MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387956773 · doi:10.18280/mmep.100519

Pricing Asian and Barrier Options Using a Combined Heston Model and Monte Carlo Simulation Approach with Artificial Intelligence

2023· article· en· W4387956773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danielle Khalife, Jad Yammine, Sanabel Rahal, Sibelle Freiha

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExotic optionMonte Carlo methodFutures contractEconometricsComputer scienceMonte Carlo methods for option pricingValuation of optionsBarrier optionComputational financeVolatility (finance)Stochastic volatilityBlack–Scholes modelLocal volatilityEconomicsFinancial economicsMathematicsStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The computation of fair values for exotic options often necessitates complex pricing techniques, which remain sparsely addressed in academic literature. Predominantly, the assessment of fair value for vanilla options relies on methodologies such as the Black-Scholes model or Monte Carlo simulations. This study proposes an innovative, dynamic approach to pricing, leveraging artificial intelligence in conjunction with the Heston model and a Monte Carlo simulation engine. This approach aims to furnish estimates of the prices for Barrier and Asian options. To enhance the accuracy of the model, calibration was performed employing a supervised machine learning algorithm, a continuous risk-free curve, and a dynamic implied volatility surface, derived from the current market data of vanilla options on S&P 500 futures. The amalgamation of these models yields instantaneous pricing for exotic option derivatives, contingent on the investor's determination of time to maturity and barrier levels. The efficacy of the model was evaluated by comparing the output prices to theoretical model predictions and a selection of over-the-counter traded options. Our findings indicate that the proposed dynamic, integrated approach substantially reduces the disparity between the theoretical models and current market prices. The prices calculated by our model demonstrate a marginal error of merely 0.33% in comparison to market prices, a significant improvement over the considerably larger error of 3.12% exhibited by traditional models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207