MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582272558 · doi:10.1142/s0219024917500054

OPTIMAL TRADING STRATEGIES WITH LIMIT ORDERS

2017· article· en· W2582272558 on OpenAlexaff
Rossella Agliardi, Ramazan Gençay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Trading strategyOrder bookVolatility (finance)Pairs tradeOrder (exchange)Market manipulationPosition (finance)Algorithmic tradingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceStochastic controlOptimal controlEconomicsMathematical economicsFinancial economicsMathematicsAlternative trading systemFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model is proposed to study the risk management problem of designing optimal trading strategies in a limit order book. The execution of limit orders is uncertain, which leads to a stochastic control problem. In contrast to previous literature, we allow the agents to choose both the quotes and the sizes of their submitted orders. Attention is paid to how the trading strategy is affected by an order book’s characteristics, market volatility and the trader’s risk attitude. We prescribe an optimal splitting of the order size for the trades with limit orders, while the existing literature offers a solution to this problem with market orders, and, at the same time, we provide guidelines to optimally place orders further behind the best price or to (re)position them more aggressively. Thus this paper is an attempt towards a more realistic modeling of optimal liquidation throughout limit orders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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