Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 86 references

Boltzmann Price: Toward Understanding the Fair Price in High-Frequency Markets

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A maximum-entropy derivation yields the Boltzmann price, a one-parameter family that turns top-of-book volume imbalance into a fair price and fat-tailed dynamics.

desk verdict The theoretical framework is a clean unification, but the empirical fit is hand-tuned and partly circular; it deserves review as a theoretical contribution, not as a validated model. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09734 v1 pith:7LJU73JO submitted 2025-07-13 q-fin.TR

Przemys{l}aw Rola This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.TR MSC 91G8060H1094A17
keywords Boltzmannpricemaximumentropyvolumeimbalancelimitorderbookheavy-tailedreturnsmarketimpactfairstochasticdifferentialequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the fair price of a stock at high frequency can be derived from the maximum entropy principle: given only the volume imbalance between the best bid and best ask queues, the least biased distribution over the two quote states is a Boltzmann distribution, and its expected price defines an interpolating family, the Boltzmann price $P_{\mathrm{boltzmann}}(\beta)=\mathrm{softmax}(-\beta q_b,-\beta q_a)\cdot(P_b,P_a)$. At $\beta=0$ this family is exactly the mid-price, at $\beta=2$ it approximates the weighted mid-price, and at $\beta=1$ it gives a proposed equilibrium price. The paper then converts the same bid/ask probabilities into a price process $dP_t=\sigma(\tanh(\beta\theta_t)\,dt+dW_t/\cosh(\beta\theta_t))$, so volume imbalance drives both drift and volatility and heavier-than-Gaussian tails emerge without an extra stochastic-volatility ingredient. If the argument holds, the mid-price and weighted mid-price stop being rival estimators and become endpoints of one formula, and the model offers a single framework connecting price, imbalance, spread, and market impact.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-state maximum-entropy model. State probabilities are $p_b=e^{-\beta q_b}/Z$ and $p_a=e^{-\beta q_a}/Z$, with $Z=e^{-\beta q_b}+e^{-\beta q_a}$ the partition function and $q_b=Q_b/(Q_b+Q_a)$, $q_a=1-q_b$; $\beta\ge0$ is a free parameter playing the role of inverse temperature. The Boltzmann price is the expected price under this distribution (Definition 3.2). Its first-order expansion, $P_{\mathrm{boltzmann}}(\beta)\approx(1-\beta/2)P_{\mathrm{mid}}+(\beta/2)P_w$, connects the family to the mid-price and weighted mid-price, and the same probabilities enter the biased random walk whose continuous limit is Eq. (45), with per-step drift $\epsilon\tanh(\beta\theta_t)$ and volatility $\epsilon/\cosh(\beta\theta_t)$. In the appendix, a large-tick idealization shows the first micro-price adjustment has the same form, proportional to $(P_a-P_b)(q_b-\frac12)$, which identifies the equilibrium price with the micro-price when $\beta=1$.

What would settle it

Fit the Boltzmann price with $\beta$ free to one-minute quote data for a liquid stock and compare its one-step-ahead price-change predictions with a model that also includes the next ten levels of book depth, recent order flow, and a time-varying $\beta$; if the extended model predicts significantly better out of sample, the sufficiency assumption fails. Alternatively, estimate $\beta$ from historical $\theta_t$ and check whether the kurtosis generated by Eq. (45) still exceeds the Bachelier benchmark when $\beta$ is estimated rather than hand-picked.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the maximum-entropy principle applied to a two-state order book yields Definition 3.2, the Boltzmann price, as the fair price, and that the same Boltzmann probabilities that define it also define the dynamics in Eq. (45). The first-order decomposition in Lemma 4.1, $P_{\mathrm{boltzmann}}(\beta)=P_{\mathrm{mid}}+\beta(P_a-P_b)\theta/2+O(\theta^3)$, is the identity tying the family to existing benchmarks: $\beta=0$ is the mid-price, $\beta=2$ approximates the weighted mid-price, and the quasi-equilibrium price $\tilde{P}^{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac12(P_{\mathrm{mid}}+P_w)$ approximates $\beta=1$. The paper reports that the resulting dynamics produces excess kurtosis (for example, 4.67 versus about 0.16 for the Bachelier model in one simulation) and that, after sampling imbalance from Beta distributions and spread from a Gamma distribution, sampled price changes line up with historical kernel density estimates for a varying-spread stock and a constant-spread stock, with comparable kurtosis. It also derives the impact of an imbalance change on the Boltzmann price, $\Delta P^{\mathrm{boltzmann}}=\frac{S}{2}[\tanh(\beta\theta_1)-\tanh(\beta\theta_0)]$, and notes that clearing one side completely from a balanced book moves the price by only $(S/2)\tanh(\beta/2)$, less than the weighted mid-price's $S/2$ move.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation rests on the assumption that the top-of-book volume imbalance $q$ is a sufficient statistic for every piece of market information relevant to the fair price, so the bid and ask probabilities depend on $q$ alone through one exponential parameter $\beta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the family is correct, the choice between mid-price and weighted mid-price dissolves: both are parameter values of one price, and the equilibrium price at $\beta=1$ is essentially their average.
  • The dynamics in Eq. (45) produce leptokurtic price changes from imbalance alone, so heavy tails do not require a separate stochastic volatility process; increasing $\beta$ and a U-shaped imbalance distribution push kurtosis higher.
  • Drift is endogenous: a persistently positive $\theta_t$ gives a positive drift $\sigma\tanh(\beta\theta_t)$ even with no added $\mu\,dt$, so the model offers a microstructure mechanism for expected price moves.
  • The market-impact calculation bounds the fair-price move from clearing one side: for $\beta=1$, $(S/2)\tanh(1/2)\approx 0.462\,(S/2)$, which makes the weighted mid-price look like an overestimate of temporary impact and supports $\frac12(P_{\mathrm{mid}}+P_w)$ as a more suitable proxy.
  • With the spread-dependent generalized Boltzmann price, $\beta$ scales inversely with spread: large spreads pull the fair price back to the mid-price, while small spreads push it toward the heavier side of the book.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Equation (73), $\beta=-\ln(p_b/p_a)/(q_b-q_a)$, offers a direct way to estimate $\beta$ from historical level-1 quote data; the paper leaves this estimation to future work, so a cross-sectional calibration of $\beta$ is a natural next step.
  • The same maximum-entropy logic can be extended to more than two states by assigning energies to deeper book levels; such an extension would make the sufficiency of top-of-book imbalance testable against a multi-level Boltzmann price.
  • The spread-as-temperature analogy yields a testable cross-sectional prediction: fitted inverse temperature should fall as average spread rises, and violations would indicate that spread is not the only relevant scale.
  • Modeling $\theta_t$ endogenously as a mean-reverting or predictable process, instead of sampling it from a fixed distribution, would turn Eq. (45) into a closed two-factor model and sharpen the tail-behavior prediction; this is an extension, not a claim of the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a parametrized family of fair prices, the Boltzmann price, obtained by applying the maximum-entropy principle to a two-state (bid/ask) model of the limit order book, with state probabilities depending on top-of-book volume imbalance. The price interpolates between the mid-price and the weighted mid-price (Lemma 4.1), and the corresponding biased random walk is taken to the diffusion limit dPt = σ(tanh(βθt)dt + dWt/cosh(βθt)), so that both drift and volatility are imbalance-driven. The authors argue that this dynamics can produce heavier tails than constant-volatility Bachelier or GBM models and report simulations together with two historical data examples (GE and LCID) as validation. The paper also derives a market-impact interpretation from the derivative of the Boltzmann price with respect to imbalance.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established, the model would provide a compact theoretical integration of price, spread, and volume imbalance, and the explicit link between the micro-price and the β-parametrized family in Appendix 10.2 is a useful contribution. The Taylor expansion in Lemma 4.1 is correctly derived, and the stochastic differential equation in Eq. (45) is a coherent stochastic-volatility-type extension that can indeed generate excess kurtosis relative to constant-volatility models. However, the validation section does not presently support the abstract's claim of fitting historical equity data, and the maximum-entropy derivation leaves β as a free parameter, so the theoretical novelty is more limited than the presentation suggests. No code or data availability statement is provided, which also limits reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.1, Eq. (52), Table 5] The claim that the model "fits historical equity data" is not supported by the GE analysis. The simulation fixes β = 1 and selects η = 0.75 to match the mean and standard deviation; the mean kurtosis over 1,000 sampled runs is 2.51 with standard deviation 0.41, whereas the historical kurtosis is 4.15. The displayed value 5.17 in Figure 8 is therefore a cherry-picked run, not a typical outcome of the model. A proper calibration on a training window and evaluation on a holdout window, with sampling distributions reported, is needed before any out-of-sample fit can be claimed. The paper itself states that parameter estimation is left for future research (Section 7.1 and Section 9), which is in tension with the abstract's wording.
  2. [§7.2, Eq. (53), Tables 7–8] The LCID validation is partly circular. The sampled price changes in Eq. (53) use the historical mean and standard deviation (˜μ, ˜σ) of mid-price changes as inputs, and the parameters β = 17 and η = 2 are selected by comparing the resulting kurtosis with the historical value; the data are then rounded to two decimals after the comparison. Because the same data determine both the inputs and the reported fit, the exercise demonstrates that a flexible two-parameter family can match one moment, not that the model has predictive or descriptive validity. An estimation procedure for β and η on a separate subsample is required, or the claim should be reduced to a curve-fitting illustration.
  3. [§3, Assumption 3.1, Eq. (15)] The maximum-entropy derivation does not determine the exponential tilt: β is a free parameter and the constraint ⟨q⟩ is unknown, as the text acknowledges in the paragraph after Eq. (14). Consequently, the "least biased" characterization is conditional on an assumed functional form and a free parameter, and the choice β = 1 for the equilibrium price in Definition 3.3 is not derived. Additionally, Assumption 3.1 asserts that q is a sufficient statistic for the fundamental price, an assumption the paper itself flags as restrictive with respect to deeper book information. These limitations should be stated as explicit scope conditions, and the sensitivity of the price and the SDE to β should be reported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§6.1, Figure 3] The caption of Figure 3 lists parameters (qt ∼ Beta(0.5, 0.5), σ = 0.05, η = 2.75) that do not match the text of Section 6.1, which describes imbalance sampled from Beta(4.5, 4.5), spread from Gamma(1, 1), a tick size of 0.01, and β = 1; the caption should be aligned with the text or the discrepancy explained.
  2. [Throughout] Several typos should be corrected, including "Bolztmann" in footnote 9, "martinagle" in Appendix 10.1, and "General Electic" in Section 7.1.
  3. [Abstract and Section 9] The abstract states that the model is validated and "demonstrate[s] its fit to historical equity data," but Section 9 explicitly says that "a detailed empirical analysis using historical data" and "a comprehensive study of model parameter estimation" are still needed; the abstract should be tempered to avoid overstating the empirical contribution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Empirical 'fit to historical data' is calibration, not prediction: β and η are tuned to match target moments on the same sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.2, Eq. (53) and surrounding text; also Section 7.1]
    "The sampled price differences are generated as follows: η ˜µ tanh (βθi) + η˜σ ϵi / cosh (βθi), where ϵi are i.i.d. random variables drawn from N (0, 1), and ˜µ and ˜σ represent the mean and standard deviation of mid-price changes, respectively. ... The parameters β and η were selected to produce sampled price changes with means and standard deviations similar to those in the historical data, while also achieving comparable kurtosis."

    The paper's abstract and Section 7 claim that the model 'fits historical equity data,' but the fit is produced by selecting β and η to match the historical mean, standard deviation, and kurtosis on the same dataset. In Eq. (53), the historical mean and standard deviation are inserted directly into the simulation, so the simulated first two moments match by construction. The kurtosis match is then reported as evidence, but β=17 and η=2 were explicitly chosen to make that kurtosis comparable. Similarly, in Section 7.1, η=0.75 is chosen 'to yield a mean and standard deviation similar to those reported in Table 6,' and the displayed kurtosis 5.17 comes from a single sample while the average simulated kurtosis is 2.51 versus the historical 4.15.

full rationale

The theoretical core of the paper is self-contained and not circular. Definition 3.2 defines the Boltzmann price explicitly as a softmax function of the bid and ask imbalances, and Lemma 4.1 derives its relationship to the mid-price and weighted mid-price by Taylor expansion; this is a mathematical identity, not a hidden reuse of the target result. Section 5 derives the SDE dPt = σ(tanh(βθt)dt + dWt/cosh(βθt)) from an explicitly stated biased-random-walk model whose transition probabilities are e^{βθ}/(e^{βθ}+e^{-βθ}); the drift and volatility formulas follow from direct calculation, and the excess kurtosis is a genuine consequence of the imbalance-driven stochastic volatility, not an imported conclusion. The paper also transparently states that β is a free parameter of the maximum-entropy problem, so the Boltzmann form is an ansatz rather than a derived uniqueness result. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The only significant circularity is in the empirical validation: the claim that the model 'fits historical equity data' is supported by parameters that are selected on the same data to reproduce the very moments that are then reported as matches. This is calibration presented as fit, lowering the score to 6, but it does not invalidate the theoretical construction or the model's capacity to generate heavy tails.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central claim depends on several free parameters (β, η, σ) and on empirically fitted Beta/Gamma distributions for imbalance and spread. No new physical entities are introduced; the Boltzmann price is a mathematical construct. The exponential-tilt form of the probabilities is effectively an assumption because β is not determined by the constraints.

free parameters (5)
  • β (imbalance sensitivity / inverse temperature) = β=1 for GE, β=17 (or 8.5) for LCID, β=1,5,7.5 in simulations
    Free parameter in the maximum-entropy problem (Eqs. 9-14). The constraint on ⟨q⟩ does not determine it; it is chosen by hand to fit the kurtosis and price-change distributions.
  • η (volatility scaling) = η=0.75 (GE), η=2 (LCID), η=1,1.45,2.75 in simulations
    Multiplicative factor on the noise term (and sometimes on drift) used to match mean and standard deviation of price changes.
  • σ (volatility/diffusion coefficient in Eq. 45) = σ=0.25, 0.3, 0.1, 0.05 across simulations; set equal to 2σ or ησ to match historical std
    Free scale of the SDE; not estimated from data in a principled way.
  • Beta distribution parameters for imbalance = Beta(4.5,4.5), Beta(0.5,0.5), Beta(2,2), Beta(8,2), Beta(1.5,1.5), Beta(6.733,3.267)
    Chosen to reproduce historical imbalance histograms (e.g., 6.733 and 3.267 derived from target drift, and 4.88/0.03 from GE spread fit).
  • Gamma distribution parameters for spread = Γ(1,1) in simulation, Γ(4.88,0.03) for GE
    Fitted to historical spread data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Maximum entropy principle (Jaynes) selects the least-biased distribution
    Used in Section 3 to justify Boltzmann form; a philosophical/statistical principle, not a mathematical theorem.
  • domain assumption State probabilities depend only on TOB volume imbalance q (Assumption 3.1)
    Section 3; the whole framework is conditional on q being a sufficient statistic for fair price.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential tilt (Boltzmann) functional form with free β
    Derived from MaxEnt with a constraint on ⟨q⟩ that is never used to fix β; effectively an assumption about the probability structure.
  • domain assumption Constant spread in the main dynamics (Section 5)
    Eq. (45) assumes constant spread; generalization to variable spread in Eq. (46) is stated without formal derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Price evolves as a biased random walk with probabilities from Boltzmann (Eqs. 25-26)
    The random walk model is posited; it is not derived from an optimality or no-arbitrage condition.
  • ad hoc to paper ϵ = S/2 (half spread) as the natural price step
    Section 5 states this is a 'natural candidate'; it is used to connect drift to the Boltzmann price adjustment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boltzmann Price: Toward Understanding the Fair Price in High-Frequency Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LJU73JO

@misc{pith2026250709734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boltzmann Price: Toward Understanding the Fair Price in High-Frequency Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LJU73JO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09734}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce a parametrized family of prices derived from the Maximum Entropy Principle. The price is obtained from the distribution that minimizes bias, given the bid and ask volume imbalance at the top of the order book. Under specific parameter choices, it closely approximates the mid-price or the weighted mid-price. Using probabilities of bid and ask states, we propose a model of price dynamics in which both drift and volatility are driven by volume imbalance. Compared to standard models like Bachelier or Geometric Brownian Motion with constant volatility, our model can generate higher kurtosis and heavy-tailed distributions. Additionally, the drift term naturally emerges as a consequence of the order book imbalance. We validate the model through simulation and demonstrate its fit to historical equity data. The model provides a theoretical framework, integrating price, volume imbalance, and spread.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Symbolic representation of a Limit Order Book. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sampled imbalance and spread used in a representative price simulation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Price changes from the Bachelier model without drift, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of imbalance sampled from a Beta(0.5, 0.5) distribution. In this example, we model the imbalance using a U-shaped distribution, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Price simulation: We compare the Bachelier model without drift, given by, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Price simulation: We compare the Bachelier model with drift, given by, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Price simulation: We compare the Bachelier model without drift, given by, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kernel Density Estimation of mid-price changes and sampled price changes. The sampled price changes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histograms for LCID, based on data aggregated into 1-minute intervals. The Boltzmann price changes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of mid-price changes (historical) vs. sampled price changes, before and after rounding. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The derivative of the Boltzmann price d dθP boltzmann vs. theoretical price change ∆P boltzmann. The theoretical price move is the drift term, i.e., S 2 tanh (βθ). There has been observed, that the average price move can be up to a third of the spread [5]. Using the p…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the micro-price and the equilibrium price dynamics over a short time interval. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histograms of imbalance q for GE, data is aggregated in 1 min intervals. (a) Spread (b) Sampled spread from Γ(4.88, 0.03) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histograms of spread for GE, data is aggregated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Histograms of imbalance q for LCID, data is aggregated in 1 min intervals. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A continuous and efficient fundamental price on the discrete order book grid

    Julius Bonart and Fabrizio Lillo. A continuous and efficient fundamental price on the discrete order book grid. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 503(C):698–713, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Liquidity and impact in fair markets

    Thibault Jaisson. Liquidity and impact in fair markets. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 01(02), 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    The micro-price: a high-frequency estimator of future prices

    Sasha Stoikov. The micro-price: a high-frequency estimator of future prices. Quantitative Finance, 18(12):1959– 1966, 2018

    1959

  4. [4]

    Hagströmer

    B. Hagströmer. Bias in the effective bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(1):314–337, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Trade arrival dynamics and quote imbalance in a limit order book

    A. Lipton, U. Pesavento, and M. Sotiropoulos. Trade arrival dynamics and quote imbalance in a limit order book. arXiv:1312.0514, 12 2013

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Limit order strategic placement with adverse selection risk and the role of latency

    Charles-Albert Lehalle and Othmane Mounjid. Limit order strategic placement with adverse selection risk and the role of latency. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 03(01):1750009, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Théorie de la spéculation

    Louis Bachelier. Théorie de la spéculation. Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, 3e série, 17:21–86, 1900

    1900

  8. [8]

    The pricing of options and corporate liabilities

    Fischer Black and Myron Scholes. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3):637–654, 1973

    1973

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Why do security prices change? a transaction-level analysis of nyse stocks

    Ananth Madhavan, Matthew Richardson, and Mark Roomans. Why do security prices change? a transaction-level analysis of nyse stocks. The Review of Financial Studies, 10(4):1035–1064, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    Robert and Mathieu Rosenbaum

    Christian Y . Robert and Mathieu Rosenbaum. A new approach for the dynamics of ultra-high-frequency data: The model with uncertainty zones. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 9(2):344–366, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Robert, and Mathieu Rosenbaum

    Sylvain Delattre, Christian Y . Robert, and Mathieu Rosenbaum. Estimating the efficient price from the order flow: A brownian cox process approach. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(7):2603–2619, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Dealing with the inventory risk: a solution to the market making problem

    Olivier Guéant, Charles-Albert Lehalle, and Joaquin Fernandez-Tapia. Dealing with the inventory risk: a solution to the market making problem. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 7(4):477–507, Sep 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Toward a theory of marginally efficient markets

    Yi-Cheng Zhang. Toward a theory of marginally efficient markets. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 269(1):30–44, 1999. 28At least at Level I. Higher levels of the LOB are not considered in this analysis. 20

    1999

  6. [14]

    Measuring market efficiency: The shannon entropy of high-frequency financial time series

    Andrey Shternshis, Piero Mazzarisi, and Stefano Marmi. Measuring market efficiency: The shannon entropy of high-frequency financial time series. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 162, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Information thermodynamics of financial markets: the glosten–milgrom model

    Léo Touzo, Matteo Marsili, and Don Zagier. Information thermodynamics of financial markets: the glosten–milgrom model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2021(3), mar 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Glosten and Paul R

    Lawrence R. Glosten and Paul R. Milgrom. Bid, ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heteroge- neously informed traders. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1):71–100, 1985

    1985

  9. [17]

    Logarithmic market scoring rules for modular combinatorial information aggregation

    Robin Hanson. Logarithmic market scoring rules for modular combinatorial information aggregation. Journal of Prediction Markets, 1, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Pennock, Daniel M

    Abraham Othman, David M. Pennock, Daniel M. Reeves, and Tuomas Sandholm. A practical liquidity-sensitive automated market maker. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 1(3), September 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Combinatorial information market design

    Robin Hanson. Combinatorial information market design. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(1):107–119, January 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    Prediction markets

    Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2):107–126, June 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Yiling Chen and David M. Pennock. A utility framework for bounded-loss market makers. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’07, page 49–56, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2007. AUAI Press

    2007

  14. [22]

    Optimizing the liquidity parameter of logarithmic market scoring rules prediction markets

    Suparerk Lekwijit and Daricha Sutivong. Optimizing the liquidity parameter of logarithmic market scoring rules prediction markets. Journal of Modelling in Management, 13, 09 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    A logarithmic market scoring rule agent-based model to evaluate prediction markets

    Athos Carvalho, Douglas Silveira, and Regis Ely. A logarithmic market scoring rule agent-based model to evaluate prediction markets. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 33:1–41, 06 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Price formation in field prediction markets: The wisdom in the crowd

    Frederik Bossaerts, Nitin Yadav, Peter Bossaerts, Chad Nash, Torquil Todd, Torsten Rudolf, Rowena Hutchins, Anne-Louise Ponsonby, and Karl Mattingly. Price formation in field prediction markets: The wisdom in the crowd. Journal of Financial Markets, 68, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Almgren and Neil Chriss

    Robert F. Almgren and Neil Chriss. Value under liquidation. Risk, 12:61–63, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    Almgren and Neil Chriss

    Robert F. Almgren and Neil Chriss. Optimal execution of portfolio transactions. Journal of Risk, 3:5–40, 2001

    2001

  19. [27]

    Almgren and

    Robert F. Almgren and. Optimal execution with nonlinear impact functions and trading-enhanced risk. Applied Mathematical Finance, 10(1):1–18, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Eugene Stanley

    Xavier Gabaix, Parameswaran Gopikrishnan, Vasiliki Plerou, and H. Eugene Stanley. A theory of power-law distributions in financial market fluctuations. Nature, 423:267–270, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Price manipulation and quasi-arbitrage

    Gur Huberman and Werner Stanzl. Price manipulation and quasi-arbitrage. Econometrica, 72(4):1247–1275, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Direct estimation of equity market impact

    Robert Almgren, Chee Thum, Emmanuel Hauptmann, and Hong Li. Direct estimation of equity market impact. Risk, 18, 04 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Relation between bid–ask spread, impact and volatility in order-driven markets

    Matthieu Wyart, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Julien Kockelkoren, Marc Potters, and Michele Vettorazzo. Relation between bid–ask spread, impact and volatility in order-driven markets. Quantitative Finance, 8(1):41–57, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Doyne Farmer, and Fabrizio Lillo

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, J. Doyne Farmer, and Fabrizio Lillo. How markets slowly digest changes in supply and demand. In Thorsten Hens and Klaus Reiner Schenk-Hoppé, editors, Handbook of Financial Markets: Dynamics and Evolution, Handbooks in Finance, pages 57–160. Elsevier, Sa...

    2009

  25. [33]

    No-dynamic-arbitrage and market impact

    Jim Gatheral. No-dynamic-arbitrage and market impact. Quantitative Finance, 10(7):749–759, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    The price impact of order book events: market orders, limit orders and cancellations

    Zoltán Eisler, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Julien and Kockelkoren. The price impact of order book events: market orders, limit orders and cancellations. Quantitative Finance, 12(9):1395–1419, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    The market impact of a limit order

    Nikolaus Hautsch and Ruihong Huang. The market impact of a limit order. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 36(4):501–522, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Permanent market impact can be nonlinear

    Olivier Guéant. Permanent market impact can be nonlinear. Papers 1305.0413, arXiv.org, May 2013

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Doyne Farmer, Austin Gerig, Fabrizio Lillo, and Henri Waelbroeck

    J. Doyne Farmer, Austin Gerig, Fabrizio Lillo, and Henri Waelbroeck. How efficiency shapes market impact. Quantitative Finance, 13(11):1743–1758, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Market impacts and the life cycle of investors orders

    Emmanuel Bacry, Adrian Iuga, Matthieu Lasnier, and Charles-Albert Lehalle. Market impacts and the life cycle of investors orders. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 01(02), 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Agent-based models for latent liquidity and concave price impact

    Iacopo Mastromatteo, Bence Tóth, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Agent-based models for latent liquidity and concave price impact. Phys. Rev. E, 89:042805, Apr 2014. 21

    2014

  32. [40]

    A fully consistent, minimal model for non-linear market impact

    Jonathan Donier, Julius Bonart, Iacopo Mastromatteo, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. A fully consistent, minimal model for non-linear market impact. Quantitative Finance, 15(7):1109–1121, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Doyne Farmer, and Fabrizio Lillo

    Elia Zarinelli, Michele Treccani, J. Doyne Farmer, and Fabrizio Lillo. Beyond the square root: Evidence for logarithmic dependence of market impact on size and participation rate. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 01(02), 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Market impact: A systematic study of limit orders

    Emilio Said, Ahmed Bel Hadj Ayed, Alexandre Husson, and Frédéric Abergel. Market impact: A systematic study of limit orders. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 03(03n04), 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Price impact in a latent order book

    Ismael Lemhadri. Price impact in a latent order book. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 05(01n04), 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Market impact of small orders

    Oleh Danyliv. Market impact of small orders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02983, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. G. Kendall. The analysis of economic time-series-part i: Prices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 116(1):11–34, 1953

    1953

  38. [46]

    The variation of certain speculative prices

    Benoit Mandelbrot. The variation of certain speculative prices. The Journal of Business, 36(4):394–419, 1963

    1963

  39. [47]

    Benoit Mandelbrot and Howard M. Taylor. On the distribution of stock price differences. Operations Research, 15(6):1057–1062, 1967

    1967

  40. [48]

    Eugene F. Fama. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2):383–417, 1970

    1970

  41. [49]

    A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return

    Tim Bollerslev. A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(3):542–547, 1987

    1987

  42. [50]

    Andersen

    Torben G. Andersen. Return volatility and trading volume: An information flow interpretation of stochastic volatility. The Journal of Finance, 51(1):169–204, 1996

    1996

  43. [51]

    Statistical aspects of ARCH and stochastic volatility, pages 1–67

    Neil Shephard. Statistical aspects of ARCH and stochastic volatility, pages 1–67. Chapman & Hall, London, (edited by d.r. cox, david v. hinkley and ole e. barndorff-neilsen) edition, 1996. Reprinted in the Survey of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, issue on Financial and in...

    1996

  44. [52]

    Modelling extremal events: for insurance and finance

    Paul Embrechts, Thomas Mikosch, and Claudia Klüppelberg. Modelling extremal events: for insurance and finance. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997

    1997

  45. [53]

    Gopikrishnan, M

    P. Gopikrishnan, M. Meyer, L. A. N. Amaral, and H. E. Stanley. Inverse cubic law for the distribution of stock price variations. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 3(2):139–140, May 1998

    1998

  46. [54]

    Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market

    Thomas Lux and Michele Marchesi. Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market. Nature, 397:498–500, Feb 1999

    1999

  47. [55]

    Mittnik, S.T

    S. Mittnik, S.T. Rachev, T. Doganoglu, and D. Chenyao. Maximum likelihood estimation of stable paretian models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 29(10):275–293, 1999

    1999

  48. [56]

    McNeil and Rüdiger Frey

    Alexander J. McNeil and Rüdiger Frey. Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach. Journal of Empirical Finance, 7(3-4):271–300, November 2000

    2000

  49. [57]

    Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues

    Rama Cont. Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues. Quantitative Finance, 1(2):223–236, 2001

    2001

  50. [58]

    Koedijk, Clemens J

    Ronald Huisman, Kees G. Koedijk, Clemens J. M. Kool, and Franz Palm. Tail-index estimates in small samples. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 19(2):208–216, 2001

    2001

  51. [59]

    Theory of Financial Risk and Derivative Pricing: From Statistical Physics to Risk Management

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud and Marc Potters. Theory of Financial Risk and Derivative Pricing: From Statistical Physics to Risk Management. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2003

    2003

  52. [60]

    Bradley and Murad S

    Brendan O. Bradley and Murad S. Taqqu. Financial risk and heavy tails. In Svetlozar T. Rachev, editor,Handbook of Heavy Tailed Distributions in Finance, volume 1 of Handbooks in Finance, pages 35–103. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003

    2003

  53. [61]

    Chavez-Demoulin and J.A

    V . Chavez-Demoulin and J.A. McGill. High-frequency financial data modeling using hawkes processes.Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(12):3415–3426, 2012. Systemic risk, Basel III, global financial stability and regulation

    2012

  54. [62]

    Statistical consequences of fat tails: Real world preasymptotics, epistemology, and applications

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Statistical consequences of fat tails: Real world preasymptotics, epistemology, and applications. Papers 2001.10488, arXiv.org, Jan 2020

    2001

  55. [63]

    Andersen and Luca Benzoni

    Torben G. Andersen and Luca Benzoni. Stochastic V olatility, pages 8783–8815. Springer New York, New York, NY , 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    R.S. Tsay. Analysis of Financial Time Series. John Wiley & Sons, 3 edition, 2010. 22

    2010

  57. [65]

    Stochastic V olatilityModeling

    Lorenzo Bergomi. Stochastic V olatilityModeling. CRC Press, 1 edition, 2015

    2015

  58. [66]

    Guiasu and A

    S. Guiasu and A. Shenitzer. The principle of maximum entropy. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 7:42–48, 1985

    1985

  59. [67]

    E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev., 106(4):620–630, 1957

    1957

  60. [68]

    Discovering market prices: Which price formation model best predicts the next trade? Blockchain Research Lab Working Paper Series, No

    André Meyer and Ingo Fiedler. Discovering market prices: Which price formation model best predicts the next trade? Blockchain Research Lab Working Paper Series, No. 2., 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    Eugene F. Fama. Random walks in stock market prices. Financial Analysts Journal, 51(1):75–80, 1995

    1995

  62. [70]

    Eugene F. Fama. The behavior of stock-market prices. The Journal of Business, 38(1):34–105, 1965

    1965

  63. [71]

    James Press

    S. James Press. A compound events model for security prices. The Journal of Business, 40(3):317–335, 1967

    1967

  64. [72]

    Mark S. Joshi. The Concepts And Practice Of Mathematical Finance. Mathematics, Finance and Risk. Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  65. [73]

    A simple implicit measure of the effective bid-ask spread in an efficient market

    Richard Roll. A simple implicit measure of the effective bid-ask spread in an efficient market. Journal of Finance, 39(4):1127–1139, September 1984

    1984

  66. [74]

    The price impact of order book events

    Rama Cont, Arseniy Kukanov, and Sasha Stoikov. The price impact of order book events. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 12(1):47–88, 2014

    2014

  67. [75]

    Gould and Julius Bonart

    Martin D. Gould and Julius Bonart. Queue imbalance as a one-tick-ahead price predictor in a limit order book. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 02(02):1650006, 2016

    2016

  68. [76]

    Doyne Farmer

    Bence Tóth, Imon Palit, Fabrizio Lillo, and J. Doyne Farmer. Why is equity order flow so persistent? Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 51(C):218–239, 2015

    2015

  69. [77]

    Øksendal

    B. Øksendal. Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications. Universitext. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010

    2010

  70. [78]

    Andrew W. Lo, A. Craig MacKinlay, and June Zhang. Econometric models of limit-order executions. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(1):31–71, July 2002

    2002

  71. [79]

    The Financial Mathematics of Market Liquidity: From Optimal Execution to Market Making

    Olivier Guéant. The Financial Mathematics of Market Liquidity: From Optimal Execution to Market Making. CRC Press - Taylor and Francis, 2016

    2016

  72. [80]

    Market liquidity and trading activity

    Tarun Chordia, Richard Roll, and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam. Market liquidity and trading activity. The Journal of Finance, 56(2):501–530, 2001

    2001

  73. [81]

    Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects

    Yakov Amihud. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1):31–56, 2002

    2002

  74. [82]

    Fat tails in financial return distributions revisited: Evidence from the korean stock market

    Cheoljun Eom, Taisei Kaizoji, and Enrico Scalas. Fat tails in financial return distributions revisited: Evidence from the korean stock market. Papers 1904.02567, arXiv.org, April 2019

    1904 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ball and Tarun Chordia

    Clifford A. Ball and Tarun Chordia. True spreads and equilibrium prices. The Journal of Finance, 56(5):1801– 1835, 2001

    2001

  76. [84]

    Continuous auctions and insider trading

    Albert Kyle. Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica, 53(6):1315–35, 1985

    1985

  77. [85]

    Dimitris Bertsimas and Andrew W. Lo. Optimal control of execution costs. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(1):1–50, 1998

    1998

  78. [86]

    mn + ϵn Sn 2 − P boltzmann n+ℓ # (83) Using Lemma 4.1, we have: Gboltzmann L (n, n+ ℓ) ≈ vϵn

    Álvaro Cartea, Sebastian Jaimungal, and José Penalva. Algorithmic and High-Frequency Trading. Cambridge University Press, 10 2015. 10 Appendix 10.1 Micro-Price As an alternative to the mid-price and the weighted mid-price, Stoikov [3] proposed the micro-price as a proxy for th...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.