RESILIENT PRICE IMPACT OF TRADING AND THE COST OF ILLIQUIDITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We construct a model for liquidity risk and price impacts in a limit order book setting with depth, resilience and tightness. We derive a wealth equation and a characterization of illiquidity costs. We show that we can separate liquidity costs due to depth and resilience from those related to tightness, and obtain a reduced model in which proportional costs due to the bid-ask spread is removed. From this, we obtain conditions under which the model is arbitrage free. By considering the standard utility maximization problem, this also allows us to obtain a stochastic discount factor and an asset pricing formula which is consistent with empirical findings (e.g., Brennan and Subrahmanyam (1996); Amihud and Mendelson (1986)). Furthermore, we show that in limiting cases for some parameters of the model, we derive many existing liquidity models present in the arbitrage pricing literature, including Çetin et al. (2004) and Rogers and Singh (2010). This offers a classification of different types of liquidity costs in terms of the depth and resilience of prices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".