Specification tests of calibrated option pricing models
校准期权定价模型的设定检验AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要以校准后的期权定价模型为对象,讨论设定检验、模型比较和对冲表现。
校准期权定价模型的设定检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In spite of the popularity of model calibration in finance, empirical researchers have put more emphasis on model estimation than on the equally important goodness-of-fit problem. This is due partly to the ignorance of modelers, and more to the ability of existing statistical tests to detect specification errors. In practice, models are often calibrated by minimizing a loss function of the differences between the modeled and actual observations. Under this approach, it is challenging to disentangle model error from estimation error in the residual series. To circumvent the difficulty, we study an alternative way of estimating the model by exact calibration. Unlike the error minimization approach, all information about dynamic misspecifications is channeled to the parameter estimation residuals under exact calibration. In the context of option pricing, we illustrate that standard time series tests are powerful in detecting various kinds of dynamic misspecifications. Compared to the error minimization approach, exact calibration yields more reasonable model comparison result, and delivers more accurate hedging performance that is robust to both gradual and abrupt structural shifts of state variables.