MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Option Pricing under Randomised GBM Models

2021· article· en· W3215987396 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Campolieti, Hideaki Kiyoshi Kato, Roman N. Makarov

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Business and Economics Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack–Scholes modelMathematicsValuation of optionsSABR volatility modelStochastic volatilityEconometricsImplied volatilityGeometric Brownian motionVolatility (finance)Applied mathematicsMathematical economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By employing a randomisation procedure on the variance parameter of the standard geometric Brownian motion (GBM) model, we construct new families of analytically tractable asset pricing models. In particular, we develop two explicit families of processes that are respectively referred to as the randomised gamma (G) and randomised inverse gamma (IG) models, both characterised by a shape and scale parameter. Both models admit relatively simple closed-form analytical expressions for the transition density and the no-arbitrage prices of standard European-style options whose Black-Scholes implied volatilities exhibit symmetric smiles in the log-forward moneyness. Surprisingly, for integer-valued shape parameter and arbitrary positive real scale parameter, the analytical option pricing formulas involve only elementary functions and are even more straightforward than the standard (constant volatility) Black-Scholes (GBM) pricing formulas. Moreover, we show some interesting characteristics of the risk-neutral transition densities of the randomised G and IG models, both exhibiting fat tails. In fact, the randomised IG density only has finite moments of the order less than or equal to one. In contrast, the randomised G density has a finite first moment with finite higher moments depending on the time-to-maturity and its scale parameter. We show how the randomised G and IG models are efficiently and accurately calibrated to market equity option data, having pronounced implied volatility smiles across several strikes and maturities. We also calibrate the same option data to the wellknown SABR (Stochastic Alpha Beta Rho) model.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Business and Economics StudiesSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207