arbiter
JournalsAccount

Volatility Models in Practice: Rough, Path‐Dependent, or Markovian?

Eduardo Abi Jaber & Shaun Li

Mathematical Finance2025https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12463article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.48

Abstract

We present an empirical study examining several claims related to option prices in rough volatility literature using SPX options data. Our results show that rough volatility models with the parameter are inconsistent with the global shape of SPX smiles. In particular, the at‐the‐money SPX skew is incompatible with the power‐law shape generated by these models, which increases too fast for short maturities and decays too slowly for longer maturities. For maturities between 1 week and 3 months, rough volatility models underperform one‐factor Markovian models with the same number of parameters. When extended to longer maturities, rough volatility models do not consistently outperform one‐factor Markovian models. Our study identifies a non‐rough path‐dependent model and a two‐factor Markovian model that outperform their rough counterparts in capturing SPX smiles between 1 week and 3 years, with only three to four parameters.

5 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12463

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{eduardo2025,
  title        = {{Volatility Models in Practice: Rough, Path‐Dependent, or Markovian?}},
  author       = {Eduardo Abi Jaber & Shaun Li},
  journal      = {Mathematical Finance},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12463},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Volatility Models in Practice: Rough, Path‐Dependent, or Markovian?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.48

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.41 × 0.4 = 0.16
M · momentum0.63 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.