Arbitrage Opportunity Identification Model Based on Stochastic Modelling of Implied Volatility Surfaces
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/nph1ax22Keywords:
Options; Implied Volatility Surface; Stochastic Modelling; Vol Transformer; Adaptive Threshold; Arbitrage Identification.Abstract
The paper considers insufficient fit accuracies, fragmented modelling and identification, and high misjudgement rate with fixed thresholds in implied volatility surface modelling and arbitrage opportunity identification. It proposes an in-depth algorithm based on stochastic coefficient Vol Transformer-adaptive arbitrage threshold (SC-VT-AT), which integrates the stochastically coefficient mechanism of Vol Transformer. The algorithm employs stoically coefficients to describe the technically dynamic features of implied volatility surface, and uses Vol Transformed to efficiently extract the two-dimensional features of the currency size and time to expiration. In parallel, it develops an adaptive threshold module to dynamically update the arbitrage decision criteria based on real-time market volatility factors and simultaneously perform surface modelling & arbitrage opportunities identification. The results on daily CSI 300 ETF options from 2019 to 2023 show the RMSE, MAE, and QLIKE losses of the proposed algorithm are smaller than the ones of traditional comparison methods such as SABR, ordinary Vol Transformer, and GAN. arbitrage identification accuracy reaches 86.7%, data processing time per trading day is 0.87 seconds, annualized return of the simulated arbitrage scheme is 12.3%, and maximum drawdown is only 4.1%. The proposed algorithm can efficiently improve the accuracy of surface modelling with minimizing misjudgement and missing judgment of arbitrage offers in real-times and trading practicality. It can also provide an efficient integrated decision tool to quantitatively track the options markets.
Downloads
References
[1] G. Fathi, Z. Fazelian, Efficiency of the options market and arbitrage strategy: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 20, 3881–3901 (2025)
[2] J. Song, D. Ryu, J. Yu, Changes in the options contract size and arbitrage opportunities. J. Fut. Mark. 43, 122–137 (2023)
[3] J. Tanlamai, W. Khern-Am-Nuai, Y. Adulyasak, Identifying arbitrage opportunities in retail markets with artificial intelligence. AI Soc. 39, 2615–2630 (2024)
[4] L. Bastianello, A. Chateauneuf, B. Cornet, Put–Call Parities, absence of arbitrage opportunities, and nonlinear pricing rules. Math. Financ. 34, 1242–1262 (2024)
[5] M. Muck, Arbitrage-free smile construction on FX option markets using Garman-Kohlhagen deltas and implied volatilities. Rev. Deriv. Res. 25, 293–314 (2022)
[6] T. G. Andersen, V. Todorov, B. Zhou, Real‐time detection of local no‐arbitrage violations. Quant. Econ. 16, 459–495 (2025)
[7] S. N. Cohen, C. Reisinger, S. Wang, Arbitrage-free neural-SDE market models. Appl. Math. Financ. 30, 1–46 (2023)
[8] M. Tian, L. Wu, Limits of arbitrage and primary risk-taking in derivative securities. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 13, 405–439 (2023)
[9] S. A. Anokhin, V. V. Spitsin, A. Y. Trifonov, I. S. Antonova, Foreign ownership and the pursuit of global technological arbitrage opportunities. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 25, 37–56 (2025)
[10] A. Neufeld, J. Sester, D. Yin, Detecting data-driven robust statistical arbitrage strategies with deep neural networks. SIAM J. Financ. Math. 15, 436–472 (2024)
[11] Y. Huang, Z. Wang, Z. Xiao, Option return predictability via machine learning: new evidence from China. J. Fut. Mark. 45, 1232–1252 (2025)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.








