MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764318628 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.760

An Optimal Execution Problem in Finance with Acquisition and Liquidation Objectives: an MFG Formulation

2017· article· en· W2764318628 on OpenAlexafffund
Dena Firoozi, Peter E. Caines

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMinor (academic)Nash equilibriumState (computer science)Financial marketFinanceComputer scienceMathematical economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partially observed major minor LQG mean field game theory is applied to an optimal execution problem in finance; following standard financial models, controlled linear system dynamics are postulated where an institutional investor (interpreted as a major agent) in the market aims to liquidate a specific amount of shares and has partial observations of its own state (which includes its inventory). Furthermore, the market is assumed to have two populations of high frequency traders (interpreted as minor agents) who wish to liquidate or acquire a certain number of shares within a specific time, and each one of them has partial observations of its own state and the major agent’s state (which include the corresponding inventories). The objective for each agent is to maximize its own wealth and to avoid the occurrence of large execution prices, large rates of trading and large trading accelerations which are appropriately weighted in the agent’s performance function. The existence of e-Nash equilibria together with the individual agents’ trading strategies yielding the equilibria, were established. A simulation example is provided.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207