Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Accelerated American option pricing with deep neural networks

  • Received: 01 March 2023 Revised: 20 April 2023 Accepted: 23 April 2023 Published: 04 May 2023
  • JEL Codes: C45, C63, G13

  • Given the competitiveness of a market-making environment, the ability to speedily quote option prices consistent with an ever-changing market environment is essential. Thus, the smallest acceleration or improvement over traditional pricing methods is crucial to avoid arbitrage. We propose a method for accelerating the pricing of American options to near-instantaneous using a feed-forward neural network. This neural network is trained over the chosen (e.g., Heston) stochastic volatility specification. Such an approach facilitates parameter interpretability, as generally required by the regulators, and establishes our method in the area of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for finance. We show that the proposed deep explainable pricer induces a speed-accuracy trade-off compared to the typical Monte Carlo or Partial Differential Equation-based pricing methods. Moreover, the proposed approach allows for pricing derivatives with path-dependent and more complex payoffs and is, given the sufficient accuracy of computation and its tractable nature, applicable in a market-making environment.

    Citation: David Anderson, Urban Ulrych. Accelerated American option pricing with deep neural networks[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(2): 207-228. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023011

    Related Papers:

    [1] Bin He . Developing a leap-frog meshless methods with radial basis functions for modeling of electromagnetic concentrator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 17133-17149. doi: 10.3934/math.2022943
    [2] Cheng Chen . Hyperbolic function solutions of time-fractional Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation with variable-coefficients. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10378-10386. doi: 10.3934/math.2022578
    [3] Zihan Yue, Wei Jiang, Boying Wu, Biao Zhang . A meshless method based on the Laplace transform for multi-term time-space fractional diffusion equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 7040-7062. doi: 10.3934/math.2024343
    [4] Jing Li, Linlin Dai, Kamran, Waqas Nazeer . Numerical solution of multi-term time fractional wave diffusion equation using transform based local meshless method and quadrature. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5813-5838. doi: 10.3934/math.2020373
    [5] Muhammad Imran Liaqat, Sina Etemad, Shahram Rezapour, Choonkil Park . A novel analytical Aboodh residual power series method for solving linear and nonlinear time-fractional partial differential equations with variable coefficients. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16917-16948. doi: 10.3934/math.2022929
    [6] A. E. Matouk, Ismail Gad Ameen, Yasmeen Ahmed Gaber . Analyzing the dynamics of fractional spatio-temporal SEIR epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30838-30863. doi: 10.3934/math.20241489
    [7] Ali Khalouta, Abdelouahab Kadem . A new computational for approximate analytical solutions of nonlinear time-fractional wave-like equations with variable coefficients. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(1): 1-14. doi: 10.3934/math.2020001
    [8] Hijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Imtiaz Ahmad, Mohamed Omri, Maged F. Alotaibi . A meshless method for numerical solutions of linear and nonlinear time-fractional Black-Scholes models. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19677-19698. doi: 10.3934/math.20231003
    [9] Abdul Samad, Imran Siddique, Fahd Jarad . Meshfree numerical integration for some challenging multi-term fractional order PDEs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14249-14269. doi: 10.3934/math.2022785
    [10] Abdul Samad, Imran Siddique, Zareen A. Khan . Meshfree numerical approach for some time-space dependent order partial differential equations in porous media. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13162-13180. doi: 10.3934/math.2023665
  • Given the competitiveness of a market-making environment, the ability to speedily quote option prices consistent with an ever-changing market environment is essential. Thus, the smallest acceleration or improvement over traditional pricing methods is crucial to avoid arbitrage. We propose a method for accelerating the pricing of American options to near-instantaneous using a feed-forward neural network. This neural network is trained over the chosen (e.g., Heston) stochastic volatility specification. Such an approach facilitates parameter interpretability, as generally required by the regulators, and establishes our method in the area of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for finance. We show that the proposed deep explainable pricer induces a speed-accuracy trade-off compared to the typical Monte Carlo or Partial Differential Equation-based pricing methods. Moreover, the proposed approach allows for pricing derivatives with path-dependent and more complex payoffs and is, given the sufficient accuracy of computation and its tractable nature, applicable in a market-making environment.



    The time-fractional partial differential equation (TFPDE) is one of the most widely studied fractional partial differential equations in mathematics and physics and has captured continued interests from researchers, due to its widespread applications [1]. For example, it is frequently used to model anomalous diffusion in porous media [2,3,4,5,6], where heterogeneities cause the diffusion rate to deviate from classical models. Additionally, the TFPDEs are employed to describe the propagation dynamics of light beams [7,8] and heat transfer in Maxwell fluids [9]. Therefore, it is very significant to study the properties of this kind of equation not only in practice but also in theory. In this paper, we consider the following TFPDEs with variable coefficients [10]:

    Dαtu(x,t)=di=1(ai(x,t)2ux2i+bi(x,t)uxi)+h(x,t),xΩ,t[t0,tf], (1.1)

    subjected to the initial and boundary conditions:

    u(x,t0)=f(x),xΩ, (1.2)
    u(x,t)=g(t),xΩ,t0<ttf, (1.3)

    where 0<α1, x is a spatial point, t is the time, t0 and tf represent the initial and final time, ΩRd, d=1,2 is a bounded domain with boundary Γ=Ω, ai(x,t), bi(x,t), h(x,t), f(x), and g(t) are known functions. Dαtu(x,t) is the time-fractional derivative, which has several different definitions [11,12]. Commonly used fractional derivatives include the Riemann-Liouville, Caputo, and Grunwald-Letnikov derivatives. In this study, we consider the following Caputo definition:

    Dαtu(x,t)={1Γ(1α)t0(ts)αu(x,s)sds,0<α<1,u(x,t)t,α=1. (1.4)
    Dαtu(x,t)={1Γ(2α)t0(ts)1α2u(x,s)s2ds,1<α<2,u2(x,t)t2,α=2. (1.5)

    The exact analytical solutions to the above TFPDEs are possible only for a few simple cases, but are virtually impossible for most problems, which greatly limits their applications. On the contrary, this enormously promotes the development of various numerical algorithms [13,14,15,16]. It is well known that the finite element, finite difference, boundary element, and meshless/meshfree methods are commonly used approaches for solving various integer/fractional order partial differential equations [17,18,19,20]. Among them, meshless methods have become quite popular in recent years thanks to their ease of implementation and interactive applications. Representative methods in this category include the Galerkin meshless method [21,22], the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method [23,24], corrected smoothed particle hydrodynamics [25,26], the radial basis function collocation method [27,28], the generalized finite difference method [29,30,31], the backward substitution method [32,33], and localized semi-analytical collocation methods [34,35,36,37]. In most published works, however, these methods require the discretization of the temporal derivatives by using implicit, explicit, Runge-Kutta or any other approaches [38,39], which may be computationally expensive and sometimes mathematically complicated. To address these issues, numerous scholars in recent years have proposed space-time combined meshless methods [40,41,42,43,44] for solving various partial differential equations numerically.

    Inspired by previous work [41], this paper makes a first attempt to extend the recently proposed spatio-temporal meshless method (STMM) to the solutions of TFPDEs with variable coefficients. The STMM method first constructs a multiquadric radial basis function (ST-MQ-RBF) in terms of the space-time distance and then directly approximates the solution of Eqs (1.1)–(1.3) by a linear combination of the presented ST-MQ-RBFs at scattered nodes. Compared to the traditional RBF method, the main advantage of the developed approach lies in its complete avoidance of the discretization process for time-fractional-order derivatives, employing the same RBF approximation in both time and space. As a result, the method is simpler, more straightforward, easier to implement, and relatively more accurate.

    The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, the STMM for spatial and temporal discretization simultaneously of TFPDEs is proposed, where the numerical approximation for time-fractional derivative is described. Section 3 briefly introduces a multiple-scale technique for solving the ill-conditioned system. In Section 4, numerical examples are studied and discussed. Finally, conclusions and remarks are presented in Section 5.

    The basic idea of STMM is to introduce a space-time distance into the MQ-RBF and then approximate the solutions of the partial differential equations by using the new ST-MQ-RBFs in the whole space-time domain without the differential approximation of time derivatives. For the above TFPDEs with variable coefficients, N=Ni+N0+Nb nodes (xi,ti)Ni=1 should be distributed on the space-time domain Ωst=Ω×[t0,tf] as shown in Figure 1, where Ni,N0,Nb represent the numbers of nodes in the domain, on the initial boundary and on the time boundary, respectively. For the ith node, the following MQ-RBF formulation should hold:

    Figure 1.  The distribution of nodes in the space-time domain Ωst=Ω×[t0,tf]: (a) one-dimension; (b) two-dimension.
    u(xi,ti)=Nj=1λjϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj), (2.1)

    where λj are the unknown coefficients, ϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj) are the MQ-RBFs given as follows:

    ϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)=rij2+c2, (2.2)

    in which c is the shape parameter, rij denotes the space-time distance between the points (xi,ti) and (xj,tj), which can be written as

    rij=dk=1(xikxjk)2+(titj)2. (2.3)

    Like the traditional MQ-RBF method, the variables at interior points should satisfy the governing equation, and the variables at boundary points should satisfy initial and boundary conditions. With this regard, we have

    Nj=1λj(Dαtiϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)dk=1(ak(x,t)2ux2k+bk(x,t)uxk))=h(xi,ti), i=1,...,Ni, (2.4)
    Nj=1λjϕ(xi,t0;xj,tj)=f(xi),xiΩ,i=Ni+1,...,Ni+N0, (2.5)
    Nj=1λjϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)=g1(ti),xiΩ,i=Ni+N0+1,...,Ni+N0+Nb. (2.6)

    The spatial derivatives of the STRBFs in Eq (2.4) can be easily calculated. Here, we concern the calculation of the time-fractional derivative Dαtiϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj) in Eq (2.4). For α=1, it can be computed by the following expression:

    Dαtiϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)=ϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)ti=titjrij2+c2. (2.7)

    For 0<α<1, from the definition (1.4) of time-fractional derivative, using Gauss numerical integration, we have

    Dαtiϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)=1Γ(1α)ti0(tis)αϕ(xi,s;xj,tj)sds=1Γ(1α)ti0(stj)(tis)αdk=1(xikxjk)2+(stj)2+c2ds
    =1Γ(1α)11((tiξ+ti)/2tj)(ti(tiξ+ti)/2)αti/2dk=1(xikxjk)2+((tiξ+ti)/2tj)2+c2dξ=1Γ(1α)Ngk=1ωkψ(ξk), (2.8)

    where ωk and ξk are the nodes and weights of the Gaussian quadrature, Ng is the number of Gaussian nodes (in this study, Ng is set as 16), and

    ψ(ξk)=((tiξk+ti)/2tj)(ti(tiξk+ti)/2)αti/2dk=1(xikxjk)2+((tiξk+ti)/2tj)2+c2. (2.9)

    For 1<α<2,

    Dαtiϕ(xi,ti;xj,tj)=1Γ(2α)ti0(tis)1α2ϕ(xi,s;xj,tj)s2ds=1Γ(2α)ti0(dk=1(xikxjk)2+2c2)(tis)1α(dk=1(xikxjk)2+(stj)2+c2)3/2ds=1Γ(2α)11(dk=1(xikxjk)2+2c2)(ti(tiξ+ti)/2)1αti/2(dk=1(xikxjk)2+((tiξ+ti)/2tj)2+c2)3/2dξ=1Γ(2α)Ngk=1ωkψ(ξk), (2.10)
    ψ(ξk)=(dk=1(xikxjk)2+2c2)(ti(tiξ+ti)/2)1αti/2(dk=1(xikxjk)2+((tiξ+ti)/2tj)2+c2)3/2. (2.11)

    By combining Eqs (2.4)–(2.6), a resultant linear system in matrix form can be generalized:

    Aλ=b, (2.12)

    where AN×N is the coefficient matrix, λ=[λ1,λ2,...,λN]T is a vector consisting of the undetermined coefficients; bN×1 is a vector consisting of the right-hand sides in Eqs (2.4)–(2.6). As long as Eq (2.12) is solved efficiently (that is to say, λ can be obtained accurately), the unknown variable at an arbitrary point (x,t) in the considered space-time box can be acquired by

    u(x,t)=Nj=1λjϕ(x,t;xj,tj). (2.13)

    For the RBF method, in general, the algebraic equation (2.12) is ill-conditioned. A pre-conditioner is required to reduce the condition number and to yield a regular solution. The multiple scale technique [45,46,47,48,49] is an effective pre-conditioner tool and thus is applied in this paper. Here, we will give a brief review of this method.

    Let A=[A1A2...AN], where {Ai}Ni=1 are column vectors of the matrix A. By the multiple scale technique, Eq (2.12) can be reformulated as follows:

    Aλ=b, (3.1)

    where

    A=[A1A12A2A22ANAN2], (3.2)

    and

    λ=[λ1λ2λN]T=[λ1A12λ2A22λnAN2]T. (3.3)

    The condition number of the matrix A will be greatly reduced due to the reduction of round-off errors. After the system of Eq (3.1) is solved, the solution λ=(λ1,λ2,...,λn)T of Eq (2.12) can be recovered from Eq (3.3) as follows:

    λ=[λ1/λ1A12A12λ2/λ2A22A22λN/λNAN2AN2]T. (3.4)

    It should be pointed out that Eq (3.1) is solved using the MATLAB command 'A\B'.

    In this section, two numerical examples including one- and two-dimensional TFPDEs with both regular and irregular geometries are studied by using regular and irregular nodes to illustrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed space-time meshless method. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed STMM, the following L-error, L2-error and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) are adopted:

    L - error=max1jM|unum(xj,tj)uexa(xj,tj)|,L2 - error=Mj=1(unum(xj,tj)uexa(xj,tj))2,RMSE=1MMj=1(unum(xj,tj)uexa(xj,tj))2, (4.1)

    where M is the number of test points, uexa and unum represent the exact and numerical solutions at the jth test point, respectively.

    Example 1. Consider the following two one-dimensional TFPDEs with constant and variable coefficients on the domain Ωst=[0,1]×[0,1]:

    CaseI:Dαtu(x,t)=2u(x,t)x2u(x,t)x+2t2αΓ(3α)+2x2, (4.2)
    CaseII:Dαtu(x,t)=(x2+t+1)2u(x,t)x2t2exu(x,t)x+2t2αΓ(3α)2(x2+t)+2t2xex2. (4.3)

    The exact solution of the above two cases is u (x,t)=x2+t2. The initial and boundary conditions of this problem are

    u(x,0)=x2,x[0,1], (4.4)
    u(0,t)=t2,u(1,t)=1+t2,t[0,1]. (4.5)

    First, we consider the TFPDE with constant coefficients in Case I. Taking Ni interior nodes as test points, the numerical accuracy of the proposed STMM for Case I is tested by using different selection strategies of shape parameter c. Table 1 lists the L-errors and RMSEs under different values of α, and N=1840. For details of the three strategies mentioned in Table 1, we refer to [49]. As can be seen, the three techniques of shape parameter optimization are all efficient and accurate, and thus the first approach is adopted in the following calculations. It can also be observed that the accuracy of the algorithm decreases with the increase of α. Moreover, the comparison between the numerical errors obtained by the present method with those reported in [34] is shown in Table 2, where we set δt=0.01, N=5151, N0=51, Nt=2×100, Ni=49×100 and α=0.5 for the comparison. The results indicate that the proposed scheme is more accurate than that in [50]. The number of nodes was kept constant, and Table 3 compares the condition numbers of the coefficient matrix with and without the use of multiscale techniques. It can be seen that the introduction of multiscale techniques significantly reduces the condition number. It is worth noting that the computational results for both cases are essentially the same, so they are not presented here.

    Table 1.  The errors for Case I under different shape parameter optimizations.
    c α=0.2 α=0.6
    L-error RMSE L-error RMSE
    Hardy [51] 4.629e-04 2.629e-04 5.101e-03 3.685e-03
    Fasshauer [52] 2.177e-04 1.129e-04 5.014e-03 3.634e-03
    Frank [53] 1.809e-04 1.018e-04 5.022e-03 3.640e-03

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  The comparison of errors for the Case I under different times.
    t Method in Ref. [50] Present method
    L-error L2-error L-error L2-error
    0.1 6.086e-02 2.613e-01 1.709e-04 1.090e-04
    0.5 2.958e-02 1.277e-01 2.155e-03 1.559e-03
    1.0 2.114e-02 9.134e-02 6.688e-03 4.904e-03

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Condition numbers of the STMM with and without the multiple scale technique.
    Fractional orders Condition numbers
    With multiple scale technique Without multiple scale technique
    0.2 1.029e+09 1.264e+09
    0.5 1.036e+09 1.265e+09
    0.8 1.004e+09 1.234e+09

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Next, we consider the TFPDE with variable coefficients in Case II. The convergence of the proposed algorithm is investigated when α=0.2 and 0.6, and the absolute error curves are illustrated in Figure 2. The results demonstrate that the STMM has high precision and good convergence. It is also noted that the smaller the α, the faster the convergence. As depicted in Figure 3, the graphs of the numerical solution and absolute error with α=0.5 further confirm the validity and accuracy of the present method for solving the TFPDE with variable coefficients.

    Figure 2.  Convergence curves of the numerical results for Case II with (a) α=0.2, and (b) α=0.6.
    Figure 3.  Surfaces of (a) numerical solution and (b) absolute error for Case II with α=0.5.

    Then, Figure 4 presents the errors with respect to the nodal spacing to show the convergence in space. It can be found that as the nodal spacing decreases, the algorithm demonstrates a clear convergence trend. When the nodal spacing becomes sufficiently small, the calculation accuracy stabilizes.

    Figure 4.  Errors of the STMM with respect to the nodal spacing (h) for Case II with α=0.5.

    Finally, we examined the impact of the number of Gaussian points on the accuracy of the algorithm. It can be seen from Table 4 that the algorithm shows a convergence trend as the number of Gauss points increases. Considering that the change in error is minimal, using 16 Gauss points is sufficient to ensure accuracy and save computation time.

    Table 4.  The errors for Case II with α = 0.5 under different numbers of Gaussian points.
    Ng 4 8 12 16 20
    L-error 1.192e-02 6.532e-03 4.664e-03 3.688e-03 3.097e-03
    RMSE 4.764e-03 2.548e-03 1.758e-03 1.359e-03 1.108e-03

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Example 2. Consider the following two-dimensional time fractional advection-diffusion equation on Ω=[0,1]×[0,1] [54]:

    Dαtu=2ux2+2uy2uxuy+0.5Γ(3+α)t2ex+y,(x,y)Ω,t>0, (4.6)

    with the following initial and boundary conditions:

    u(x,y,0)=0,(x,y)Ω, (4.7)
    u(x,y,t)=t2+αex+y,(x,y)Ω,t>0. (4.8)

    The exact solution of this problem can be given by

    u(x,y,t)=t2+αex+y. (4.9)

    To investigate the influence of the node distribution on the numerical solution, we consider two types of node distribution (regular nodes and irregular nodes) as shown in Figure 5. When α=0.5 and a total of 4560 nodes are used, the analytical solution and absolute errors on the physical domain at t=1.0 with regular and irregular nodal distributions are illustrated in Figure 6. These figures have proven that the newly proposed meshless approach has very good accuracy even using irregular nodal distributions.

    Figure 5.  Distributions of nodes for the rectangular domain: (a) regular nodal distribution; (b) irregular nodal distribution.
    Figure 6.  Numerical results of the STMM: (a) analytical solution and absolute errors for (b) regular nodal distribution and (c) irregular nodal distribution, where N = 4560, and α=0.5.

    Figure 7 presents the absolute errors at the point (0.5, 0.5, t) for the various fractional orders. Noted that the STMM has high computational accuracy, and the smaller the α, the higher the accuracy, which is the same as one-dimensional problems. Furthermore, the convergence of the proposed meshless method is investigated in Table 5. As can be observed, the algorithm converges as the number of nodes increases.

    Figure 7.  Absolute errors at the point (0.5, 0.5, t) for different fractional orders obtained by the STMM with regular nodal distribution different and N = 4560.
    Table 5.  The errors for Example 2 under different number of nodes, where α=0.5.
    N 270 1540 4560 10080 18850
    L-error 4.908 e-02 3.708e-02 3.159e-02 2.758e-02 2.442e-02
    RMSE 3.703e-03 2.190e-03 1.675 e-03 1.422e-03 1.278e-03

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Finally, the proposed methodology is tested on an irregular domain Ω shown in Figure 8. Using the same exact solution, initial and boundary conditions, we consider the following two-dimensional time fractional PDE with variable coefficients:

    Figure 8.  Distributions of nodes for the irregular domain in Example 2: (a) regular nodal distribution; (b) irregular nodal distribution.
    Dαtu=(x2+t+1)2ux2+(y2t1)2uy2+t2exux+t2eyuy+h(x,y,t),(x,y)Ω,t>0, (4.10)

    where h(x,y,t)=0.5Γ(3+α)t2ex+y(x2+y2+(ex+ey)t2)t(2+α)ex+y. The boundary Ω of the computational domain is defined by the following parametric equation:

    Ω={(x,y)|x=ρ(θ)cos(θ),y=ρ(θ)sin(θ),0θ2π}, (4.11)

    where ρ(θ)=3+cos(θπ/5)sin(4θ)5+sin(2θ).

    Consider the regular and irregular nodal distributions on the irregular geometry shown in Figure 8. The profiles of absolute errors t=1.0 for these two cases of nodal distribution are depicted in Figure 9, where N = 2646 and α=0.5. It can be seen that the higher accuracy is achieved for different types of node distribution, although the regular nodes are slightly better than irregular nodes.

    Figure 9.  Profiles of absolute errors for Example 2: (a) regular nodal distribution; (b) irregular nodal distribution, where α=0.5 and N = 2646.

    A spatio-temporal meshless method is developed for the numerical solution of the TFPDEs with variable coefficients. The developed scheme can directly approximate the solutions of fractional partial differential equations within a space–time scale framework and is very simple mathematically, truly meshless, free of difference approximation, and computationally cost-effective. The numerical experiments further demonstrate the efficiency, precision, and convergence of the proposed STMM for the TFPDEs with variable coefficients.

    The non-local nature of fractional derivatives causes the solution's behavior to be influenced by the entire temporal or spatial domain, making numerical solutions inherently challenging. The introduction of variable coefficients further increases the problem's nonlinearity, rendering traditional numerical methods cumbersome and accuracy-limited. The method presented in this paper can efficiently approximate the numerical solution for such problems in a straightforward manner without the need for specialized time discretization techniques, making it applicable to various types of variable coefficient fractional differential equations. It provides a robust tool for solving time fractional PDEs with variable coefficients, thus advancing the field and offering new possibilities for tackling complex real-world problems in engineering and science.

    The present scheme can be extended to other fractional partial differential equations, such as the time-space fractional PDEs and complicated high-order and high-dimensional problems. Moreover, the study on local STMM is conducive to the solution of long-time and large-scale dynamic problems. It should be pointed out that the shape parameter in the STMM has a certain influence on the accuracy of the numerical solution, and thus the determination technique of the optimal shape parameter still needs to be discussed in depth. Otherwise, the new ST-RBFs should be studied in order to avert or greatly reduce the influence of shape parameters.

    Xiangyun Qiu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Simulation analysis, Writing–original draft; Xingxing Yue: Methodology, Project administration, Supervision. Both authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

    This work was supported by National Key R & D Program of China (Grant No. 2023YFB2503900).

    The authors declare no competing financial interests.



    [1] AitSahlia F, Goswami M, Guha S (2010) American option pricing under stochastic volatility: an efficient numerical approach. Comput Manag Sci 7: 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-008-0082-3 doi: 10.1007/s10287-008-0082-3
    [2] Anders U, Korn O, Schmitt C (1998) Improving the pricing of options: a neural network approach. J Forecasting 17: 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-131X(1998090)17:5/6<369::AID-FOR702>3.0.CO;2-S doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-131X(1998090)17:5/6<369::AID-FOR702>3.0.CO;2-S
    [3] Andersen L, Lake M, Offengenden D (2016) High performance American option pricing. J Comput Financ 20: 39–87. https://doi.org/10.21314/JCF.2016.312 doi: 10.21314/JCF.2016.312
    [4] Andreou PC, Charalambous C, Martzoukos SH (2010) Generalized parameter functions for option pricing. J Bank Financ 34: 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.08.027 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.08.027
    [5] Arrieta AB, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Ser JD, et al. (2020) Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion 58: 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
    [6] Ascione G, Mehrdoust F, Orlando G, et al. (2023) Foreign exchange options on Heston-CIR model under Lévy process framework. Appl Math Comput 446: 127851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2023.127851 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2023.127851
    [7] Barndorff-Nielsen OE, Stelzer R (2013) The multivariate supOU stochastic volatility model. Math Financ 23: 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9965.2011.00494.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9965.2011.00494.x
    [8] Bayer C, Friz P, Gatheral J (2016) Pricing under rough volatility. Quant Financ 16: 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2015.1099717 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2015.1099717
    [9] Bayer C, Tempone R, Wolfers S (2020) Pricing American options by exercise rate optimization. Quant Financ 20: 1749–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2020.1750678 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2020.1750678
    [10] Becker S, Cheridito P, Jentzen A (2020) Pricing and hedging American-style options with deep learning. J Risk Financ Manag 13: 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13070158 doi: 10.3390/jrfm13070158
    [11] Black F, Scholes M, Merton R (1973) The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J Polit Econ 81: 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1086/260062 doi: 10.1086/260062
    [12] Boyle P (1986) Option valuation using a three-jump process. Int Options J 3: 7–12.
    [13] Boyle P, Broadie M, Glasserman P (1997) Monte Carlo methods for security pricing. J Econ Dyn Control 21: 1267–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1889(97)00028-6 doi: 10.1016/S0165-1889(97)00028-6
    [14] Brennan M, Schwartz E (1977) The valuation of American put options. J Financ 32: 449–462. https://doi.org/10.2307/2326779 doi: 10.2307/2326779
    [15] Buehler H, Gonon L, Teichmann J, et al. (2019) Deep hedging. Quant Financ 19: 1271–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2019.1571683 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2019.1571683
    [16] Caterini A, Chang DE (2018) Deep Neural Networks in a Mathematical Framework. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75304-1
    [17] Chen F, Sutcliffe C (2012) Pricing and hedging short sterling options using neural networks. Intell Syst Account Financ Manag 19: 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.336 doi: 10.1002/isaf.336
    [18] Chen Y, Wan JWL (2021) Deep neural network framework based on backward stochastic differential equations for pricing and hedging American options in high dimensions. Quant Financ 21: 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2020.1788219 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2020.1788219
    [19] Cont R (2001) Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues. Quant Financ 1: 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/713665670 doi: 10.1080/713665670
    [20] Cox JC, Ross SA, Rubinstein M (1979) Option pricing: A simplified approach. J Financ Econ 7: 229–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(79)90015-1 doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(79)90015-1
    [21] Crank J, Nicolson P (1947) A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type. Math Proc Cambridge 43: 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100023197 doi: 10.1017/S0305004100023197
    [22] Directive-65/EU (2014) Directive 2014/65/eu of the european parliament and of the council of 15 may 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending directive 2002/92/ec and directive 2011/61/eu. Official Journal of the European Union.
    [23] Dugas C, Bengio Y, Bélisle F, et al. (2009) Incorporating functional knowledge in neural networks. J Mach Learn Res 10: 1239–1262.
    [24] Farkas W, Ferrari F, Ulrych U (2022) Pricing autocallables under local-stochastic volatility. Front Math Financ 1: 575–610. https://doi.org/10.3934/fmf.2022008 doi: 10.3934/fmf.2022008
    [25] Fecamp S, Mikael J, Warin X (2019) Risk management with machine-learning-based algorithms. Working paper.
    [26] Ferguson R, Green A (2018) Deeply learning derivatives. Available at SSRN.
    [27] Garcia R, Gençay R (2000) Pricing and hedging derivative securities with neural networks and a homogeneity hint. J Econometrics 94: 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00018-4 doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00018-4
    [28] Gaspar RM, Lopes SD, Sequeira B (2020) Neural network pricing of American put options. Risks 8: 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks8030073 doi: 10.3390/risks8030073
    [29] Gatheral J, Jaisson T, Rosenbaum M (2018) Volatility is rough. Quant Financ 18: 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2017.1393551 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2017.1393551
    [30] Glasserman P, Kim KK (2011) Gamma expansion of the Heston stochastic volatility model. Financ Stoch 15: 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-009-0115-y doi: 10.1007/s00780-009-0115-y
    [31] Glau K, Kressner D, Statti F (2020) Low-rank tensor approximation for Chebyshev interpolation in parametric option pricing. SIAM J Financ Math 11: 897–927. https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1244172 doi: 10.1137/19M1244172
    [32] Gradojevic N, Gençay R, Kukolj D (2009) Option pricing with modular neural networks. IEEE T Neural Networ 20: 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNN.2008.2011130 doi: 10.1109/TNN.2008.2011130
    [33] Hamida SB, Cont R (2005) Recovering volatility from option prices by evolutionary optimization. J Comput Financ 8: 43–76. https://doi.org/10.21314/JCF.2005.130 doi: 10.21314/JCF.2005.130
    [34] He XJ, Lin S (2023a) Analytically pricing exchange options with stochastic liquidity and regime switching. J Futures Markets 43: 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22403 doi: 10.1002/fut.22403
    [35] He XJ, Lin S (2023b) A closed-form pricing formula for European options under a new three-factor stochastic volatility model with regime switching. Jpn J Ind Appl Math40: 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13160-022-00538-7 doi: 10.1007/s13160-022-00538-7
    [36] Hernandez A (2016) Model calibration with neural networks. Available at SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2812140 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2812140
    [37] Heston SL (1993) A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. Rev Financ Stud 6: 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/6.2.327 doi: 10.1093/rfs/6.2.327
    [38] Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feed-forward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 doi: 10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8
    [39] Horvath B, Muguruza A, Tomas M (2021) Deep learning volatility: a deep neural network perspective on pricing and calibration in (rough) volatility models. Quant Financ 21: 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2020.1817974 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2020.1817974
    [40] Hutchinson JM, Lo AW, Poggio T (1994) A nonparametric approach to pricing and hedging derivative securities via learning networks. J Financ 49: 851–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb00081.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb00081.x
    [41] Ikonen S, Toivanen J (2004) Operator splitting methods for American option pricing. Appl Math Lett 17: 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2004.06.010 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2004.06.010
    [42] Ikonen S, Toivanen J (2007) Pricing American options using lu decomposition. Numer Meth Part D E 24: 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2004.06.010 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2004.06.010
    [43] Itkin A (2019) Deep learning calibration of option pricing models: some pitfalls and solutions. Working paper.
    [44] Kelly DL (1994) Valuing and hedging American put options using neural networks. Available from: http://moya.bus.miami.edu/dkelly/papers/options.pdf
    [45] Kingma DP, Ba J (2014) Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. Third International Conference For Learning Representations, San Diego.
    [46] Kohler M, Krżyzak A, Todorovic N (2010) Pricing of high-dimensional American options by neural networks. Math Financ 20: 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9965.2010.00404.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9965.2010.00404.x
    [47] Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2017) ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv Neural Inf Processing Syst 25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3065386 doi: 10.1145/3065386
    [48] Lajbcygier PR, Connor JT (1997) Improved option pricing using artificial neural networks and bootstrap methods. Int J Neural Syst 8: 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129065797000446 doi: 10.1142/S0129065797000446
    [49] Larguinho M, Dias JC, Braumann CA (2022) Pricing and hedging bond options and sinking-fund bonds under the CIR model. Quant Financ Econ 6: 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2022001 doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022001
    [50] Lin S, He XJ (2023) Analytically pricing variance and volatility swaps with stochastic volatility, stochastic equilibrium level and regime switching. Expert Syst Appl 217: 119592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119592 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119592
    [51] Liu S, Borovykh A, Grzelak LA, et al. (2019a) A neural network-based framework for financial model calibration. J Math Ind 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13362-019-0066-7 doi: 10.1186/s13362-019-0066-7
    [52] Liu S, Oosterlee C, Bohte S (2019b) Pricing options and computing implied volatilities using neural networks. Risks 7: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks7010016 doi: 10.3390/risks7010016
    [53] Longstaff FA, Schwartz ES (2001) Valuing American options by simulation: A simple least-squares approach. Rev Financ Stud 14: 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/14.1.113 doi: 10.1093/rfs/14.1.113
    [54] Lu Z, Pu H, Wang F, et al. (2017) The expressive power of neural networks: A view from the width. NIPS 2017.
    [55] Malliaris M, Salchenberger LM (1993) A neural network model for estimating option prices. Appl Intell 3: 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871937 doi: 10.1007/BF00871937
    [56] Maruyama G (1955) Continuous Markov processes and stochastic equations. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 4: 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02846028 doi: 10.1007/BF02846028
    [57] Meissner G, Kawano N (2001) Capturing the volatility smile of options on high-tech stocks—a combined GARCH-neural network approach. J Econ Financ 25: 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02745889 doi: 10.1007/BF02745889
    [58] Morelli MJ, Montagna G, Nicrosini O, et al. (2004) Pricing financial derivatives with neural networks. Phys A 338: 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2004.02.038 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2004.02.038
    [59] Pasricha P, He XJ (2023) Exchange options with stochastic liquidity risk. Expert Syst Appl 223: 119915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119915 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119915
    [60] Pires MM, Marwala T (2004) American option pricing using multi-layer perceptron and support vector machine. In 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583), 2: 1279–1285.
    [61] Ruf J, and Wang W (2020) Neural networks for option pricing and hedging: A literature review. J Comput Financ 24: 1–45. https://doi.org/10.21314/JCF.2020.390 doi: 10.21314/JCF.2020.390
    [62] Schoutens W (2003). Lévy processes in finance: pricing financial derivatives. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870230
    [63] Shin HJ, Ryu J (2012) A dynamic hedging strategy for option transaction using artificial neural networks. Int J Software Eng Appl 6: 111–116.
    [64] Spiegeleer JD, Madan DB, Reyners S, et al. (2018) Machine learning for quantitative finance: fast derivative pricing, hedging and fitting. Quant Financ 18: 1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2018.1495335 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2018.1495335
    [65] Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Universal approximation using feedforward networks with non-sigmoid hidden layer activation functions. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 613–618.
    [66] Xie B, Li W, Liang N (2021) Pricing S & P 500 index options with Lévy jumps. arXiv preprint.
    [67] Ye T, Zhang L (2019) Derivatives pricing via machine learning. J Math Financ 9: 561–589. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3352688 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3352688
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Kolade M. Owolabi, Sonal Jain, Edson Pindza, Eben Mare, Comprehensive Numerical Analysis of Time-Fractional Reaction–Diffusion Models with Applications to Chemical and Biological Phenomena, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 3251, 10.3390/math12203251
    2. Lin Qiu, Yanjie Wang, Yan Gu, Qing-Hua Qin, Fajie Wang, Adaptive physics-informed neural networks for dynamic coupled thermo-mechanical problems in large-size-ratio functionally graded materials, 2024, 0307904X, 115906, 10.1016/j.apm.2024.115906
    3. Lin Qiu, Fajie Wang, Wenzhen Qu, Ji Lin, Yan Gu, Qing‐Hua Qin, A Hybrid Collocation Method for Long‐Time Simulation of Heat Conduction in Anisotropic Functionally Graded Materials, 2025, 126, 0029-5981, 10.1002/nme.70002
    4. Lin Qiu, Fajie Wang, Yingjie Liang, Qing-Hua Qin, Physics-informed radial basis function network based on Hausdorff fractal distance for solving Hausdorff derivative elliptic problems, 2025, 183, 08981221, 271, 10.1016/j.camwa.2025.02.012
    5. Chih-Yu Liu, Cheng-Yu Ku, Wei-Da Chen, Ying-Fan Lin, Jun-Hong Lin, Solving Inverse Wave Problems Using Spacetime Radial Basis Functions in Neural Networks, 2025, 13, 2227-7390, 725, 10.3390/math13050725
    6. Hao Chang, Fajie Wang, Xingxing Yue, Lin Qiu, Linlin Sun, A 2.5D Generalized Finite Difference Method for Elastic Wave Propagation Problems, 2025, 13, 2227-7390, 1249, 10.3390/math13081249
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3186) PDF downloads(351) Cited by(5)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog