MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Volatility Smile

2014· other· en· W4245285765 on OpenAlexaff
Jin‐Chuan Duan, Yun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsNonparametric statisticsVolatility (finance)Valuation of optionsImplied volatilityBlack–Scholes modelAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility smileNonparametric regressionKernel regressionEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although the Black–Scholes model lays the foundation to the modern option pricing theory, its empirical performance is rather unsatisfactory as manifested in the phenomenon known as volatility smile . This article explains what volatility smile is, and describes some nonparametric techniques and parametric models that may be used to deal with volatility smile for pricing and/or hedging purposes. Kernel regression and the GARCH option pricing model are chosen to be the nonparametric technique and parametric model, respectively, in our demonstration involving a sample of S&P 500 index options. Kernel regression is found to perform better than the GARCH model, but its applicability is limited to pricing the same type of options. Without providing a dynamic for the underlying asset price, kernel regression is also ill‐suited for hedging purposes. In contrast, the GARCH model is not subject to the same application limitations even though its performance on the same type of options is poorer. Thus, both nonparametric techniques and parametric models serve useful purposes in dealing with derivative contracts.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.224 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207