Algorithmic and high-frequency trading problems for Semi-Markov and Hawkes jump-diffusion models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a jump-diffusion pricing model specifically designed for algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading (HFT). The model incorporates independent jump and diffusion processes, providing a more precise representation of the limit order book (LOB) dynamics within a scaling-limit framework. Given that algorithmic and HFT strategies now dominate major financial markets, accurately modeling LOB dynamics is crucial for developing effective trading algorithms. Recent research has shown that LOB data often exhibit non-Markovian properties, reinforcing the need for models that better capture its evolution. In this paper, we address acquisition and liquidation problems under more general compound semi-Markov and Hawkes jump-diffusion models. We first develop jump-diffusion frameworks to capture these dynamics and then apply diffusion approximations to the jump components so that robust solutions can be given. Optimal trading strategies are formulated using stochastic optimal control (SOC) and solved numerically. Finally, we present strategy simulations analyzing price paths, inventory evolution, trading speed, and average execution prices. This study provides insights into how these models can improve execution strategies under more general price dynamics.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".