Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic hedging is the practice of periodically transacting financial instruments to offset the risk caused by an investment or a liability. Dynamic hedging optimization can be framed as a sequential decision problem; thus, Reinforcement Learning (RL) models were recently proposed to tackle this task. However, existing RL works for hedging do not consider market impact caused by the finite liquidity of traded instruments. Integrating such a feature can be crucial to achieve optimal performance when hedging options on stocks with limited liquidity. In this paper, we propose a novel general market impact dynamic hedging model based on Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) that considers several realistic features such as convex market impacts, and impact persistence through time. The optimal policy obtained from the DRL model is analysed using several option hedging simulations and compared to commonly used procedures such as delta hedging. Results show our DRL model behaves better in contexts of low liquidity by, among others: 1) learning the extent to which portfolio rebalancing actions should be dampened or delayed to avoid high costs, 2) factoring in the impact of features not considered by conventional approaches, such as previous hedging errors through the portfolio value, and the underlying asset's drift (i.e. the magnitude of its expected return).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".