Explicit Signal-Adaptive Sequential Optimal Execution Quotes

Fenghui Yu

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 27 references

Explicit Signal-Adaptive Sequential Optimal Execution Quotes

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Four optimal execution problems with sequential limit-order quoting reduce to explicitly solvable triangular finite-dimensional HJB systems.

desk verdict The paper claims explicit closed-form solutions for four signal-dependent limit-order execution problems via HJB reduction to a triangular ODE system, but the claim's generality hinges on unstated restrictions on the intensity functions. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.24242 v2 pith:RW5FN23L submitted 2026-05-22 q-fin.TR math.OCq-fin.MF

Fenghui Yu This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-fin.TRmath.OCq-fin.MF

keywords optimalexecutionlimitorderbookHamilton-Jacobi-Bellmanequationsignal-dependentdriftpointprocessintensityinventorypenaltyCARAutilityexplicitsolutions

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

The paper establishes explicit solutions for optimal quoting strategies in a limit order book by modeling fills as quote-dependent point processes and incorporating signal-dependent drift, price impact, and inventory risk. It formulates four criteria—expected terminal wealth, expected wealth with running penalty, CARA utility of terminal wealth, and CARA utility with running penalty—and derives the associated Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations. For general forms of price impact and inventory penalty, these equations reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure that admits closed-form solutions for the value functions and optimal quotes in all cases. The resulting formulas also connect the strategies across criteria and enable asymptotic analysis for long horizons.

What carries the argument

The triangular finite-dimensional structure of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations that arises after substitution of the optimal controls and permits explicit recursive solution for value functions and quotes.

What would settle it

A specific choice of intensity functions for which the resulting Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation fails to decouple into triangular form and whose numerical solution differs from the claimed explicit formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions, the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations corresponding to the four execution criteria all reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure which can be solved explicitly, leading to fully explicit value functions and optimal quotes across all cases, together with proofs of well-posedness, admissibility, and verification.

Load-bearing premise

The intensity functions of the point processes and the general forms of price impact and inventory penalty permit the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations to reduce to an explicitly solvable triangular finite-dimensional system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Explicit formulas connect the quoting strategies that arise under the four different execution criteria.
The closed-form solutions support long-horizon asymptotic analysis of optimal execution.
Signal-dependent drift enters the explicit quotes and can substantially alter the optimal strategy.
The same triangular reduction applies uniformly to expected-wealth and CARA-utility objectives, with or without running inventory penalties.

Reading between the lines

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

The explicit structure may allow direct comparison of quoting rules when additional market signals are introduced beyond the current drift term.
Verification results established for general impact and penalty functions could extend to related stochastic-control problems that share the same point-process execution mechanism.
Long-horizon asymptotics derived from the closed forms might yield practical rules of thumb for traders managing large inventories over extended periods.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core result is that the authors reduce four HJB equations—expected terminal wealth, the same with running inventory penalty, CARA utility, and CARA with penalty—to the same finite-dimensional triangular structure that yields explicit value functions and optimal quotes, even with signal-dependent drift. They also supply well-posedness, admissibility, and verification arguments.

This is new relative to the usual numerical or market-order treatments in the execution literature. Having one framework that covers all four criteria and produces closed forms plus long-horizon asymptotics is a concrete step if the derivations hold. The numerical illustrations that signal drift changes quoting behavior are simple but make the point.

The soft spot is the reduction step itself. The intensities depend on the control (the quote), so the sup in the HJB generator must produce a term that keeps the system finite-dimensional and explicit. The abstract states this works for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions, yet says nothing restrictive about the intensities. If the intensities are truly arbitrary, the maximization will generally leave a non-explicit optimization or infinite-dimensional remainder. The paper must be using intensities of a form (exponential, linear, etc.) that closes the system; that restriction needs to be stated up front rather than implied by the word “general.”

The work is aimed at quants building execution algorithms who want analytic expressions rather than Monte Carlo or PDE solvers. A serious referee should check the exact intensity assumptions and walk through the verification theorem, because the explicitness claim is load-bearing. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper develops a unified explicit solution theory for optimal execution through sequential limit-order placement in a limit order book. It incorporates signal-dependent drift, price impact, inventory risk, and execution risk via point processes with quote-dependent intensities. Four execution criteria are formulated (expected terminal wealth, with running inventory penalty, CARA utility, and CARA with penalty). The central claim is that, for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions, the associated HJB equations reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure solvable explicitly, yielding closed-form value functions and optimal quotes, together with well-posedness, admissibility, and verification results. The explicit formulas are used to connect criteria and perform asymptotics, with numerical illustrations of signal effects.

Significance. If the claimed reduction to an explicitly solvable triangular finite-dimensional system holds under the stated generality, the contribution would be substantial: it would deliver closed-form solutions for sequential quote optimization (typically numerical) and explicit links across utility criteria. The well-posedness and verification theorems, together with the asymptotic analysis, would strengthen the result. The numerical demonstration that signal-dependent drift materially alters optimal quotes is a concrete practical strength.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the four HJB equations reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure 'for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions' is load-bearing for the explicit-solvability claim. Because the control (quote) enters the generator inside the intensity of the point process, the supremum over admissible quotes generally produces a non-explicit optimization problem unless the intensity admits a very specific structural interaction with the impact and penalty terms (e.g., separability or exponential form that closes the system into a finite set of ODEs). The manuscript must delineate the precise class of intensity functions for which the triangular closure holds; without this, the reduction does not follow from generality of impact/penalty alone.
[Model and HJB sections] Model and HJB sections: The well-posedness, admissibility, and verification results rest on the same finite-dimensional reduction. If the intensity is permitted to be an arbitrary function of the quote, the value function may retain a functional dependence that prevents the claimed explicit triangular ODE system; a concrete counter-example or additional structural hypothesis on the intensity is needed to confirm that the reduction is valid beyond specially chosen intensities.

minor comments (2)

The abstract packs many technical claims into a single paragraph; separating the model assumptions from the solvability result would improve readability.
Notation for the quote-dependent intensity should be introduced with an explicit functional dependence (e.g., λ(t, q, …)) at first use to avoid ambiguity with the control variable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments correctly identify that the explicit triangular reduction requires structural assumptions on the intensity functions in addition to the generality claimed for impact and penalty terms. We address both points by committing to explicit delineation of the admissible intensity class in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the four HJB equations reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure 'for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions' is load-bearing for the explicit-solvability claim. Because the control (quote) enters the generator inside the intensity of the point process, the supremum over admissible quotes generally produces a non-explicit optimization problem unless the intensity admits a very specific structural interaction with the impact and penalty terms (e.g., separability or exponential form that closes the system into a finite set of ODEs). The manuscript must delineate the precise class of intensity functions for which the triangular closure holds; without this, the reduction does not follow from generality of impact/penalty alone.

Authors: We agree that the reduction to an explicitly solvable triangular system requires specific structural assumptions on the intensity in addition to generality of the impact and penalty functions. The manuscript works with intensities (such as exponential forms λ(δ) = A exp(−Bδ)) that permit closed-form pointwise optimization and preserve finite-dimensional closure. We will revise the abstract to qualify the claim as holding 'for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions together with intensities belonging to the admissible class defined in Section 2' and add an explicit delineation of this class (separability conditions ensuring the optimal quote yields an ODE system without residual functional dependence). revision: yes
Referee: [Model and HJB sections] Model and HJB sections: The well-posedness, admissibility, and verification results rest on the same finite-dimensional reduction. If the intensity is permitted to be an arbitrary function of the quote, the value function may retain a functional dependence that prevents the claimed explicit triangular ODE system; a concrete counter-example or additional structural hypothesis on the intensity is needed to confirm that the reduction is valid beyond specially chosen intensities.

Authors: The observation is correct: arbitrary intensities generally destroy the finite-dimensional structure. Our well-posedness, admissibility, and verification theorems are proved under the structural hypothesis that the intensity allows explicit attainment of the supremum and closure into a triangular ODE system. We will insert a precise statement of this hypothesis (including the required separability or exponential form) in the model section and note that the results hold within this class rather than for fully arbitrary intensities. This removes any ambiguity without requiring a counter-example. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; derivation proceeds from standard HJB setup to claimed explicit reduction

full rationale

The paper formulates the four execution criteria via point-process intensities depending on quotes, derives the associated HJB equations from first principles, and asserts that these reduce to an explicitly solvable triangular finite-dimensional system for general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions. No self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-definitional loops appear in the load-bearing steps; the reduction is presented as a direct consequence of the model structure rather than an input redefined as output. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Limited information from abstract; no specific fitted parameters mentioned, general functions assumed.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Fills occur according to point processes with intensities depending on quotes
Core modeling choice stated in abstract.
ad hoc to paper The problems admit reduction to triangular finite-dimensional structure
Key technical claim enabling explicit solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explicit Signal-Adaptive Sequential Optimal Execution Quotes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RW5FN23L

@misc{pith2026260524242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explicit Signal-Adaptive Sequential Optimal Execution Quotes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RW5FN23L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24242}
}

read the original abstract

This paper develops a unified explicit solution theory for optimal execution through sequential limit-order placement in a limit order book. Rather than controlling only the trading speed of a metaorder, we determine how individual limit orders should be quoted over time. The model incorporates signal-dependent drift, price impact, inventory risk, and execution risk, with fills modeled by point processes whose intensities depend on the submitted quotes. We formulate four execution criteria: expected terminal wealth, expected terminal wealth with running inventory penalty, CARA utility of terminal wealth, and CARA utility with running inventory penalty. For general price-impact and inventory-penalty functions, we derive the corresponding HJB equations and show that all four problems reduce to a triangular finite-dimensional structure which can be solved explicitly, leading to fully explicit value functions and optimal quotes across all cases. We also prove well-posedness, admissibility, and verification results. The explicit formulas reveal connections between quoting strategies under different criteria, support long-horizon asymptotic analysis, and show numerically that signal-dependent drift can substantially affect optimal execution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24242 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Case I: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 1) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the liquidation penalty parameter α in I(q) = αq. In Case IV, the effects of running inventory costs and price risk act together. Larger running penalties, higher volatility, and stronger risk aversion all push the strategy toward faster execution. Positive signals partly offset this pressure by increasing the value of w… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Case I: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 2) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the liquidation penalty parameter α in I(q) = αq. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 δ * (t, 1) g(s,t) = −3e − 04exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = −2e − 04exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = −1e − 04exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = 0e + 00exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = 1e − 04exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = 2e − 04exp(−0.01t) g(s,t) = 3e − 04exp(−0.01t) (… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Case I: optimal quotes for different signal levels under the exponential signal decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Case I: optimal quotes for different signal levels under the time-dependent signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Case II: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 1) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the running inventory penalty parameter β in J(q) = βq2 , with α = 0.001. titative Finance, 8(3):217–224, 2008. [3] Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, Olivier Gu´eant, …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Case II: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 2) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the running inventory penalty parameter β in J(q) = βq2 , with α = 0.001. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 δ * (t, 1) g(s) = −3e − 04 g(s) = −2e − 04…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Case III: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 1) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the risk-aversion parameter γ, with α = 0.001 and σ = 0.1. [8] Dimitris Bertsimas and Andrew W Lo. Optimal control of execution costs. Journal of financial markets, 1(1):1…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Case IV: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 1) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the running inventory penalty parameter β in J(q) = βq2 , with α = 0.001, σ = 0.1, and γ = 0.01. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t −0.00200 −0.00175 −0.00150 −0.00125 −0.00100 −0.0…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Case IV: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 2) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the volatility parameter σ, with α = 0.001, β = 0.0001, and γ = 0.05. [14] Alvaro Cartea, Sebastian Jaimungal, and Jos´e Penalva. ´ Algorithmic and high-frequency trading. …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Case IV: optimal quotes δ ⋆ (t, 2) for different signal levels. The panels compare two values of the terminal time T, with α = 0.001, β = 0.0001, σ = 0.1, and γ = 0.05. [20] Olivier Gu´eant, Charles Albert Lehalle, and Joaquin Fernandez-Tapia. Optimal portfolio liquid…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Case III: heatmaps of the optimal quote δ ⋆ (t, q) over time and inventory levels for different constant signal levels. The parameters are α = 0.001, σ = 0.01, and γ = 0.01. A Proofs A.1 Proof of Lemma 3.4 The terminal and boundary conditions in (3.11) suggest the aff…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Optimal execution of portfolio transactions.Journal of Risk, 3:5–40, 2001

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

work page 2001
[2]

Marco Avellaneda and Sasha Stoikov. High-frequency trading in a limit order book.Quan- 36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010δ * (t, 1) g(s, t) = −3e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = −2e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = −1e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 0e + 00ξ(t) g(s, t) = 1e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 2e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 3e − 04ξ(t) (a)q= 1. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t −0....

work page 2008
[3]

Optimal Quoting under Adverse Selection and Price Reading

Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, Olivier Gu´ eant, and Malo Lemmel. Optimal quot- ing under adverse selection and price reading.Available at arXiv 2508.20225, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

Fx market making with internal liquidity.Available at SSRN 5859484, 2025

Alexander Barzykin, Robert Boyce, and Eyal Neuman. Fx market making with internal liquidity.Available at SSRN 5859484, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Liquidation in limit order books with controlled intensity.Mathematical Finance, 24:627–650, 10 2014

Erhan Bayraktar and Michael Ludkovski. Liquidation in limit order books with controlled intensity.Mathematical Finance, 24:627–650, 10 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Optimal execution with dynamic order flow imbal- ance.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 6(1):1123–1151, 2015

Kyle Bechler and Michael Ludkovski. Optimal execution with dynamic order flow imbal- ance.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 6(1):1123–1151, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Closed-form approximations in multi-asset market making.Applied Mathematical Finance, 28:101–142, 3 2021

Philippe Bergault, David Evangelista, Olivier Gu´ eant, and Douglas Vieira. Closed-form approximations in multi-asset market making.Applied Mathematical Finance, 28:101–142, 3 2021. 37 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t −0.0020 −0.0018 −0.0016 −0.0014 −0.0012 −0.0010 −0.0008 −0.0006δ * (t, 2) g(s) = −3e − 04 g(s) = −2e − 04 g(s) = −1e − 04 g(s) = 0e + 00 g(s) = 1e...

work page 2021
[8]

Optimal control of execution costs.Journal of financial markets, 1(1):1–50, 1998

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

work page 1998

Show all 27 references

[9]

Market making with exogenous competition.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 16(2):692–706, 2025

Robert Boyce, Martin Herdegen, and Leandro S´ anchez-Betancourt. Market making with exogenous competition.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 16(2):692–706, 2025

2025
[10]

Multi-asset market impact and order flow common- ality.Available at SSRN 3706390, 2020

Francesco Capponi and Rama Cont. Multi-asset market impact and order flow common- ality.Available at SSRN 3706390, 2020

2020
[11]

Enhancing trading strategies with order book signals.Applied Mathematical Finance, 25(1):1–35, 2018

´Alvaro Cartea, Ryan Donnelly, and Sebastian Jaimungal. Enhancing trading strategies with order book signals.Applied Mathematical Finance, 25(1):1–35, 2018

2018
[12]

Optimal execution with limit and market orders

´Alvaro Cartea and Sebastian Jaimungal. Optimal execution with limit and market orders. Quantitative Finance, 15(8):1279–1291, 2015

2015
[13]

Incorporating order-flow into optimal execution

´Alvaro Cartea and Sebastian Jaimungal. Incorporating order-flow into optimal execution. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 10:339–364, 2016. 38 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 0.00000 0.00025 0.00050 0.00075 0.00100 0.00125 0.00150δ * (t, 1) g(s) = −3e − 04 g(s) = −2e − 04 g(s) =...

2016
[14]

Cambridge University Press, 2015

´Alvaro Cartea, Sebastian Jaimungal, and Jos´ e Penalva.Algorithmic and high-frequency trading. Cambridge University Press, 2015

2015
[15]

Buy low, sell high: A high frequency trading perspective.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 5(1):415–444, 2014

´Alvaro Cartea, Sebastian Jaimungal, and Jason Ricci. Buy low, sell high: A high frequency trading perspective.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 5(1):415–444, 2014

2014
[16]

Optimal order placement in limit order markets.Quan- titative Finance, 17(1):21–39, 2017

Rama Cont and Arseniy Kukanov. Optimal order placement in limit order markets.Quan- titative Finance, 17(1):21–39, 2017

2017
[17]

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
[18]

Optimal high-frequency trading with limit and market orders.Quantitative Finance, 13(1):79–94, 2013

Fabien Guilbaud and Huyen Pham. Optimal high-frequency trading with limit and market orders.Quantitative Finance, 13(1):79–94, 2013

2013
[19]

General intensity shapes in optimal liquidation

Olivier Gu´ eant and Charles Albert Lehalle. General intensity shapes in optimal liquidation. Mathematical Finance, 25:457–495, 7 2015. 39 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time t −0.00200 −0.00175 −0.00150 −0.00125 −0.00100 −0.00075 −0.00050 −0.00025 0.00000 δ * (t, 2) g(s) = −3e − 04 g(s) = −2e ...

2015
[20]

Optimal portfolio liquidation with limit orders.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 3:740–764, 11 2012

Olivier Gu´ eant, Charles Albert Lehalle, and Joaquin Fernandez-Tapia. Optimal portfolio liquidation with limit orders.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 3:740–764, 11 2012

2012
[21]

Dealing with the inventory risk: A solution to the market making problem.Mathematics and Financial Economics, 7:477–507, 9 2013

Olivier Gu´ eant, Charles Albert Lehalle, and Joaquin Fernandez-Tapia. Dealing with the inventory risk: A solution to the market making problem.Mathematics and Financial Economics, 7:477–507, 9 2013

2013
[22]

Hawkes processes and their applications to finance: a review.Quantitative Finance, 18(2):193–198, 2018

Alan G Hawkes. Hawkes processes and their applications to finance: a review.Quantitative Finance, 18(2):193–198, 2018

2018
[23]

Thomas Ho and Hans R. Stoll. Optimal dealer pricing under transactions and return uncertainty.Journal of Financial Economics, 9(1):47–73, 1981

1981
[24]

Deep order flow imbalance: Ex- tracting alpha at multiple horizons from the limit order book.Mathematical Finance, 33(4):1044–1081, 2023

Petter N Kolm, Jeremy Turiel, and Nicholas Westray. Deep order flow imbalance: Ex- tracting alpha at multiple horizons from the limit order book.Mathematical Finance, 33(4):1044–1081, 2023

2023
[25]

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

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
[26]

Optimal liquidity- based trading tactics.Stochastic Systems, 11(4):368–390, 2021

Charles-Albert Lehalle, Othmane Mounjid, and Mathieu Rosenbaum. Optimal liquidity- based trading tactics.Stochastic Systems, 11(4):368–390, 2021

2021
[27]

Fill probabilities in a limit order book with state-dependent stochastic order flows.Available at arXiv 2403.02572, 2026

Felix Lokin and Fenghui Yu. Fill probabilities in a limit order book with state-dependent stochastic order flows.Available at arXiv 2403.02572, 2026. 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Inventory level q −0.0175 −0.0150 −0.0125 −0.0100 −0.0075 −0.0050 −0.0025 0.0000...

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Optimal execution of portfolio transactions.Journal of Risk, 3:5–40, 2001

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

work page 2001

[2] [2]

Marco Avellaneda and Sasha Stoikov. High-frequency trading in a limit order book.Quan- 36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010δ * (t, 1) g(s, t) = −3e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = −2e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = −1e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 0e + 00ξ(t) g(s, t) = 1e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 2e − 04ξ(t) g(s, t) = 3e − 04ξ(t) (a)q= 1. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t −0....

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Optimal Quoting under Adverse Selection and Price Reading

Alexander Barzykin, Philippe Bergault, Olivier Gu´ eant, and Malo Lemmel. Optimal quot- ing under adverse selection and price reading.Available at arXiv 2508.20225, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Fx market making with internal liquidity.Available at SSRN 5859484, 2025

Alexander Barzykin, Robert Boyce, and Eyal Neuman. Fx market making with internal liquidity.Available at SSRN 5859484, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Liquidation in limit order books with controlled intensity.Mathematical Finance, 24:627–650, 10 2014

Erhan Bayraktar and Michael Ludkovski. Liquidation in limit order books with controlled intensity.Mathematical Finance, 24:627–650, 10 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Optimal execution with dynamic order flow imbal- ance.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 6(1):1123–1151, 2015

Kyle Bechler and Michael Ludkovski. Optimal execution with dynamic order flow imbal- ance.SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 6(1):1123–1151, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Closed-form approximations in multi-asset market making.Applied Mathematical Finance, 28:101–142, 3 2021

Philippe Bergault, David Evangelista, Olivier Gu´ eant, and Douglas Vieira. Closed-form approximations in multi-asset market making.Applied Mathematical Finance, 28:101–142, 3 2021. 37 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time t −0.0020 −0.0018 −0.0016 −0.0014 −0.0012 −0.0010 −0.0008 −0.0006δ * (t, 2) g(s) = −3e − 04 g(s) = −2e − 04 g(s) = −1e − 04 g(s) = 0e + 00 g(s) = 1e...

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Optimal control of execution costs.Journal of financial markets, 1(1):1–50, 1998

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

work page 1998