Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Compact Finite Difference Scheme with Hermite Interpolation for Pricing American Put Options Based on Regime Switching Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fourth-order compact scheme solves American put pricing under regime switching with up to sixteen regimes while returning prices, the optimal exercise boundary, and Greeks in one solve.

desk verdict The paper has a genuinely new high-order front-fixing method for regime-switching American puts, but the gamma/speed boundary conditions are wrong and contaminate the advertised Greeks. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04900 v6 pith:SRJL4NSR submitted 2019-08-14 q-fin.CP

Chinonso Nwankwo , Weizhong Dai , Ruihua Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.CP MSC 65M0691G2065M1265D05
keywords AmericanputoptionsregimeswitchingcompactfinitedifferenceHermiteinterpolationoptimalexerciseboundaryoptionGreeksfront-fixingtransformationfreeproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a numerical method for American put options whose market parameters switch among a finite set of regimes. It fixes each regime's free boundary with a logarithmic change of variables, then differentiates the pricing equation to obtain a coupled system for the option value and its first three spatial derivatives, called the asset-delta-gamma-speed equations. A fourth-order compact finite difference discretization in space with a second-order Crank-Nicolson step in time, plus Hermite interpolation to couple regimes on different grids, gives truncation error $O(k^2+h^4)$ and is claimed unconditionally stable. The payoff is that option prices, the optimal exercise boundary, and several Greeks all come out of one fast solve, with measured convergence rates above 3.0 in tests with two, four, eight, and sixteen regimes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the transformed asset-delta-gamma-speed system: after the change of variables $x_m=\ln(S/s_f^{(m)}(\tau))$ fixes each free boundary, the paper defines $W_m=\partial U_m/\partial x_m$, $Y_m=\partial W_m/\partial x_m$, and $Z_m=\partial Y_m/\partial x_m$, then differentiates the pricing PDE three times to produce four coupled equations per regime with no first-order spatial derivative. The compact fourth-order stencils, namely the boundary formula in the lemma and the interior scheme $(1/12)f''_{i-1}+(10/12)f''_i+(1/12)f''_{i+1}$, carry the spatial accuracy, while cubic or quintic Hermite interpolation transfers $U,W,Y,Z$ from regime $l$'s grid to regime $m$'s grid at arbitrary offset points without losing order.

What would settle it

Take a two-regime example, compute a highly resolved reference solution with the same scheme at much smaller $h$, and evaluate gamma and speed at the free boundary from the continuation-side equations using a one-sided stencil that does not impose $Y(0)=Z(0)=-s_f$. If that one-sided limit differs from $-s_f$ by more than the scheme's truncation error, then boundary condition (31c) is the weak point and the claimed fourth-order accuracy for gamma and speed near the boundary is not attained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the coupled free-boundary system for an American put under regime switching can be solved to fourth order in space by first fixing each free boundary with a logarithmic transformation, then differentiating the transformed price equation twice to obtain a closed asset-delta-gamma-speed PDE system with the first-order convection term removed. On this system the authors apply a compact finite difference stencil in space, a Crank-Nicolson step in time, and cubic or quintic Hermite interpolation to transfer values between regimes whose fixed intervals do not coincide. They report that the resulting front-fixing compact scheme has truncation error $O(k^2+h^4)$, is unconditionally stable by a matrix von Neumann analysis, reproduces benchmark prices from MTree, MOL, and RBF-FD to about five digits at $h=0.01$, produces delta, gamma, speed, $\theta$, delta decay, and color in every regime, and shows measured convergence rates above 3.0 while the Newton variant runs several times faster than the Gauss-Seidel variant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at the optimal exercise boundary the second and third spatial derivatives of the option price, gamma and speed, equal their exercise-region values, $-s_f$, even though the pricing problem fixes only the price and delta there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single solve returns the option value, optimal exercise boundary, delta, gamma, speed, theta, delta decay, and color for every regime simultaneously.
  • The scheme extends to four, eight, and sixteen regimes with essentially the same accuracy, whereas some earlier analytical approaches could not go beyond two regimes.
  • The Newton-based variants, labeled FF-CS3 and FF-CS4, are several times faster per time step than the Gauss-Seidel variants while matching the same benchmark prices.
  • Because the discretization is unconditionally stable by the paper's von Neumann analysis, time steps do not need to obey a parabolic CFL restriction, allowing $k=h^2$ or larger in practice.
  • With either cubic or quintic Hermite interpolation, the measured convergence rates stay above 3.0, consistent with the claimed $O(k^2+h^4)$ truncation error.
  • The coefficient matrices are tridiagonal, symmetric, and constant in time, so the Newton iteration can use the Thomas algorithm rather than building a new Jacobian at every step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the derivative-differentiation trick is not tied to puts: the same log-front-fixing plus asset-delta-gamma-speed construction should apply to American calls or other free-boundary problems, provided the exercise-region formulas on the other side of the boundary supply the needed higher-derivative data.
  • If the boundary assignment $Y(0)=Z(0)=-s_f$ is not the true continuation-side limit, the price and free-boundary results may still be fourth-order while gamma and speed near the boundary are not; a direct one-sided limit check would expose this without changing the rest of the scheme.
  • A testable extension is to relax the $k=h^2$ time-step choice and verify the unconditional-stability claim numerically for much larger $k/h^2$ ratios, since the decoupled von Neumann proof ignores the regime-coupling terms that Hermite interpolation re-introduces.
  • When a regime's boundary lies far from another's, the scheme switches to exact exercise-region formulas or zero far-field values, so the overall accuracy depends on how often the Hermite-interpolated middle case is invoked; refining only those coupling zones could reduce cost further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a front-fixing compact finite difference method for American put options under regime switching. A logarithmic transformation fixes each free boundary and the authors differentiate the price PDE twice to obtain coupled PDEs for the asset, delta, gamma, and speed in each regime. The space discretization is a compact fourth-order scheme with Crank-Nicolson time stepping; the regime coupling values at non-grid points are obtained by cubic or quintic Hermite interpolation. The discrete systems are solved with Gauss-Seidel or Newton iteration. Numerical examples with two, four, eight, and sixteen regimes report option prices, optimal exercise boundaries, and Greeks, comparing the prices with MTree, MOL, RBF-FD, ETD-CN, and FF-expl benchmarks.

Significance. If the results were fully supported, the method would be a practical tool for producing option values, exercise boundaries, and a full set of Greeks in higher-order regime-switching American option pricing. The paper has concrete strengths: the front-fixing transformation is clearly derived; the numerical validation against independent methods covers a wide range of regimes; and the use of Hermite interpolation to couple grids of different lengths is a reasonable engineering choice. However, the central claims of fourth-order accuracy and of reliable Greek computation are not established by the evidence as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (25), (29), (31c)] The boundary conditions Y_m(0,τ)=Z_m(0,τ)=-s_f(m)(τ) are derived by letting x_m→0^- in Eqs. (23) and (28), i.e., from the exercise-region formulas, but the PDEs (30c)-(30d) are solved on the continuation region x_m>0. Smooth pasting fixes only U_m and W_m at the free boundary; the limits of Y_m and Z_m from the continuation side are determined by the PDE and are generally different from the exercise-region values. In original coordinates Y_m = S V_S + S² V_SS, so at S=s_f the right limit is -s_f + s_f² V_SS ≠ -s_f (V_SS is generally nonzero for an American put). Imposing Y(0)=Z(0)=-s_f in (31c) and (47a) therefore feeds incorrect data into the boundary stencil (44) through the Y_1, Y_2 terms and into Eq. (40b) through Y(0). Since the Greeks in Tables 5-6 and 14 are obtained from this system, the reported Greek values are not trustworthy.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (55)] The von Neumann analysis in Section 3.3 explicitly discards the regime-coupling terms: Eq. (55) states that the coupled regimes are ignored before the Fourier ansatz is substituted. The amplification matrix A in Eq. (60) consequently describes only the decoupled per-regime system, while the actual difference scheme (46) includes the sums over q_ml. The claim of unconditional stability is therefore not established for the coupled scheme; a proof for the coupled system would need to account for the coupling terms, for example through an energy estimate or a norm bound on the full amplification matrix.
  3. [§4.1, Table 9] The convergence study in Table 9 reports measured rates of 3.09, 3.31, 3.05, and 3.19 for the asset price U, which are below the claimed fourth order. The errors are computed from the method's own coarse-grid solutions via Eqs. (75)-(76) rather than against an exact or high-accuracy reference, and only U is tested, not the Greeks. The paper should either reconcile the observed order with the O(k²+h⁴) truncation error statement or soften the fourth-order claim; as it stands, the numerical evidence does not support the advertised order of accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] Table 1 contains clear data-entry errors: at S=3.5 the FF-CS3 and FF-CS4 entries read 5.0000 although the intrinsic value is K-S=5.5, and at S=4.0 the FF-CS2 entry for h=0.1 reads 5.5069, inconsistent with the neighboring values.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (42)] The fourth-order approximation for Y_m((x_m)_0) in Eq. (42) is puzzling because Y_m(0,τ) is already prescribed by Eq. (31c); the paper should clarify whether (42) is meant to be an approximation to the right limit and how it interacts with the prescribed boundary value.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (57b)] There is a stray '7' in the coefficient bracket of Eq. (57b) after the κ/2 term; this appears to be a typo.
  4. [§3.5, Algorithm 2] The convergence criterion in Algorithm 2 checks only s_f and u, although the algorithm also computes w, y, and z; the stopping criterion should in principle cover all unknowns for consistency.
  5. [§1, Introduction] The text refers to 'Mitchell and Vynnycky' without a year in the introduction; the reference list contains two works by these authors (2009 and 2012), so the citation should specify which one is intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asset-delta-gamma-speed system is derived from the regime-switching PDE by differentiation, and validation is against external benchmarks; the main risks are a possibly unjustified gamma/speed boundary condition and an uncoupled stability proof, which are correctness issues rather than circular reasoning.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Equations (30a)-(30d) are obtained by differentiating the transformed pricing PDE (12) and using the definitions of delta, gamma, and speed in (16), (21), and (26); no target output is fitted into the derivation. The free boundary is updated from the original boundary condition U_m(0,tau)=K-s_f(m)(tau) via (47a), which is the front-fixing identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The compact stencils (44) and (46a)-(46d) follow from Taylor expansions (34) and (45) with stated truncation error O(k^2+h^4), and the coupled-regime values are estimated with standard cubic or quintic Hermite interpolation (51)-(54), not calibrated to the reported prices. Validation in Tables 1-3, 7, and 11 compares against MTree, MOL, RBF-FD, ETD-CN, IOS, and LOI; although MTree is authored by co-author Liu (2010), agreement with MOL and RBF-FD provides independent external support, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. The convergence-rate measurement in (75)-(76) compares the scheme with its own coarser-grid solutions; this is self-referential as a validation device, but it is a standard Richardson-style estimate and does not enter the derivation of the method. The gamma and speed boundary conditions Y_m(0,tau)=Z_m(0,tau)=-s_f(m)(tau) in (25), (29), and (31c) are imported by taking x_m to 0^- in the exercise-region formulas (23) and (28); smooth pasting fixes only U and W at the free boundary, so the continuation-side limits of Y and Z are an additional assumption. This is a genuine correctness risk for the reported Greeks, but it is not a circular reduction: the interior gamma and speed values are still computed from the PDEs (46c)-(46d) rather than being set equal to -s_f by construction. Similarly, the stability proof in Section 3.3 explicitly drops the coupled-regime terms at (55), so the unconditional-stability claim is not established for the coupled system; again this is an incompleteness or modeling gap, not a circular argument. Overall, no derivation step reduces by construction to its own input, and the central numerical claims are benchmarked against independent methods; the appropriate circularity score is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scheme rests on the standard regime-switching Black-Scholes setup and on smoothness and interpolation assumptions that are not all satisfied by the true American put solution at the free boundary. No physical parameters are fitted; numerical parameters such as far-field length, time-step relation, and tolerance are chosen by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • far-field truncation (x_m)_M = 3
    The infinite interval is replaced by 0 <= x_m <= 3 in all examples; the value 3 is chosen by hand and affects accuracy.
  • time step ratio k = h^2 = k = h^2
    The scheme is unconditionally stable in theory, but all experiments fix k = h^2, which determines observed accuracy and CPU times.
  • convergence tolerance epsilon = 1e-8 or 1e-7
    Iterations stop when s_f and U change by less than epsilon; the tolerance is chosen by hand and differs for the eight- and sixteen-regime runs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Risk-neutral Markov-modulated geometric Brownian motion model (Eq. 2) with generator matrix Q.
    The pricing model is taken from prior literature (Khaliq and Liu, 2009) and is the object being solved.
  • domain assumption Smooth pasting free-boundary conditions (7): V = K - S and V_S = -1 at S_f.
    Standard American option boundary conditions; the method relies on them to fix the free boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper Sufficient solution smoothness to differentiate the PDE twice and to apply the C^6 Taylor expansions in the Lemma.
    The derivation of the asset-delta-gamma-speed system assumes repeated differentiability; for American puts, derivatives are not smooth across the free boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper Fourier ansatz with coupling terms ignored is sufficient to conclude unconditional stability of the coupled scheme.
    Section 3.3 explicitly drops the coupled regime terms before the von Neumann analysis.
  • domain assumption Cubic and quintic Hermite interpolations reproduce u, w, y, z across regime grids with sufficient accuracy.
    The off-grid coupling values in (51)-(54) are assumed to be accurate enough not to degrade the global fourth-order claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compact Finite Difference Scheme with Hermite Interpolation for Pricing American Put Options Based on Regime Switching Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRJL4NSR

@misc{pith2026190804900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compact Finite Difference Scheme with Hermite Interpolation for Pricing American Put Options Based on Regime Switching Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRJL4NSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04900}
}
read the original abstract

We consider a system of coupled free boundary problems for pricing American put options with regime-switching. To solve this system, we first employ the logarithmic transformation to map the free boundary for each regime to multi-fixed intervals and then eliminate the first-order derivative in the transformed model by taking derivatives to obtain a system of partial differential equations which we call the asset-delta-gamma-speed equations. As such, the fourth-order compact finite difference scheme can be used for solving this system. The influence of other asset, delta, gamma, and speed options in the present regime is estimated based on Hermite interpolations. Finally, the numerical method is tested with several examples. Our results show that the scheme provides an accurate solution that is fast in computation as compared with other existing numerical methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adam, Y. (1975). A Hermitian finite difference method for the solution of parabolic equation . Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 1, 393-406

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Adam, Y. (1976). Highly accurate compact implicit methods and boundary condition. Journal of Computational Physics, 24, 10-22

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    A., and Labahn, G

    Babbin, J., Forsyth, P. A., and Labahn, G. (2014). A comparison of iterated optimal stopping and local policy iteration for American options under regime switching. Journal of Scientific Computing, 58, 409- 430

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Bidégaray-Fesquet, B. (2006). Von-Neumann stability analysis of FD-TD methods in complex media

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Bingham, N. H. (2006). Financial modeling with jump processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101 (475), 1315-1316 (https://doi:10.1198/jasa.2006.s130). 37

    work page doi:10.1198/jasa.2006.s130 2006

  6. [6]

    F., and Hogan, R

    Blackwell, B. F., and Hogan, R. E. (1994). One-dimensional ablation using Landau transformation and finite control volume procedure. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 8 (2), 282 -287 (https://doi:10.2514/3.535)

    work page doi:10.2514/3.535 1994

  7. [7]

    I., and Levendorskii, S

    Boyarchenko, S. I., and Levendorskii, S. Z. (2008). Pricing American options in regime -switching models: FFT Realization. SSRN Electronic Journal (https://doi:10.2139/ssrn.1127562)

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.1127562 2008

  8. [8]

    G., and Mcgraw, T

    Bravo, E. G., and Mcgraw, T. (2015). Visualizing Aldo Giorgini’s ideal’s flow. Springer International Publishing. Doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27863-6_72

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27863-6_72 2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Buffington, J., and Elliott, R. J. (2002). American options with regime-switching. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 5 (05), 497-514 (https://doi:10.1142/s0219024902001523)

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Faires, D

    Burden, R. L., Faires, D. J., and Burden, A. M. (2016). Numerical Analysis. Cengage Learning, Boston, MA

    2016

  3. [11]

    H., Liu, L

    Cao, H. H., Liu, L. B., Zhang, Y., and Fu, S. M. (2011). A fourth-order method of the convection-diffusion equation with Neumann boundary conditions. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 217, 9133 - 9141

    2011

  4. [12]

    Chapra, S. C. (2012). Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB for Engineers and Scientist. MC Graw- Hill, New York

    2012

  5. [13]

    Chen, Y., Xiao, A., and Wang, W. (2019). An IMEX -BDF2 compact scheme for pricing options under regime-switching jump -diffusion models. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Science s, (https://doi:10.1002/mma.5539)

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Chiarella, C., Nikitopoulos Sklibosios, C., Schlogl, E., and Yang, H. (2016). Pricing American options under regime switching using method of lines. SSRN Electronic Journal, (https://doi:10.2139/ssrn.2731087)

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Chockalingam, A., and Muthuraman, K. (2011). American options under stochastic volatility. Operations Research, 59(4), 793-809 (https://doi:10.1287/opre.1110.0945)

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Company, R., Egorova, V.N., and Jódar, L. (2016). A positive, stable and consistent front -fixing numerical scheme for American Options. Springer International Publishing AG 2016 (https://doi 10.1007/978-3-319-23413-7_10)

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Company, R., Egorova, V., Jódar, L., and Vázquez, C. (2016). Computing American option price under regime switching with rationality para meter. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 72 (3), 741-754 (https://doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2016.05.026). 38

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    N., and Jódar, L

    Company, R., Egorova, V. N., and Jódar, L. (2016). Constructing positive reliable numerical solution for American call options: A new front -fixing approach. Journal of Computational an d Applied Mathematics, 291, 422-431 (https://doi:10.1016/j.cam.2014.09.013)

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Company, R., Egorova, V., Jódar, L., and Vázquez, C. (2016). Finite difference methods for pricing American put option with rationality parame ter: Numerical analysis and computing. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 304, 1-17 (https://doi:10.1016/j.cam.2016.03.001)

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Cont., R., and Tankov, P. (2004). Financial Modelling with Jump Diffusion. Chapman & Hall, London

    2004

  13. [21]

    Crank, J. (1984). Free and moving boundary problem, Oxford University Press, London

    1984

  14. [22]

    Dremkova, E., and Ehrhardt, M. (2011). A high -order compact method for non -linear Black-Scholes option pricing equation of American options. International Journal of Computational Mathemat ics, 88, 2782-2797

    2011

  15. [23]

    Düring, B., and Fournié, M. (2012). High-order compact finite difference scheme for option pricing in stochastic volatility models. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 236 (17), 4462-4473 (https://doi:10.1016/j.cam.2012.04.017)

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Company, R., and Jódar, L

    Egorova, V. N., Company, R., and Jódar, L. (2016). A new efficient numerical method for solving American option under regime switching model. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 71 (1), 224–237 (https://doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2015.11.019)

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Siu, T

    Elliott, R. J., Siu, T. K., Chan, L., and Lau, J. W. (2007). Pricing options under a generalized markov- modulated jump-diffusion model. Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 25 (4), 821 – 843.doi:10.1080/07362990701420118

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    and Sun, Z

    Gao, G. and Sun, Z. (2013). Compact difference schemes for heat equation with Neumann boundary condition (II), Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 29 (5), 1459-1486

    2013

  19. [27]

    Garnier, J., and Sølna, K. (2017). Correction to Black --Scholes formula due to fractional stochastic volatility. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 8 (1), 560 –588 ( https://doi:10.1137/ 15m1036749 Stochastic Volatility Correction to Black-Scholes)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Guoqing, Y., and Hanson, F. B. (2006). Option pricing for a stochastic-volatility jump-diffusion model with log -uniform jump -amplitudes. American Control Conference, ( https://doi:10.1109/ acc.2006.1657175)

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57 (2), 357-384 (https://doi:10.2307/1912559). 39

    1989 doi

  22. [30]

    Han, Y., and Kim, G. (2016). Efficient lattice method for valuing of options with barrier in a regime- switching model. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2016, 1 -14 (https://doi:10.1155/2016/2474305)

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Hirsch, C. (2001). Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows: Fundamental of Numerical Discretization. Wiley, New York

    2001

  24. [32]

    Hirsh, R. S. (1975). Higher order accurate difference solutions of fluid mechanics by a compact differencing technique. Journal of Computational Physics, 19, 90-109

    1975

  25. [33]

    A., and Labahn, G

    Huang, Y., Forsyth, P. A., and Labahn, G. (2011). Methods for pricing american options under regime switching. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33 (5), 2144-2168 (https:// doi:10.1137/110820920)

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Hull, J., and White, A. (1987). The pricing of options on assets with stochastic volatilities. The Journal of Finance, 42 (2), 281-300

    1987

  27. [35]

    Ikonen, S., and Toivanen, J. (2007). Efficient numerical methods for pricing American options under stochastic volatility. Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 24 (1), 104 -126 (https://doi:10.1002/num.20239)

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    Kangro, R., and Nicolaides, R. (2000). Far field boundary conditions for Black--Scholes equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 38 (4), 1357-1368 (https://doi:10.1137/ s0036142999355921)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Khaliq, A. Q. M., and Liu, R. H. (2009). New numerical scheme for pricing American option with regime- switching. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 12 (03), 319 -340 (https://doi:10.1142/s0219024909005245)

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Khaliq A. Q. M., Kleefeld, B., and Liu, R. H. (2013). Solving complex PDE systems for pricing American options with regime -switching by efficient exponential time differencing schemes. Numerical Methods Partial Differential Equation, 29 (1), 320-336

    2013

  31. [39]

    Kou, S. G. (2002). A jump-diffusion model for option pricing. Management Science, 48 (8), 1086-1101 (https://doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1086.166)

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    Kwok Y. K. (2008). Mathematical Models of Financial Derivatives. Springer, Berlin

    2008

  33. [41]

    Landau, H. G. (1950). Heat conduction in a melting solid. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 8 (1), 81- 94 (https://doi:10.1090/qam/33441)

    1950 doi

  34. [42]

    Li, H., Mollapourasi, R., and Haghi, M. (2018). A local radial basis function method for pricing options under the regime switching model. Journal of Scientific Computing, 79, 517-541

    2018

  35. [43]

    Liao, W., Zhu, J., and Khaliq, A. Q. M. (2002). An efficient high-order algorithm for solving systems of reaction-diffusion equations. Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 18 (3), 340-354. 40

    2002

  36. [44]

    Liao, W., and Khaliq, A. Q. M. (2009). High-order compact scheme for solving nonlinear Black-Scholes equation with transaction cost. International Journal of Computer Mathematics , 86 (6), 1009-1023 (https://doi:10.1080/00207160802609829)

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Liu, R. H. (2010). Regime -switching recomb ining tree for option pricing. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 13, 479-499

    2010

  38. [46]

    H., Zhang, Q., and Yin, G

    Liu, R. H., Zhang, Q., and Yin, G. (2006). Option pricing in a regime -switching model using the fast Fourier transform. Journal of Applied Mathematics an d Stochastic Analysis, 2006, 1 -22 (https://doi:10.1155/jamsa/2006/18109)

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    S., and Rodrigo, M

    Mamon, R. S., and Rodrigo, M. R. (2005). Explicit solutions to European options in a regime-switching economy. Operations Research Letters, 33 (6), 581-586 (https://doi:10.1016/ j.orl.2004.12.003)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Meyer, G. H. , and van der Hoek, J. (1997). The evaluation of American options with the method of lines. Advances in Futures and Options Research, 9 (9), 265-285

    1997

  41. [49]

    L., and Vynnycky, M

    Mitchell, S. L., and Vynnycky, M. (2009). Finite-difference methods with increased accuracy and correct initialization for one -dimensional Stefan problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 215 (4), 1609-1621 (https://doi:10.1016/j.amc.2009.07.054)

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    L., and Vynnycky, M

    Mitchell, S. L., and Vynnycky, M. (2012). An accurate finite-difference method for ablation-type Stefan problems. Journal of Computational and Appl ied Mathematics, 236 (17), 4181 -4192 (https://doi:10.1016/j.cam.2012.05.011)

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Morton, W.K., and Mayer, D. (2005). Numerical Solutions of Partial Differential Equations. Cambridge University Press, London

    2005

  44. [52]

    F., Skavhaug O., and Tveito A

    Nielsen, B. F., Skavhaug O., and Tveito A. (2002). A penalty and front-fixing methods for the numerical solution of American option problems. Journal of Computational Finance, 5 (4), 69-97

    2002

  45. [53]

    Norris, J. R. (1998). Markov Chain. Cambridge University Press, London

    1998

  46. [54]

    An efficient lattice search algorithm for the optimal exercise boundary in American options

    Shang, Q., and Bryne, B., (2019). An efficient lattice search algorithm for the optimal exercise boundary in American options. SSRN Electronic Journal

    2019

  47. [55]

    L., Imron, C., and Putri, E

    Tauryawati, M. L., Imron, C., and Putri, E. R. (2018). Finite volume method for pricing European call option with regime-switching volatility. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 974, (https://doi:10.1088/1742-6596/974/1/012024)

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Toivanen, J. (2010). Finite difference methods for early exercise options. Encyclopedia of Quantitative Finance, (https://doi:10.1002/9780470061602.eqf12002)

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    Ugur, O. (2009). Introduction to Computational Finance. Imperial College Press, London. (https://doi.org/10.1142/p556). 41

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    Wu, L., and Kwok, Y.K. (1997). A front-fixing method for the valuation of American option, Journal of Financial Engineering, 6 (2), 83-97

    1997

  51. [59]

    Yan, Y., Dai, W., Wu, L., and Zhai, S. (2019). Accurate gradient preserved method for solving heat conduction equations in double layers. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 354, 58-85

    2019

  52. [60]

    L., and Swartz, M

    Zhang, K., Teo, K. L., and Swartz, M. (2013). A Robust numerical scheme for pricing American options under regime switching based on penalty method. Compu tational Economics, 43 (4), 463 -483 (https://doi:10.1007/s10614-013-9361-3)

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Zhao, J., Davidson, M., and Corless, R. M. (2007). Compact finite difference method for American option pricing. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 206, 306-321

    2007

  54. [62]

    Zhylyevskyy, O. (2009). A fast Fourier transfor m technique for pricing American options under stochastic volatility. Review of Derivatives Research, 13 (1), 1-24 (https://doi:10.1007/s11147-009- 9041-6)

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.