MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205432550 · doi:10.1155/2022/9563019

A Valuation Formula for Chained Options with <i>n</i>‐Barriers

2022· article· en· W4205432550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersIncheon National University
KeywordsBarrier optionMathematicsValuation (finance)Exotic optionValuation of optionsAsian optionAppealMathematical economicsActuarial scienceMathematical optimizationEconometricsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines chained options that are connected in the sense that another barrier option becomes active continuously after the underlying asset price crosses a primary barrier. These barrier options have several advantages. First, they preserve the merit of regular barrier options, but demand far lower option premiums, which appeal to option traders. Second, they reduce the higher risk of loss of double barrier options, making option strategies more profitable in certain cases. Third, they have closed‐form pricing formulas, unlike double‐barrier options, and, thus, avoid the complexity of option pricing. Therefore, they help to enlarge the range of trader’s choice according to a variety of demand of buyers. The values of chained options are compared to those of similar single‐ and double‐barrier options. This study extends the chained option with two barriers to a generalized chained option with n ‐barriers. In addition, this paper proves the closed formulas of generalized chained options with n ‐barriers using mathematical induction.

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.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.203 · 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