Correcting the Bias in the Practitioner Black-Scholes Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address a number of technical problems with the popular Practitioner Black-Scholes (PBS) method for valuing options. The method amounts to a two-stage procedure in which fitted values of implied volatilities (IV) from a linear regression are plugged into the Black-Scholes formula to obtain predicted option prices. Firstly we ensure that the prediction from stage one is positive by using log-linear regression. Secondly, we correct the bias that results from the transformation applied to the fitted values (i.e., the Black-Scholes formula) being a highly non-linear function of implied volatility. We apply the smearing technique in order to correct this bias. An alternative means of implementing the PBS approach is to use the market option price as the dependent variable and estimate the parameters of the IV equation by the method of non-linear least squares (NLLS). A problem we identify with this method is one of model incoherency: the IV equation that is estimated does not correspond to the set of option prices used to estimate it. We use the Monte Carlo method to verify that (1) standard PBS gives biased option values, both in-sample and out-of-sample; (2) using standard (log-linear) PBS with smearing almost completely eliminates the bias; (3) NLLS gives biased option values, but the bias is less severe than with standard PBS. We are led to conclude that, of the range of possible approaches to implementing PBS, log-linear PBS with smearing is preferred on the basis that it is the only approach that results in valuations with negligible bias.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".