Do Stock Prices and Volatility Jump? Reconciling Evidence from Spot and Option Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the empirical performance of jump-di#usion models that allow for stochastic volatility and correlated jumps a#ecting both prices and volatility. The results show that the models in question provide reasonable fit to both option prices and returns data in the in-sample estimation period. This contrasts previous findings where stochastic volatility paths are found to be too smooth relative to the option implied dynamics. While the models perform well during the high volatility estimation period, they tend to overprice long dated contracts out-of-sample. This evidence points towards a too simplistic specification of the mean dynamics of volatility. Keywords: Market crashes, jump-di#usion, Stochastic volatility, jump in volatility, a#ne models, Markov Chain Monte Carlo JEL Class: C11, C15, G12 # I thank Fredrico Bandi, Lars Hansen, Nick Polson, Pietro Veronesi, and Mike Johannes, as well as seminar participants at the University of Chicago, Duke University, McGill University, University de Montreal, University of Toronto, London Business School, Norwegian School of Economics, and Northwestern University for helpful comments and discussions. 1 1
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 | 0.006 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".