MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255879235 · doi:10.1142/s0219024916500047

OPTIMAL EXECUTION COST FOR LIQUIDATION THROUGH A LIMIT ORDER MARKET

2016· article· en· W2255879235 on OpenAlexafffund
Etienne Chevalier, Vathana Ly Vath, Simone Scotti, Alexandre F. Roch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationBellman equationJump processJumpPosition (finance)Stochastic controlOrder bookComputer sciencePortfolioOrder (exchange)Market impactOptimal controlMarket microstructureEconomicsMathematicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of optimally liquidating a large portfolio position in a limit-order market. We allow for both limit and market orders and the optimal solution is a combination of both types of orders. Market orders deplete the order book, making future trades more expensive, whereas limit orders can be entered at more favorable prices but are not guaranteed to be filled. We model the bid-ask spread with resilience by a jump process, and the market-order arrival process as a controlled Poisson process. The objective is to minimize the execution cost of the strategy. We formulate the problem as a mixed stochastic continuous control and impulse problem for which the value function is shown to be the unique viscosity solution of the associated variational inequalities. We conclude with a calibration of the model on recent market data and a numerical implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207