MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996665684 · doi:10.3905/jod.2019.1.092

An Efficient Convergent Willow Tree Method for American and Exotic Option Pricing under Stochastic Volatility Models

2019· article· en· W2996665684 on OpenAlexaff
Junmei Ma, Sihuan Huang, Wei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Derivatives · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic volatilityEconometricsRate of convergenceExotic optionTree (set theory)Binomial options pricing modelVolatility (finance)MathematicsEconomicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceValuation of optionsKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stochastic volatility models can describe the evolution of financial assets, such as stocks, currencies, and commodities, better than the classic Black–Scholes model. Some strategic decision-making problems also involve path-dependent and American-style options. In this article, the authors propose a novel, efficient, accurate, and unified two-factor willow tree method to price exotic and American options under the stochastic volatility models, such as the Heston, 3/2, 4/2, Hull–White, Stein–Stein, and a-Hypergeometric models. They also present the convergence analysis of their proposed tree method. They then apply the tree method to price European and American options, and the expected present value and survival rate in a dividend-and-ruin problem. Numerical results demonstrate the efficiency, accuracy, and convergence of their method. TOPICS:Options, volatility measures, factor-based models, analysis of individual factors/risk premia Key Findings • The authors propose an efficient and unified two-dimensional willow tree structure for various stochastic volatility models. • The convergence rate of the two-dimensional willow tree method is O(Δt). • The authors apply the willow tree to evaluate the present firm value and survival rate of a dividend-and-ruin problem, which embeds the lookback, the reflecting and absorbing barrier, and the stopping time features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of DerivativesSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207