Robust Control under Stationary Ambiguity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Control policies optimized in simulation can perform poorly in the real system when the parameters x of the simulator are estimated from limited data but the resulting parameter uncertainty is not represented inside the simulation. A common way to incorporate such ambiguity is to simulate each trajectory of the system under a randomly drawn value for x. Since the policy cannot observe the drawn value, it must initially choose controls that perform well across many possible parameter values. However, if the policy progressively observes the system, it can often gradually infer the value of x, so that ambiguity vanishes. Over time, the policy then specializes to its estimate of x and loses its robustness. This is undesirable in many real systems, where latent factors are expected to shift. In financial markets, for example, a policy hedging a derivative payoff should remain robust to changes in the volatility regime. To induce such continual robustness, we propose training policies in simulators where ambiguity varies with the system's state but does not systematically decay over time. We formalize this requirement as stationary ambiguity: the simulator should induce a stationary filter process over the latent state. We show how to construct such simulators and demonstrate, on hedging problems, that policies trained under stationary ambiguity preserve robustness to latent factors over time, leading to strong performance on real market data. As a modeling principle, stationary ambiguity informs many simulator design decisions: which models make realistic simulators, how their parameters should be randomized, and how simulator and policy should be initialized. While our experiments focus on hedging, stationary ambiguity may also be useful for other sequential control problems driven by exogenous stochastic processes with shifting latent structure.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 88 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.
Builds on
20 of 88 references.
References · 20
- 2017Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep Neural Networks from Simulation to the Real Worldcited by 1,401
- 2017Sim-to-Real Transfer of Robotic Control with Dynamics Randomizationcited by 616
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2017Robust Adversarial Reinforcement Learningcited by 439
- 2015Learning Continuous Control Policies by Stochastic Value Gradientscited by 156
- 2016EPOpt: Learning Robust Neural Network Policies Using Model Ensemblescited by 136
- 2018Deep Hedgingcited by 106
- 2021Robot Learning from Randomized Simulations: A Reviewcited by 56
- 2016Deep Learning Approximation for Stochastic Control Problemscited by 51
- 2020A Data-driven Market Simulator for Small Data Environmentscited by 34
- 2017Multi-Period Trading via Convex Optimizationcited by 21
- 2021Multi-Asset Spot and Option Market Simulationcited by 17
8 more
- 2022Gamma and Vega Hedging Using Deep Distributional Reinforcement Learningcited by 15
- 2023Robust Risk-Aware Option Hedgingcited by 9
- 2024Fast Deep Hedging with Second-Order Optimizationcited by 6
- 2017Model Uncertainty, Recalibration, and the Emergence of Delta-Vega Hedgingcited by 2
- 2025Distributional Adversarial Attacks and Training in Deep Hedgingcited by 2
- 2016Hedging with Small Uncertainty Aversioncited by 1
- 2025Uncertainty-Aware Strategies: A Model-Agnostic Framework for Robust Financial Optimization through Subsamplingcited by 1
- 2026Generating Financial Time Series by Matching Random Convolutional Featurescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.