We develop Structured-Knowledge-Informed Neural Networks (SKINNs), a unified estimation framework that embeds theoretical, simulated, previously learned, or cross-domain insights as differentiable constraints within flexible neural function approximation. SKINNs jointly estimate neural network parameters and economically meaningful structural parameters in a single optimization problem, enforcing theoretical consistency not only on observed data but over a broader input domain through collocation, and therefore nesting approaches such as functional GMM, Bayesian updating, transfer learning, PINNs, and surrogate modeling. SKINNs define a class of M-estimators that are consistent and asymptotically normal with root-N convergence, sandwich covariance, and recovery of pseudo-true parameters under misspecification. We establish identification of structural parameters under joint flexibility, derive generalization and target-risk bounds under distributional shift in a convex proxy, and provide a restricted-optimal characterization of the weighting parameter that governs the bias-variance tradeoff. In an illustrative financial application to option pricing, SKINNs improve out-of-sample valuation and hedging performance, particularly at longer horizons and during high-volatility regimes, while recovering economically interpretable structural parameters with improved stability relative to conventional calibration. More broadly, SKINNs provide a general econometric framework for combining model-based reasoning with high-dimensional, data-driven estimation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: PSKR by a (semi-)parametric equation. x1SK⋯xdSKSK denote each of the observable features, and ϕ1⋯ϕdϕ denote each of the learnable latent parameters, in the PSKR.
Figure 2: SPSKR by an expensive-to-solve target system. The inputs, i.e., the observable features XSK and the latent parameters ϕ , are still determined by theories, as in PSKRs. But the structured-knowledge function gϕ(XSK) , in this case, is approximated by a pre-trained DSNN.
Figure 3: NPSKR by an unknown distribution. The inputs include a high-dimensional vector of probabilities, which serves as the learnable latent parameters in SKINNs. The probabilities are passed to a softmax function to ensure non-negativity and the total probability of one unit.
Figure 4: NPSKR by an AE. The inputs include a vector of realizations from an unknown DGP, with size n . The encoder compresses the inputs into a vector of latent parameters of size d ( d≪n ). The d -dimensional AE latent parameters are then passed to a decoder, which returns an n -dimensional vector that reconstructs the inputs.
Figure 5: The architecture of SKINNs. The NN on the top (blue circles) is the base function approximator. The mappings at the bottom (red circles) are structured-knowledge representations of different formats. All of them take observable features XCollocSK ; the current epoch value of the learnable latent parameters as inputs, and output gϕ .
Figure 6: The probability density of the loss gradients with respect to the NN weights and biases, for each loss component in a PINN (with inverse problem approach), including a boundary loss. The PINN is trained, for 5,000 iterations, using a cross-section of simulated European call option prices with noise, according to the BSM model.
Figure 7: The probability density of the loss gradients with respect to the NN weights and biases, for each loss component in a SKINN, including a boundary loss. The SKINN is trained, for 5,000 iterations, using a cross-section of simulated European call option prices with noise, with the PSKR of the BSM model.
Model
Structured Knowledge 9 9 9 “No” in the column structured knowledge means that there is no prior knowledge; “Bnd” means that the boundary conditions are incorporated; “Shape” means that the model-free shape constraints are incorporated; and “AE-BSM” means the machine-learned AE-based NPSKR structured-knowledge function from the BSM model with noise; “AE-MIX” means such a structured-knowledge function from the mixture of models with noise.
dim(ϕ) (learnable/total)
Activation function
Benchmark NNs
NN
No
0/0
ReLU
NN+Bnd
Bnd
0/0
ReLU
NN+Shape
Shape
0/0
SiLU
PINN+BSM
BSM
1/1
SiLU
TLNN+HSV
HSV
0/5
ReLU
Table 1: The full list of the NN models we consider in this paper. Only the PINNs, the TLNNs, and the SKINNs introduce the structural model as prior knowledge from option pricing to the NN. Others introduce either the boundary constraints or the model-free shape constraints to the NNs.
Figure 8: The forward rolling model training schedule. The first training period covers the daily option panels from 04 Jan 1996 to 29 Mar 1996. The corresponding shorter test horizon (Test 1) covers options from 01 Apr 1996 to 30 Apr 1996, and the longer test horizon (Test 2) covers options from 01 May 1996 to 31 May 1996. For each of the periods from period 2 to period 317, all the Train, Test 1, and Test 2 are rolled one month forward based on the preceding period.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
1.99**
-2.16**
-9.24***
-1.72**
-2.42***
0.16
0.21
ABSM
–
–
-2.89***
-8.91***
-1.88**
-2.58***
-0.07
-0.02
HSV
–
–
–
-12.95***
-1.49*
-2.22**
0.59
0.64
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
-0.61
-1.35*
1.81**
1.85**
Table 2: This table reports pairwise Diebold-Mariano test statistics comparing the out-of-sample option pricing performance, measured in terms of RMSE, of different models. We compare 8 variants of SKINNs with different specifications of structured-knowledge representations, with 4 classical structural models, and 4 benchmark neural networks. The out-of-sample option pricing performance is evaluated in the 317 shorter prediction horizons. We square all the pricing errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
2.49***
0.62
-5.23***
2.67***
1.36*
2.51***
2.54***
ABSM
–
–
-0.57
-5.83***
2.56***
1.26
2.40***
2.42***
HSV
–
–
–
-12.95***
2.63***
1.33*
2.45***
2.47***
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
3.09***
1.74**
2.94***
2.97***
Table 3: This table reports pairwise Diebold-Mariano test statistics comparing the out-of-sample option pricing performance, measured in terms of RMSE, of different models. We compare 8 variants of SKINNs with different specifications of structured-knowledge representations, with 4 classical structural models, and 4 benchmark neural networks. The out-of-sample option pricing performance is evaluated in the 317 longer prediction horizons. We square all the pricing errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
-3.62***
6.63***
6.56***
2.64***
2.82***
2.99***
2.48***
ABSM
–
–
6.92***
6.83***
2.90***
3.19***
3.17***
2.66***
HSV
–
–
–
-1.31*
-1.65**
-2.59***
-0.12
-0.31
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
-1.55*
-2.49***
0.01
-0.21
Table 4: This table reports pairwise Diebold-Mariano test statistics comparing the out-of-sample option hedging performance, measured in terms of MHE, of different models. We compare 8 variants of SKINNs with different specifications of structured-knowledge representations, with 4 classical structural models, and 4 benchmark neural networks. The out-of-sample option hedging performance is evaluated in the 317 shorter prediction horizons. We square all the hedging errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
-4.30***
7.69***
7.67***
3.44***
3.48***
3.52***
3.20***
ABSM
–
–
7.83***
7.81***
3.68***
3.83***
3.72***
3.43***
HSV
–
–
–
-1.42*
0.25
-1.15
1.11
0.20
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
0.39
-0.99
1.21
0.32
Table 5: This table reports pairwise Diebold-Mariano test statistics comparing the out-of-sample option hedging performance, measured in terms of MHE, of different models. We compare 8 variants of SKINNs with different specifications of structured-knowledge representations, with 4 classical structural models, and 4 benchmark neural networks. The out-of-sample option hedging performance is evaluated in the 317 longer prediction horizons. We square all the hedging errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Frozen/Trainable layers
Learning rate
Epochs
Inputs
ϕ
DSNN+HSV
6/0
2E-4
500
X,ϕ
Simulated
TLNN+HSV1
0/6
6E-6
6
X,ϕ
SKINN-learned
TLNN+HSV2
4/2
6E-6
6
X,ϕ
SKINN-learned
TLNN+HSV3
4/2
6E-6
100
X,ϕ
SKINN-learned
TLNN+HSV4
4/2
6E-6
500
X,ϕ
SKINN-learned
SKINN+HSV
0/3
1E-3
500
X
–
Table 6: This table summarizes the network configurations applied to train TLNNs and SKINN+HSV. We employ a smaller network size in order to allow TLNNs (6 hidden layers, 64 neurons each) to be comparable to our SKINNs (3 hidden layers, 32 neurons each). The different number of frozen layers for TLNNs corresponds to the different compliance with the theory.
Model
DSNN
TLNN
TLNN
TLNN
TLNN
SKINN
+HSV
+HSV1
+HSV2
+HSV3
+HSV4
+HSV
DSNN+HSV
–
-10.48***
-10.88***
-10.48***
-11.39***
-13.87****
TLNN+HSV1
–
–
9.12***
-10.37***
-13.71***
-11.30***
TLNN+HSV2
–
–
–
-10.59***
-13.70***
-11.60***
TLNN+HSV3
–
–
–
–
-22.46***
-6.63***
TLNN+HSV4
–
–
–
–
–
-2.80***
Table 7: The pair-wise Diebold-Mariano test statistics, which compare the out-of-sample option pricing errors (measured by RMSE) across all TLNNs and SKINN+HSV. The out-of-sample option pricing errors are evaluated using the options within the 317 periods of longer prediction horizons. A negative number indicates the column model outperforms the row model, and vice versa.
Figure 9: The out-of-sample option pricing performance of TLNNs and SKINN+HSV, over the 317 periods of longer prediction horizons. Among all the TLNNs, TLNN+HSV4 performs the best.
Model
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
–
–
–
Panel (A)
+Bnd
β1
0.0843 ∗∗∗
0.0891 ∗∗∗
0.0563 ∗∗∗
0.0720 ∗∗∗
-0.0116 ∗
–
–
–
(0.0141)
(0.0140)
(0.0146)
(0.0143)
(0.0069)
–
–
–
β0
-0.0134 ∗∗∗
-0.0141 ∗∗∗
-0.0082 ∗∗
-0.0151 ∗∗∗
0.0005
–
–
–
(0.0031)
(0.0031)
(0.0032)
(0.0032)
(0.0015)
–
–
–
Obs
317
317
317
317
317
–
–
–
Table 8: We run the regression ( 80 ) for each model. A statistically significant negative β1 implies that the model performs better compared with a plain vanilla neural network when the market is more volatile. The results are based on all 317 test periods of the shorter prediction horizons.
Model
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
–
–
–
Panel (A)
+Bnd
β1
-0.0317
-0.0274
-0.0483 ∗∗
-0.0340
-0.0303 ∗∗∗
–
–
–
(0.0214)
(0.0214)
(0.0215)
(0.0216)
(0.0096)
–
–
–
β0
0.0019
0.0013
0.0053
-0.0008
0.0027
–
–
–
(0.0047)
(0.0047)
(0.0047)
(0.0048)
(0.0021)
–
–
–
Obs
317
317
317
317
317
–
–
–
Table 9: We run the regression ( 80 ) for each model. A statistically significant negative β1 implies that the model performs better compared with a plain vanilla neural network when the market is more volatile. The results are based on all 317 test periods of the longer prediction horizons.
Model
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
–
–
–
Panel (A)
+Bnd
β1
-0.1979
-0.1172
-0.1354
-0.1288
-0.0346
–
–
–
(0.1657)
(0.1644)
(0.1646)
(0.1671)
(0.1192)
–
–
–
β0
0.0230
0.0125
0.0167
0.0119
0.0024
–
–
–
(0.0205)
(0.0204)
(0.0204)
(0.0207)
(0.0148)
–
–
–
Obs
64
64
64
64
64
–
–
–
Table 10: We run the regression ( 80 ) for each model. A statistically significant negative β1 implies that the model performs better compared with a plain vanilla neural network when the market is more volatile. The results are based on the 64 low volatility testing periods in the longer prediction horizons, where AvgVIX(t) is below the 20% quantile of AvgVIX across all the longer horizon testing periods.
Model
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
–
–
–
Panel (A)
+Bnd
β1
-0.0708
-0.0630
-0.1299 ∗∗
-0.0974 ∗
-0.0686 ∗∗
–
–
–
(0.0525)
(0.0525)
(0.0524)
(0.0532)
(0.0275)
–
–
–
β0
0.0086
0.0075
0.0202 ∗∗
0.0104
0.0098 ∗
–
–
–
(0.0102)
(0.0103)
(0.0102)
(0.0104)
(0.0054)
–
–
–
Obs
189
189
189
189
189
–
–
–
Table 11: We run the regression ( 80 ) for each model. A statistically significant negative β1 implies that the model performs better compared with a plain vanilla neural network when the market is more volatile. The results are based on the 189 medium volatility testing periods in the longer prediction horizons, where AvgVIX(t) is between the 20% quantile and the 80% quantile of AvgVIX across all the longer horizon testing periods.
Model
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
–
–
–
Panel (A)
+Bnd
β1
-0.0364
-0.0416
-0.0345
-0.0272
-0.0466
–
–
–
(0.0783)
(0.0787)
(0.0788)
(0.0791)
(0.0287)
–
–
–
β0
0.0051
0.0077
0.0025
-0.0013
0.0094
–
–
–
(0.0262)
(0.0264)
(0.0264)
(0.0265)
(0.0096)
–
–
–
Obs
64
64
64
64
64
–
–
–
Table 12: We run the regression ( 80 ) for each model. A statistically significant negative β1 implies that the model performs better compared with a plain vanilla neural network when the market is more volatile. The results are based on the 64 high volatility testing periods in the longer prediction horizons, where AvgVIX(t) is above the 80% quantile of AvgVIX across all the longer horizon testing periods.
BSM
σ
–
–
–
–
–
β1
1.1181***
–
–
–
–
–
(18.781)
–
–
–
–
–
β0
0.0255**
–
–
–
–
–
(2.543)
–
–
–
–
–
Obs
317
–
–
–
–
–
Adj. R2
52.7%
–
–
–
–
–
Table 13: The predictive information contained in each of the parameters calibrated according to the standard procedure, for the lagged averaged AvgVIX over one month. {σ} is from the BSM model, {a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6} is from the ABSM model, {vˉ,v0,σv,ρ,κ} is from the HSV model, and {vˉ,v0,σv,ρ,κ,λ,η0,η1,pup} is from the HSVJ model.
BSM
σ∗
–
–
–
–
–
β1
1.0896***
–
–
–
–
–
(17.329)
–
–
–
–
–
β0
0.0323***
–
–
–
–
–
(3.087)
–
–
–
–
–
Obs
317
–
–
–
–
–
Adj. R2
48.6%
–
–
–
–
–
Table 14: The predictive information contained in each of the parameters learned from the SKINNs, for the lagged averaged AvgVIX over one month. {σ∗} is from gϕBSM , {a1∗,a2∗,a3∗,a4∗,a5∗,a6∗} is from gϕABSM , {vˉ∗,v0∗,σv∗,ρ∗,κ∗} is from gϕHSV , and {vˉ∗,v0∗,σv∗,ρ∗,κ∗,λ∗,η0∗,η1∗,pup∗} is from gϕHSVJ .
Figure 10: The risk-neutral variances over 10 different tenors. Each risk-neutral variance Var[ϕt(Tk)] is translated from the learned risk-neutral probabilities by SKINN+MOPA for the k -th tenor, 1≤k≤10 . The upper panel illustrates the learned risk-neutral variances, and the lower panel illustrates the AvgVIX over the subsequent months after the SKINN+MOPA training periods.
MOPA
Var[ϕ(T1)]
Var[ϕ(T2)]
Var[ϕ(T3)]
Var[ϕ(T4)]
Var[ϕ(T5)]
β1
26.2949 ∗∗∗
16.3890 ∗∗∗
10.2331 ∗∗∗
6.6412 ∗∗∗
5.9800 ∗∗∗
(1.6483)
(0.9353)
(0.5712)
(0.4056)
(0.3548)
β0
0.1292 ∗∗∗
0.1217 ∗∗∗
0.1098 ∗∗∗
0.1041 ∗∗∗
0.0884 ∗∗∗
(0.0058)
(0.0057)
(0.0062)
(0.0070)
(0.0076)
Obs
317
317
317
317
317
Adj. R 2
44.5%
49.2%
50.3%
45.8%
47.3%
Table 15: The predictive information contained in the risk-neural variances converted from the latent parameters (i.e., the 2,000 risk-neutral probabilities over 10 tenors) learned from SKINN+MOPA, for the lagged averaged VIX over one month. Var[ϕt(Tk)] is the risk-neutral variance converted according to the learned risk-neutral probabilities for the k -th tenor.
Figure 11: The latent structural parameters learned by SKINNs with PSKRs.
Figure 12: The latent structural parameters (risk-neutral probabilities) learned by SKINN+MOPA, which uses an NPSKR with an unknown distribution. We select two training periods to demonstrate the learned probabilities, from the 2007-2009 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis, respectively.
Figure 13: The histograms of the variation of the SKINN-learned (orange) and the calibrated (blue) latent structural parameters, between two consecutive training periods over time. The SKINN-learned latent structural parameters exhibit a higher density around zero, indicating higher numerical stability compared to those from the conventional calibration.
Figure 14: The latent structural parameters learned from the SKINNs with two SPSKRs and one NPSKR, all of which employ an NN to proxy the structured-knowledge function gϕ . Specifically, the SKINNs are SKINN+DSNN-HSV, SKINN+DSNN-HSVJ, and SKINN+AE-BSM.
DSNN-HSV
vˉ
v0
σv
ρ
κ
–
β1
-7.8261 ∗∗
167.5138 ∗∗∗
-12.7938 ∗∗∗
1.9625 ∗
6.7324 ∗∗∗
–
(3.6186)
(10.7461)
(3.1635)
(1.0485)
(2.5814)
β0
21.1113 ∗∗∗
16.3179 ∗∗∗
23.6611 ∗∗∗
21.8788 ∗∗∗
18.8241 ∗∗∗
–
(0.5378)
(0.4312)
(0.9039)
(0.8771)
(0.7726)
–
Obs
317
317
317
317
317
–
Adj. R 2
1.15%
43.37%
4.63%
0.79%
1.80%
–
Table 16: The predictive information contained in the latent parameters learned from SKINN+DSNN-HSV, SKINN+DSNN-NASV, and SKINN+AE-BSM, for the lagged averaged AvgVIX over one month. {vˉ,v0,σv,ρ,κ} is from gϕDSNN-HSV , {κv,θv,σv,γv,ρsv,v0} is from gϕDSNN-NASV , and {ϕAE(1),ϕAE(2)} is from gϕAE-BSM .
Model
NN
SKINN ( η=0 )
SKINN ( η=10 )
Group
Avg %
SD %
SR
Avg %
SD %
SR
Avg %
SD %
SR
1-32
H
60.73
130.07
0.47
68.22
109.78
0.62
70.83
102.91
0.69
L
59.29
136.54
0.43
54.78
133.41
0.41
57.77
134.48
0.43
2-32
H
57.01
127.73
0.45
71.86
119.78
0.60
65.32
99.71
0.66
L
72.12
145.66
0.50
70.98
141.31
0.50
57.19
140.62
0.41
3-32
H
56.57
127.98
0.44
68.94
122.60
0.56
59.45
100.10
0.59
Table 17: The comparison of the SKINN asset pricing models and the plain-vanilla NN asset pricing models. All portfolio performance metrics are evaluated with the out-of-sample stock data in the testing periods. We train asset pricing models using 5 different architectures (1-5 hidden layers with 32 neurons). The results are averaged across 20 different random initializations of an NN. Group H denotes the top-decile portfolio, and Group L denotes the bottom-decile.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
22.48**
23.43
5.68***
17.71***
14.13***
25.18
25.34
ABSM
–
–
22.58*
5.20***
17.15***
13.82***
24.53
25.12
HSV
–
–
–
2.94***
19.13***
16.19***
25.89
26.53
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
25.74
23.54
35.30***
35.12***
Appendix
Table 18: The Wilcoxon (1945) test results for the out-of-sample option pricing accuracy comparisons in shorter prediction horizons. We square all the pricing errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
25.23
25.75
9.68***
27.71*
22.11**
27.52*
28.20**
ABSM
–
–
24.24
8.48***
27.44*
21.81**
27.11
27.78*
HSV
–
–
–
3.79***
27.75*
22.40**
27.20
28.15**
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
32.41***
27.46*
33.16***
34.08***
Appendix
Table 19: The Wilcoxon (1945) test results for the out-of-sample option pricing accuracy comparisons in longer prediction horizons. We square all the pricing errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
5.16***
46.50***
47.13***
22.27**
21.40***
25.08
24.21
ABSM
–
–
46.79***
47.31***
23.79
23.39
27.21
25.96
HSV
–
–
–
20.19**
9.80***
7.81***
12.32***
10.56***
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
9.59***
8.12***
12.60***
10.81***
Appendix
Table 20: The Wilcoxon (1945) test results for the out-of-sample option hedging accuracy comparisons in shorter prediction horizons. We square all the hedging errors to penalize large errors.
Model
Structural models
Benchmark NNs
Panel (A)
BSM
ABSM
HSV
HSVJ
NN
NN
NN
PINN
+Bnd
+Shape
+BSM
BSM
–
6.19***
46.34***
46.83***
22.52*
21.78**
24.95
24.75
ABSM
–
–
46.59***
47.12***
23.76
23.64
27.32*
26.56
HSV
–
–
–
20.55**
12.36***
10.91***
14.20***
12.84***
HSVJ
–
–
–
–
12.51***
11.17***
14.49***
13.24***
Appendix
Table 21: The Wilcoxon (1945) test results for the out-of-sample option hedging accuracy comparisons in longer prediction horizons. We square all the hedging errors to penalize large errors.
Shorter Prediction Horizons
Longer Prediction Horizons
Model
SKINN+SABR
SKINN+AE-MIX
SKINN+SABR
SKINN+AE-MIX
BSM
-1.22
-2.74***
-1.59*
0.51
ABSM
-1.36*
-2.93***
-1.81**
0.37
HSV
-0.96
-2.58***
-1.76*
0.45
HSVJ
-0.17
-1.51*
-0.81
1.03
NN
0.30
-1.65**
-3.68***
-3.23***
Appendix
Table 22: The Diebold-Mariano test of the out-of-sample option pricing performance, measured in terms of RMSE, of the two SKINNs. We square all the pricing errors to penalize large errors.
All
Low Volatility
Model
SKINN+SABR
SKINN+AE-MIX
SKINN+SABR
SKINN+AE-MIX
AvgVIX
-0.0835***
-0.0821***
-0.2368
-0.0765
(0.019)
(0.012)
(0.161)
(0.118)
Constant
0.0096**
0.0139***
0.0259
0.0097
(0.004)
(0.003)
(0.020)
(0.015)
Obs
317
317
64
64
Appendix
Table 23: The marginal outperformance of SKINN against the plain-vanilla NN given a one-unit increase in AvgVIX. We consider different volatility regimes from the 317 longer prediction horizons.
Paradigm
Configuration
Reference
Plain neural network
λ=0
Gu et al. (2020)
PINNs
gϕ=D[fθ] , λ→∞
Raissi et al. (2019)
Transfer learning
ϕ fixed, two-stage training
Pan and Yang (2010)
Bayesian MAP estimation
LSK as neg. log-prior
Neal (1996)
Regularized / functional GMM
Ldata,LSK as moment conditions
Hansen (1982)
Sieve GMM / Deep GMM
fθ as neural sieve, optimal W
Ai and Chen (2003)
Appendix
Table 24: SKINNs as a unifying framework: limiting configurations of the composite objective.
Physics-informed neural networks provide a flexible framework for learning parametric PDE solution families without labeled data, yet preserving accurate derivatives across heterogeneous regimes remains challenging. Structured neural solvers offer compact representations, but restrictive conditional parameterizations can limit adaptation across the solution family. We introduce BeTINN, a structured conditional architecture extending time-induced modulation through multi-directional time-parameter conditioning and a joint residual pathway. We evaluate BeTINN on the Heston stochastic-volatility PDE, a demanding parametric problem with mixed derivatives and economically relevant first- and second-order sensitivities. BeTINN improves joint accuracy across normalized option value and key sensitivity metrics relative to our baselines. Controlled ablations characterize the roles of its architectural components. We further find that validation physics loss is informative but does not fully determine differential fidelity, and that accurate solution values can coexist with localized derivative errors. These results support structured conditional adaptation and motivate derivative-aware evaluation when sensitivities are downstream quantities of interest.
We introduce a neural network-based framework for learning time series estimators through a process we term decision-theoretic pretraining. Analysts specify a generative world, a distribution over data-generating processes, and a target decision objective. A neural network trained on stratified simulations from this world approximates the corresponding optimal decision rule, yielding a neural estimator that provides forecasts, parameter estimates, predictive intervals, or model-selection for zero-shot inference on previously unseen time series. The joint specification of the generative world and objective enables the estimators to directly approximate process-level, finite-sample properties: near-optimal risk, bias control, minimax performance, and uniform calibration. Our experiments demonstrate that these neural estimators can outperform traditional baselines such as maximum likelihood estimation and model selection via AICc, for the same model structural model classes. Furthermore, even when trained purely on simulations of structural models, they achieve competitive or state-of-the-art forecasting accuracy on major real-world benchmarks, compared with statistical, neural or large pre-trained models. We illustrate the framework by addressing two longstanding challenges: finite-sample bias and miscalibration in AR(p) models, and the forecast combination puzzle. These applications highlight the approach's main advantage: its ability to approximate solutions to analytically intractable or computationally prohibitive time series problems, including complex structural equations or optimality criteria. Ultimately, by enabling explicit control over decision-theoretic trade-offs, the framework equips analysts with highly efficient estimation tools tailored to their specific analytical needs.
Neural network-based approaches have emerged as efficient alternatives to traditional optimization-based procedures for the calibration of stochastic volatility models. However, existing work has focused primarily on predictive accuracy, with comparatively little attention devoted to understanding the structure of the learned inverse calibration mappings. In this work, we analyze neural calibration mappings for the Heston and rough Heston models across multilayer perceptron, highway, and softmax-parametrized highway architectures, using complementary Shapley-based methods from explainable AI. Specifically, we consider SHAP and νSHAP explanations, which capture distinct, complementary notions of feature relevance, corresponding to sensitivity and sufficiency of feature subsets, respectively. Short maturities and smile wings consistently dominate parameter inference, and the dominant attribution structure remains qualitatively stable across architectures despite differences in predictive accuracy and parameter count. Parameter-specific differences between SHAP and νSHAP further reveal how distinct regions of the implied volatility surface contribute to parameter recovery and expose substantial redundancy in the calibration input. Building on this redundancy, we show that νSHAP explanations can guide a significant reduction in input dimensionality for the rough Heston model while matching calibration accuracy relative to the full implied volatility surface. These findings demonstrate that complementary Shapley-based methods provide structural insight into learned inverse calibration mappings beyond predictive error metrics, and offer a practical route to feature selection in neural calibration problems.
Shaïn Afzali, Serena Della Corte, Antonis Papapantoleon