The second-order Esscher martingale densities for continuous-time market models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce the second-order Esscher pricing notion for continuous-time models. Depending whether the stock price process $ S $ or its logarithm is the main driving noise/shock in the Esscher definition, we obtained two classes of second-order Esscher densities called linear class and exponential class. Using the semimartingale characteristics to parametrize $ S $, we characterize the second-order Esscher densities (exponential and linear) using pointwise equations. The role of the second-order concept is highlighted in many manners and the relationship between the two classes is singled out for the one-dimensional case. Furthermore, when $ S $ is a compound Poisson model, we show how both classes are related to the Delbaen-Haenzendonck's risk-neutral measure. Afterwards, we restrict our model $ S $ to follow the jump-diffusion model, for simplicity only, and address the bounds of the stochastic Esscher pricing intervals. In particular, no matter what is the Esscher class, we prove that both bounds (upper and lower) are solutions to the same linear backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE hereafter for short) but with two different constraints. This shows that BSDEs with constraints appear also in a setting beyond the classical cases of constraints on gain-processes or constraints on portfolios. We prove that our resulting constrained BSDEs have solutions in our framework for a large class of claims' payoffs including bounded claims, in contrast to the literature, and we single out the monotonic sequence of BSDEs that 'naturally' approximate them as well.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".