aiqbench analysis
This research proposes a simulator that integrates jump Hidden Markov Models with Heston-style implied volatility surfaces to price American options along simulated stock paths. While neural networks provided a better fit for historical option quotes than parametric models, the study found that stochastic volatility updates offered little forecasting advantage over fixed IV assumptions when predicting future market prices. Ultimately, the authors conclude that errors in stock direction prediction remain the dominant source of pricing inaccuracies rather than the specific method used to model implied volatility dynamics.
Synthetic American Option Pricing via Jump-HMM-Driven Heston Implied Volatility
arXiv:2605.13998v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Valuing American options along simulated stock paths requires an implied volatility (IV) for every option on every date. A stock-return model alone does not provide it. We built a simulator that assigned IV to American options on simulated dates for any chosen stock model. We fitted parametric and neural IV surfaces to vendor option quotes for 31 tickers. Each surface predicted IV from moneyness and time to expiration. Stock paths came from a jump hidden Markov model with capped daily returns. Each day, every option's implied variance moved partway toward its surface prediction, following the form of the Heston variance equation. Random shocks tended to raise IV when the stock fell. A binomial tree converted IV into option values and price sensitivities. Neural surfaces fitted by sector or ticker matched the quotes more closely than one parametric surface. Their errors still varied by date and carried into dollar prices. Repricing identical stock paths under five ways of updating IV changed option values before expiration, and the worst simulated short-position losses at a fixed horizon. Payoffs at expiration did not change. In forecasts of later Goldman Sachs and Eli Lilly option prices, stochastic IV did little better than fixed IV. Rerunning the forecasts with the realized stock paths pointed to stock prediction as a major source of option-price error. The hidden Markov model and an adaptive-volatility model predicted stock prices about as accurately as assuming no change, and tuning found no gain from predicting direction. The adaptive-volatility model improved predicted price ranges for Eli Lilly but not Goldman Sachs. The simulator supported reproducible comparisons of IV and stock assumptions but did not forecast better than simpler alternatives. Complete option histories and prices consistent across strikes are needed before simulated prices can replace market data.
Abstract:Valuing American options along simulated stock paths requires an implied volatility (IV) for every option on every date. A stock-return model alone does not provide it. We built a simulator that assigned IV to American options on simulated dates for any chosen stock model. We fitted parametric and neural IV surfaces to vendor option quotes for 31 tickers. Each surface predicted IV from moneyness and time to expiration. Stock paths came from a jump hidden Markov model with capped daily returns. Each day, every option's implied variance moved partway toward its surface prediction, following the form of the Heston variance equation. Random shocks tended to raise IV when the stock fell. A binomial tree converted IV into option values and price sensitivities. Neural surfaces fitted by sector or ticker matched the quotes more closely than one parametric surface. Their errors still varied by date and carried into dollar prices. Repricing identical stock paths under five ways of updating IV changed option values before expiration, and the worst simulated short-position losses at a fixed horizon. Payoffs at expiration did not change. In forecasts of later Goldman Sachs and Eli Lilly option prices, stochastic IV did little better than fixed IV. Rerunning the forecasts with the realized stock paths pointed to stock prediction as a major source of option-price error. The hidden Markov model and an adaptive-volatility model predicted stock prices about as accurately as assuming no change, and tuning found no gain from predicting direction. The adaptive-volatility model improved predicted price ranges for Eli Lilly but not Goldman Sachs. The simulator supported reproducible comparisons of IV and stock assumptions but did not forecast better than simpler alternatives. Complete option histories and prices consistent across strikes are needed before simulated prices can replace market data.
Computational Finance (q-fin.CP); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.13998 [q-fin.CP]
(or arXiv:2605.13998v2 [q-fin.CP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.13998 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 388 words
Related coverage

Stock Market Today Highlights, Sept 2: Sensex ends 373 pts lower at 76, 570, Nifty below 24, 000; Asian Paints, HDFC Bank fall most
thehindubusinessline.com · Sep 2, 2026

The death of humanity
Fortune · Oct 16, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
Against Export Controls (and China Threat Models)
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026