arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.29994

Bridging Stochastic Control and Deep Hedging: Structural Priors for No-Transaction Band Networks

Jules Arzel·Noureddine Lehdili
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper studies the problem of hedging and pricing a European call option under proportional transaction costs, from two complementary perspectives. We first derive the optimal hedging strategy under CARA utility, following the stochastic control framework of Davis et al. (1993), characterising the no-transaction band via the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Quasi-Variational Inequality (HJBQVI) and the Whalley-Wilmott asymptotic approximation. We then adopt a deep hedging approach, proposing two architectures that build on the No-Transaction Band Network of Imaki et al. (2023): NTBN-Delta, which makes delta-centring explicit, and WW-NTBN, which incorporates the Whalley-Wilmott formula as a structural prior on the bandwidth and replaces the hard clamp with a differentiable soft clamp. Numerical experiments show that WW-NTBN converges faster, matches the stochastic control no-transaction bands more closely, and generalises well across transaction cost regimes. We further apply both frameworks to the bull call spread, documenting the breakdown of price linearity under transaction costs.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.PRq-fin.CPq-fin.PMq-fin.RM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jules Arzel, Noureddine Lehdili. 2026-03-31. Bridging Stochastic Control and Deep Hedging: Structural Priors for No-Transaction Band Networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29994

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Yet another asymptotic formula for implied volatility

We derive a first-order representation of Black-Scholes implied variance in a continuous local martingale model. Total implied variance is the conditional expectation of the quadratic variation of the log price given its terminal value, up to a smaller-order term, for bounded standardized log-strikes. The framework incorporates small volatility-of-volatility, fast mean-reverting, and short-maturity asymptotics.

q-fin.PR↗
arXiv2026

(Early) AI Compute Asset Pricing

Compute (computing power) is a scarce, capital-intensive input at the center of the AI economy. Compute capital expenditure and service flow already exceed 1% of U.S. GDP and are growing rapidly. The price of compute reflects uncertainty over AI adoption. The announced launch of compute futures turns this uncertainty into a tradable risk, raising questions on the pricing of a new asset class. We provide an early asset-pricing framework for compute. We begin by discussing the underlying compute rental market and its indexation. We then turn to pricing: 1) direct no-arbitrage links between futures prices and current spot prices fail due to the non-storable nature of compute, 2) synthetic futures prices from existing term rental contracts are likely upper bounds on true futures prices and, 3) upon financialization, futures prices will be investors' expectations of spot prices at expiration net of a risk premium. Using synthetic futures as stand-ins before the compute futures market launches, we construct the first compute futures return panel sorted by GPU generation and maturity. Our preliminary evidence is consistent with a positive compute risk premium, suggesting hedging pressure on the part of compute providers.

q-fin.PR↗
arXiv2026

The existence of optimal bang-bang controls for GMxB contracts

A large collection of financial contracts offering guaranteed minimum benefits are often posed as control problems, in which at any point in the solution domain, a control is able to take any one of an uncountable number of values from the admissible set. Often, such contracts specify that the holder exert control at a finite number of deterministic times. The existence of an optimal bang-bang control, an optimal control taking on only a finite subset of values from the admissible set, is a common assumption in the literature. In this case, the numerical complexity of searching for an optimal control is considerably reduced. However, no rigorous treatment as to when an optimal bang-bang control exists is present in the literature. We provide the reader with a bang-bang principle from which the existence of such a control can be established for contracts satisfying some simple conditions. The bang-bang principle relies on the convexity and monotonicity of the solution and is developed using basic results in convex analysis and parabolic partial differential equations. We show that a guaranteed lifelong withdrawal benefit (GLWB) contract admits an optimal bang-bang control. In particular, we find that the holder of a GLWB can maximize a writer's losses by only ever performing nonwithdrawal, withdrawal at exactly the contract rate, or full surrender. We demonstrate that the related guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit contract is not convexity preserving, and hence does not satisfy the bang-bang principle other than in certain degenerate cases.

q-fin.PR↗