Deep Reinforcement Learning in Non-Markov Market-Making
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
We develop a deep reinforcement learning (RL) framework for an optimal market-making (MM) trading problem, specifically focusing on price processes with semi-Markov and Hawkes Jump-Diffusion dynamics. We begin by discussing the basics of RL and the deep RL framework used; we deployed the state-of-the-art Soft Actor–Critic (SAC) algorithm for the deep learning part. The SAC algorithm is an off-policy entropy maximization algorithm more suitable for tackling complex, high-dimensional problems with continuous state and action spaces, like those in optimal market-making (MM). We introduce the optimal MM problem considered, where we detail all the deterministic and stochastic processes that go into setting up an environment to simulate this strategy. Here, we also provide an in-depth overview of the jump-diffusion pricing dynamics used and our method for dealing with adverse selection within the limit order book, and we highlight the working parts of our optimization problem. Next, we discuss the training and testing results, where we provide visuals of how important deterministic and stochastic processes such as the bid/ask prices, trade executions, inventory, and the reward function evolved. Our study includes an analysis of simulated and real data. We include a discussion on the limitations of these results, which are important points for most diffusion style models in this setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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