Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose By using higher moments, this paper extends the quadratic local risk-minimizing approach in a general discrete incomplete financial market. The local optimization subproblems are convex or nonconvex, depending on the moment variants used in the modeling. Inspired by Lai et al. (2006), the authors propose a new multiobjective approach for the combination of moments that is transformed into a multigoal programming problem. Design/methodology/approach The authors evaluate financial derivatives with American features using local risk-minimizing strategies. The financial structure is in line with Schweizer (1988): the market is discrete, self-financing is not guaranteed, but deviations are controlled and reduced by minimizing the second moment. As for the quadratic approach, the algorithm proceeds backwardly. Findings In the context of evaluating American option, a transposition of this multigoal programming leads not only to nonconvex optimization subproblems but also to the undesirable fact that local zero deviations from self-financing are penalized. The analysis shows that issuers should consider some higher moments when evaluating contingent claims because they help reshape the distribution of global cumulative deviations from self-financing. Practical implications A detailed numerical analysis that compares all the moments or some combinations of them is performed. Originality/value The quadratic approach is extended by exploring other higher moments, positive combinations of moments and variants to enforce asymmetry. This study also investigates the impact of two types of exercise decisions and multiple assets.
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".