
Considering the characteristics of long-range correlations in financial markets, the issue of valuing geometric average Asian options is examined, assuming that the variations of the underlying asset follow the mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion, and the dynamics of short-term interest rate satisfies the mixed sub-fractional Vasicek model. Based on the principle of no arbitrage, the definite solution of PDE of a zero-coupon bond for geometric average Asian options under the circumstance of the mixed sub-fractional is given by the delta hedging technique. The derivation of the explicit pricing formula for geometric average Asian options with fixed strike price is achieved through the utilization of multiple variable substitutions. Furthermore, we perform numerical calculations to analyze the performance of the model.
Citation: Xinyi Wang, Chunyu Wang. Pricing geometric average Asian options in the mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion environment with Vasicek interest rate model[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26579-26601. doi: 10.3934/math.20241293
[1] | Yao Fu, Sisi Zhou, Xin Li, Feng Rao . Multi-assets Asian rainbow options pricing with stochastic interest rates obeying the Vasicek model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10685-10710. doi: 10.3934/math.2023542 |
[2] | Zhidong Guo, Xianhong Wang, Yunliang Zhang . Option pricing of geometric Asian options in a subdiffusive Brownian motion regime. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5332-5343. doi: 10.3934/math.2020342 |
[3] | Kung-Chi Chen, Kuo-Shing Chen . Pricing green financial options under the mixed fractal Brownian motions with jump diffusion environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 21496-21523. doi: 10.3934/math.20241044 |
[4] | Boling Chen, Guohe Deng . Analytic approximations for European-style Asian spread options. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11696-11717. doi: 10.3934/math.2024573 |
[5] | Xinyi Wang, Jingshen Wang, Zhidong Guo . Pricing equity warrants under the sub-mixed fractional Brownian motion regime with stochastic interest rate. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16612-16631. doi: 10.3934/math.2022910 |
[6] | Chao Yue, Chuanhe Shen . Fractal barrier option pricing under sub-mixed fractional Brownian motion with jump processes. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 31010-31029. doi: 10.3934/math.20241496 |
[7] | Zhe Li, Xiao-Tian Wang . Valuation of bid and ask prices for European options under mixed fractional Brownian motion. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 7199-7214. doi: 10.3934/math.2021422 |
[8] | Jiajia Zhao, Zuoliang Xu . Calibration of time-dependent volatility for European options under the fractional Vasicek model. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11053-11069. doi: 10.3934/math.2022617 |
[9] | Javed Hussain, Saba Shahid, Tareq Saeed . Pricing forward-start style exotic options under uncertain stock models with periodic dividends. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24934-24954. doi: 10.3934/math.20241215 |
[10] | Min-Ku Lee, Jeong-Hoon Kim . Pricing vanilla, barrier, and lookback options under two-scale stochastic volatility driven by two approximate fractional Brownian motions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25545-25576. doi: 10.3934/math.20241248 |
Considering the characteristics of long-range correlations in financial markets, the issue of valuing geometric average Asian options is examined, assuming that the variations of the underlying asset follow the mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion, and the dynamics of short-term interest rate satisfies the mixed sub-fractional Vasicek model. Based on the principle of no arbitrage, the definite solution of PDE of a zero-coupon bond for geometric average Asian options under the circumstance of the mixed sub-fractional is given by the delta hedging technique. The derivation of the explicit pricing formula for geometric average Asian options with fixed strike price is achieved through the utilization of multiple variable substitutions. Furthermore, we perform numerical calculations to analyze the performance of the model.
In 1973, the classic Black-Scholes (BS) model [1] provided an effective method for pricing financial derivatives and greatly simplifying the pricing process. Since then, many scholars have conducted research and promoted the model [2,3]. Asian options, a special type of financial derivative, are appealing due to their unique valuation method, which relies on the mean value of the underlying asset over a set contract period.
However, the BS model may not align with actual financial markets and could fail to provide accurate pricing for complex financial derivatives. In 1968, Mandelbrot and Van Ness [4] proposed a stochastic process: fractional Brownian motion (fBm). If the Hurst parameter H≠12, the fractional Brownian motion is not a semi-martingale, which implies that there must be arbitrage opportunities [5,6]. Bojdecki et al. [7] advanced that sub-fractional Brownian motion (sfBm), which not only possesses similar properties to fractional Brownian motion but also features non-stationary increments with weaker correlations on non-overlapping intervals and a faster decay of covariance, aligns better with financial market dynamics. Based on this, Tubor [8] investigated new properties of sfBm. Xu and Li [9] tackled the valuation conundrum linked to compound options. For further applications of sfBm in financial models, please refer to [10,11,12]. Despite these advancements, the use of sfBm as a stochastic driver may still result in arbitrage opportunities akin to those associated with fBm. Zhang and Xiao [13] showed that the Black-Scholes model driven by fractional Gaussian processes allows for arbitrage opportunities. Since sub-fractional Brownian motion is a more general Gaussian process and is also not a semi-martingale, the application of this model to financial markets necessitates the study of arbitrage possibilities. EI-Nouty and Zili [14] proposed the concept of mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion (msfBm), which lies between Brownian motion and sfBm. The mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion incorporates the semi-martingale condition when H∈(34,1), making this stochastic process more suitable for inclusion in option pricing models [15]. Furthermore, constructing an appropriate portfolio can enable models with the Hurst parameter H∈(0,1) to avoid arbitrage in financial markets [16]. For example, Guo et al. [17] combined the fractal option pricing model with a new intelligent algorithm to predict the implied volatility in financial assets. Cai et al. [18] found the LSE of the drift parameter of mixed sub-fractional O-U process.
The aforementioned studies collectively presupposed fixed short-term interest rates, which do not reflect the dynamic nature of real interest rates that exhibit mean reversion. The Vasicek model [19], a fundamental interest rate model in finance, describes the evolution of interest rates and has become a cornerstone in the analysis and management of interest rate risks. It provides a theoretical framework that aids in making informed financial decisions and developing sophisticated risk management strategies. Ewald et al. [20] priced options for Asian commodity futures contracts by incorporating stochastic convenience yields, stochastic interest rates, and commodity spot prices, and considered the scenario with jumps. More related studies can be found in [21,22,23,24,25] to further understand the importance of stochastic interest rate models in option pricing. Building on these studies, in this paper, a model for pricing geometric average Asian options is formulated under the msfBm regime, while the short rate follows the Vasicek process.
Then, in Section 2, we state the necessary foundational knowledge. In Section 3, we provide the formula for a zero-coupon bond under the msfBm, based on certain assumptions. In Section 4, we give the solution for valuing geometric average Asian options with fixed strike price. In Section 5, we present relevant numerical calculations and an empirical study to further explore the effects of varying parameters on the model.
The Vasicek model is recognized as a significant model for the short rate that can be combined with other pricing models. The incorporation of mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion can offer more comprehensive risk management solutions. Now, we introduce the relevant knowledge of msfBm, which is covered in [7,14,26].
Definition 2.1. The Gaussian process ξH={ξH(t),t⩾0} defined on a probability space (Ω,F,P) that satisfies the following conditions
(1) ξH(0)=0,
(2) E(ξH(t)⋅ξH(s))=s2H+t2H−12[(s+t)2H+|t−s|2H],
is called a sub-fractional Brownian motion, where H is the Hurst parameter with a value range of (0,1), and BH(t) is a standard Brownian motion when H=12.
Definition 2.2. Let (Ω,F,P) be a probability space. The mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion Mβ,γ,H={Mβ,γ,Ht,t⩾0}is a stochastic process with H∈(0,1), defined by
Mβ,γ,H=βB(t)+γξH(t),β⩾0,γ⩾0, |
where B(t) is a Brownian motion and ξH(t) is a sub-fractional Brownian motion. We have
E(Mβ,γ,Ht⋅Mβ,γ,Hs)=β2min(s,t)+γ2{s2H+t2H−12[(s+t)2H+|t−s|2H]}, |
where Mβ,γ,Htis a sfBm when β=0 and γ=1, Mβ,γ,Ht is a standard Brownian motion when β=1 and γ=0 or when β=0, γ=1 and H=12.
Definition 2.3. Asian options are divided into geometric average Asian options and arithmetic average Asian options. Taking fixed strike Asian call options as an example, the payoff is (JT−K)+, where K is the strike price, T is the expiration date, and Jt is the average price of the underlying asset over the predetermined interval. In continuous time, the arithmetic average is represented by
Jt=1t∫t0Sτdτ, |
the geometric average is represented by
Jt=exp(1t∫t0lnSτdτ). |
Then, we present some basic assumptions of this paper.
(ⅰ) Short selling is allowed without penalty; there are no taxes and friction; stocks do not pay dividends; investors borrow and lend at the risk-free rate.
(ⅱ) The stock price S(t) satisfies the mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion of risk neutrality, given by
dS(t)=r(t)S(t)dt+σS1S(t)dBS(t)+σS2S(t)dξSH(t), | (2.1) |
where r(t) is a short rate and satisfies the following msfBm-Vasicek model
dr(t)=a(b−r(t))dt+σr1dBr(t)+σr2dξrH(t), | (2.2) |
where σS1, σS2, σr1, and σr2 are constants, BS(t), ξSH(t), Br(t), and ξrH(t) are independent of each other.
A zero-coupon bond is issued at a price below its face value and does not pay any interest during the period. Upon maturity at time T, investors are entitled to receive a cash return equivalent to $1. The price of such a bond is influenced by the passage of time and the variability in interest rates. We denote the price of a zero-coupon bond at time t, maturing at time T, as P(r,t;T).
Theorem 3.1. In the mixed sub-fractional Vasicek process, the price of a zero-coupon bond with maturity T at time t∈[0,T] is given by
P(r,t;T)=e−A(t,T)−rB(t,T), | (3.1) |
where
{A(t,T)=b(T−t)−bB(t,T)−12σ2r1∫TtB2(s,T)ds−H(2−22H−1)σ2r2∫Tts2H−1B2(s,T)ds,B(t,T)=1−e−a(T−t)a, |
Proof. By using the risk hedging formula and Itô formula [19], select two zero-coupon bonds with different maturities, denoted as P1=P1(r,t;T1) and P2=P2(r,t;T2), to hedge the risks. Now consider a portfolio Π consisting of one unit of P1 and Δ units of P2, we can obtain
Π=P1−ΔP2. |
The change in the portfolio over the time interval (t,t+dt) is given by
dΠ=∂P1∂tdt+∂P1∂rdr+12∂2P1∂r2(dr)2−Δ(∂P2∂tdt+∂P2∂rdr+12∂2P2∂r2(dr)2), | (3.2) |
where (dr)2=(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)dt+o(dt).
Let Δ=∂P1/∂r∂P2/∂r, Eq (3.2) becomes
dΠ=∂P1∂tdt+12(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)∂2P1∂r2dt−∂P1/∂r∂P2/∂r(∂P2∂tdt+12(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)∂2P2∂r2dt). | (3.3) |
Furthermore, since the investment portfolio is risk-free, that is, E(dΠ)=r(t)Πdt, we have
(∂P1∂t+12(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)∂2P1∂r2−rP1)/∂P1∂r=(∂P2∂t+12(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)∂2P2∂r2−rP2)/∂P2∂r. | (3.4) |
Then, we can obtain
(∂P∂t+12(σ2r1+2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2)∂2P∂r2−rP)/∂P∂r=−a(b−r(t)). |
Thus, the zero-coupon bond P(r,t;T) satisfies the following partial differential equation given by
{∂P∂t+a(b−r(t))∂P∂r+12σ2r1∂2P∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2P∂r2−rP=0,P(r,T;T)=1. | (3.5) |
Given that A(T,T)=0 and B(T,T)=0, it is not difficult to find a solution for the price of a zero-coupon bond at time t of the following form
{∂P∂t=P[−A′(t,T)−rB′(t,T)],∂P∂r=−PB(t,T),∂2P∂r2=PB2(t,T). | (3.6) |
Substituting Eq (3.6) into Eq (3.5), we can derive
−r(B′(t,T)−aB(t,T)+1)−A′(t,T)−abB(t,T)+12σ2r1B2(t,T)+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2B2(t,T)=0. |
After simplification, we have
{B′(t,T)−aB(t,T)+1=0,A′(t,T)+abB(t,T)−12σ2r1B2(t,T)−Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2B2(t,T)=0. |
Then, we can obtain
{A(t,T)=b(T−t)−bB(t,T)−12σ2r1∫TtB2(s,T)ds−H(2−22H−1)σ2r2∫Tts2H−1B2(s,T)ds,B(t,T)=1−e−a(T−t)a. |
Proof is completed.
In this section, examine a mixed sub-fractional version of the BS model, i.e., a simple financial market consisting of zero-coupon bonds, underlying assets, and options on underlying assets.
Theorem 4.1. The value of geometric average Asian call options with fixed strike price is denoted as V=V(S,J,r,t). Based on assumptions (2.1) and (2.2), the partial differential equation and boundary conditions are given by
{∂V∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂V∂J+12σ2S1S2∂2V∂S2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2∂2V∂S2,+12σ2r1∂2V∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2V∂r2+a(b−r(t))∂V∂r+rS∂V∂S−rV=0,V(S,J,r,T)=(J−K)+. | (4.1) |
Proof. Considering that the portfolio Π consists of one unit option V(S,J,r,t), Δ1t units of underlying assets and Δ2t units of zero-coupon bonds P(r,t;T), the value of the portfolio at time t is given by
Πt=Vt−Δ1tSt−Δ2tPt, | (4.2) |
Choosing the appropriate Δ1t and Δ2t makes the portfolio risk-free in (t,t+dt), we can obtain
dΠt=dVt−Δ1tdSt−Δ2tdPt=(∂V∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂V∂J+12σ2S1S2∂2V∂S2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2∂2V∂S2)dt+(12σ2r1∂2V∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2V∂r2)dt+(∂V∂S−Δ1t)dS+(∂V∂r−Δ2t∂P∂r)dr−Δ2t(∂P∂t+12σ2r1∂2P∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2P∂r2)dt. |
Let Δ1t=∂V∂S and Δ2t=∂V/∂r∂P/∂r, using the principle of no arbitrage, we have
E(dΠt)=r(t)Πdt=r(Vt−Δ1tSt−Δ2tPt)dt, | (4.3) |
we can calculate that
{∂V∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂V∂J+12σ2S1S2∂2V∂S2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2∂2V∂S2+12σ2r1∂2V∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2V∂r2+a(b−r(t))∂V∂r+rS∂V∂S−rV=0,V(S,J,r,T)=(J−K)+. |
Proof is completed.
Theorem 4.2. Assuming that the stock price satisfies Eq (2.1), and the interest rate satisfies Eq (2.2), the price of the geometric average Asian call option at time t∈[0,T] with strike price K and maturity date T is given by
V(S,J,r,t)=P(r,t;T)tTJtTST−tTeLN(d1)−P(r,t;T)KN(d2), |
where
{d1=tlnJ+(T−t)lnSP(r,t;T)T+∫Ttβ4(s)ds+2∫Ttβ3(s)ds−lnK√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds,d2=d1−√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds,β21(t)=˜σ2S+˜σ2rB2(t,T),β2(t)=−A(t,T)−rB(t,T),β3(t)=(T−tT)2β21(t),β4(t)=1Tβ2(t)−T−tTβ21(t),L=∫Ttβ4(s)ds+∫Ttβ3(s)ds,˜σ2S=12σ2S1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2,˜σ2r=12σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2,N(x)=1√2π∫x−∞e−t22dt. |
Proof. To simplify the variable-coefficient equation with three variables down to one with two variables, we perform a variable substitution. Thus, let
y=SP(r,t;T),V1(y,J,t)=V(S,J,r,t)P(r,t;T). | (4.4) |
Sometimes, we denote P(r,t;T) as P to simplify notation. Then, through calculation, we have
{∂V∂J=P∂V1∂J,∂V∂t=V1∂P∂t+P∂V1∂t−y∂V1∂y∂P∂t,∂V∂r=V1∂P∂r−y∂V1∂y∂P∂r,∂V∂S=∂V1∂y,∂2V∂r2=V1∂2P∂r2−y∂V1∂y∂2P∂r2+y2∂2V1∂y21P(∂P∂r)2,∂2V∂r∂S=−y∂2V1∂y21P∂P∂r,∂2V∂S2=1P∂2V1∂y2. | (4.5) |
Substituting Eq (4.5) into Eq (4.1) and organizing it, we can obtain
∂V1∂t+(121P2σ2S1S2+1P2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2+12y21P2(∂P∂r)2σ2r1)∂2V1∂y2+y21P2(∂P∂r)2(2−22H−1)Hσ2r2t2H−1∂2V1∂y2+Jtln(SJ)∂V1∂J−1Py(∂P∂t+12∂2P∂r2σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2P∂r2+a(b−r(t))∂P∂r−rSy)∂V1∂y+V1P(∂P∂t+12∂2P∂r2σ2r1+∂2P∂r2Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2+a(b−r(t))∂P∂r−rP)=0. |
By integrating Eqs (4.4) and (3.5), we can derive
∂V1∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂V1∂J+y2β21(t)∂2V1∂y2=0, | (4.6) |
where
{β21(t)=˜σ2S+˜σ2rB2(t,T),˜σ2S=12σ2S1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2,˜σ2r=12σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2. |
By substituting the deformation of Eq (4.4) into Eq (4.6), the equation can be transformed into
∂V1∂t+Jt(β2(t)+lnyJ)∂V1∂J+y2β21(t)∂2V1∂y2=0, | (4.7) |
where β2(t)=−A(t,T)−rB(t,T).
To simplify Eq (4.7), we can make the following variable substitution
x=tlnJ+(T−t)lnyT,V2(x,t)=V1(y,J,t). | (4.8) |
It can be determined that
{∂V1∂J=tTJ∂V2∂x,∂V1∂t=∂V2∂t+lnJ−lnyT∂V2∂x,∂V1∂y=T−tTy∂V2∂x,∂2V1∂y2=(T−tTy)2∂2V2∂x2−T−tTy2∂V2∂x. | (4.9) |
Substituting the above results into Eq (4.7), we find that
{∂V2∂t+β3(t)∂2V2∂x2+β4(t)∂V2∂x=0,V2(x,T)=(ex−K)+, | (4.10) |
where β3(t)=(T−tT)2β21(t) and β4(t)=1Tβ2(t)−T−tTβ21(t).
The last time using variable substitution to simplify Eq (4.10) into a heat conduction equation, let
V2(x,t)=μ(η,θ),η=x+∫Ttβ4(s)ds,θ=∫Ttβ3(s)ds. | (4.11) |
It can be deduced that
{∂V2∂t=−β4(t)∂μ∂η−β3(t)∂μ∂θ,∂V2∂x=∂μ∂η,∂2V2∂x2=∂2μ∂η2. | (4.12) |
Then, Eq (4.10) can be converted to
{∂2μ∂η2=∂μ∂θ,μ(η,T)=(eη−K)+. | (4.13) |
According to the heat conduction theory, the solution of this equation can be expressed as
V2(x,t)=μ(η,θ)=eη+θN(d5)−KN(d6)=ex+LN(d5)−KN(d6), | (4.14) |
where
d5=η−lnK+2θ√2θ=x+∫Ttβ4(s)ds+2∫Ttβ3(s)ds−lnK√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds, |
d6=d5−√2θ=d5−√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds, |
L=∫Ttβ4(s)ds+∫Ttβ3(s)ds. |
Substituting Eq (4.8) into Eq (4.14), we can obtain
V1(y,J,t)=JtTyT−tteLN(d3)−KN(d4), | (4.15) |
where
d3=tlnJ+(T−t)lnyT+∫Ttβ4(s)ds+2∫Ttβ3(s)ds−lnK√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds, |
d4=d3−√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds. |
Combining Eqs (4.4) and (4.15), it follows that
V(S,J,r,t)=V1(SP(r,t;T),J,t)P(r,t;T)=P(r,t;T)tTJtTST−tTeLN(d1)−P(r,t;T)KN(d2), |
where
d1=tlnJ+(T−t)lnSP(r,t;T)T+∫Ttβ4(s)ds+2∫Ttβ3(s)ds−lnK√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds, |
d2=d1−√2∫Ttβ3(s)ds. |
Proof is completed.
Theorem 4.3. The call-put parity relationship for geometric average Asian options with fixed strike price is given by
V(S,J,r,t)−p(S,J,r,t)=P(r,t;T)JtT(SP(r,t;T))T−tTeL−P(r,t;T)K, |
where p(S,J,r,t) is the price of geometric average Asian put options and
{β21(t)=˜σ2S+˜σ2rB2(t,T),β2(t)=−A(t,T)−rB(t,T),β3(t)=(T−tT)2β21(t),β4(t)=1Tβ2(t)−T−tTβ21(t),L=∫Ttβ4(s)ds+∫Ttβ3(s)ds,˜σ2S=12σ2S1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2,˜σ2r=12σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2. |
Proof. Let
W(S,J,r,t)=V(S,J,r,t)−p(S,J,r,t). |
According to Theorem 4.1, W(S,J,r,t) satisfies the following definite solution problem
{∂W∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂W∂J+12σ2S1S2∂2W∂S2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2∂2W∂S2+12σ2r1∂2W∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2W∂r2+a(b−r(t))∂W∂r+rS∂W∂S−rW=0,W(S,J,r,T)=J−K. | (4.16) |
Making the following variable substitutions
y=SP(r,t;T),W1(y,J,t)=W(S,J,r,t)P(r,t;T). | (4.17) |
Substituting Eq (4.17) into Eq (4.16), we have
∂W1∂t+Jtln(SJ)∂W1∂J+y2β21(t)∂2W1∂y2=0, | (4.18) |
where
{β21(t)=˜σ2S+˜σ2rB2(t,T),˜σ2S=12σ2S1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2,˜σ2r=12σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2. |
Let
ξ=tlnJ+(T−t)lnyT,W2(ξ,t)=W1(y,J,t). | (4.19) |
By inserting Eq (4.19) into Eq (4.18), this yields
{∂W2∂t+β3(t)∂2W2∂ξ2+β4(t)∂W2∂ξ=0,W2(ξ,T)=eξ−K, | (4.20) |
where
β2(t)=−A(t,T)−rB(t,T), |
β3(t)=(T−tT)2β21(t), |
β4(t)=1Tβ2(t)−T−tTβ21(t). |
By letting
W2(ξ,t)=a(t)eξ−b(t)K, | (4.21) |
then, we can obtain
{∂W2∂t=a′(t)eξ−b′(t)K,∂W2∂ξ=a(t)eξ,∂2W2∂ξ2=a(t)eξ, |
and
(a′(t)+β3(t)a(t)+β4(t)a(t))eξ−b′(t)K=0. | (4.22) |
To solve Eq (4.22), we select appropriate a(t) and b(t) so that
{a′(t)+β3(t)a(t)+β4(t)a(t)=0,b′(t)=0,a(T)=1,b(T)=1. |
Thus, we can derive
a(t)=eL,b(t)=1, | (4.23) |
where
L=∫Ttβ4(s)ds+∫Ttβ3(s)ds. |
Substituting Eqs (4.21) and (4.23) into Eq (4.17), we have
V(S,J,r,t)−p(S,J,r,t)=P(r,t;T)W1(y,J,t)=P(r,t;T)JtT(SP(r,t;T))T−tTeL−P(r,t;T)K. |
Proof is completed.
Corollary 4.1. Let the price of the arithmetic average Asian call options with fixed strike price be denoted as ˆV(S,J,r,t), and let the price of the put options be ˆp(S,J,r,t). The put-call parity formula for arithmetic average Asian options is
ˆV(S,J,r,t)−ˆp(S,J,r,t)=P(r,t;T)(tJT−K)+ST∫Tte−A(s,T)−rB(s,T)ds, |
where
{A(t,T)=b(T−t)−bB(t,T)−12σ2r1∫TtB2(s,T)ds−H(2−22H−1)σ2r2∫Tts2H−1B2(s,T)ds,B(t,T)=1−e−a(T−t)a. |
Proof. Denoting
W(S,J,r,t)=ˆV(S,J,r,t)−ˆp(S,J,r,t). |
According to Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.3, we can similarly derive
{∂W∂t+S−Jt∂W∂J+12σ2S1S2∂2W∂S2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2S2∂2W∂S2+12σ2r1∂2W∂r2+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2∂2W∂r2+a(b−r(t))∂W∂r+rS∂W∂S−rW=0,W(S,J,r,T)=J−K. | (4.24) |
By employing a change of variables, we define
y=SP(r,t;T),W1(y,J,t)=W(S,J,r,t)P(r,t;T). | (4.25) |
Substituting Eq (4.25) into Eq (4.24), we can obtain
∂W1∂t+yP−Jt∂W1∂J+y2β21(t)∂2W1∂y2=0, | (4.26) |
where
{β21(t)=˜σ2S+˜σ2rB2(t,T),˜σ2S=12σ2S1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2S2,˜σ2r=12σ2r1+Ht2H−1(2−22H−1)σ2r2. |
Let
ξ=TK−tJy,W2(ξ,t)=TyW1(y,J,t). | (4.27) |
By substituting Eq (4.27) into Eq (4.26), we can deduce
{∂W2∂t+β21(t)∂2W2∂ξ2ξ2−P∂W2∂ξ=0,W2(ξ,T)=−ξ. | (4.28) |
Let
W2(ξ,t)=a(t)ξ+b(t), | (4.29) |
then, we have
{∂W2∂t=a′(t)ξ+b′(t),∂W2∂ξ=a(t),∂2W2∂ξ2=0, |
and
a′(t)ξ+b′(t)−a(t)P=0. | (4.30) |
By combining Eqs (4.28) and (4.30), we can compare the coefficients to obtain
{a′(t)=0,b′(t)−a(t)P=0,a(T)=−1,b(T)=0. |
Solving the aforementioned system of equations yields
a(t)=−1,b(t)=∫Tte−A(s,T)−rB(s,T)ds. |
Finally, we can derive
W(S,J,r,t)=ˆV(S,J,r,t)−ˆp(S,J,r,t)=P(r,t;T)(tJT−K)+ST∫Tte−A(s,T)−rB(s,T)ds. |
In this section, we provide specific values for each parameter to conduct the following numerical calculations.
t=0,S=30,σS1=0.5,σS2=0.4,σr1=0.3,σr2=0.2,a=2,b=0.05,r=0.06,T=1. |
From Figure 1, it can be observed that when H=0.5, the msfBm simplifies to a geometric Brownian motion. At this point, the price of geometric average Asian call options peaks, whereas it reaches its minimum at H=0.9. An increment in the Hurst index is indicative of the manifestation of long-range correlations in the asset price, suggesting a persistent price trend. In specific situations, the expected small fluctuations in the asset price in the market will lead to a decrease in the option value. Figure 2 indicates that as the short rate rises, the price of the options gradually increases. This is because an increase in the interest rate could potentially raise the payoff of the options at maturity, thereby enhancing the holding value of the options. Figure 3 shows that the valuation of the options is positively influenced by a rise in the initial stock price. From Figure 4, the price of the options increases with the extension of the expiration date. As the remaining time for the option contract increases, it gives the holders more time to wait for a potential rise in the stock price. Therefore, the possibility of the investors making a profit is greater, and the price of the options will also increase accordingly. Conversely, it diminishes with an upsurge in the strike price. As the strike price increases, buyers have to pay a higher price to exercise the options, which compresses the profit margin and thus reduces the value of the options. Figure 5 illustrates that the pricing of options under the current model closely mirrors that of the sub-fractional Vasicek model. Notably, the pricing discrepancy for options between our model and Vasicek model widens initially and then narrows, and the pricing gap between our model and BS model exhibits a consistent upward trend.
According to Tables 1 and 2, it can be observed that the lowest pricing for geometric average Asian call options is associated with the BS model. In the case of a brief expiration period, the price of the options under the sfBm-Vasicek model marginally surpasses that of our model, especially with an increasing stock price, and there is minimal variation between the two models. For longer expiration dates, the option price under our model exceeds that under the sfBm-Vasicek model, with the price difference becoming more pronounced. Moreover, the price of options under our model and the Vasicek model are getting closer. Overall, our model demonstrates a degree of rationality and is deemed suitable for developing option pricing models in financial markets.
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 0.2435 | 0.0005 | 1.8389 | 0.2208 |
23 | 0.5498 | 0.0066 | 2.8183 | 0.5202 |
26 | 1.0480 | 0.0426 | 3.9897 | 1.0211 |
29 | 1.7685 | 0.1748 | 5.3360 | 1.7589 |
32 | 2.7255 | 0.5146 | 6.8397 | 2.7506 |
35 | 3.9194 | 1.1863 | 8.4843 | 3.9968 |
38 | 5.3398 | 2.2779 | 10.2543 | 5.4858 |
41 | 6.9698 | 3.8119 | 12.1360 | 7.1977 |
44 | 8.7884 | 5.7485 | 14.1169 | 9.1087 |
47 | 10.7735 | 8.0118 | 16.1861 | 11.1933 |
50 | 12.9033 | 10.5160 | 18.3337 | 13.4270 |
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 5.1411 | 0.2085 | 2.3002 | 0.9705 |
23 | 7.4411 | 0.4863 | 4.8981 | 2.7039 |
26 | 9.8921 | 0.9501 | 7.6053 | 4.5926 |
29 | 12.4656 | 1.6332 | 10.3988 | 6.6067 |
32 | 15.1403 | 2.5519 | 13.2620 | 8.7238 |
35 | 17.8998 | 3.7072 | 16.1825 | 10.9266 |
38 | 20.7312 | 5.0881 | 19.1509 | 13.2019 |
41 | 23.6243 | 6.6762 | 22.1600 | 15.5389 |
44 | 26.5707 | 8.4490 | 25.2039 | 17.9291 |
47 | 29.5636 | 10.3825 | 28.2781 | 20.3655 |
50 | 32.5974 | 12.4535 | 31.3787 | 22.8423 |
We select copper options for three-month futures as the sample, with a cutoff time of October 2006, and the data are sourced from the London Metal Exchange. Since all trading products on the LME are priced in US dollars, we adopt the interest rate of one-year US Treasury bonds.
We calculate the value of H using the R/S method. Define a return sequence {Rt,Rt=lnPt+1lnPt} of length N and divide it into A consecutive sub-intervals of length n. Label each sub-interval as Ia,a=1,⋯,A. Thus, each point in Ia can be represented as
Rk,a,k=1,⋯,n;a=1,⋯,A. |
For each sub-interval Ia of length n, calculate its mean as
ea=1nn∑k=1Rk,a. |
The cumulative mean deviation Xk,a for a single sub-interval is calculated as
Xk,a=k∑i=1(Ri,a−ea),k=1,2,⋯,n. |
The sum of the cumulative mean deviation sequence {X1,a,X2,a,⋯Xn,a} for a single sub-interval is zero. The range of an individual sub-interval is defined as
RIa=maxk(Xk,a)−mink(Xk,a),k=1,2,⋯,n. |
Subsequently, the standard deviation SIa for each sub-interval is given by
SIa=√1nn∑k=1(Ek,a−ea)2. |
Therefore, for the partition length n, we can compute the average rescaled range for A sub-intervals as
(R/S)n=1AA∑a=1(RIaSIa). |
Repeat the above calculation process for different partition lengths (i.e., different time scales) n to obtain multiple average rescaled range values. There is a linear relationship between log(RS) and log(n) [27]
log(RS)n=a+Hlog(n). |
Finally, a double logarithmic regression is performed on n and R/S, and the slope is the parameter of long-range correlations, that is, the Hurst index. Therefore, we can obtain H=0.6.
From Table 3, it is evident that the RMSE of our model is the smallest, indicating that the option price derived from our model is the closest to the market price. Furthermore, the price from our model is also quite close to that of the sfBm-Vasicek model. This suggests that it is essential to include factors such as the long-range correlations of the underlying asset and stochastic interest rate in the option pricing model, as they significantly influence the option price.
K | Market price | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
7800 | 750 | 750.8065 | 747.9587 | 752.3958 | 749.0275 |
7500 | 694 | 693.9719 | 691.9232 | 696.2100 | 692.5075 |
7850 | 737 | 737.8847 | 734.8516 | 739.3860 | 736.1443 |
7900 | 742 | 741.1881 | 739.7236 | 744.2764 | 739.8953 |
7550 | 670 | 669.3538 | 667.6885 | 672.1255 | 668.1860 |
7650 | 658 | 658.1121 | 655.5799 | 660.1722 | 656.8193 |
7700 | 630 | 629.6739 | 627.5145 | 632.1150 | 628.5006 |
7300 | 584 | 584.4501 | 581.6303 | 586.0389 | 583.1820 |
7600 | 572 | 572.5130 | 569.3085 | 574.0554 | 571.3721 |
7450 | 541 | 540.6392 | 538.3216 | 542.9253 | 539.7519 |
7400 | 508 | 509.9819 | 505.4722 | 510.0512 | 508.4733 |
RMSE | 0.8064 | 2.3756 | 2.1638 | 1.2832 |
Geometric average Asian options are important exotic options. The mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion, chosen as a stochastic process, is capable of more accurately depicting the characteristics of long-range correlations. Since the Vasicek model is a very classical model, it is combined with the msfBm to simultaneously address the pricing issue. By using partial differential equations and multiple variable substitution methods, the valuation equations for the model are deduced. Finally, numerical computations are utilized to assess the effects of diverse parameters. The efficacy of our model is demonstrated through a comparative analysis of the pricing discrepancies for options between different models, which provides a reference for option pricing theory and practice.
Xinyi Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Funding acquisition; Chunyu Wang: Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
This work was supported by the General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province (2023SJYB1714).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] | F. Black, M. Scholes, The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, J. Polit. Econ., 81 (1973), 637–654. |
[2] |
K. Reddy, V. Clinton, Simulating stock prices using geometric Brownian motion: evidence from Australian companies, Australas. Account. Bu., 10 (2016), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v10i3.3 doi: 10.14453/aabfj.v10i3.3
![]() |
[3] |
K. Suganthi, G. Jayalalitha, Geometric Brownian motion in stock prices, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1377 (2019), 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1377/1/012016 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1377/1/012016
![]() |
[4] |
B. B. Mandelbrot, J. W. Van Ness, Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications, SIAM Rev., 10 (1968), 422–437. https://doi.org/10.1137/1010093 doi: 10.1137/1010093
![]() |
[5] |
L. C. G. Rogers, Arbitrage with fractional Brownian motion, Math. Financ., 7 (1997), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9965.00025 doi: 10.1111/1467-9965.00025
![]() |
[6] |
P. Cheridito, Arbitrage in fractional Brownian motion models, Finance Stochast, 7 (2003), 533–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007800300101 doi: 10.1007/s007800300101
![]() |
[7] |
T. Bojdecki, L. G. Gorostiza, A. Talarczyk, Sub-fractional Brownian motion and its relation to occupation times, Stat. Probabil. Lett., 69 (2004), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2004.06.035 doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2004.06.035
![]() |
[8] |
C. Tubor, Some properties of the sub-fractional Brownian motion, Stochastics, 79 (2007), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/17442500601100331 doi: 10.1080/17442500601100331
![]() |
[9] |
F. Xu, R. Li, The pricing formulas of compound option based on the sub-fractional Brownian motion model, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1053 (2018), 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1053/1/012027 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1053/1/012027
![]() |
[10] |
Z. Guo, Y. Liu, L. Dai, European option pricing under sub-fractional Brownian motion regime in discrete time, Fractal Fract., 8 (2023), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract8010013 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract8010013
![]() |
[11] |
X. Wang, Z. Yang, P. Cao, S. Wang, The closed-form option pricing formulas under the sub-fractional Poisson volatility models, Chaos Solitons Fract., 148 (2021), 111012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111012 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111012
![]() |
[12] |
H. Jafari, H. Farahani, An approximate approach to fuzzy stochastic differential equations under sub-fractional Brownian motion, Stoch. Dynam., 23 (2023), 2350017. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021949372350017X doi: 10.1142/S021949372350017X
![]() |
[13] |
X. Zhang, W. Xiao, Arbitrage with fractional Gaussian processes, Phys. A, 471 (2017), 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.12.064 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.12.064
![]() |
[14] |
C. EI-Nouty, M. Zili, On the sub-mixed fractional Brownian motion, Appl. Math. J. Chin. Univ., 30 (2015), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11766-015-3198-6 doi: 10.1007/s11766-015-3198-6
![]() |
[15] |
A. A. Araneda, N. Bertschinger, The sub-fractional CEV model, Phys. A, 573 (2021), 125974. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHYSA.2021.125974 doi: 10.1016/J.PHYSA.2021.125974
![]() |
[16] |
C. Bender, T. Sottinen, E. Valkeila, Pricing by hedging and no-arbitrage beyond semimartingales, Finance Stoch., 12 (2008), 441–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-008-0074-8 doi: 10.1007/s00780-008-0074-8
![]() |
[17] |
J. Guo, W. Kang, Y. Wang, Option pricing under sub-mixed fractional Brownian motion based on time-varying implied volatility using intelligent algorithms, Soft Comput., 27 (2023), 15225–15246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08647-2 doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-08647-2
![]() |
[18] |
C. Cai, Q. Wang, W. Xiao, Mixed sub-fractional Brownian motion and drift estimation of related Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, Commun. Math. Stat., 11 (2023), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40304-021-00245-8 doi: 10.1007/s40304-021-00245-8
![]() |
[19] |
O. Vasicek, An equilibrium characterization of the term structure, J. Financ. Econ., 5 (1977), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(77)90016-2 doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(77)90016-2
![]() |
[20] |
C. O. Ewald, Y. Wu, A. Zhang, Pricing Asian options with stochastic convenience yield and jumps, Quant. Financ., 23 (2023), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2022.2160799 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2022.2160799
![]() |
[21] |
Y. Yun, L. Gao, Pricing and analysis of European chooser option under the Vasicek interest rate mode, Int. J. Theor. Appl. Math., 6 (2020), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtam.20200602.11 doi: 10.11648/j.ijtam.20200602.11
![]() |
[22] |
Y. Fu, S. Zhou, X. Li, F. Rao, Multi-assets Asian rainbow options pricing with stochastic interest rates obeying the Vasicek model, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 10685–10710. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023542 doi: 10.3934/math.2023542
![]() |
[23] |
W. Xiao, W. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Chen, The valuation of equity warrants under the fractional Vasicek process of the short-term interest rate, Phys. A, 394 (2014), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2013.09.033 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2013.09.033
![]() |
[24] |
Y. Han, N. Li, Calibrating fractional Vasicek model, Commun. Stat., 52 (2023), 4429–4443. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2021.1994609 doi: 10.1080/03610926.2021.1994609
![]() |
[25] |
P. C. Lukman, B. D. Handari, H. Tasman, Study on European put option pricing with underlying asset zero-coupon bond and interest rate following the Vasicek model with jump, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1725 (2021), 012092. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1725/1/012092 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1725/1/012092
![]() |
[26] |
Z. Guo, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Option pricing of geometric Asian options in a subdiffusive Brownian motion regime, AIMS Math., 5 (2020), 5332–5343. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020342 doi: 10.3934/math.2020342
![]() |
[27] | B. B. Mandelbrot, Statistical methodology for nonperiodic cycles: from the covariance to R/S analysis, Ann. Econ. Soc. Meas., 1 (1972), 259–290. |
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 0.2435 | 0.0005 | 1.8389 | 0.2208 |
23 | 0.5498 | 0.0066 | 2.8183 | 0.5202 |
26 | 1.0480 | 0.0426 | 3.9897 | 1.0211 |
29 | 1.7685 | 0.1748 | 5.3360 | 1.7589 |
32 | 2.7255 | 0.5146 | 6.8397 | 2.7506 |
35 | 3.9194 | 1.1863 | 8.4843 | 3.9968 |
38 | 5.3398 | 2.2779 | 10.2543 | 5.4858 |
41 | 6.9698 | 3.8119 | 12.1360 | 7.1977 |
44 | 8.7884 | 5.7485 | 14.1169 | 9.1087 |
47 | 10.7735 | 8.0118 | 16.1861 | 11.1933 |
50 | 12.9033 | 10.5160 | 18.3337 | 13.4270 |
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 5.1411 | 0.2085 | 2.3002 | 0.9705 |
23 | 7.4411 | 0.4863 | 4.8981 | 2.7039 |
26 | 9.8921 | 0.9501 | 7.6053 | 4.5926 |
29 | 12.4656 | 1.6332 | 10.3988 | 6.6067 |
32 | 15.1403 | 2.5519 | 13.2620 | 8.7238 |
35 | 17.8998 | 3.7072 | 16.1825 | 10.9266 |
38 | 20.7312 | 5.0881 | 19.1509 | 13.2019 |
41 | 23.6243 | 6.6762 | 22.1600 | 15.5389 |
44 | 26.5707 | 8.4490 | 25.2039 | 17.9291 |
47 | 29.5636 | 10.3825 | 28.2781 | 20.3655 |
50 | 32.5974 | 12.4535 | 31.3787 | 22.8423 |
K | Market price | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
7800 | 750 | 750.8065 | 747.9587 | 752.3958 | 749.0275 |
7500 | 694 | 693.9719 | 691.9232 | 696.2100 | 692.5075 |
7850 | 737 | 737.8847 | 734.8516 | 739.3860 | 736.1443 |
7900 | 742 | 741.1881 | 739.7236 | 744.2764 | 739.8953 |
7550 | 670 | 669.3538 | 667.6885 | 672.1255 | 668.1860 |
7650 | 658 | 658.1121 | 655.5799 | 660.1722 | 656.8193 |
7700 | 630 | 629.6739 | 627.5145 | 632.1150 | 628.5006 |
7300 | 584 | 584.4501 | 581.6303 | 586.0389 | 583.1820 |
7600 | 572 | 572.5130 | 569.3085 | 574.0554 | 571.3721 |
7450 | 541 | 540.6392 | 538.3216 | 542.9253 | 539.7519 |
7400 | 508 | 509.9819 | 505.4722 | 510.0512 | 508.4733 |
RMSE | 0.8064 | 2.3756 | 2.1638 | 1.2832 |
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 0.2435 | 0.0005 | 1.8389 | 0.2208 |
23 | 0.5498 | 0.0066 | 2.8183 | 0.5202 |
26 | 1.0480 | 0.0426 | 3.9897 | 1.0211 |
29 | 1.7685 | 0.1748 | 5.3360 | 1.7589 |
32 | 2.7255 | 0.5146 | 6.8397 | 2.7506 |
35 | 3.9194 | 1.1863 | 8.4843 | 3.9968 |
38 | 5.3398 | 2.2779 | 10.2543 | 5.4858 |
41 | 6.9698 | 3.8119 | 12.1360 | 7.1977 |
44 | 8.7884 | 5.7485 | 14.1169 | 9.1087 |
47 | 10.7735 | 8.0118 | 16.1861 | 11.1933 |
50 | 12.9033 | 10.5160 | 18.3337 | 13.4270 |
S | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
20 | 5.1411 | 0.2085 | 2.3002 | 0.9705 |
23 | 7.4411 | 0.4863 | 4.8981 | 2.7039 |
26 | 9.8921 | 0.9501 | 7.6053 | 4.5926 |
29 | 12.4656 | 1.6332 | 10.3988 | 6.6067 |
32 | 15.1403 | 2.5519 | 13.2620 | 8.7238 |
35 | 17.8998 | 3.7072 | 16.1825 | 10.9266 |
38 | 20.7312 | 5.0881 | 19.1509 | 13.2019 |
41 | 23.6243 | 6.6762 | 22.1600 | 15.5389 |
44 | 26.5707 | 8.4490 | 25.2039 | 17.9291 |
47 | 29.5636 | 10.3825 | 28.2781 | 20.3655 |
50 | 32.5974 | 12.4535 | 31.3787 | 22.8423 |
K | Market price | Our price | VBS | VVasicek | VsfBm - Vasicek |
7800 | 750 | 750.8065 | 747.9587 | 752.3958 | 749.0275 |
7500 | 694 | 693.9719 | 691.9232 | 696.2100 | 692.5075 |
7850 | 737 | 737.8847 | 734.8516 | 739.3860 | 736.1443 |
7900 | 742 | 741.1881 | 739.7236 | 744.2764 | 739.8953 |
7550 | 670 | 669.3538 | 667.6885 | 672.1255 | 668.1860 |
7650 | 658 | 658.1121 | 655.5799 | 660.1722 | 656.8193 |
7700 | 630 | 629.6739 | 627.5145 | 632.1150 | 628.5006 |
7300 | 584 | 584.4501 | 581.6303 | 586.0389 | 583.1820 |
7600 | 572 | 572.5130 | 569.3085 | 574.0554 | 571.3721 |
7450 | 541 | 540.6392 | 538.3216 | 542.9253 | 539.7519 |
7400 | 508 | 509.9819 | 505.4722 | 510.0512 | 508.4733 |
RMSE | 0.8064 | 2.3756 | 2.1638 | 1.2832 |