Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.00183

Two Models of Event Finality: Functional Alignment, Contestability, and Empirical Comparability on Polymarket and Kalshi

Maksym Nechepurenko
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Event contracts reach economic finality through different institutional paths. Polymarket distinguishes oracle adjudication, adapter consumption, Conditional Tokens payout recording, technical redeemability, and optional holder redemption. Kalshi distinguishes venue determination, public finalization, lifecycle messages, and exact REST settlement fields. Resolved, settled, and finalized do not themselves define comparable endpoints. We define a mechanism-aware comparison certificate using functional roles rather than common labels. A scalar cross-venue duration is admissible only when payoff semantics, endpoint functions, calendar support, censoring, observation grades, and dependence units are jointly aligned. We separate exact paired, interval-qualified paired, and standardized unpaired estimands. Polymarket evidence contains 108,638 exact-linked conditions, 99,283 protocol payout records, 92,158 observed redemptions of any amount, and 91,817 observed positive-payout redemptions. Kalshi evidence contains 152,694 ordinary markets reconstructed as at risk at the enrollment boundary and 7,611,594 exact MVE market objects. Exact public endpoints cover 71,657 ordinary markets and 7,357,576 MVE objects. Exact determination-to-endpoint pairs total 70,979 for ordinary markets and 126,806 for MVE. These are Kalshi-native finality results, not Polymarket-Kalshi estimates. REST endpoint completeness can be high when exact lifecycle paths are sparse, and transport gaps can preserve two exact clocks while preventing claims about intermediate revisions. Current MVE timer fields do not identify historical version-consistent timer rules, and public finalization does not identify member cash. Cross-venue numerical comparison remains blocked until Paper 7.3 supplies blind first/stable decidability clocks and a semantic/calendar registry establishes genuinely comparable events and endpoints.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maksym Nechepurenko. 2026-09-17. Two Models of Event Finality: Functional Alignment, Contestability, and Empirical Comparability on Polymarket and Kalshi. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7421338

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MLP-Initialized Reinforcement Learning for Exit Timing in SPX Short-Straddle Portfolios

This paper studies exit timing for SPX short-straddle portfolios using a two-stage supervised and reinforcement-learning framework. Historical episodes first generate ex-post optimal hold/exit labels for training a multilayer perceptron (MLP) using only contemporaneously available state variables at deployment. The trained MLP then initializes reinforcement-learning actors that are fine-tuned with a risk-aware trading reward. Out-of-sample evaluation over 2024-2026 shows that the supervised MLP substantially outperforms passive holding and representative fixed-time and profit-and-loss-based exit rules. Across seven independent seeds, MLP-initialized Actor-Critic averages 37.54% cumulative return and a Sharpe ratio of 1.705, compared with 35.01% and 1.651 for the supervised MLP. Actor-Critic trained from scratch averages only 0.18% return. These findings show that oracle-guided supervised learning provides a stable foundation for reward-based policy fine-tuning in a sparse and path-dependent option-exit problem.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Deep reinforcement learning for optimal trading with partial information

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has attracted increasing interest in financial applications, including optimal trading and execution. However, the use of RL for optimal trading strategies that exploit latent information in the market has been, to the best of our knowledge, subject to little attention. In this paper, we consider an optimal trading problem in which the trading signal follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with regime switching parameters. The problem is naturally formulated as a partially observable Markov decision problem, requiring a trader to infer latent information directly from the history of the observable process. We combine recurrent neural networks (RNN) with RL to address both the filtering and trading components of the problem. More specifically, we propose three distinct RL-based approaches, on top of which we incorporate RNN to filter the latent state of the environment where the agent is trading. The first, a one-step approach, directly encodes hidden states from the GRU into the RL trader. The second and third are two-step methods: one that uses posterior regime probability estimates for the mean reverting regimes, while the other relies on forecasts of the next signal value. Through extensive simulations with increasingly complex Markovian regime dynamics for the trading signal's parameters, as well as an empirical application to equity pairs trading, we find that feeding posterior probability estimates on the latent long-run mean reversion regime achieves superior cumulative rewards and exhibits more interpretable strategies, in contrast with the other two approaches. Overall, our results show that the quality and structure of the information supplied to the agent are important for trading performance and policy interpretability.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

RED-2400: A Public Benchmark of Algorithmically-Rejected Trading Events with Outcome Labels

RED-2400 is a public benchmark of 6,660 algorithmically-rejected trading events from a live Solana decentralised-exchange filter stack, observed continuously over 22 calendar days (2026-04-10T21:10Z through 2026-05-02T21:48Z, UTC). Of the 6,660 rejection events, 3,333 (50.05 percent) link exactly to a post-rejection price-and-liquidity sample series. The deposit contains 169,123 forward-outcome observations and 1,837 graveyard-tracker lifecycle snapshots, covering 1,076 distinct mints in the rejection registry and 1,075 in the forward-observation file. The deposit contains no outcome-label column. In its lifecycle-tracker file, gone is a tracker state recorded with liquidity 0; it is not terminal (167 of the 377 mints that reach it later return to an alive state) and does not denote token death or a rug pull. Filter labels are anonymised to filter_1 through filter_8; source-collector identifiers to source_a and source_b. Liquidity and 24-hour volume are quantised to the nearest power of two, preserving heavy-tailed shape while preventing operational-threshold inference. This is the first window of a planned series; subsequent windows will extend the time horizon and enable regime-stratified analysis. "RED-2400" is a brand name, not a count; current cohort sizes are listed below and do not equal 2,400. Correction (October 2026): I withdraw Section V, which compared how often "early-death" and other rejected mints reach gone; 1,235 of the 1,236 early-death events were followed within 10.5 minutes by a re-rejection of the same token, so the label marks re-rejection timing, not token death. See the correction notice on page 1.

q-fin.TR↗