MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613653781 · doi:10.69554/dkwi2810

Market impact measurement of a VWAP trading algorithm

2011· article· en· W2613653781 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk management in financial institutions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume-weighted average priceAlgorithmic tradingComputer scienceAlgorithmEconometricsFinancial economicsBusinessEconomicsStock marketGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a model for the market impact of algorithmic trades. Usually large orders cannot be executed immediately without significant trading costs. For optimised execution one relies on the help of a VWAP (volume-weighted average price) trading algorithm. It is demonstrated that the VWAP algorithm is the optimal solution of the optimisation problem using the market impact models presented in this paper. The purpose of this work is the empirical market impact analysis of a homogeneous set of algorithmic trades. The underlying data set contains trades resulting from a hedge fund trading strategy. The analysis shows that the participation rate is the most important description variable. Therefore, a linear model and also a concave power law model of the market impact, dependent on the participation rate, are used. The estimated parameters lead to interesting consequences for verifying certain aspects of the market microstructure theory. The results also suggest different behaviour of the various analysed markets. On the one hand the market impact dependency on the participation rate behaves differently for the Japanese market compared to the European, US and Canadian markets. On the other hand, the individualised linear regression results suggest a dependency of the market impact on tick size for the Japanese and US markets.

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.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.158 · 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