Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the recovery of latent risk-neutral densities from option prices, highlighting the discrepancy between accurate pricing and accurate density recovery. Using both a controlled benchmark and a chronological NIFTY benchmark, the authors find that a two-component lognormal mixture outperforms other methods in terms of aggregate pricing errors. Notably, while DeepONet and a quote transformer show significant improvements in specific error metrics, they ultimately do not surpass the accuracy of traditional mixture and SVI fits on held-out market data.
A two-component lognormal mixture achieves superior pricing accuracy, but advanced methods like DeepONet still struggle against traditional models in real-world scenarios.
Accurate option prices do not imply accurate recovery of the latent risk-neutral density. We study this distinction with two complementary benchmarks. A controlled benchmark exposes simulator-truth densities for latent evaluation, while a chronological NIFTY benchmark tests only held-out market prices. A two-component lognormal mixture has the lowest aggregate price, $L^1$, Wasserstein, and fixed-tail errors on the synthetic benchmark. Learned operators retain narrower strengths: DeepONet reduces 1% quantile and variance error by 39.0% and 34.6% relative to the mixture, and a quote transformer reduces $L^1$ by 16.4% on the structurally misspecified Merton family. A numerical conditioning analysis explains why these rankings can differ: after enforcing mass and forward constraints, 95 of 126 pricing directions are numerically null, and two densities separated by $L^1 = 0.061$ produce identical prices on the covered strikes. On 524 held-out NIFTY calls, validation-selected test-time adaptation reduces DeepONet RMSE by 28.3%, but per-expiry mixture and SVI fits remain much more accurate. The evidence supports target-dependent inductive bias, not a universal winner.
