlying asset indeed follow the geometric brownian motion, inverted version of the Black Scholes model was used to approximate this Implied Volatility which was not directly seen in the real market: for which the BS model assumes the volatility to be a constant. Moreover, it is demonstrated that, the Implied Volatility from the options market tends to overstate or understate the actual expectation of the market. In addition, a 3-month market Covered European call option data, from 30 different stock companies was acquired from Optionistic.Com, which was used to estimate the Implied volatility. This accurately approximate the actual expectation of the market with low standard errors ranging between 0.0035 to 0.0275.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207