Solving high-dimensional option pricing: G-LSM leverages Hermite polynomials and gradients to achieve a 10x accuracy boost over LSM.Solving high-dimensional option pricing: G-LSM leverages Hermite polynomials and gradients to achieve a 10x accuracy boost over LSM.

A Practical Guide to G-LSM: Improving High-Dimensional Option Pricing with Minimal Overhead

2025/09/24 21:15

Abstract and 1. Introduction

  1. Bermudan option pricing and hedging
  2. Sparse Hermite polynomial expansion and gradient
  3. Algorithm and complexity
  4. Convergence analysis
  5. Numerical examples
  6. Conclusions and outlook, Acknowledgments, and References

\

\

\ In view of (4.1), the drift term vanishes. After taking the stochastic integral and using the terminal condition in (4.1), we obtain the desired assertion.

\ \

\

\ In practice, the continuous least squares problem (4.3) is solved by minimizing its Monte Carlo approximation:

\

\ Then finding the optimal polynomial in (4.6) amounts to solving the classical least squares problem

\

\ The proposed algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 4.1.

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\ 5. Convergence analysis. Now we analyze the convergence of Algorithm 4.1. We assume the Lipschitz continuity of the discounted payoff function gk(·).

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ Next, we provide an error estimate of solving the continuous least squares problem (4.3) in terms of the error of the previous value function, the best approximation error in the sparse Hermite polynomial ansatz space (5.5) and the time step size ∆t. The proof is inspired by the foundational work [12].

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ 5.2. Global error estimation. Finally, we prove a global error estimate.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \ Table 1The parameters used in Examples 1-5. Examples 3 and 4 share the parameters except the volatility σi.

\ \ \

\ \ We consider the example of Bermudan geometric basket put from [13, 25]. The exact prices are computed by solving the reduced one-dimensional problem via a quadrature and interpolation-based method [25] for Bermudan options. We present in Table 2 the computed option prices and their relative errors using G-LSM and LSM, with the same ansatz space for the CVF. The results show that G-LSM achieves higher accuracy than LSM in high-dimensions: G-LSM has a relative error 0.55% for d = 15, which is almost ten times smaller than that by LSM. That is, by incorporating the gradient information, the accuracy of LSM can be substantially improved.

\ \

\ \ Table 3 gives the computed option prices and their relative errors by G-LSM with different maximum polynomial orders p for the 20-dimensional geometric basket put. The relative error decays steadily as the order p of Hermite polynomials increases, which agrees with Theorem 5.6.

\ \

\ \ 6.2. Example 2: American geometric basket call. Now we consider the example of American geometric basket call option from [21, 6] to demonstrate that the proposed G-LSM can achieve the same level of accuracy as the DNN-based method [6], and take M = 720, 000 samples as in [6]. The prices and deltas are given in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively, where the results of [6] are the average of 9 independent runs. From Table 4, both methods have similar accuracy for the price. From Table 5, the relative error of delta using G-LSM and DNN varies slightly with the dimension d. This is probably because the DNN-based method computes the delta via a sample average, while G-LSM uses the derivatives of the value function directly. The relative error of the delta computed by G-LSM increases slightly for larger dimensions, possibly due to the small magnitude of the exact delta values.

\ \ Table 4Prices of American geometric basket call at t = 0 using M = 720, 000 samples.

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ Next, Figure 2 shows the classification results of continued and exercised data using GLSM and LSM with the number of simulated paths M = 100, 000 in d = 7 or 20. Compared with the exact exercise boundary, G-LSM achieves better accuracy in determining the exercise boundary than LSM despite of using the same ansatz and number of paths. Thus, even with the right ansatz space, LSM might fail the task of finding exercise boundary in high dimensions using only a limited number of samples. Compared with [6, Figure 5] and [18, Figure 6], Figure 2 demonstrates that G-LSM can detect accurate exercise boundary with fewer number of paths than the DNN-based method.

\ 6.3. Example 3: Bermudan max-call with symmetric assets. To benchmark G-LSM on high-dimensional problems without exact solutions and to validate the complexity analysis in section 4, we test Bermudan max-call option and report the computing time. The computing time is calculated as follows. For a fixed time step, Tbas is the time for generating basis matrix Φ, Tmat is the time for assembling matrix A, Tlin is the time for solving linear system, and Tup is the time for updating values. The overall computing time is Ttot ≈ (N − 1)(Tbas + Tmat + Tlin + Tup).

\ Table 6 presents the prices and computing time (in seconds) for Bermudan max-call options with d symmetric assets. The reference 95% confidence interval (CI) is taken from [3]. The reference CI is computed with more than 3000 training steps and a batch of 8192 paths in each step, which in total utilizes more than 107 paths. The last five columns of the table report the computing time for the step 6, 7, 8, 9 in Algorithm 4.1, and the total time, respectively. All the computation for this example was performed on an Intel Core i9-10900 CPU 2.8 GHz desktop with 64GB DDR4 memory using MATLAB R2023b. It is observed that the prices computed by G-LSM fall into or stay very close to the reference 95% CI, confirming the high accuracy of G-LSM. Furthermore, the time for generating basis matrix, Tbas, dominates the

\ \ Figure 2. Classification of the simulated continued and exercised data using M = 100, 000 samples, with p = 10. Black star dots represent the exact exercise boundary.

\ \ overall computing time. Hence, the cost mainly arises from evaluating Hermite polynomials on sampling paths, which is also required by LSM. In comparison with LSM , Tmat is the extra cost to incorporate the gradient information and takes only a small fraction of the total time. Therefore, G-LSM has nearly identical cost with LSM.

\ \

\ \ Figure 4 shows the classification of continued and exercised sample points computed by G-LSM and LSM in the example of two-dimensional max-call. G-LSM yields a smoother exercise boundary than LSM. Compared with the exercise boundary computed in literature [19, Figure 3], G-LSM exhibits higher accuracy, albeit that the same ansatz space for the CVF is employed.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \ Figure 3. The number Nb of basis functions in dimension 1 ≤ d ≤ 200 with hyperbolic cross index set versus linear and quadratic scale in d, with p = 6.

\ \ \

\ \ \ Table 8Results for Bermudan max-call options with d asymmetric assets, with M = 100, 000.

\ \ \

\ \ \ Table 9Prices of Bermudan put option under the Heston model. M = 100, 000. p = 20.

\ \ \ Figure 5. Classification of continued and exercised grid/simulated points using COS and G-LSM under the Heston model at time t25 with initial price s0 = 8.

\ 7. Conclusions and outlook. In this work, we have proposed a novel gradient-enhanced least squares Monte Carlo (G-LSM) method that employs sparse Hermite polynomials as the ansatz space to price and hedge American options. The method enjoys low complexity for the gradient evaluation, ease of implementation and high accuracy for high-dimensional problems. We analyzed rigorously the convergence of G-LSM based on the BSDE technique, stochastic and Malliavin calculus. Extensive benchmark tests clearly show that it outperforms least squares Monte Carlo (LSM) in high dimensions with almost the same cost and it can also achieve competitive accuracy relative to the deep neural networks-based methods.

\ \

\ \ Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the support of research computing facilities offered by Information Technology Services, the University of Hong Kong.

REFERENCES

[1] B. Adcock, S. Brugiapaglia, and C. G. Webster, Sparse Polynomial Approximation of HighDimensional Functions, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2022.

\ [2] C. Bayer, M. Eigel, L. Sallandt, and P. Trunschke, Pricing high-dimensional Bermudan options with hierarchical tensor formats, SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14 (2023), pp. 383–406.

\ [3] S. Becker, P. Cheridito, and A. Jentzen, Deep optimal stopping, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20 (2019), pp. 2712–2736.

\ [4] S. Becker, P. Cheridito, and A. Jentzen, Pricing and hedging American-style options with deep learning, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13 (2020), p. 158.

\ [5] B. Bouchard and X. Warin, Monte-Carlo valuation of American options: facts and new algorithms to improve existing methods, in Numerical Methods in Finance: Bordeaux, June 2010, Springer, Berlin, 2012, pp. 215–255.

\ [6] Y. Chen and J. W. Wan, Deep neural network framework based on backward stochastic differential equations for pricing and hedging American options in high dimensions, Quantitative Finance, 21 (2021), pp. 45–67.

\ [7] W. E, J. Han, and A. Jentzen, Deep learning-based numerical methods for high-dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic differential equations, Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 5 (2017), pp. 349–380.

\ [8] N. El Karoui, C. Kapoudjian, E. Pardoux, S. Peng, and M.-C. Quenez, Reflected solutions of backward SDE’s, and related obstacle problems for PDE’s, The Annals of Probability, 25 (1997), pp. 702–737.

\ [9] F. Fang and C. W. Oosterlee, A Fourier-based valuation method for Bermudan and barrier options under Heston’s model, SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 2 (2011), pp. 439–463.

\ [10] C. Gao, S. Gao, R. Hu, and Z. Zhu, Convergence of the backward deep bsde method with applications to optimal stopping problems, SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14 (2023), pp. 1290–1303.

\ [11] E. Gobet and C. Labart, Error expansion for the discretization of backward stochastic differential equations, Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 117 (2007), pp. 803–829.

\ [12] C. Hur´e, H. Pham, and X. Warin, Deep backward schemes for high-dimensional nonlinear PDEs, Mathematics of Computation, 89 (2020), pp. 1547–1579.

\ [13] P. Kovalov, V. Linetsky, and M. Marcozzi, Pricing multi-asset American options: A finite element method-of-lines with smooth penalty, Journal of Scientific Computing, 33 (2007), pp. 209–237.

\ [14] B. Lapeyre and J. Lelong, Neural network regression for Bermudan option pricing, Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, 27 (2021), pp. 227–247.

\ [15] F. Longstaff and E. Schwartz, Valuing American options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach, The Review of Financial Studies, 14 (2001), pp. 113–147.

\ [16] M. Ludkovski, Kriging metamodels and experimental design for Bermudan option pricing, Journal of Computational Finance, 22 (2018), pp. 37–77.

\ [17] X. Luo, Error analysis of the Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos with hyperbolic cross approximation and its application to differential equations with random input, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 335 (2018), pp. 242–269.

\ [18] A. S. Na and J. W. L. Wan, Efficient pricing and hedging of high-dimensional American options using deep recurrent networks, Quantitative Finance, 23 (2023), pp. 631–651.

\ [19] A. M. Reppen, H. M. Soner, and V. Tissot-Daguette, Deep stochastic optimization in finance, Digital Finance, 5 (2023), pp. 91–111.

\ [20] R. Seydel and R. Seydel, Tools for computational finance, vol. 3, Springer, 2006.

\ [21] J. Sirignano and K. Spiliopoulos, DGM: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics, 375 (2018), pp. 1339–1364.

\ [22] J. Tsitsiklis and B. Van Roy, Regression methods for pricing complex American-style options, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 12 (2001), pp. 694–703.

\ [23] H. Wang, H. Chen, A. Sudjianto, R. Liu, and Q. Shen, Deep learning-based BSDE solver for LIBOR market model with application to Bermudan swaption pricing and hedging, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06622, (2018).

\ [24] Y. Wang and R. Caflisch, Pricing and hedging American-style options: a simple simulation-based approach, The Journal of Computational Finance, 13 (2009), pp. 95–125.

\ [25] J. Yang and G. Li, On sparse grid interpolation for American option pricing with multiple underlying assets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08287, (2023).

\ [26] J. Zhang, Backward stochastic differential equations, Springer, 2017.

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Jiefei Yang, †Department of Mathematics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong (jiefeiy@connect.hku.hk);

(2) Guanglian Li, Department of Mathematics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong (lotusli@maths.hku.hk).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license.

:::

\

ข้อจำกัดความรับผิดชอบ: บทความที่โพสต์ซ้ำในไซต์นี้มาจากแพลตฟอร์มสาธารณะและมีไว้เพื่อจุดประสงค์ในการให้ข้อมูลเท่านั้น ซึ่งไม่ได้สะท้อนถึงมุมมองของ MEXC แต่อย่างใด ลิขสิทธิ์ทั้งหมดยังคงเป็นของผู้เขียนดั้งเดิม หากคุณเชื่อว่าเนื้อหาใดละเมิดสิทธิของบุคคลที่สาม โปรดติดต่อ service@mexc.com เพื่อลบออก MEXC ไม่รับประกันความถูกต้อง ความสมบูรณ์ หรือความทันเวลาของเนื้อหาใดๆ และไม่รับผิดชอบต่อการดำเนินการใดๆ ที่เกิดขึ้นตามข้อมูลที่ให้มา เนื้อหานี้ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำทางการเงิน กฎหมาย หรือคำแนะนำจากผู้เชี่ยวชาญอื่นๆ และไม่ถือว่าเป็นคำแนะนำหรือการรับรองจาก MEXC
แชร์ข้อมูลเชิงลึก

คุณอาจชอบเช่นกัน

Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

The post Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Notes A new report from Dune and RWA.xyz highlights Polygon’s role in the growing RWA sector. Polygon PoS currently holds $1.13 billion in RWA Total Value Locked (TVL) across 269 assets. The network holds a 62% market share of tokenized global bonds, driven by European money market funds. The Polygon POL $0.25 24h volatility: 1.4% Market cap: $2.64 B Vol. 24h: $106.17 M network is securing a significant position in the rapidly growing tokenization space, now holding over $1.13 billion in total value locked (TVL) from Real World Assets (RWAs). This development comes as the network continues to evolve, recently deploying its major “Rio” upgrade on the Amoy testnet to enhance future scaling capabilities. This information comes from a new joint report on the state of the RWA market published on Sept. 17 by blockchain analytics firm Dune and data platform RWA.xyz. The focus on RWAs is intensifying across the industry, coinciding with events like the ongoing Real-World Asset Summit in New York. Sandeep Nailwal, CEO of the Polygon Foundation, highlighted the findings via a post on X, noting that the TVL is spread across 269 assets and 2,900 holders on the Polygon PoS chain. The Dune and https://t.co/W6WSFlHoQF report on RWA is out and it shows that RWA is happening on Polygon. Here are a few highlights: – Leading in Global Bonds: Polygon holds 62% share of tokenized global bonds (driven by Spiko’s euro MMF and Cashlink euro issues) – Spiko U.S.… — Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) September 17, 2025 Key Trends From the 2025 RWA Report The joint publication, titled “RWA REPORT 2025,” offers a comprehensive look into the tokenized asset landscape, which it states has grown 224% since the start of 2024. The report identifies several key trends driving this expansion. According to…
แชร์
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:40
แชร์
BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus

BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus

The post BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Press Releases are sponsored content and not a part of Finbold’s editorial content. For a full disclaimer, please . Crypto assets/products can be highly risky. Never invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. Curacao, Curacao, September 17th, 2025, Chainwire BetFury steps onto the stage of SBC Summit Lisbon 2025 — one of the key gatherings in the iGaming calendar. From 16 to 18 September, the platform showcases its brand strength, deepens affiliate connections, and outlines its plans for global expansion. BetFury continues to play a role in the evolving crypto and iGaming partnership landscape. BetFury’s Participation at SBC Summit The SBC Summit gathers over 25,000 delegates, including 6,000+ affiliates — the largest concentration of affiliate professionals in iGaming. For BetFury, this isn’t just visibility, it’s a strategic chance to present its Affiliate Program to the right audience. Face-to-face meetings, dedicated networking zones, and affiliate-focused sessions make Lisbon the ideal ground to build new partnerships and strengthen existing ones. BetFury Meets Affiliate Leaders at its Massive Stand BetFury arrives at the summit with a massive stand placed right in the center of the Affiliate zone. Designed as a true meeting hub, the stand combines large LED screens, a sleek interior, and the best coffee at the event — but its core mission goes far beyond style. Here, BetFury’s team welcomes partners and affiliates to discuss tailored collaborations, explore growth opportunities across multiple GEOs, and expand its global Affiliate Program. To make the experience even more engaging, the stand also hosts: Affiliate Lottery — a branded drum filled with exclusive offers and personalized deals for affiliates. Merch Kits — premium giveaways to boost brand recognition and leave visitors with a lasting conference memory. Besides, at SBC Summit Lisbon, attendees have a chance to meet the BetFury team along…
แชร์
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:20
แชร์