arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.34153

Certifying Reward Alignment in Portfolio Reinforcement Learning

Abstract

Financial reinforcement learning often translates an investment objective into an additive risk-adjusted reward. An agent can optimise that reward accurately yet implement a different financial preference. We develop a decision audit for terminal mean-variance equilibrium that separates reward misspecification from learning error. In a finite exogenous-state market, we bound the gain from changing one action using actor, reward and continuation-critic residuals. The certificate ignores state-constant critic offsets, accommodates convex action constraints, and has an independent-sample extension that does not require the equilibrium policy. A continuation-aware actor-critic method estimates the future-policy correction from samples. Across nine controlled markets and twenty seeds, it reduces policy distance by and one-step deviation gain by relative to a matched myopic-reward network. A separate PPO comparison tests the same reward intervention within a standard optimiser. Historical tests cross seven covariance estimators and 10, 30 and 49 US industry portfolios over 432 months: joint reward calibration preserves each fitted mean-variance target, but does not improve realised investment performance. Together, these results provide a way to quantify whether a learned decision implements its stated financial objective, separately from how well that objective performs in a backtest.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Matin Tavakoli, Seyedreza Tavakoli, Faezeh Salmani, Amir Amini, Mohammad Hosein Rohban, Gholamali Aminian, Ali Habibnia Rohban. 2026-10-25. Certifying Reward Alignment in Portfolio Reinforcement Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34153

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Bayesian Parametric Portfolio Policies

Parametric portfolio policies map predictors into portfolio weights without modelling returns, making them a natural tool for factor timing. With many predictors, if the policy has more coefficients than observations the data cannot pin it down. We develop Bayesian Parametric Portfolio Policies (BPPP), which discipline the policy with a prior, update it with realised utility, and average the weights over the posterior. We contribute to the factor-timing literature by estimating timing as a portfolio rule rather than from return forecasts. With 242 predictors and five factors, BPPP earns 2.08 percentage points a year from timing, mostly from aggregate anomaly returns. Under a leverage limit, averaging sizes each position by its uncertainty and comes close, without a separate scale choice, to the size that maximises timing with hindsight. A turnover penalty preserves significant gross timing at lower turnover.

q-fin.PM↗

Market Regime-Based Multi-Asset Portfolio Optimization Using Nested Clustered Optimization for Tactical Asset Allocation

We propose a regime-aware tactical asset allocation (TAA) framework integrating Gaussian Hidden Markov Model (HMM) regime detection with Nested Clustered Optimization (NCO) for multi-asset portfolio construction. Market regimes (Bullish, Sideways, Bearish) are identified strictly out of sample to prevent look-ahead bias, parameterizing regime-conditional covariance estimation and hierarchical clustering within NCO. The framework is evaluated on a monthly Indonesian multi-asset universe comprising government bonds (SBN), LQ45 equities, gold, CNY/IDR foreign exchange, and Bitcoin over a 56-month out-of-sample period (2021-2025). Benchmarks include equal-weight (1/N), buy-and-hold, minimum variance, hierarchical risk parity (HRP), and standard regime-agnostic NCO. Statistical significance is evaluated using the Jobson-Korkie test. The empirical results demonstrate that Regime-NCO effectively curbs tail risk, achieving a maximum drawdown of 4.44% compared with 15.27% for equal-weight and 21.17% for buy-and-hold. However, regime-agnostic NCO achieves a still lower drawdown of 2.19% and higher cumulative return (29.57% vs 5.44%). Detailed analysis reveals that a rolling 24-month HMM triggers regime transitions in 55 of 56 out-of-sample months, inducing regime drift that erodes the theoretical gains of conditional covariance estimation. These findings provide candid empirical evidence on rolling HMM behavior and highlight the necessity of transition-smoothing mechanisms for practical regime-aware portfolio optimization.

q-fin.PM↗

Optimal collective investment under regulatory uncertainty

We study optimal collective investment subject to a Value-at-Risk (VaR)-type constraint that accounts for uncertainty about future regulatory requirements. The constraint incorporates several possible wealth thresholds and imposes a minimum weighted average probability of meeting them. We characterize the optimal terminal wealth, which combines regions of constant wealth at regulatory thresholds with Merton-type investment regions. Unlike a classical VaR constraint with only one threshold, our formulation generates protection against several thresholds. For two possible thresholds, we identify when both are protected and when protection concentrates on the larger one. Numerical results show that the regulatory constraint can substantially reshape the optimal payoff and generate large welfare losses relative to unconstrained investment when the required compliance probability is high, even the smaller wealth threshold is high, or initial capital is limited. In heterogeneous investor pools, welfare losses depend strongly on the composition of the risk aversions and the Pareto weights governing risk sharing. Losses are particularly pronounced when highly risk-averse investors dominate the pool. Moreover, investors with smaller capital contributions can bear disproportionately large shares of the total welfare loss, while larger contributors may bear less than their capital-proportional share. Thus, regulatory uncertainty not only reduces aggregate welfare but can also create substantial disparities in how its costs are distributed among investors.

q-fin.PM↗