Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 38 references

Fast Derivative Valuation from Volatility Surfaces using Machine Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a Gaussian process trained on synthetic SVI volatility surfaces prices variance swaps and American puts almost instantly, with 0.5–3.5% relative errors, running three to four orders of magnitude faster than…

desk verdict Competent GPR surrogate-pricing proof of concept with credible speedup, but test-set hyperparameter tuning and formula typos need fixing before the accuracy claims are trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22957 v1 pith:W2TMVWQ5 submitted 2025-05-29 q-fin.PR

Lijie Ding , Egang Lu , Kin Cheung This is my paper
classification q-fin.PR MSC 91G2091G6068T05
keywords derivativepricingvolatilitysurfaceSVImodelGaussianprocessregressionAmericanputvarianceswapGreeksmachinelearninginfinance
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

This paper claims that a machine-learning model can take the parameters that describe an entire volatility surface, not just a single volatility number, and output derivative prices and Greeks almost instantly. The authors generate thousands of synthetic volatility surfaces with the five-parameter SVI model plus a one-factor term structure, price two representative derivatives on them with standard numerical methods, and train a Gaussian process regressor to mimic those prices. On out-of-sample data, the trained regressor reproduces variance-swap fair strikes to about 0.5% relative error and American put prices and first-order Greeks to 1.7–3.5%, while pricing 2,000 American puts in about two seconds instead of the roughly 40 minutes a Crank–Nicolson solver needs. The point of the claim is that full-surface information can be folded into near-instant valuation, making real-time risk and large-scale scenario analysis feasible. The paper explicitly notes that the synthetic surfaces are illustrative and that moving to real market data is future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the five-parameter SVI total-variance function $w(k;\chi_R)=a+b[\rho(k-m)+\sqrt{(k-m)^2+\sigma^2}]$, multiplied by the one-factor term structure $f(T;\lambda)=T e^{\lambda(1-T)}$, so the whole surface is described by six parameters $(a',b,\rho,m,\sigma,\lambda)$ plus strike and rate. This representation turns a curved implied-volatility surface into a low-dimensional continuous input. A Gaussian process regressor with a radial basis function kernel learns the map from those inputs to valuation outputs, with hyperparameters set by maximizing log marginal likelihood on training data. The training labels come from a Crank–Nicolson finite-difference solver with Rannacher smoothing and projected successive over-relaxation for the American-put free boundary, and from the log-contract replication formula for variance-swap fair strikes. The smoothness of the SVI parameterization is what makes the GPR interpolation effective, and the gamma discontinuity is the place where that smoothness assumption fails.

What would settle it

A direct test: calibrate SVI parameters to real implied-volatility quotes across many dates, feed them to the trained GPR, and compare predicted variance-swap fair strikes and American put prices with the same numerical formulas; large out-of-sample errors would pinpoint the synthetic-data assumption as the failure point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the map from volatility-surface risk factors to valuation outputs is smooth and learnable. For a variance swap, the input is the SVI skew parameters $(a', b, \rho, m, \sigma)$ and the interest rate $r$, and the output is the fair strike $K_{\mathrm{var}}$ from the log-contract replication formula. For an American put, the input adds the term-structure parameter $\lambda$ and the strike $K$, and the output is the price $V$ and Greeks $\Delta, \Gamma, \Theta$ from a Crank–Nicolson solve with the early-exercise constraint enforced by projected over-relaxation. The trained Gaussian process, using a radial basis function kernel, captures this mapping out-of-sample: 0.5% relative error on $K_{\mathrm{var}}$, 1.7% on price, 3.3% on delta, 3.5% on $\theta$, with the notable exception of gamma at 12.3% because the early-exercise boundary makes gamma discontinuous in the strike dimension. The authors frame this as a general two-stage recipe: any accurate valuation engine can generate training labels, and the trained GPR then prices near-instantly.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that random volatility surfaces generated from the SVI model with the one-factor term structure and the hand-chosen parameter ranges stand in for real market volatility surfaces, so a model trained on them will still be accurate when fed real quotes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained GPR prices 2,000 American puts in 2.09 seconds on a laptop-class CPU, versus 2,386 seconds for a 200-point Crank–Nicolson grid, a 1,141x speedup that makes real-time risk and scenario analysis practical.
  • Because the GPR only sees inputs and outputs, the training-label generator can be swapped for any proprietary pricing engine, so the framework can reproduce an existing valuation system without changing the regression layer.
  • The same two-stage recipe should extend to Asian, Bermudan, barrier, and autocallable products, since they share the property that valuation is a smooth function of surface parameters away from exercise boundaries.
  • First-order Greeks such as delta and theta are captured accurately enough for hedging, but gamma is not: the 12.3% relative error reflects the discontinuity of gamma across the early-exercise boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the model transfers to real calibration data, this becomes a calibration-free online pricing layer, because the GPR is evaluated at recalibrated SVI parameters as fast as they stream in.
  • Editorial inference: the reported accuracy is on in-distribution random samples; the method would predictably degrade outside the training ranges, and a simple test is to widen the Table II and Table III ranges at test time.
  • Editorial inference: adding the current early-exercise boundary location, or a transformed gamma target, as an input feature could repair the gamma discontinuity and bring higher-order Greeks in line with delta and theta.
  • Editorial inference: since the variance-swap mapping is only six-dimensional and smooth, a much smaller training set than 2,000 may already reach 0.5%, implying the framework's cost is dominated by expensive American-put label generation rather than by the regression itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a two-stage surrogate-pricing framework. In the first stage, the authors generate synthetic volatility surfaces from a five-parameter SVI parameterization with a one-factor term structure, and compute ground-truth valuations for two products: variance swap fair strikes via log-contract replication (Eq. 13) and American put prices and Greeks via a Crank-Nicolson PDE solver (Section II B). In the second stage, they train a Gaussian process regressor with an RBF kernel on the mapping from SVI parameters, strike, and interest rate to these valuation outputs, and report relative errors of 0.5% for the variance swap strike, 1.7% for the American put price, and 3.3% and 3.5% for Delta and Theta, plus several-orders-of-magnitude speedups. The evaluation is entirely on synthetic test sets drawn from the same SVI family as the training set.

Significance. The proposed idea of using a parametric volatility-surface representation together with a nonparametric surrogate to accelerate repeated derivative valuations is sensible and could be useful for risk analytics, provided the ground-truth labels are correct and the generalization target is clearly delimited. The paper includes useful sensitivity analyses (Figs. 3, 7, and A1), reports the Gamma discontinuity honestly, and explicitly flags the need to move from synthetic to real-market data. These are real strengths. However, the headline accuracy numbers are not currently trustworthy because the printed ground-truth formulas contain discrepancies, and the hyperparameter selection procedure as described is either circular or misreported. The contribution is best viewed as a proof-of-concept for interpolation within a parametric volatility-surface family, not as a validated real-market pricing engine.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) as printed gives Kvar = (2/T)[rT + 1 - e^{rT} + e^{rT} * integral_0^S0 P(K)/K^2 dK + integral_S0^inf C(K)/K^2 dK]. Static replication of the log contract with expansion point S* = S0 requires the e^{rT} discount factor to multiply both the put integral and the call integral, not only the put integral. As written, the fair strike is biased by (e^{rT} - 1) times the call-leg contribution. For r = 0.06 and T = 1 this is a 6.2% multiplicative discrepancy on the call leg, which can be several percent of Kvar in the Table II ranges and is therefore larger than the reported 0.5% relative error. If the code implements the printed equation, the GPR is fitting a biased target; if the code is correct, the equation must be fixed. Either way the 0.5% claim is not verifiable as written.
  2. [Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) prints a term (1/2) * d^2 k / d w^2, whereas the Dupire local-volatility formula requires (1/2) * d^2 w / d k^2. Taken literally, this changes the local variance that enters every American put label generated in Section III C. Since the American put results in Fig. 9 and Table IV are the main demonstration of the framework, this is a load-bearing error. The authors must correct the formula and either regenerate the numerical results or confirm that the code uses the standard d^2 w / d k^2 expression.
  3. [Section III C and Fig. 8] Section III C states that the GPR hyperparameters (lg, sigma_g) are found by maximizing the log marginal likelihood (LML) of the testing set, which contradicts the Fig. 8 caption that describes the LML of the training data. If the first statement is literal, test-set information leaks into the trained model and the reported errors in Fig. 9 are in-sample rather than out-of-sample. Section III B contains a similarly garbled sentence about training on the testing data while maximizing the LML for the training data. The authors must clarify the exact procedure and, if leakage occurred, re-run the evaluation with hyperparameters selected on the training set only.
  4. [Sections III B, III C, and IV] The evaluation is entirely in-sample with respect to the generative model: training and test points are drawn from the same SVI parameter family, the test ranges are nested inside the training ranges (Tables II and III), and the term structure is restricted to the one-factor function f(T; lambda) = T e^{lambda(1-T)}, which the authors themselves state is not intended to fit real market data. The abstract and introduction nonetheless motivate the method by the need to handle volatility surfaces observed in real markets. Without any test on real surfaces or on surfaces outside this parametric family, the paper supports only an interpolation claim within the SVI family. The authors should either add an out-of-family or market-data validation, or rewrite the claims so that the synthetic-only scope is explicit throughout the paper.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section III B] The sentence about training the GPR on the testing data while maximizing the LML for the training data is garbled and should be rewritten to state unambiguously which subset is used for hyperparameter selection.
  2. [Section V] Section V says the code is available at a GitHub repository named 'GPR pricing' but provides no URL or repository identifier, so the code and data cannot currently be retrieved and the internal inconsistencies cannot be checked.
  3. [Section III B] The text refers to a sparse set of 2,000 points in an '8-dimensional parameter space' for the variance swap, but the variance swap input in Section II C is x = (a', b, rho, m, sigma, r), which is six-dimensional; the American put input is eight-dimensional.
  4. [Section II B and Table IV] The paper describes the Crank-Nicolson solver as highly accurate but provides no mesh-convergence study or benchmark comparison for the American put labels; a short convergence table would strengthen the claim that the ground truth is accurate.
  5. [Table IV] The speedup column labels the machine-learning run as 1x and reports large speedup factors for Crank-Nicolson, but the comparison should be stated as the machine-learning time relative to each Crank-Nicolson grid; the current presentation is confusing.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'expity' in Section II B, 'higher than the European call' in the Fig. 5 caption (should be European put), 'Crank-Niclson' in Table IV, 'the the contour' near Fig. 8, and 'Once trained, We use' in the abstract.
  7. [Section II A] The statement that the parameterization ensures arbitrage-free behavior across strikes and maturities is stronger than what Eq. (1) and the admissibility conditions in Table I guarantee; positivity of total variance is not by itself equivalent to absence of butterfly or calendar arbitrage.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Test-set hyperparameter selection makes the reported 'out-of-sample' errors partly fitted; the SVI-to-GPR surrogate pipeline is otherwise self-contained and not definitionally circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III B (variance swap), Section III C (American put), Figs. 4 and 8]
    "We then train the GPR using the testing data by maximizing the log marginal likelihood for the training date respect to the length scale hyperparameter lg. ... (a) Log marginal likelihood (LML) of the test data, normalized by the number of data, versus correlation length lg. ... we firstly find the optimized hyperparameters (lg, sigma_g) by maximizing the log marginal likelihood (LML) of the testing set."

    The reported errors are computed on the same testing set whose labels were used to select the GPR hyperparameters. The log marginal likelihood p(y|X) in Eq. (11) depends on the target values y, so maximizing it on the testing set injects test information into the model. For the variance swap the text even says the GPR is trained 'using the testing data'; for the American put the body text says hyperparameters are optimized on the 'testing set' (the Fig. 8 caption says 'training data', so the manuscript is internally contradictory). Consequently the headline 0.5% and 1.7% to 3.5% errors are not independent out-of-sample predictions; model selection has already seen the test answers, so the accuracy is partly fitted by construction.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular in the definitional sense: the paper does not define the SVI parameters in terms of the priced outputs, does not fit any parameter to the test outputs themselves, and does not lean on self-citations for its central premise. The GPR is a standard surrogate: it learns the map from SVI surface parameters, strike, and interest rate to valuations produced by Eq. (13) and the Crank-Nicolson solver, and a held-out draw from the same SVI family is a legitimate interpolation check. The fact that all surfaces are synthetic and the term structure is explicitly 'only for illustration purpose' is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction; the authors list real-data transition as future work. The one concrete circular/leakage step is the hyperparameter selection: Sections III B and III C, and the Fig. 4 caption, state that the log marginal likelihood is maximized on the testing set, and the same testing set is then used for the reported errors. Because the LML depends on the test labels, the claimed out-of-sample accuracy is partly fitted by construction, giving a score of 6. Separately, the ground truth is not securely specified: Eq. (13) omits the e^{rT} factor multiplying the call integral, and Eq. (3) prints d^2 k / d w^2 in place of the standard d^2 w / d k^2 term. If the code follows the printed equations, every variance-swap and American-put label is biased; these are correctness/reproducibility defects, not circularity. Section V names a GitHub repository but gives no URL, so the code cannot currently be checked and the contradictory 'testing set' versus 'training data' statements cannot be resolved from the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the synthetic data generation being representative and on the numerical solvers being accurate. No real market data is used, and the SVI plus one-factor term structure is a strong restriction. The GPR hyperparameters are fitted, and the input sampling ranges are ad hoc.

free parameters (2)
  • GPR hyperparameters (length scale lg, noise sigma_g) = Optimized on data; values not reported
    Standard ML hyperparameters that determine the learned mapping and prediction quality. They are fitted to the data and arguably tuned on the test set per Section III C.
  • Sampling ranges for SVI parameters and other inputs = Uniform ranges in Tables II and III
    Hand-chosen to represent 'realistic' surfaces; no market data validation is provided, so these ranges are ad hoc modeling choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SVI parameterization with one-factor term structure f(T;lambda)=T e^{lambda(1-T)} adequately represents realistic volatility surfaces for pricing.
    Core modeling assumption introduced in Section II A; no market data is used to validate it.
  • ad hoc to paper The hand-chosen uniform parameter ranges cover realistic market scenarios.
    Tables II and III specify ranges for a', b, rho, m, sigma, lambda, K, and r; no empirical basis is given.
  • domain assumption The Crank-Nicolson solver with Rannacher smoothing and PSOR provides accurate ground truth American put prices and Greeks.
    Standard numerical method assumed convergent and accurate; used to generate training and test labels.
  • standard math The Dupire local volatility formula (Eq. 3) is valid for these surfaces.
    Standard result, though the equation appears to contain typos in the rendering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Derivative Valuation from Volatility Surfaces using Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2TMVWQ5

@misc{pith2026250522957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Derivative Valuation from Volatility Surfaces using Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2TMVWQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22957}
}
abstract

We introduce a fast and flexible Machine Learning (ML) framework for pricing derivative products whose valuation depends on volatility surfaces. By parameterizing volatility surfaces with the 5-parameter stochastic volatility inspired (SVI) model augmented by a one-factor term structure adjustment, we first generate numerous volatility surfaces over realistic ranges for these parameters. From these synthetic market scenarios, we then compute high-accuracy valuations using conventional methodologies for two representative products: the fair strike of a variance swap and the price and Greeks of an American put. We then train the Gaussian Process Regressor (GPR) to learn the nonlinear mapping from the input risk factors, which are the volatility surface parameters, strike and interest rate, to the valuation outputs. Once trained, We use the GPR to perform out-of-sample valuations and compare the results against valuations using conventional methodologies. Our ML model achieves very accurate results of $0.5\%$ relative error for the fair strike of variance swap and $1.7\% \sim 3.5\%$ relative error for American put prices and first-order Greeks. More importantly, after training, the model computes valuations almost instantly, yielding a three to four orders of magnitude speedup over Crank-Nicolson finite-difference method for American puts, enabling real-time risk analytics, dynamic hedging and large-scale scenario analysis. Our approach is general and can be extended to other path-dependent derivative products with early-exercise features, paving the way for hybrid quantitative engines for modern financial systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Variation of variance skew and term structure for 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Example of the variance surface and the derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Predict the fair strike using Gaussian Process Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variation of the option price and Greeks for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Log marginal likelihood of the training data versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison between Machine Learning predicted op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. C. Hull and S. Basu, Options, futures, and other derivatives (Pearson Education India, 2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Shreve, Stochastic calculus for finance I: the binomial asset pricing model (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005)

    S. Shreve, Stochastic calculus for finance I: the binomial asset pricing model (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Black and M

    F. Black and M. Scholes, The pricing of options and cor- porate liabilities, Journal of political economy 81, 637 (1973)

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    R. C. Merton, Theory of rational option pricing, The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 4, 141 (1973)

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    R. R. Flavell, Swaps and other derivatives (John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    C. F. Lee, A. C. Lee, and J. C. Lee, Handbook of quan- titative finance and risk management , Vol. 1 (Springer, 2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    N. N. Taleb, Dynamic hedging: managing vanilla and exotic options (John Wiley & Sons, 1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Hassani and B

    B. Hassani and B. K. Hassani, Scenario analysis in risk management (Springer, 2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Wilmott, S

    P. Wilmott, S. Howison, and J. Dewynne,The mathemat- ics of financial derivatives: a student introduction (Cam- bridge university press, 1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Derman and M

    E. Derman and M. B. Miller, The volatility smile (John Wiley & Sons, 2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspec- tive (MIT press, 2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, Deep learning, Vol. 1 (MIT press Cambridge, 2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Deep learning, na- ture 521, 436 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Gatta, V

    F. Gatta, V. S. Di Cola, F. Giampaolo, F. Piccialli, and S. Cuomo, Meshless methods for american option pricing through physics-informed neural networks, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 151, 68 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hainaut and A

    D. Hainaut and A. Casas, Option pricing in the heston model with physics inspired neural networks, Annals of Finance 20, 353 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    X. Wang, J. Li, and J. Li, A deep learning based nu- merical pde method for option pricing, Computational economics 62, 149 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y. Bai, T. Chaolu, and S. Bilige, The application of im- proved physics-informed neural network (ipinn) method in finance, Nonlinear Dynamics 107, 3655 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Ndikum, Machine learning algorithms for financial asset price forecasting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01504 9 (2020)

    P. Ndikum, Machine learning algorithms for financial asset price forecasting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01504 9 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. M. Gaspar, S. D. Lopes, and B. Sequeira, Neural net- work pricing of american put options, Risks 8, 73 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Anderson and U

    D. Anderson and U. Ulrych, Accelerated american option pricing with deep neural networks, Quantitative Finance and Economics 7, 207 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    De Spiegeleer, D

    J. De Spiegeleer, D. B. Madan, S. Reyners, and W. Schoutens, Machine learning for quantitative finance: fast derivative pricing, hedging and fitting, Quantitative Finance 18, 1635 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Gatheral, The volatility surface: a practitioner’s guide (John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    J. Gatheral, The volatility surface: a practitioner’s guide (John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Gatheral and A

    J. Gatheral and A. Jacquier, Arbitrage-free svi volatility surfaces, Quantitative Finance 14, 59 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine learning, Vol. 2 (MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Demeterfi, E

    K. Demeterfi, E. Derman, M. Kamal, and J. Zou, More than you ever wanted to know about volatility swaps, Goldman Sachs quantitative strategies research notes41, 1 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Dupire et al., Pricing with a smile, Risk 7, 18 (1994)

    B. Dupire et al., Pricing with a smile, Risk 7, 18 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Crank and P

    J. Crank and P. Nicolson, A practical method for numer- ical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equa- tions of the heat-conduction type, in Mathematical pro- ceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society , Vol. 43 (Cambridge University Press, 1947) pp. 50–67

    1947

  21. [29]

    Jeanblanc, M

    M. Jeanblanc, M. Yor, and M. Chesney, Mathematical methods for financial markets (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Derman, I

    E. Derman, I. Kani, and J. Z. Zou, The local volatil- ity surface: Unlocking the information in index option prices, Financial analysts journal 52, 25 (1996)

    1996

  23. [31]

    Ikonen and J

    S. Ikonen and J. Toivanen, Operator splitting methods for american option pricing, Applied mathematics letters 17, 809 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Ikonen and J

    S. Ikonen and J. Toivanen, Efficient numerical methods for pricing american options under stochastic volatility, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations: An International Journal 24, 104 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al., Scikit-learn: Machine learn- ing in python, the Journal of machine Learning research 12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Buitinck, G

    L. Buitinck, G. Louppe, M. Blondel, F. Pedregosa, A. Mueller, O. Grisel, V. Niculae, P. Prettenhofer, A. Gramfort, J. Grobler, et al. , Api design for ma- chine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project, arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.0238 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. C. G. Rogers and Z. Shi, The value of an asian option, Journal of Applied Probability 32, 1077 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Schweizer, On bermudan options, Advances in Fi- nance and Stochastics: Essays in Honour of Dieter Son- dermann , 257 (2002)

    M. Schweizer, On bermudan options, Advances in Fi- nance and Stochastics: Essays in Honour of Dieter Son- dermann , 257 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    F. A. Longstaff and E. S. Schwartz, Valuing american options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach, The review of financial studies 14, 113 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Guillaume, Autocallable structured products, Journal of Derivatives 22, 73 (2015)

    T. Guillaume, Autocallable structured products, Journal of Derivatives 22, 73 (2015). 10 Appendix A: Sensitivity analysis for American put 0.0 0.1 0.2V (a1) (b1) (c1) (d1) (e1) (f1) (g1) (h1) 1.0 0.5 (a2) (b2) (c2) (d2) (e2) (f2) (g2) (h2) 0 5 10 15 (a3) (b3) (c3) (d3) (e3) (f...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.