Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 154 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 38 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 36 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 109 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 206 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 434 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 39 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Enhanced fill probability estimates in institutional algorithmic bond trading using statistical learning algorithms with quantum computers (2509.17715v1)

Published 22 Sep 2025 in quant-ph and q-fin.TR

Abstract: The estimation of fill probabilities for trade orders represents a key ingredient in the optimization of algorithmic trading strategies. It is bound by the complex dynamics of financial markets with inherent uncertainties, and the limitations of models aiming to learn from multivariate financial time series that often exhibit stochastic properties with hidden temporal patterns. In this paper, we focus on algorithmic responses to trade inquiries in the corporate bond market and investigate fill probability estimation errors of common machine learning models when given real production-scale intraday trade event data, transformed by a quantum algorithm running on IBM Heron processors, as well as on noiseless quantum simulators for comparison. We introduce a framework to embed these quantum-generated data transforms as a decoupled offline component that can be selectively queried by models in low-latency institutional trade optimization settings. A trade execution backtesting method is employed to evaluate the fill prediction performance of these models in relation to their input data. We observe a relative gain of up to ~ 34% in out-of-sample test scores for those models with access to quantum hardware-transformed data over those using the original trading data or transforms by noiseless quantum simulation. These empirical results suggest that the inherent noise in current quantum hardware contributes to this effect and motivates further studies. Our work demonstrates the emerging potential of quantum computing as a complementary explorative tool in quantitative finance and encourages applied industry research towards practical applications in trading.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that quantum-generated features can improve fill probability estimation, achieving up to a 34% relative gain over classical methods.
  • It introduces a two-stage mapping via a Projected Quantum Feature Map on IBM Heron 109-qubit processors, validated on a production-scale European bond trading dataset.
  • Quantum hardware noise is shown to act as a regularizer, leading to smoother feature distributions and robust enhancements in model performance.

Enhanced Fill Probability Estimation in Algorithmic Bond Trading via Quantum-Generated Features

Introduction

This paper presents an empirical investigation into the use of quantum computing for enhancing fill probability estimation in institutional algorithmic bond trading. The focus is on the European corporate bond market, where the estimation of the likelihood that a trade order (specifically, a response to a Request for Quote, RFQ) will be filled is a central component of algorithmic trading strategies. The authors propose a framework in which quantum computers are used to generate feature transformations of classical trading data, which are then used as inputs to standard machine learning models for fill probability estimation. The paper benchmarks the performance of models trained on quantum-transformed features against those trained on classical features and features generated by noiseless quantum simulation.

Problem Formulation and Motivation

The fill probability estimation problem is characterized by two fundamental sources of uncertainty: (1) the irreversibility and non-stationarity of financial time series, and (2) the partial observability and high dimensionality of market state representations. In the context of corporate bond trading, the challenge is exacerbated by sparse pricing data, high-dimensional feature spaces, and the stochastic, non-linear interactions inherent in market microstructure.

The authors formalize the problem as learning a function Λ~:Rp[0,1]\tilde{\Lambda}: \mathbb{R}^p \rightarrow [0,1] that maps a market state representation xx (a vector of pp features) to the probability that a given RFQ response will be filled. The key innovation is to decouple the feature engineering process from the learning process by introducing a quantum-generated feature transformation ϕ:RpRq\phi: \mathbb{R}^p \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^q, resulting in a two-stage mapping xϕxgP(y=1x)x \xrightarrow{\phi} x' \xrightarrow{g} P(y=1|x').

Quantum Feature Generation Methodology

The quantum feature generation is implemented via a Projected Quantum Feature Map (PQFM). The process consists of:

  1. Quantum Embedding: Each classical feature vector xx is encoded into a quantum state ψx,α|\psi_{x,\alpha}\rangle using a parameterized quantum circuit based on a Heisenberg ansatz. The circuit operates on NN qubits, with the classical features mapped to the coupling parameters of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, and the circuit depth controlled by the number of Trotter steps.
  2. Measurement: A set of qq Pauli observables (typically all single-qubit XX, YY, ZZ operators) are measured on the quantum state, and the expectation values are used as the transformed feature vector xRqx' \in \mathbb{R}^q.
  3. Implementation: The PQFM is executed both on IBM Heron quantum hardware (with 109 qubits) and on noiseless quantum simulators. Error mitigation techniques such as Pauli Twirling and TREX are applied to hardware runs.

The transformation is strictly a function of the input data and is independent of the outcome labels, ensuring that any observed improvements in model performance are attributable to the feature transformation itself.

Empirical Analysis and Backtesting Protocol

The empirical paper uses a production-scale dataset from HSBC, covering 294 trading days and over 1 million RFQs. The active analysis window comprises 69 trading days, with 143,912 RFQs and 216-dimensional feature vectors per event. The dataset is preprocessed and normalized before quantum transformation.

A rigorous backtesting protocol is employed:

  • For each test instance, models are trained on a rolling window of past events, with varying "blinding" windows (i.e., the time gap between training and test data).
  • Four model classes are evaluated: Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (XGB), and Feed-Forward Neural Network (NN).
  • The primary evaluation metric is the area under the ROC curve (AUC), which is robust to class imbalance and threshold selection.

Quantum-generated features are compared against classical features and features generated by noiseless quantum simulation. Additionally, a classical-quantum event matching (CQEM) protocol is introduced to enable the reuse of quantum-generated features for unseen but similar classical events, further decoupling the feature transformation from the outcome labels.

Results

Feature Distribution Analysis

Quantum-generated features exhibit smoother, more normal-like distributions compared to the complex, multi-modal distributions of classical features. The degree of smoothing increases with circuit depth and hardware noise, suggesting that quantum noise acts as a regularizer on the feature space.

Model Performance

  • Classical Features: All models achieve a median test AUC of approximately 0.63, with no significant sensitivity to the blinding window.
  • Noiseless Quantum Simulation: Models trained on simulated quantum features perform slightly worse than those trained on classical features (median AUC \sim0.60).
  • Quantum Hardware Features: Models trained on hardware-generated quantum features exhibit substantial performance gains. For the "shorter" circuit, median AUC increases to \sim0.75 (no blinding), while for the "longer" circuit, median AUC reaches \sim0.97, representing a relative gain of up to 34% over classical features. The performance decays with increasing blinding window but remains elevated compared to classical and simulated quantum features.

These gains are consistent across all model classes and are robust to variations in hardware (different IBM Heron devices) and circuit parameters. Notably, the performance uplift is not reproduced by simulated quantum features with artificially induced noise, indicating that the specific characteristics of hardware noise are critical.

Classical-Quantum Event Matching

The CQEM protocol demonstrates that quantum-generated features can be effectively reused for unseen events with similar classical representations, maintaining high model performance (AUC \sim0.89 at 97% matching resolution). This further supports the hypothesis that quantum hardware noise introduces beneficial structure into the feature space.

Analysis of Quantum Hardware Noise

Experiments indicate that quantum hardware noise induces small but measurable drifts in the PQFM features over time. However, these drifts do not fully explain the observed performance gains, and the precise mechanism by which hardware noise enhances model performance remains an open question.

Implementation Considerations

Resource Requirements

  • Quantum Hardware: The experiments utilize 109-qubit circuits on IBM Heron processors, with 4096 measurement shots per observable. Circuit depth and noise characteristics are critical parameters.
  • Classical Infrastructure: Preprocessing, model training, and backtesting are performed on standard compute clusters using Python, scikit-learn, and XGBoost.

Integration Strategy

  • The quantum feature generation is implemented as an offline, decoupled component. Transformed features are stored and selectively queried by the online trading system, ensuring low-latency inference.
  • The approach is model-agnostic: any downstream statistical learning algorithm can be used without modification.

Limitations

  • The observed performance gains are data-instance specific and lack theoretical generalization guarantees.
  • The beneficial effect of quantum hardware noise is not theoretically understood and may not generalize to other datasets or market environments.
  • The approach is currently limited by the scale and noise characteristics of available quantum hardware.

Implications and Future Directions

The empirical results suggest that quantum hardware, even in the presence of significant noise, can generate feature transformations that enhance the learnability of complex, high-dimensional financial time series. This effect is not reproduced by noiseless simulation or classical feature engineering, indicating a unique role for quantum noise in regularizing or enriching the feature space.

From a practical perspective, the framework enables the integration of quantum-generated features into existing algorithmic trading pipelines without increasing model complexity or violating regulatory constraints on model risk management. The decoupled, offline nature of the quantum transformation is compatible with the latency requirements of institutional trading systems.

Theoretically, the findings raise important questions about the role of quantum noise in statistical learning and the potential for quantum devices to act as generative regularizers for complex data distributions. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed performance gains and to explore the generalizability of the approach to other domains and datasets.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that quantum computers, even in their current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) incarnation, can serve as effective tools for generating feature transformations that enhance the performance of statistical learning models in algorithmic trading. The empirical evidence of substantial out-of-sample performance gains, attributable to quantum hardware noise, motivates further investigation into the intersection of quantum information processing and financial machine learning. The proposed framework provides a practical pathway for the integration of quantum computing into real-world trading systems and highlights the need for continued research into the theoretical foundations and broader applicability of quantum-enhanced statistical learning.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Explain it Like I'm 14

What is this paper about?

This paper explores a tricky problem in electronic bond trading: guessing the chance that a dealer’s price quote will be accepted by a client during a fast, blind auction. That chance is called the “fill probability.” The authors try a new idea: before training machine-learning models, they transform the trading data using a quantum computer and then see if those models make better predictions.

The key questions the researchers asked

  • Can transforming trading data with a quantum computer help machine-learning models estimate fill probabilities more accurately?
  • Does real quantum hardware (which is noisy) work better than perfect, simulated quantum circuits?
  • Can this be done in a practical way that fits into the speed and risk controls of institutional trading?

How did they do the paper?

The trading setting (RFQs and fill probability)

Imagine a blind auction. A client sends a Request For Quote (RFQ) to several dealers, asking for a price to buy or sell a bond. Each dealer replies with a price, not knowing the others’ replies. The client picks one or none. A dealer’s fill probability is the chance their quote gets accepted.

Predicting fill probability is hard because markets move quickly, information is incomplete, and past patterns do not always repeat. Still, better estimates matter: they can help dealers make smarter quotes, avoid bad trades, and win the right business more often.

The idea of “transforming” data with a quantum computer

Machine-learning models learn from input features (numbers that describe a market state at the moment an RFQ arrives). The authors try enhancing these inputs first, using a quantum computer, and then train regular machine-learning models on the enhanced data.

Here’s the simple version of what they do:

  • Start with the original event data (features about the RFQ and the current market).
  • Feed those features into a special quantum circuit on an IBM quantum computer (IBM Heron processors).
  • Run the circuit and measure the output, which gives a new set of numbers (transformed features).
  • Train normal machine-learning models on these transformed features to estimate fill probabilities.

Why a quantum computer? Think of it like a special “data lens” that can mix and entangle inputs in a very high-dimensional way, possibly exposing patterns that are hard to see with ordinary feature engineering.

A core ingredient here is a circuit design called the “Heisenberg ansatz.” In simple terms:

  • The circuit links nearby quantum bits (qubits) and rotates them in ways controlled by the input data.
  • After running the circuit, the team measures simple properties of each qubit (like checking different “directions” of a spinning coin).
  • Those measurements become the new, transformed features.

Importantly, this quantum transformation is done “offline.” That means you can precompute these transformed features and store them. Later, in real-time trading, the machine-learning model can quickly look them up. This avoids the latency of running a quantum computer during live trading.

Comparing different approaches (backtesting)

To see what works, the team did backtesting—like running a time machine over past data to test how their predictions would have performed:

  • Data: 1,073,926 RFQs across 5,166 bonds and 747 tickers, primarily in European corporate bonds, from Sep 1, 2023 to Oct 29, 2024, with very fine time resolution.
  • Models: Standard machine-learning models trained to predict the chance an RFQ response is filled.
  • Inputs compared: 1) Original features only. 2) Features transformed by a noiseless quantum simulator (a perfect, software-only quantum computer). 3) Features transformed by real quantum hardware (which introduces noise).

They then evaluated which models produced better out-of-sample predictions—meaning how well they performed on future data they hadn’t seen during training.

What did they find?

Models that used features transformed by real quantum hardware achieved up to about 34% better test scores compared to:

  • Models using the original, untransformed data, and
  • Models using features transformed by a perfect, noiseless quantum simulator.

Surprisingly, the “noise” in the real quantum device seemed to help. Instead of hurting, the noise may have acted like a useful form of randomness or regularization, making patterns in the complex market data easier for the models to learn.

The team does not claim a general theory for why this happens. Their results are empirical: they set up careful tests and observed the improvement.

Why does it matter?

  • Practical improvement: Better fill probability estimates can directly improve trading. Dealers can tune their quotes more intelligently, win the right trades more often, and reduce risk.
  • New tool, familiar models: The quantum step only transforms the data. The machine-learning models themselves can remain standard, which helps with model risk management and regulatory simplicity.
  • Hardware beats simulation: The fact that real quantum hardware outperformed the noiseless simulator suggests today’s quantum computers already have unique, useful behaviors for data processing—despite being noisy.

Takeaway

This paper shows that using a quantum computer as an offline “feature generator” can help machine-learning models predict fill probabilities in bond trading more accurately. Even with current, noisy devices, the approach delivered meaningful gains. It opens the door to using quantum computing as a practical, complementary tool in quantitative finance—one that could enhance data for well-understood models and improve real-world trading decisions.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a single, concrete list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper, expressed so future researchers can act on it.

  • Absence of a causal/mechanistic explanation for why noisy quantum hardware outperforms noiseless simulation in feature generation; identify which error channels (e.g., depolarizing, readout, crosstalk) contribute and why.
  • No systematic sensitivity analysis of PQFM hyperparameters (ansatz depth, α scaling, Trotter steps M, shot count, fiducial state choice); quantify performance vs stability trade-offs and identify robust settings.
  • Lack of principled feature-to-circuit encoding strategy (assignment patterns of x[i] to HA rotations are “arbitrarily chosen”); develop and benchmark encoding schemes informed by feature types (categorical vs continuous, scales, correlations).
  • Measurement operator design is limited to 1–2 local Paulis; evaluate whether richer observables (e.g., higher-locality Pauli strings, entangled/collective measurements, POVMs) improve discriminative power and calibration.
  • Fiducial state is set to uniformly random single-qubit states; assess task-specific fiducial state optimization (e.g., via meta-learning or variational preparation) and its impact on downstream performance.
  • Deterministic treatment of φ (PQFM) contradicts stochastic reality of quantum measurement; quantify how shot variance and readout errors propagate into feature noise and model generalization.
  • Missing exploration of error mitigation techniques (readout mitigation, zero-noise extrapolation, probabilistic error cancellation) and their effect relative to “beneficial noise” claims.
  • No comparison against strong classical feature transforms (kernel random features, Fourier features, autoencoders, diffusion-based augmentations); measure incremental value of PQFM over well-tuned classical baselines.
  • Unclear evaluation metrics behind the reported “∼34%” relative gain; provide exact metrics (e.g., Brier score, log-loss, ROC-AUC, PR-AUC), confidence intervals, significance tests, and per-day/regime breakdowns.
  • Probability calibration is not assessed; evaluate calibration quality (reliability curves, ECE/MCE) and apply calibration methods (Platt scaling, isotonic regression) if needed.
  • Fill probability modeling may not be conditional on quote terms; explicitly model P(fill | x, q) to capture price/yield elasticity and optimize quoting decisions.
  • Distribution shift handling is not addressed; quantify performance under regime changes (vol spikes, macro events), design drift detection, and test adaptive re-training/covariate shift corrections.
  • Dataset selection bias: models trained only on RFQs seen by a single dealer; measure generalization to unseen RFQ populations and correct for selection mechanisms.
  • Label quality and coverage: RFQ outcomes may be partially observed (e.g., unknown declines, expired auctions); quantify label noise/missingness and apply robust learning strategies.
  • Practical latency, throughput, and cost are unmeasured; benchmark end-to-end transform generation time (shots, queuing), scalability to production volumes, and ROI vs business gains.
  • Offline/online decoupling strategy is underspecified; define refresh cadence, caching policies, and staleness controls for PQFM features under rapidly evolving market states.
  • Cross-hardware reproducibility is unexplored; test PQFM across different quantum devices/vendors and assess portability of gains beyond IBM Heron.
  • Granular scalability limits are unknown (p vs N_Q, q vs 3N, memory/compute constraints); map performance and stability against feature dimensionality, qubit count, and circuit depth.
  • No systematic analysis of which features/events benefit from PQFM; perform per-feature importance, ablations, and SHAP/attribution on transformed features to identify where quantum transformations help.
  • Limited asset-class/market coverage (European corporate bonds); validate across geographies (US, APAC), asset classes (rates, FX, equities), liquidity tiers (IG vs HY), and stress periods.
  • Backtesting protocol details (rolling windows, train/test splits, leakage controls) are incomplete; formalize time-aware validation, window-length sensitivity, and strict anti-leakage safeguards.
  • Business impact is not quantified beyond prediction scores; simulate end-to-end strategy outcomes (hit rate, PnL, inventory risk, information leakage) to validate economic significance.
  • Security/compliance considerations of sending sensitive trade-event vectors to external quantum clouds are not discussed; define privacy-preserving pipelines and MRM documentation for quantum components.
  • Explore whether “beneficial noise” can be emulated classically (e.g., stochastic feature injections, dropout-style augmentations) to replicate hardware gains without quantum dependencies.
  • Adaptive measurement strategies are unexplored; design shot-allocation policies and operator grouping/commutation strategies to reduce variance and latency while maximizing information content.
  • Alternative PQFMs (hardware-efficient, data re-uploading, amplitude/angle encodings) are not benchmarked; compare ansatz families and select task-optimal circuits for financial time series.
  • Interaction with competitor behavior is absent; incorporate proxy features for competitive quotes or market-wide RFQ flows to better approximate auction dynamics.
  • Public reproducibility is limited (proprietary data); establish benchmarks on public bond/RFQ datasets or high-fidelity synthetic data to enable third-party validation.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Practical Applications

Immediate Applications

These applications can be deployed now using the paper’s framework of decoupled, offline quantum feature generation and standard ML models, with controlled backtesting and MRM oversight.

  • Quantum feature enrichment for institutional bond market-making (Sector: Finance; Use case: Sell-side algorithmic trading)
    • Action: Integrate a Projected Quantum Feature Map (PQFM) microservice (Heisenberg ansatz circuit; b-local Pauli measurements) into the existing trading stack to transform RFQ event features offline, then feed these features to current fill-probability models (e.g., logistic regression, tree-based).
    • Workflow:
    • Build daily/batch pipelines that (a) collect RFQ and market-state features, (b) run PQFM on quantum hardware (or calibrated noisy runtime), (c) persist transformed features in a feature store, (d) retrain fill estimators with rolling windows, and (e) A/B test against baseline (identity features) before deploying to a low-latency scoring service.
    • Keep the quantum step decoupled so models and latency-critical inference remain classical.
    • Tools: Qiskit Runtime (IBM), PQFM circuit templates, feature store service, MLOps (tracking shots, circuit IDs, seeds), standard backtesting protocols.
    • Expected impact: Up to ~34% relative improvement in out-of-sample test scores (per paper’s empirical results), leading to higher hit rates on preferred trades, better margin capture, and reduced information leakage.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to quantum hardware or a calibrated noisy runtime; robust data engineering; regulatory-compliant logging (shots, hardware IDs, seeds); ongoing model monitoring for regime shifts; careful hyperparameter selection (α, measurement set).
  • RFQ-driven markets beyond corporate bonds (Sector: Finance; Use case: Dealer-to-client and OTC markets like muni bonds, FX options, interest-rate swaps)
    • Action: Extend the PQFM microservice to other sparse, high-dimensional RFQ datasets where fill probability estimation is critical.
    • Workflow: Mirror the bond use case with instrument-specific feature maps and backtests; start with daily batches to avoid latency constraints.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Domain-specific feature engineering; alignment with client quoting conventions; adequate historical data coverage.
  • Simplifying models via stronger features (Sector: Finance; Use case: Model risk management and compliance)
    • Action: Replace complex, opaque models with simpler estimators (e.g., regularized logistic regression) trained on quantum-transformed features to meet MRM expectations without sacrificing performance.
    • Workflow: Document decoupling of the transform from outcomes; validate through rolling backtests; maintain audit trails for transform reproducibility.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: MRM approval processes; stable performance across market regimes; proper versioning of circuits and measurement operators.
  • Hardware-in-the-loop regularization for ML feature engineering (Sector: Software/ML; Use case: Preprocessing for tabular time-series)
    • Action: Use noisy quantum hardware to generate features as a stochastic regularizer (leveraging observed benefit of hardware noise vs. noiseless simulation).
    • Workflow: Integrate a “noisy quantum preprocessing” step for select features; compare against classical random feature methods; evaluate generalization via cross-validation and out-of-time tests.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Stable access to hardware; safeguards for drift in noise characteristics; shot budgeting and cost control.
  • Academic benchmarking and reproducible finance experiments (Sector: Academia; Use case: Empirical finance and quantum ML)
    • Action: Adopt the described backtesting protocol and PQFM design to paper beneficial noise effects, stochastic resonance, and out-of-distribution generalization in financial time series.
    • Workflow: Publicly document circuit configs, measurement sets, shot counts, fiducial states, and hyperparameters; compare to random features and classical kernels.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to suitable datasets; reproducibility infrastructure (seeded runs, simulator baselines); ethical data use.
  • Internal governance and policy playbooks for quantum-assisted trading (Sector: Policy/Compliance; Use case: Risk, audit, and transparency)
    • Action: Create governance artifacts: shot logs, circuit IDs, hardware provenance, versioned transform catalogs, and feature drift dashboards; define acceptable use and disclosure policies for quantum-assisted models.
    • Workflow: Integrate transform metadata into model documentation; add quantum components to stress testing and change management; run periodic fairness and stability checks.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Coordination with compliance/legal; standardized metadata schemas; regulator engagement and readiness.
  • Execution quality improvements for buy-side clients (Sector: Finance; Use case: TCA and client outcomes)
    • Action: Leverage improved fill estimates to tune quoting aggressiveness and inventory risk, potentially improving client execution quality (hit rates, spreads).
    • Workflow: Track TCA metrics pre/post quantum feature adoption; adjust quoting bands by client segment.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Sufficient liquidity; transparent measurement of client outcomes; avoidance of adverse selection.

Long-Term Applications

These applications require further research, scaling, or more mature hardware (fault tolerance, stabilized noise models) and deeper theoretical understanding.

  • Real-time, in-line quantum-enhanced trading (Sector: Finance; Use case: Ultra-low latency market-making)
    • Vision: Move PQFM or evolved quantum transforms into near-real-time workflows (sub-second) for adaptive quoting and dynamic risk signals.
    • Dependencies: Fault-tolerant or significantly more reliable hardware; faster job orchestration; co-designed quantum-classical systems; robust noise mitigation; edge deployment considerations.
  • End-to-end quantum-classical co-optimization of trading strategies (Sector: Finance; Use case: Joint pricing, inventory, and risk optimization)
    • Vision: Combine quantum-transformed state representations with reinforcement learning or control frameworks to optimize utility functions across quoting, hedging, and portfolio constraints.
    • Dependencies: Theory for stability and convergence under non-stationary distributions; scalable training with live data; expanded features (news, macro, microstructure).
  • Quantum synthetic data and stress scenario generation (Sector: Finance; Use case: Risk management and regulatory stress testing)
    • Vision: Use quantum devices to sample complex probability distributions (quantum states) for realistic market scenarios and tail events, aiding stress tests and capital planning.
    • Dependencies: Methods for validating synthetic distributions; alignment with regulatory expectations; links to structural models; scalable sampling.
  • General-purpose “Quantum Feature Store” and “Quantum Backtesting Suite” (Sector: Software/ML; Use case: ML ops products)
    • Vision: Commercialize platform components: PQFM services, shot budget optimizer, noise-aware hyperparameter tuner, transform telemetry, and backtesting plugins for popular ML stacks.
    • Dependencies: Productization; cloud integration; cost models; developer tooling; community adoption and standards.
  • Standardization and policy frameworks for quantum-assisted trading (Sector: Policy/Regulation; Use case: Market integrity and transparency)
    • Vision: Industry standards for disclosures, audit trails, fairness checks, and safe deployment of quantum-assisted models in markets; possible guidance on model complexity vs. quantum preprocessing.
    • Dependencies: Multi-stakeholder engagement; interoperability across vendors; empirical impact assessments; harmonization with AI and algorithmic trading regulations.
  • Cross-sector applications of PQFM for complex time-series (Sector: Healthcare, Energy, IoT/Manufacturing, Cyber-physical systems)
    • Vision: Apply PQFM to domains with sparse, noisy, high-dimensional signals: patient monitoring (early warning), grid load forecasting, anomaly detection in sensor networks.
    • Dependencies: Domain-specific feature embeddings; evaluation against classical baselines; safe and ethical deployment; availability of labeled outcomes.
  • Theoretical foundations of beneficial hardware noise (Sector: Academia; Use case: Quantum ML theory)
    • Vision: Develop formal understanding of when and how quantum hardware noise improves generalization (e.g., as implicit regularization or feature randomization), and conditions under which gains translate across regimes.
    • Dependencies: New learning-theoretic analyses, quantum kernel theory, comparisons with random features and stochastic resonance frameworks; standardized benchmarks.
  • Quantum-inspired classical transforms (Sector: Software/ML; Use case: Broader scalability without hardware)
    • Vision: Derive classical approximations of PQFM that emulate beneficial properties of hardware noise (calibrated stochastic feature maps) for cost-effective deployment where quantum access is limited.
    • Dependencies: Robust calibration against hardware; portability; validation on diverse datasets; guardrails to avoid overfitting to noise.

Cross-cutting assumptions and dependencies

  • Access to quantum hardware or calibrated noisy runtimes; reproducibility via seeds, circuit IDs, and shot logs.
  • Data privacy, compliance, and governance over transforms and model updates.
  • Robust backtesting under rolling windows and out-of-time splits; monitoring for distribution shift.
  • Cost and latency constraints; shot budgeting; vendor lock-in risks.
  • Empirical nature of gains (no universal theoretical guarantees); continuous evaluation across market regimes.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Glossary

  • Algorithmic trading: The use of automated, rule-based systems to execute trades in financial markets. "The estimation of fill probabilities for trade orders represents a key ingredient in the optimization of algorithmic trading strategies."
  • Backtesting: An empirical evaluation method that tests a model or strategy on historical data to assess performance. "A trade execution backtesting method is employed to evaluate the fill prediction performance of these models in relation to their input data."
  • Brownian motion: A stochastic process modeling random continuous movements, foundational in financial modeling and option pricing. "It began with the seminal works on Brownian motion in the context of asset price fluctuations and option pricing"
  • Entangling two-qubit rotations: Quantum operations that create correlations between qubits through joint rotations. "These can be thought of as entangling two-qubit rotations about ZZ, YY, and XX, with the feature value controlling the rotation angle."
  • Expectation value: The average outcome of measuring a quantum observable on a state, representing its mean value. "is then defined to be the expectation value of one of the operators"
  • Fiducial state: A fixed reference quantum state used as the initialization point for state preparation. "some fixed fiducial state ψ0|\psi_0\rangle"
  • Filtration (probability theory): A nested sequence of σ-algebras representing the growth of available information over time. "a σ\sigma-algebra F\mathcal{F} as the measurable event space with a filtration to our trading window,"
  • Fill probability: The likelihood that a submitted quote or order will be executed in a market. "A key problem in this business is the execution likelihood estimation or fill probability of a given RFQ response."
  • Fill probability estimator: A model that outputs the probability of an order being executed based on input features. "let Λ~\tilde{\Lambda} be a fill probability estimator"
  • Hamiltonian operator: The operator representing the total energy of a quantum system, governing its dynamics. "whose energy for a system with NN qubits is specified by the Hamiltonian operator"
  • Heisenberg ansatz (HA): A parameterized quantum circuit inspired by the Heisenberg model used for encoding data. "we employ the parameterized circuit associated with a so-called Heisenberg ansatz (HA)."
  • Heisenberg model: A quantum spin model with interactions between neighboring spins, used to construct circuit ansätze. "It is inspired by the one-dimensional Heisenberg model"
  • Hermitian conjugate: The complex conjugate transpose of a vector or operator in quantum mechanics. "where ψ|\psi\rangle indicates a vector and ψ\langle \psi | its Hermitian conjugate,"
  • Hilbert space: A complete inner-product vector space that provides the mathematical setting for quantum states. "we have access to a Hilbert space"
  • IBM Heron processors: A generation of IBM quantum computing hardware used to run the quantum algorithms in the paper. "running on IBM Heron processors"
  • International Securities Identification Number (ISIN): A unique code identifying a specific security, such as a corporate bond. "such as the ISIN (International Securities Identification Number) of the particular bond."
  • Market impact: The effect of trades or orders on market prices, often causing price movements. "that there are significantly many instances when market impact and price jumps appear"
  • Market-making: A trading role that provides liquidity by continuously quoting buy and sell prices. "algorithmic trading of European corporate bonds from a market-making perspective."
  • Market state representation: A feature vector summarizing RFQ and market conditions at a point in time. "a market state representation or event xRpx \in \mathbb{R}^p"
  • Nash equilibrium: A game-theoretic state where no participant can benefit by unilaterally changing strategy. "seeking Nash equilibria."
  • Noiseless quantum simulator: A classical simulation of a quantum circuit that omits hardware noise to provide idealized outputs. "noiseless quantum simulators for comparison."
  • Observable (quantum): A measurable operator whose eigenvalues correspond to possible measurement outcomes. "a quantum measurement protocol M\mathcal{M} that is characterized by a fixed set of qq operator observables"
  • Out-of-distribution: Data that differ from the distribution used to train a model, challenging generalization. "out-of-distribution tests"
  • Out-of-sample: Evaluation on data not used during training, reflecting generalization to future or unseen cases. "out-of-sample test scores"
  • Pauli operators: The set of single-qubit matrices X, Y, Z used as fundamental building blocks in quantum circuits. "are vectors composed of Pauli operators on qubit jj"
  • Pauli strings: Tensor products of Pauli operators acting on multiple qubits, used as measurement observables. "we choose qq number of bb-local Pauli strings"
  • Projected Quantum Feature Map (PQFM): A quantum-inspired feature transformation mapping classical inputs to features via quantum embeddings and measurements. "we choose the transformation ϕ\phi to be a Projected Quantum Feature Map (PQFM),"
  • Projected Quantum Kernels: Kernel functions derived from projected quantum states, used for similarity measures in learning. "PQFMs are related to the notion of Projected Quantum Kernels"
  • Qubit: The basic unit of quantum information, analogous to a classical bit but capable of superposition. "the number of qubits NQN_Q, the basic units of information on the quantum device"
  • Quantum measurement protocol: A prescribed set of measurements on a quantum state to extract classical features or statistics. "we describe a quantum measurement protocol M\mathcal{M}"
  • Request for Quote (RFQ): A trading mechanism where a buyer or seller requests price quotes from dealers in a blind auction. "as RFQs (Request for Quote)"
  • Shots: Repeated executions of a quantum circuit to estimate measurement expectations statistically. "repetitions are referred to as shots"
  • Sigma-algebra: A collection of sets closed under complementation and countable unions, used to define measurable events. "a σ\sigma-algebra F\mathcal{F} as the measurable event space"
  • Stochastic processes: Random processes evolving over time, central to modeling financial time series. "Stochastic processes"
  • Tensor product state: A composite quantum state formed by the tensor product of individual qubit states. "we set the tensor product state as"
  • Time-reversal invariance: A property where statistical behavior remains the same under time reversal; often violated in markets. "not statistically invariant upon time reversal"
  • Trotterization: A method to approximate the exponential of a sum of non-commuting operators by a product of exponentials. "via Trotterization"
  • Unitary operator: A norm-preserving linear operator representing reversible evolution in quantum mechanics. "The unitary operator corresponding to the HA is obtained"
  • Utility function: A function encoding preferences or objectives (e.g., risk and profit) to optimize trading decisions. "optimize some form of a utility response function U(νk,)U(\nu_k, \cdot)"
  • Yield spread: The difference between a bond’s yield and a benchmark yield, used as a quoting convention. "yield spread to a reference benchmark."
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 24 tweets and received 758 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper:

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com