Reinforcement Learning Pair Trading: A Dynamic Scaling Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrency is a cryptography-based digital asset with extremely volatile prices. Around USD 70 billion worth of cryptocurrency is traded daily on exchanges. Trading cryptocurrency is difficult due to the inherent volatility of the crypto market. This study investigates whether Reinforcement Learning (RL) can enhance decision-making in cryptocurrency algorithmic trading compared to traditional methods. In order to address this question, we combined reinforcement learning with a statistical arbitrage trading technique, pair trading, which exploits the price difference between statistically correlated assets. We constructed RL environments and trained RL agents to determine when and how to trade pairs of cryptocurrencies. We developed new reward shaping and observation/action spaces for reinforcement learning. We performed experiments with the developed reinforcement learner on pairs of BTC-GBP and BTC-EUR data separated by 1 min intervals (n = 263,520). The traditional non-RL pair trading technique achieved an annualized profit of 8.33%, while the proposed RL-based pair trading technique achieved annualized profits from 9.94% to 31.53%, depending upon the RL learner. Our results show that RL can significantly outperform manual and traditional pair trading techniques when applied to volatile markets such as cryptocurrencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".