跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 周柏頤
Chou, Po-Yi
論文名稱: AI 於台指選擇權波動率預測之應用與交易策略
Application of Artificial Intelligence to Volatility Forecasting and Trading Strategies in TAIEX Options
指導教授: 謝明華
Hsieh, Ming-Hua
口試委員: 李宜熹
Lee, Yi-hsi
邱于芬
Chiu, Yu-Fen
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 國際金融學院 - 國際金融碩士學位學程
Master’s Program in Global Banking and Finance
論文出版年: 2026
畢業學年度: 115
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 48
中文關鍵詞: 台指選擇權隱含波動率預測高頻資料已實現波動率機器學習隨機森林長短期記憶神經網路變異數風險溢酬交易成本散戶實作可行性
外文關鍵詞: TAIEX Options (TXO), Implied Volatility Forecasting, High-Frequency Data, Realized Volatility, Machine Learning, Random Forest, LSTM, Variance Risk Premium, Transaction Costs, Retail Implementation Feasibility
相關次數: 點閱:30下載:0
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本研究以台指選擇權(TXO) 為研究對象,建構雙軌預測框架並檢驗兩項假說。資訊優勢假說(H1) 檢驗:以逐筆高頻資料建構的Model A,其ATM 隱含波動率次日變動(ΔIV) 的預測誤差,是否顯著低於僅使用公開日資料的Model B。公開資料訊號之經濟可辨識性假說(H2) 則檢驗:在計入散戶等級交易成本(手續費、期交稅與滑價)後,由Model B 訊號驅動的ATM Long/Short Straddle 策略,是否相對HAR-RV 與GARCH(1,1) 兩項時間序列基準提供可辨識之風險調整後績效。
    Model A 使用CMoney 日盤與夜盤逐筆資料,建構5 分鐘已實現波動率、跳躍變異與微觀結構特徵;其特徵資訊集嚴格限於t 日13:45 前已實現之資料(日盤t 加上一已完成夜盤)。Model B 僅使用TAIFEX 每日公開揭露變數與Yang–Zhang 估計量。預測模型以長短期記憶神經網路(LSTM) 為主,隨機森林為參照演算法,並採Purged K-Fold 結合Embargo 驗證。樣本期間2018–2026,訓練(2018–2023)、驗證(2024) 與樣本外測試(2025-01–2026-04) 完全分離。預測誤差以Newey-West 修正之Diebold–Mariano 檢定比較;策略層假說以配對Sharpe 差之單尾stationary bootstrap 檢定,並以Holm 逐步法校正多重比較。
    實證結果顯示:付費高頻資料於預測誤差與方向準確率均未提供統計顯著優勢,且RMSE 點估計方向於兩組同架構比較不一致(H1 未獲統計支持;DM p = 0.129–0.936,策略層p = 0.951–1.000);此結果不構成兩類資訊等價之證明。公開資料策略之Sharpe點估計為RF Set B = +1.98、LSTM Set B = +2.17,95% 信賴區間均不含零。相對GARCH 之優勢達5% 顯著(pHolm = 0.034–0.046);相對HAR-RV 為pHolm = 0.056邊際未達(H2 獲部分統計支持)。由於測試期交易數僅8–11 筆,外推應保守。敏感度分析顯示,上述結論於取樣頻率(30 秒至5 分鐘)、模型家族、交易成本(滑價0–3 tick) 與波動環境子期間下均維持不變。就散戶最應追蹤之指標而言,特徵重要性分析指出公開資料軌道之主要訊號來源依序為結算週期之行事曆結構(週五效應、距結算日天數)、以Yang–Zhang 估計量建構之變異數風險溢酬、TAIEX 短期動量與近期報酬波動;高頻軌道則集中於已實現變異數與期限結構斜率,微觀結構類特徵之邊際貢獻有限。惟個別特徵之重要性估計不確定性高,宜以群組層級解讀。本研究結論嚴格界定於樣本期間、模型設定與成本假設之內,不構成任何投資建議。


    This thesis studies the Taiwan Stock Exchange Capitalization Weighted Stock Index Options (TXO) through a dual-track forecasting framework with two testable hypotheses. H1 (Information-Advantage Hypothesis) asks whether Model A, which is built on tick-level data, forecasts the next-day change of ATM implied volatility with significantly lower error than Model B, which is built solely on public daily data. H2 (Economic Identifiability of Public-Data Signals) asks whether Model B signals, traded through an ATM Long/Short Straddle net of retail-grade transaction costs (commissions, transaction tax, and slippage),
    generate identifiable risk-adjusted performance relative to the HAR-RV and GARCH(1,1) benchmarks.
    Model A constructs 5-minute realized volatility, jump variation, and microstructure features from tick-level day-and-night session data. Its information set is strictly limited to data realized before the 13:45 close of day t (day session t plus the last completed night session). Model B uses only publicly disclosed daily variables from TAIFEX together with the Yang–Zhang estimator. Forecasting employs an LSTM as the primary model and a random
    forest benchmark, validated under Purged K-Fold with Embargo. The 2018–2026 sample is split into training (2018–2023), validation (2024), and a chronologically separated out-of-sample test (2025-01–2026-04). Forecast errors are compared with Newey-West-corrected Diebold–Mariano tests. Strategy-level hypotheses use one-sided paired Sharpe-difference stationary-bootstrap tests with Holm step-down adjustment.
    Empirically, paid high-frequency data provides no statistically significant advantage in predictive error or directional accuracy. RMSE point estimates point in opposite directions across the two architecture-matched pairs (H1 is not statistically supported; DM p = 0.129–0.936; strategy-level p = 0.951–1.000), and this does not constitute evidence of informational equivalence. The public-data strategies deliver Sharpe point estimates of +1.98 (RF Set B) and +2.17 (LSTM Set B), with 95% confidence intervals excluding zero. The advantage over GARCH is significant at the 5% level (pHolm = 0.034–0.046), while that over HAR-RV is marginally insignificant (pHolm = 0.056) (H2 is partially supported; only 8–11 test trades, so extrapolation should be conservative). Sensitivity analyses across sampling frequencies (30 seconds to 5 minutes), model families, transaction-cost assumptions (0–3 ticks of slippage), and volatility-regime subperiods leave these conclusions unchanged. As to which indicators retail investors should track, permutation importance ranks the settlement-cycle calendar structure (Friday effect, days to settlement), the variance risk premium built on the Yang–Zhang estimator, short-horizon TAIEX momentum, and recent return dispersion as the leading signal sources on the public-data track. The high-frequency track concentrates on realized variance and the term-structure slope, with microstructure features contributing marginally; individual importance estimates are, however, subject to substantial uncertainty and should be read at the group level. All conclusions are strictly bounded by the sample period, model specifications, and cost assumptions of this study, and do not constitute investment advice.

    謝辭 i
    摘要 ii
    Abstract iii
    生成式 AI 使用聲明 v
    第一章 緒論 1
    第一節 研究背景與動機 1
    第二節 研究目的與研究假說 2
    第三節 研究貢獻 3
    第四節 研究範圍與限制 3
    第五節 論文架構 4
    第二章 文獻回顧 5
    第一節 選擇權定價理論之演進 5
    一 Black–Scholes–Merton 模型及其限制 5
    二 隨機波動率與跳躍擴散之延伸 5
    第二節 隱含波動率曲面之建模 5
    一 確定性波動率函數 5
    二 需求壓力與曲面結構 5
    第三節 變異數風險溢酬 6
    第四節 機器學習於選擇權市場之應用 6
    一 類神經網路與整體學習 6
    二 深度學習與 LSTM 於波動率預測 6
    第五節 微觀市場結構與資訊不對稱 6
    第六節 高頻資料與已實現波動率 7
    第七節 散戶交易行為與交易成本 7
    一 散戶於臺灣市場之系統性虧損 7
    二 交易成本對策略獲利之侵蝕 7
    第八節 臺灣 TXO 市場相關文獻 8
    第九節 文獻論證鏈與本研究定位 8
    第三章 研究方法 10
    第一節 實證流程概覽 10
    第二節 研究資料與前處理 10
    一 資料來源與雙軌切分 10
    二 樣本期間與資料切分 10
    三 微觀結構雜訊處理 11
    四 日夜盤銜接與跨期處理 12
    五 標的價格建構與期貨處理 12
    第三節 雙軌特徵工程 13
    一 3.3.A Model A:研究模型 (High-Frequency Features) 13
    二 3.3.B Model B:散戶模型 (Public Daily Features) 14
    三 曲面結構特徵公式 (兩軌共用) 15
    四 Yang–Zhang 波動率估計量 (Model B 專用) 15
    五 目標變數 (兩軌共用) 15
    第四節 預測模型 16
    一 參照模型:隨機森林 16
    二 深度學習模型:LSTM 16
    第五節 模型驗證機制:Purged K-Fold 與 Embargo 17
    一 研究設計紀律 (Research Design Discipline) 17
    二 Out-of-Fold 門檻校準程序 18
    第六節 量化交易策略 19
    一 訊號–策略對齊原則 19
    二 主檢定層:ATM Long/Short Straddle 19
    三 次要分析:Strangle 之穩健性檢驗 20
    四 策略建構細節 (Strategy Construction) 20
    五 持有期間設計 20
    第七節 散戶可行性設計 21
    一 訊號發布與執行時點 21
    二 標的合約流動性篩選 21
    三 部位上限與資本情境分析 21
    第八節 交易成本與保證金之 stylized 模型 22
    第九節 特徵歸因分析 (Feature Attribution) 22
    第十節 績效評估指標 23
    第十一節 實作細節 24
    一 機器學習實作參數 24
    二 資料前處理與標準化 27
    三 軟體環境與運算資源 27
    四 超參數選擇依據與凍結紀律 27
    第四章 實證結果與分析 29
    第一節 資料描述性統計 29
    第二節 假說 H1 檢驗:雙軌模型預測績效比較 29
    第三節 特徵重要性分析 31
    第四節 假說 H2 檢驗:ATM Straddle 對時間序列基準之經濟可辨識性 32
    第五節 Model A vs Model B 之策略層次比較 33
    第六節 次要分析:Strangle 之穩健性檢驗 34
    第七節 持有期間與資本約束之穩健性 35
    一 持有期間之訊號-策略對齊驗證 35
    二 資本情境分析 (NT$1M, 2% VaR sizing) 35
    第八節 穩健性檢定 37
    第九節 LSTM 訓練收斂診斷 38
    第十節 實證結果之內在限制 39
    第五章 結論與建議 40
    第一節 研究發現總結 40
    第二節 對文獻之貢獻 41
    第三節 對散戶實作之建議 41
    第四節 研究限制 42
    第五節 未來研究方向 43
    第六節 結語 44
    參考文獻 45

    Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., & Diebold, F. X. (2007). Roughing it up: Including jump components in the measurement, modeling, and forecasting of return volatility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 701–720.
    Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Labys, P. (2003). Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. Econometrica, 71(2), 579–625.
    Barber, B. M., Lee, Y.-T., Liu, Y.-J., & Odean, T. (2009). Just how much do individual investors lose by trading? Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 609–632.
    Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., Hansen, P. R., Lunde, A., & Shephard, N. (2008). Designing realized kernels to measure the ex post variation of equity prices in the presence of noise. Econometrica, 76(6), 1481–1536.
    Bates, D. S. (1996). Jumps and stochastic volatility: Exchange rate processes implicit in Deutsche mark options. Review of Financial Studies, 9(1), 69–107.
    Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654.
    Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.
    Bollerslev, T., Tauchen, G., & Zhou, H. (2009). Expected stock returns and variance risk premia. Review of Financial Studies, 22(11), 4463–4492.
    Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
    Bucci, A. (2020). Realized volatility forecasting with neural networks. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 18(3), 502–531.
    Carr, P., & Wu, L. (2009). Variance risk premiums. Review of Financial Studies, 22(3), 1311–1341.
    Chang, C.-C., Hsieh, P.-F., & Lai, H.-N. (2009). Do informed option investors predict stock returns? Evidence from the Taiwan stock exchange. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(4), 757–764.
    Chang, C.-C., Hsieh, P.-F., & Wang, Y.-H. (2010). Information content of options trading volume for future volatility: Evidence from the Taiwan options market. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(1), 174–183.
    Chen, M.-K., Yang, D.-Y., Hsieh, M.-H., & Wu, M.-E. (2024). An intelligent option trading system based on heatmap analysis via PON/POD yields. Expert Systems with Applications, 257, 124948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124948
    Cheng, L.-C., Huang, Y.-H., Hsieh, M.-H., & Wu, M.-E. (2021). A novel trading strategy framework based on reinforcement deep learning for financial market predictions. Mathematics, 9(23), 3094.
    Christoffersen, P., Heston, S., & Jacobs, K. (2009). The shape and term structure of the index option smirk: Why multifactor stochastic volatility models work so well. Management Science, 55(12), 1914–1932.
    Cont, R. (2001). Empirical properties of asset returns: Stylized facts and statistical issues. Quantitative Finance, 1(2), 223–236.
    Corsi, F. (2009). A simple approximate long-memory model of realized volatility. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 7(2), 174–196.
    Diebold, F. X., & Mariano, R. S. (1995). Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(3), 253–263.
    Dumas, B., Fleming, J., & Whaley, R. E. (1998). Implied volatility functions: Empirical tests. Journal of Finance, 53(6), 2059–2106.
    Easley, D., López de Prado, M. M., & O’Hara, M. (2012). Flow toxicity and liquidity in a high-frequency world. Review of Financial Studies, 25(5), 1457–1493.
    Easley, D., & O’Hara, M. (1992). Time and the process of security price adjustment. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 577–605.
    Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
    Eraker, B., Johannes, M., & Polson, N. (2003). The impact of jumps in volatility and returns. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1269–1300.
    Fischer, T., & Krauss, C. (2018). Deep learning with long short-term memory networks for financial market predictions. European Journal of Operational Research, 270(2), 654–669.
    Frazzini, A., Israel, R., & Moskowitz, T. J. (2018). Trading costs (Working paper) (SSRN Working Paper No. 3229719). AQR Capital Management. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3229719
    Garleanu, N., Pedersen, L. H., & Poteshman, A. M. (2009). Demand-based option pricing. Review of Financial Studies, 22(10), 4259–4299.
    Gatheral, J. (2004). A parsimonious arbitrage-free implied volatility parameterization with application to the valuation of volatility derivatives [Conference presentation]. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-parsimonious-arbitrage-free-implied-volatility-to-Gatheral/0ba2e344d167fb68264aae3315a040d0c5d98b64
    Goyal, A., & Saretto, A. (2009). Cross-section of option returns and volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 310–326.
    Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223–2273.
    Guo, J.-H., & Chang, L.-F. (2020). A generalization of option pricing to price-limit markets. Review of Derivatives Research, 23, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-019-09160-1
    Hansen, P. R., & Lunde, A. (2006). Realized variance and market microstructure noise. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 24(2), 127–161.
    Heston, S. L. (1993). A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. Review of Financial Studies, 6(2), 327– 343.
    Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780.
    Hull, J., & White, A. (1987). The pricing of options on assets with stochastic volatilities. Journal of Finance, 42(2), 281–300.
    Hull, J. C. (2021). Options, futures, and other derivatives (11th). Pearson.
    Hutchinson, J. M., Lo, A. W., & Poggio, T. (1994). A nonparametric approach to pricing and hedging derivative securities via learning networks. Journal of Finance, 49(3), 851–889.
    J.P. Morgan/Reuters. (1996). Riskmetrics—technical document (4th ed., Technical Document). J.P. Morgan/Reuters. New York.
    Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., & Liu, T.-Y. (2017). LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, 3149–3157.
    Lee, C. M. C., & Ready, M. J. (1991). Inferring trade direction from intraday data. Journal of Finance, 46(2), 733–746.
    Liu, L. Y., Patton, A. J., & Sheppard, K. (2015). Does anything beat 5-minute RV? A comparison of realized measures across multiple asset classes. Journal of Econometrics, 187(1), 293–311.
    López de Prado, M. (2018). Advances in financial machine learning. Wiley.
    Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, 4765–4774.
    Merton, R. C. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4(1), 141–183.
    Merton, R. C. (1976). Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(1–2), 125–144.
    Novy-Marx, R., & Velikov, M. (2016). A taxonomy of anomalies and their trading costs. Review of Financial Studies, 29(1), 104–147.
    Pan, J., & Poteshman, A. M. (2006). The information in option volume for future stock prices. Review of Financial Studies, 19(3), 871–908.
    Politis, D. N., & Romano, J. P. (1994). The stationary bootstrap. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428), 1303–1313.
    Rubinstein, M. (1985). Nonparametric tests of alternative option pricing models using all reported trades and quotes on the 30 most active CBOE option classes from August 23, 1976 through August 31, 1978. Journal of Finance, 40(2), 455–480.
    Sirignano, J., & Cont, R. (2019). Universal features of price formation in financial markets: Perspectives from deep learning. Quantitative Finance, 19(9), 1449–1459.
    Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. (2017). Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, 3319–3328.
    Tharp, V. K. (1999). Trade your way to financial freedom. McGraw-Hill.
    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, 5998–6008.
    Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12–17.
    Yang, D., & Zhang, Q. (2000). Drift-independent volatility estimation based on high, low, open, and close prices. Journal of Business, 73(3), 477–492.
    Yang, Y.-H., Tsaih, R.-H., & Hsieh, M.-H. (2011). A systematic design for coping with model risk. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7380–7386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.088
    Zhang, L., Mykland, P. A., & Aït-Sahalia, Y. (2005). A tale of two time scales: Determining integrated volatility with noisy high-frequency data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(472), 1394–1411.

    QR CODE
    :::