arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.25671

Arbitrage-Free Implied Volatility Surface Reconstruction via Additive Martingales

Haochen Luo·Sifan Lin·Xiaolong Luo·An Binh Minh·Yuan Zhang·Chen Liu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This work focuses on reconstructing a continuous implied volatility (IV) surface from a small number of option quotes, a fundamental task for option pricing and risk management. We propose Additive Martingale (AddMart), a few-shot IV surface reconstruction framework that satisfies static no-arbitrage conditions by construction. Rather than predicting IVs directly, AddMart maps sparse quotes to non-negative increment densities of an exponential additive martingale, from which valid risk-neutral marginals and IVs are recovered. By incorporating the no-arbitrage structure directly into its architecture, rather than enforcing it through regularization in the learning objective, AddMart produces IV surfaces that satisfy static no-arbitrage conditions throughout the domain. Extensive experiments on ten real-option datasets demonstrate that AddMart achieves competitive reconstruction accuracy with no material static arbitrage violations, while directly enabling the estimation of VaR, CVaR, and crash probabilities.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.CPcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Haochen Luo, Sifan Lin, Xiaolong Luo, An Binh Minh, Yuan Zhang, Chen Liu. 2026-10-19. Arbitrage-Free Implied Volatility Surface Reconstruction via Additive Martingales. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25671

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Same Book, Different Fills: Partial Identification of FIFO Execution from Aggregate Order Books

Price-level limit order book (L2) data reveal aggregate liquidity but not the ordered queue required by price--time priority. Passive-execution backtests can therefore depend on an unobserved cancellation-allocation rule even when observed prices, quantities, and trades are held fixed. We frame recovery of market-by-order histories from aggregate snapshots as a conditional partial identification problem: multiple histories can reproduce the same aggregate path. Holding that path, reconciled market removals, latent order partitions, and additions fixed, our path-preserving compiler varies only cancellation allocation among front, quantity-weighted-random, and back rules. Within this compiler class, we establish front--back fill ordering for a virtual tagged order during one touch-price spell. We study seven months of synchronized 2025 Tokyo Stock Exchange data for two instruments with different trading activity: RIC 1301.T and RIC 7911.T. Ten-level L2 snapshots provide book states, while L1 trades permit inference of market removals and resting side through reconciliation. Each instrument contributes 1,080 matched five-minute episodes over the same 18 held-out trading days. The aggressive benchmark is invariant across FIFO realizations, but passive execution is sensitive to the cancellation rule. For 1301.T, front rather than back cancellation raises preterminal completion by 8.01 percentage points and reduces implementation shortfall by 1.010 bps. For 7911.T, the corresponding differences are 7.39 percentage points and 0.384 bps. Thus, observationally equivalent aggregate-book paths can imply economically different passive-execution outcomes. Execution policies evaluated from aggregate data should be accompanied by FIFO sensitivity analysis rather than reported as single-point estimates based on an unobservable queue assumption.

q-fin.CP↗
arXiv2026

Latent Flow Matching for Arbitrage-Aware Implied Volatility Surface Generation

We propose an arbitrage-aware latent flow-matching framework for unconditional implied volatility surface generation. The method first compresses high-dimensional surfaces into a low-dimensional latent space using a variational autoencoder regularized by differentiable calendar-spread, call-spread and butterfly-arbitrage penalties. A flow-matching model then learns to transport a Gaussian prior toward the empirical latent distribution, and generated latent samples are decoded back into volatility surfaces. We evaluate the approach using marginal and surface-level Wasserstein distances, smile and skew diagnostics, pointwise quantile surfaces, financially interpretable shape metrics, and static no-arbitrage tests. The proposed model closely reproduces the empirical distribution and the main maturity-moneyness structures, achieves the best performance in the extreme Q99 regime, and generates 90.8% of surfaces satisfying all tested static no-arbitrage conditions. Overall, the results show that latent flow matching provides a favorable balance between distributional similarity, tail preservation, and financial consistency without requiring post-sampling reweighting.

q-fin.CP↗
arXiv2026

Algorithmic Collusion Without Deterrence: Auditing the Punishment Mechanism in Q-Learning Pricing Agents

Independent tabular Q-learning agents repricing in a simulated Bertrand duopoly converge to supracompetitive prices, and the seminal evidence attributes this to a learned reward-punishment scheme: undercut your rival and it retaliates, so deviation never pays. This mechanistic reading is what turns high prices into a cartel, and into a regulatory target. We replicate the environment of Calvano et al. (2020) and confirm their impulse-response pattern within co-trained pairs. We then audit the pattern on frozen policies, with learning off, and find that on its own it does not identify a mechanism: the return is over-determined rather than selective. In nine of ten converged pairs (914 of 1,024) a single attractor's basin is the entire state space, so every perturbation returns whatever provoked it, and a forced price increase triggers the same retaliatory pattern as an undercut. What co-training produces is a narrow, dyad-specific basin of attraction: re-match frozen agents from independent runs, as Calvano et al. did with learning on, and coordination collapses by 80% with nothing carried across. The deterrence claim is incomplete on its own terms: the one-period undercut of Calvano et al.'s impulse-response test is unprofitable, which we confirm in 92% of pairs, but the optimal deviation, computed by dynamic programming against each partner's frozen strategy, profits by 17.5% on average. The scheme deters only the deviation no optimizer would choose; collusion survives because deviation is never tried, not because it would not pay. Supracompetitive prices are robust; the punishment mechanism read into them does not survive these tests, which changes what the standard test of algorithmic collusion establishes, and what pairing-disruption remedies can be expected to do.

q-fin.CP↗