Deep Reinforcement Learning in Non-Markov Market-Making
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".