MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983077889 · doi:10.3934/qfe.2019.4.661

Trajectorial asset models with operational assumptions

2019· article· en· W2983077889 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastián Ferrando, Andrew Fleck, Alfredo González, Alexey Rubtsov

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Finance and Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryAsset (computer security)Computer scienceObservablePortfolioMinimaxClass (philosophy)Mathematical optimizationMathematical economicsEconometricsEconomicsFinanceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper addresses the problem of providing a framework and an algorithm to evaluate super and sub replicating prices, for European options, having interesting risk-reward characteristics. A general operational framework is put forward and illustrated by an algorithmic construction of one-dimensional models for option pricing. Asset models are defined based on a class of investors characterized by how they operate on financial data leading to potential portfolio rebalances. Once observable variables are selected for modeling, necessary conditions constraining these variables and resulting from the operational setup are derived. Future uncertainty is then reflected in the construction of combinatorial trajectory spaces satisfying such constraints. As the risky asset unfolds, it can be tested dynamically for the validity of observable sufficient conditions that rigorously imply the validity of the models. The paper describes the resulting algorithmic construction of such trajectory spaces and, in the absence of probability assumptions, a minmax algorithm that is available to evaluate the super and sub replicating prices.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Finance and EconomicsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207