Deep Equal Risk Pricing of Financial Derivatives with Multiple Hedging Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the equal risk pricing (ERP) framework for the valuation of European financial derivatives. This option pricing approach is consistent with global trading strategies by setting the premium as the value such that the residual hedging risk of the long and short positions in the option are equal under optimal hedging. The ERP setup of Marzban et al. (2020) is considered where residual hedging risk is quantified with convex risk measures. The main objective of this paper is to assess through extensive numerical experiments the impact of including options as hedging instruments within the ERP framework. The reinforcement learning procedure developed in Carbonneau and Godin (2020), which relies on the deep hedging algorithm of Buehler et al. (2019b), is applied to numerically solve the global hedging problems by representing trading policies with neural networks. Among other findings, numerical results indicate that in the presence of jump risk, hedging long-term puts with shorter-term options entails a significant decrease of both equal risk prices and market incompleteness as compared to trading only the stock. Monte Carlo experiments demonstrate the potential of ERP as a fair valuation approach providing prices consistent with observable market prices. Analyses exhibit the ability of ERP to span a large interval of prices through the choice of convex risk measures which is close to encompass the variance-optimal premium.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".