Deep Reinforcement Learning in Agent Based Financial Market Simulation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of financial market data with deep learning models has achieved some level of recent success. However, historical financial data suffer from an unknowable state space, limited observations, and the inability to model the impact of your own actions on the market can often be prohibitive when trying to find investment strategies using deep reinforcement learning. One way to overcome these limitations is to augment real market data with agent based artificial market simulation. Artificial market simulations designed to reproduce realistic market features may be used to create unobserved market states, to model the impact of your own investment actions on the market itself, and train models with as much data as necessary. In this study we propose a framework for training deep reinforcement learning models in agent based artificial price-order-book simulations that yield non-trivial policies under diverse conditions with market impact. Our simulations confirm that the proposed deep reinforcement learning model with unique task-specific reward function was able to learn a robust investment strategy with an attractive risk-return profile.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it