Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Deep Learning Option Pricing with Market Implied Volatility Surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single neural network — a VAE encoder that compresses each implied-volatility surface into ten latent variables plus a multilayer perceptron — reproduces QuantLib prices for American puts and arithmetic Asian…

desk verdict A plausible VAE+MLP surrogate for QuantLib prices, but the missing label-generation specification and lack of numerical evaluation make the 'high accuracy' claim unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05911 v1 pith:KYKJGYIP submitted 2025-09-07 q-fin.CP

Lijie Ding , Egang Lu , Kin Cheung This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.CP MSC 91G2091G6068T07
keywords optionpricingimpliedvolatilitysurfacevariationalautoencoderAmericanoptionsAsianQuantLibSPXdeeplearning
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 option prices can be learned directly from the whole market-implied volatility surface instead of from a single volatility number or a parametric model. The authors compress each day's 41-by-20 volatility surface into ten latent variables using a variational autoencoder, then train a multilayer perceptron to map those latent variables plus strike and maturity to prices of American puts and arithmetic Asian calls and puts, using QuantLib-generated prices as ground truth. On held-out volatility surfaces, predicted prices track the ground-truth prices closely, with the largest deviations at long maturities and at-the-money strikes. The practical payoff, if the claim holds, is a pricer that runs in a single forward pass, parallelizes across a portfolio, and can be retrained to match any slow proprietary pricing model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-part neural network. The left part is a variational autoencoder: an encoder with two convolutional layers compresses each 41×20 surface into ten latent variables z, one mean and one variance per dimension, using the reparameterization $z = \mu + s \odot \epsilon$; a decoder reconstructs the surface, and the VAE is trained by mean-squared reconstruction error averaged over ten samples of $\epsilon$. The right part is a multilayer perceptron that takes the latent code together with strike $K$ and maturity $T$ and outputs an option price $V'$. Training proceeds in three stages — VAE only, then MLP with a frozen encoder, then joint fine-tuning — with loss $L_{\mathrm{MLP}}$ equal to the mean-squared error against QuantLib prices. This structure lets the pricer see the whole surface through a compact bottleneck while keeping the final price prediction a single differentiable forward pass.

What would settle it

Inspect the released code (linked in the paper) to see how the volatility surface is handed to QuantLib: if the American and Asian engines receive either a flat volatility at each (K,T) or a surface-consistent calibration, the central claim stands or falls. Concretely, re-running the same pipeline with a single at-the-money volatility per date in place of the full surface and showing equal pricing accuracy would demonstrate that the network is not actually using the surface; conversely, showing that accuracy degrades when the surface is scrambled would confirm that it is.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an 820-dimensional implied-volatility surface can be reduced to a 10-dimensional latent code without losing the information needed to price non-vanilla options. A singular-value decomposition of 1,051 SPX volatility surfaces shows rapidly decaying singular values, and the trained VAE reconstructs held-out surfaces accurately even on an extreme day such as 2020-03-10. The pricing network then maps the latent code with strike and maturity to option prices; on 4,000 American-put and 2,000 each of Asian-call and Asian-put test points it matches QuantLib prices within small errors, with the residual errors concentrated where bid-ask spreads are wide. The paper's stated conclusion is that a single feed-forward network can serve as a fast, scalable substitute for numerical pricing of these exotics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the QuantLib ground-truth prices were generated by passing the entire, arbitrage-free volatility surface into the pricer in a way that actually uses its shape — if each option was instead priced from a single flat volatility read at its own strike and maturity, the full-surface input is decorative and the benchmark loses economic meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained network prices a new American or Asian option from one surface and a $(K,T)$ pair in a single forward pass, so repricing an entire book becomes a batched GPU operation rather than a sequence of numerical solves.
  • Because the network learns from labels, it can be retrained on any slow or proprietary pricing model, yielding fast valuations that are consistent with that model by construction.
  • Errors concentrate at long maturities and at-the-money strikes, where absolute bid-ask spreads are wide; the pricing error is therefore concentrated in the region where market price uncertainty is largest.
  • The same architecture extends to other asset classes and exotic payoff types, with the latent dimension and network size adjusted to the new surface structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The SVD analysis shows that five to ten singular vectors capture the surface variation, so the pricing network may work equally well with a five-dimensional latent code; a compression-versus-pricing-error sweep would settle how much of the surface information pricing really needs.
  • If the QuantLib labels were generated with a surface-consistent model, the latent variables likely encode economically meaningful factors such as volatility level, smile curvature, and term-structure steepness; testing which latent dimensions drive which price changes could turn the encoder into an interpretable volatility factor model.
  • The network is differentiable in $K$, $T$, and the latent code, so it can supply greeks and surface-sensitivity measures for hedging; the paper does not demonstrate this, but it is a direct consequence of the MLP architecture.
  • Since American puts, Asian calls, and Asian puts are trained as separate outputs on the same surfaces, training a single multi-head network on all three jointly could enforce cross-instrument consistency and improve generalization on sparse surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a deep-learning option pricer that takes a full market implied volatility (IV) surface as input. The authors construct 41x20 arbitrage-free IV surfaces from end-of-day S&P 500 index option quotes over 2018-2023, compress each surface with a variational autoencoder into a 10-dimensional latent variable, and feed the latent variables together with strike and maturity into a multilayer perceptron to predict prices. Ground-truth prices for American puts and arithmetic Asian calls and puts are generated with QuantLib. The model is trained in three stages: VAE reconstruction, MLP pricing, and joint fine-tuning. The paper reports qualitative evidence of accurate pricing, with errors said to concentrate near long maturities and at-the-money strikes, and claims that the resulting single-forward-pass method offers an efficient alternative to numerical pricing.

Significance. If the central claim is fully supported, the contribution is a practical architecture-level combination of surface compression and option pricing: a fast, GPU-friendly pricer for exotics that uses the entire IV surface rather than a single flat volatility. The manuscript deserves credit for using real SPX data over a six-year window, for providing a public code/data link, and for explicitly separating training and testing volatility surfaces. The SVD analysis of the surface dataset is a useful motivation for the latent dimension. However, the paper's novelty as a deep-learning pricing method is moderate, and the verification of the claimed accuracy is currently qualitative. The decisive issue is whether the generated QuantLib labels actually use the full IV surface in an economically meaningful way; the manuscript does not provide enough specification to establish this, and the absence of quantitative error statistics leaves 'high accuracy' unsupported as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A Data preparation] The generation of the ground-truth QuantLib labels is underspecified in a way that is load-bearing. The text states that 'the entire volatility surface for the corresponding date is passed onto the QuantLib pricer', but QuantLib pricing engines require a concrete stochastic process and model parameters, not an IV surface alone. The paper does not state the stochastic model used for the American and Asian pricing engines, how the IV surface is converted into that model's parameters (e.g., whether a flat Black-Scholes volatility is extracted at each (K,T), whether a local-volatility or other calibration is performed), the risk-free rate, the dividend yield of the S&P 500, the averaging frequency and monitor dates for the Asian options, or which specific QuantLib engines and settings are used. If each label is produced with a flat Black-Scholes process using only the single implied volatility at that (K,T), then the 41x20 surface is not actually used to form prices, the 'full-surface' conditioning claim collapses, and the benchmark reduces to interpolating between inconsistent pointwise prices. This missing specification is separable from the neural-network contribution and must be clarified before the central claim can be evaluated.
  2. [III.C Evaluation of neural network pricer] The paper reports no quantitative accuracy metrics. Figures 7 and 8 show scatter plots and error heatmaps, but the abstract's 'high accuracy' claim is never backed by RMSE, MAE, maximum absolute error, relative error, or any comparison with the bid-ask spread or with a baseline pricer. For example, the text says errors are 'overall small' but does not give a number; the reader cannot tell whether a typical error is 1 cent, 10 cents, or 1 dollar, nor whether the errors are economically material relative to bid-ask widths. Without such metrics, the central claim of high accuracy is not supported as stated. The authors should report, at minimum, out-of-sample error statistics for the three option types, ideally stratified by moneyness and maturity, and compare against a simple baseline such as an MLP using only the single at-the-money flat volatility.
  3. [II.A and II.B] The data filtering and arbitrage-free construction procedure is not reproducible as described. The paper says some interpolated surfaces 'appear not to be arbitrage-free' and are filtered out after 'test pricing on vanilla option valuation using QuantLib', but it does not specify the interpolation scheme, the precise arbitrage conditions checked, the number of discarded surfaces, the treatment of SPX dividends, or the source and interpolation of the risk-free rate. These details are needed to understand how the 1051 surfaces were obtained from the raw optionsDX data and whether the filtering introduces selection bias. In addition, Section II.B's VAE loss in Eq. (2) is only a reconstruction mean-squared error; no KL-divergence term is shown, which is unusual for a variational autoencoder. If the KL term is absent, the model is effectively a stochastic autoencoder and statements about a trained 'VAE' and latent regularization need qualification. Please clarify what exactly is minimized and whether the standard VAE objective was modified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.B and Fig. 2] The architecture text refers to a 'multilayer perception'; this should be 'multilayer perceptron'.
  2. [III.A and Fig. 3] In Fig. 3(a) the horizontal axis is labeled 'SVR', which is ambiguous; the text indicates it should be the singular value rank. The log-log axis tick labels also appear unconventional (e.g., '101, 103'), which makes the plot harder to read.
  3. [II.B, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) contains a notational artifact with D[...]E in place of an expectation operator; the loss convention should be written cleanly.
  4. [II.A] The sentence 'The scatter points in Fig. 1 shows...' has a subject-verb agreement issue, and a few other minor grammatical errors appear near the training description ('In the second stage, We focus...').
  5. [III.B and Fig. 5] Fig. 5(b) uses the notation '2log s' for the log-variance distribution; please define the symbols precisely, since s is introduced as a standard deviation and the plot appears to show log-variance.
  6. [Summary] The Summary repeats the 'high accuracy' claim without referencing the missing quantitative support, so it should be revised after the evaluation section is updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper performs a supervised regression from volatility surfaces to QuantLib-generated prices, with a held-out split, so the central accuracy claims are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Implied volatilities are computed from market quotes via Eq. (1), interpolated onto a 41x20 grid, and then used as inputs to QuantLib to generate ground-truth prices for American puts and arithmetic Asian options. The VAE compresses the surface and the MLP regresses option prices against those QuantLib prices, with training and testing sets separated by volatility-surface date. The reported test accuracy therefore measures generalization to unseen surfaces rather than reproducing a fitted parameter or an input by construction. The only same-author citation is Ref. [31], used in the introduction as an example of a parameterization-based limitation; it is not load-bearing for any result or architecture choice. The label-generation procedure is under-specified (no stochastic model, calibration step, or Asian averaging convention is stated), which is a reproducibility and correctness concern, but not a circularity: even if QuantLib used a flat volatility per (K,T), the network would still be learning a nontrivial mapping from surfaces and contract parameters to numerical prices, not equating outputs to inputs by definition. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is exhibited in the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a supervised training pipeline. The numbers chosen by hand that materially affect results are the latent dimension and the surface grid; the unknown QuantLib pricing setup is a larger uncontrolled input. The main axioms are standard Black-Scholes inversion and the domain assumption that interpolated, filtered surfaces plus QuantLib engines yield valid option prices. No new external entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • VAE latent dimension = 10
    Chosen from SVD singular-value decay and latent correlation analysis, not from a pricing-error validation; all results depend on it.
  • Volatility surface grid = 41 log-moneyness points over [-0.3,0.3] and 20 maturities over [0.05,1]
    A standardization choice; pricing range and resolution are limited to this grid.
  • QuantLib pricing setup = not stated
    Risk-free rate, dividend yield, engine type, and Asian averaging frequency are never specified; they are free choices that change every label.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Implied volatility is defined by inverting Black-Scholes for each SPX option quote.
    Eq. (1) in Section II A uses the European Black-Scholes formula; this is the standard definition of implied vol.
  • domain assumption Interpolation of sparse option quotes to a regular 41x20 grid preserves the relevant arbitrage and pricing information.
    Section II A says interpolation uses neighboring data points but does not specify the method or validate interpolation error.
  • ad hoc to paper QuantLib's pricing engines produce correct American and Asian prices from a volatility surface passed as input.
    Section II A passes the whole surface to QuantLib without specifying model, calibration, rates, dividends, or averaging frequency; this is the paper's core label-generation assumption.
  • domain assumption Ten latent dimensions are sufficient to represent volatility surfaces for option pricing.
    Section III A and III B support this with PCA decay and reconstruction plots, but no pricing-level validation of latent sufficiency.
  • domain assumption The filtered set of 1,051 volatility surfaces is representative and arbitrage-free for the 2018-2023 period.
    Section II A filters surfaces via QuantLib vanilla pricing tests; the criterion and number removed are not reported.
invented entities (1)
  • 10-dimensional VAE latent representation z
    purpose: Compresses each 41x20 implied volatility surface into the input vector for the MLP pricer.
    The latent space is learned and demonstrated only through reconstruction and correlation statistics on the same training data; there is no external handle, such as a predicted market quantity, that validates it independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning Option Pricing with Market Implied Volatility Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYKJGYIP

@misc{pith2026250905911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning Option Pricing with Market Implied Volatility Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYKJGYIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05911}
}
read the original abstract

We present a deep learning framework for pricing options based on market-implied volatility surfaces. Using end-of-day S\&P 500 index options quotes from 2018-2023, we construct arbitrage-free volatility surfaces and generate training data for American puts and arithmetic Asian options using QuantLib. To address the high dimensionality of volatility surfaces, we employ a variational autoencoder (VAE) that compresses volatility surfaces across maturities and strikes into a 10-dimensional latent representation. We feed these latent variables, combined with option-specific inputs such as strike and maturity, into a multilayer perceptron to predict option prices. Our model is trained in stages: first to train the VAE for volatility surface compression and reconstruction, then options pricing mapping, and finally fine-tune the entire network end-to-end. The trained pricer achieves high accuracy across American and Asian options, with prediction errors concentrated primarily near long maturities and at-the-money strikes, where absolute bid-ask price differences are known to be large. Our method offers an efficient and scalable approach requiring only a single neural network forward pass and naturally improve with additional data. By bridging volatility surface modeling and option pricing in a unified framework, it provides a fast and flexible alternative to traditional numerical approaches for exotic options.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the market implied volatility surfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Architecture of the variational autoencoder (VAE)- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Principal component analysis of the collected SPX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distribution and statistics of latent variable of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Benchmark the performance of the neural network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Benchmark the performance of the neural network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Black \ and\ author M

    author author F. Black \ and\ author M. Scholes ,\ title title The pricing of options and corporate liabilities , \ @noop journal journal Journal of Political Economy \ volume 81 ,\ pages 637--654 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Wilmott ,\ @noop title Paul Wilmott on quantitative finance \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    author author P. Wilmott ,\ @noop title Paul Wilmott on quantitative finance \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    author author S. E. \ Shreve et al. ,\ @noop title Stochastic calculus for finance II: Continuous-time models ,\ Vol. volume 11 \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    author author J. C. \ Hull ,\ @noop title Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives ,\ edition 9th \ ed.\ ( publisher Pearson ,\ year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Cont \ and\ author P

    author author R. Cont \ and\ author P. Tankov ,\ @noop title Financial modelling with jump processes \ ( publisher Chapman and Hall/CRC ,\ year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Glasserman ,\ @noop title Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    author author P. Glasserman ,\ @noop title Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Duffie ,\ @noop title Dynamic asset pricing theory \ ( publisher Princeton University Press ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    author author D. Duffie ,\ @noop title Dynamic asset pricing theory \ ( publisher Princeton University Press ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    author author K. P. \ Murphy ,\ @noop title Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective \ ( publisher MIT press ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Goodfellow , author Y

    author author I. Goodfellow , author Y. Bengio , author A. Courville ,\ and\ author Y. Bengio ,\ @noop title Deep learning ,\ Vol. volume 1 \ ( publisher MIT press Cambridge ,\ year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  2. [10]

    author author M. F. \ Dixon , author I. Halperin ,\ and\ author P. Bilokon ,\ @noop title Machine Learning in Finance: From Theory to Practice \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  3. [11]

    Liu , author C

    author author S. Liu , author C. W. \ Oosterlee ,\ and\ author S. M. \ Bohte ,\ title title Pricing options and computing implied volatilities using neural networks , \ @noop journal journal Risks \ volume 7 ,\ pages 16 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  4. [12]

    Hirsa , author T

    author author A. Hirsa , author T. Karatas ,\ and\ author A. Oskoui ,\ title title Supervised deep neural networks (dnns) for pricing/calibration of vanilla/exotic options , \ @noop journal journal SSRN Electronic Journal \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  5. [13]

    Raissi , author P

    author author M. Raissi , author P. Perdikaris ,\ and\ author G. E. \ Karniadakis ,\ title title Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations , \ @noop journal journal Jo...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Gatta , author V

    author author F. Gatta , author V. S. \ Di Cola , author F. Giampaolo , author F. Piccialli ,\ and\ author S. Cuomo ,\ title title Meshless methods for american option pricing through physics-informed neural networks , \ @noop journal journal Engineering Analysis with Boundary...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hainaut \ and\ author A

    author author D. Hainaut \ and\ author A. Casas ,\ title title Option pricing in the heston model with physics inspired neural networks , \ @noop journal journal Annals of Finance \ volume 20 ,\ pages 353--376 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  8. [16]

    Wang , author J

    author author X. Wang , author J. Li ,\ and\ author J. Li ,\ title title A deep learning based numerical pde method for option pricing , \ @noop journal journal Computational economics \ volume 62 ,\ pages 149--164 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  9. [17]

    Bai , author T

    author author Y. Bai , author T. Chaolu ,\ and\ author S. Bilige ,\ title title The application of improved physics-informed neural network (ipinn) method in finance , \ @noop journal journal Nonlinear Dynamics \ volume 107 ,\ pages 3655--3667 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  10. [18]

    De Spiegeleer , author D

    author author J. De Spiegeleer , author D. B. \ Madan , author S. Reyners ,\ and\ author W. Schoutens ,\ title title Machine learning for quantitative finance: fast derivative pricing, hedging and fitting , \ @noop journal journal Quantitative Finance \ volume 18 ,\ pages 1635...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ndikum ,\ title title Machine learning algorithms for financial asset price forecasting , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01504 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author P. Ndikum ,\ title title Machine learning algorithms for financial asset price forecasting , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01504 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    author author R. M. \ Gaspar , author S. D. \ Lopes ,\ and\ author B. Sequeira ,\ title title Neural network pricing of american put options , \ @noop journal journal Risks \ volume 8 ,\ pages 73 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  13. [21]

    Anderson \ and\ author U

    author author D. Anderson \ and\ author U. Ulrych ,\ title title Accelerated american option pricing with deep neural networks , \ @noop journal journal Quantitative Finance and Economics \ volume 7 ,\ pages 207--228 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  14. [22]

    Cao , author J

    author author J. Cao , author J. Chen , author J. Hull ,\ and\ author Z. Poulos ,\ title title Deep learning for exotic option valuation , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12551 \ ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ruf \ and\ author W

    author author J. Ruf \ and\ author W. Wang ,\ title title Neural networks for option pricing and hedging: a literature review , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05620 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1911 arXiv

  16. [24]

    author author D. A. \ Bloch ,\ title title Option pricing with machine learning , \ @noop journal journal Available at SSRN 3486224 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  17. [25]

    Culkin \ and\ author S

    author author R. Culkin \ and\ author S. R. \ Das ,\ title title Machine learning in finance: the case of deep learning for option pricing , \ @noop journal journal Journal of Investment Management \ volume 15 ,\ pages 92--100 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  18. [26]

    Doersch ,\ title title Tutorial on variational autoencoders , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 \ ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    author author C. Doersch ,\ title title Tutorial on variational autoencoders , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 \ ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pu , author Z

    author author Y. Pu , author Z. Gan , author R. Henao , author X. Yuan , author C. Li , author A. Stevens ,\ and\ author L. Carin ,\ title title Variational autoencoder for deep learning of images, labels and captions , \ @noop journal journal Advances in neural information pr...

    2016

  20. [28]

    Bergeron , author N

    author author M. Bergeron , author N. Fung , author J. Hull ,\ and\ author Z. Poulos ,\ title title Variational autoencoders: A hands-off approach to volatility , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03945 \ ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    author author J. Vecer ,\ title title A new pde approach for pricing arithmetic average asian options , \ @noop journal journal Journal of computational finance \ volume 4 ,\ pages 105--113 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  22. [30]

    Gatheral \ and\ author A

    author author J. Gatheral \ and\ author A. Jacquier ,\ title title Arbitrage-free svi volatility surfaces , \ @noop journal journal Quantitative Finance \ volume 14 ,\ pages 59--71 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  23. [31]

    Ding , author E

    author author L. Ding , author E. Lu ,\ and\ author K. Cheung ,\ title title Fast derivative valuation from volatility surfaces using machine learning , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22957 \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    author author J. R. \ Varma \ and\ author V. Virmani ,\ @noop title Derivatives Pricing using QuantLib: An Introduction \ ( publisher Indian Institute of Management ,\ year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  25. [33]

    author author J. R. \ Varma \ and\ author V. Virmani ,\ title title Computational finance using quantlib-python , \ @noop journal journal Computing in Science & Engineering \ volume 18 ,\ pages 78--88 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  26. [34]

    Ackerer , author N

    author author D. Ackerer , author N. Tagasovska ,\ and\ author T. Vatter ,\ title title Deep smoothing of the implied volatility surface , \ @noop journal journal Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems \ volume 33 ,\ pages 11552--11563 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ning , author S

    author author B. Ning , author S. Jaimungal , author X. Zhang ,\ and\ author M. Bergeron ,\ title title Arbitrage-free implied volatility surface generation with variational autoencoders , \ @noop journal journal SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 1004-...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Wang , author S

    author author J. Wang , author S. Liu ,\ and\ author C. Vuik ,\ title title Controllable generation of implied volatility surfaces with variational autoencoders , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01743 \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    author author B. T. \ Kelly , author B. Kuznetsov , author S. Malamud ,\ and\ author T. A. \ Xu ,\ title title Deep learning from implied volatility surfaces , \ @noop journal journal Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper \ ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  30. [38]

    Fan , author A

    author author R. Fan , author A. Gupta ,\ and\ author P. Ritchken ,\ title title Hedging in the possible presence of unspanned stochastic volatility: Evidence from swaption markets , \ @noop journal journal The Journal of Finance \ volume 58 ,\ pages 2219--2248 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  31. [39]

    Hagan , author A

    author author P. Hagan , author A. Lesniewski ,\ and\ author D. Woodward ,\ title title Probability distribution in the sabr model of stochastic volatility , \ in\ @noop booktitle Large deviations and asymptotic methods in finance \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2015 )\ pp.\ pa...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.