Joint calibration of S&P 500 and VIX options under local stochastic volatility models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is extremely challenging to design a model calibrating both SPX and VIX option prices. A long‐standing conjecture due to Julien Guyon is that it may not be possible to calibrate these two quantities with a continuous model. So far, most studied continuous time models are affine, so we investigate the conjecture among 14 well‐known non‐affine local stochastic volatility models in this article. First, we propose a unified efficient willow tree method for S&P500 and VIX option pricing under non‐affine models. Second, we compare the joint calibration performance on these 14 models on the S&P500 and VIX option prices data from 2006 to 2019. We find that the VIX option price data can provide extra information of the variance dynamics of the models, and the non‐affine structure and the volatility with linear, rather than square‐root, diffusion process provide a better fit for the both data sets than the affine counterparts. Among the 14 stochastic models, the SABR model provides the best in‐ and out‐of‐sample performance (in terms of mean square error) regardless of the state of the economy. Nevertheless, even for the best‐fitted SABR model, the relative error on the VIX option is still around 18%, still quite significant. Therefore, we found the non‐affine and local volatility structure improve the joint calibration but are still far from satisfactory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".