Can we imitate stock price behavior to reinforcement learn option price?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a framework of imitating the price behavior of the underlying stock for reinforcement learning option price. We use accessible features of the equities pricing data to construct a non-deterministic Markov decision process for modeling stock price behavior driven by principal investor’s decision making. However, low signal-to-noise ratio and instability that appear immanent in equity markets pose challenges to determine the state transition (price change) after executing an action (principal investor’s decision) as well as decide an action based on current state (spot price). In order to conquer these challenges, we resort to a Bayesian deep neural network for computing the predictive distribution of the state transition led by an action. Additionally, instead of exploring a state-action relationship to formulate a policy, we seek for an episode based visible-hidden state-action relationship to probabilistically imitate principal investor’s successive decision making. Our algorithm then maps imitative principal investor’s decisions to simulated stock price paths by a Bayesian deep neural network. Eventually the optimal option price is reinforcement learned through maximizing the cumulative risk-adjusted return of a dynamically hedged portfolio over simulated price paths of the underlying.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".