ML-QuantSubscribe

arXivEconometrics & Forecasting

Compiling and forecasting implied volatility surfaces via survey sampling, tempered inverse-probability sequence learning, and causal activity clocks

The study combines survey sampling and causal activity clocks to forecast NVIDIA implied volatility surfaces, finding that stratified allocation outperforms simple random sampling for cross-sectional accuracy.

Featured in No. 137 on 30 Oct 2026 · 3 days after release

Granular NVDA Equity and Options Panel ( 2018\text{--}2025 ) and Full-Chain OPRA Index Harmonization
Figure 1: Granular NVDA Equity and Options Panel ( 2018\text{--}2025 ) and Full-Chain OPRA Index Harmonization. Panel A: Empirical 3D NVDA liquidity-weighted implied volatility surface across moneyness ( K/S\in[0.70,1.30] ) and maturity ( \mathrm{DTE}\in[7,180] days) with projected iso-volatility c…
Released
27 Oct 2026
First featured
No. 137 · 30 Oct 2026
Published in
Not yet, as far as Semantic Scholar knows
Fanfare
2 of 5
Identifier
arXiv:2610.33438
Authors
Deepak Bastola and Eli Prushansky

Abstract

From arXiv (CC0).

Compiling implied volatility (IV) surfaces and forecasting derivative risk from high-frequency equity and options feeds requires addressing contract heterogeneity, schema shifts, volatility clustering, and non-stationary trading activity. Using a split-adjusted NVIDIA (NVDA) equity and options panel (2018-2025), this study integrates finite-population survey sampling, tempered inverse-probability sequence learning, and causal activity clocks. Four findings emerge. First, cross-sectional surface accuracy depends on matching the sampling design to the target functional: plug-in stratified allocations using lagged cell dispersion improve equal-weighted surface reconstruction with full grid coverage, whereas liquidity-weighted probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling excels on liquidity-weighted targets by construction yet inflates error when misapplied. Second, in longitudinal LSTM sequence training, PPS and Neyman designs retain more tail-volatility windows than simple random sampling (SRS); all three designs are equivalent to full-census training within chosen margins while cutting training time, though incremental forecasting gains of informative selection over SRS are not established. Third, out-of-sample evaluation shows a predictability contrast: short-horizon prices are not forecastable beyond a random walk with drift among tested models, whereas forward IV shows descriptive mean-reversion skill concentrated in a few post-shock reversal sessions (insignificant under session-clustered tests), with sequence models not beating a linear HAR-IV benchmark and feature pruning driving stability. Fourth, across a 6.3x start-to-end (nearly twentyfold trough-to-peak) price expansion, rolling volume and dollar clocks stabilize bar rates and compress intraday return kurtosis beyond diurnal scaling.

Citations and venue from Semantic Scholar (ODC-BY), refreshed weekly. Summary: Quant Letter (CC BY 4.0).

    Type to search. Try rough volatility, LLM agents or FinGPT.

    ↑↓ move↵ openesc closeFull search page