Event-Based Limit Order Book Simulation under a Neural Hawkes Process: Application in Market-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose an event-driven Limit Order Book (LOB) model that captures twelve of the most observed LOB events in exchange-based financial markets. To model these events, we propose using the state-of-the-art Neural Hawkes process, a more robust alternative to traditional Hawkes process models. More specifically, this model captures the dynamic relationships between different event types, particularly their long- and short-term interactions, using a Long Short-Term Memory neural network. Using this framework, we construct a midprice process that captures the event-driven behaviour of the LOB by simulating high-frequency dynamics like how they appear in real financial markets. The empirical results show that our model captures many of the broader characteristics of the price fluctuations, particularly in terms of their overall volatility. We apply this LOB simulation model within a Deep Reinforcement Learning Market-Making framework, where the trading agent can now complete trade order fills in a manner that closely resembles real-market trade execution. Here, we also compare the results of the simulated model with those from real data, highlighting how the overall performance and the distribution of trade order fills closely align with the same analysis on real data.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".