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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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