MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126407628 · doi:10.21428/594757db.fff2144f

Deep Hedging with Market Impact

2024· article· en· W7126407628 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioMarket liquidityReinforcement learningFactoringMarket impactReplicating portfolioInvestment (military)Forward contract

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207