Fuzzy Option Pricing for Jump Diffusion Model using Neuro Volatility Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently there has been a growing interest in studying fuzzy option pricing using Monte Carlo (MC) methods for diffusion models. The traditional volatility estimator has a larger asymptotic variance. In this paper, data-driven neuro-volatility estimates with smaller variances are used to obtain direct volatility forecasts. Asymmetric nonlinear adaptive fuzzy numbers are used to address ambiguity and vagueness associated with volatility estimates. This study uses fuzzy set theory and data-driven volatility forecasts to study call option prices of the S&P 500 index. Four modeling approaches have been considered, Black-Scholes (BS) model, Monte Carlo option pricing with normal / t errors, and the Jump-Diffusion (JD) model. Fuzzy α-cuts of option prices are presented and discussed under different parameter values. Our experimental study suggests that the JD model predicts the call option price more accurately compared to BS, normal errors, and t errors using the volatility estimate obtained using the Bayesian approach.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it