Designing effective trading strategies using reinforcement learning remains challenging due to delayed and noisy rewards, poor exploration, and the difficulty of enforcing explicit risk constraints. In this work, we propose BRaG, a barycenter-based adversarial inverse reinforcement learning framework for stock trading that learns trading behavior from multiple heterogeneous expert strategies. BRaG aggregates expert demonstrations using a performance-weighted Wasserstein barycenter, yielding a stable pseudo-expert representation that captures shared structure across diverse trading styles. This representation is used to pretrain a trading policy via adversarial imitation learning, which alleviates unstable exploration during reinforcement learning. The pretrained policy is subsequently refined using reinforcement learning with true market rewards. To ensure risk-aware decision-making, BRaG incorporates control barrier functions that constrain action execution and regularize policy learning to satisfy drawdown limits. We evaluate the proposed approach on four major global equity markets, including the US, UK, Indian, and Taiwanese indices. Across all the markets, the proposed approach achieves stronger performance than both classical trading rules and recent deep reinforcement learning methods, while exhibiting more stable risk characteristics.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Metrics
Index
Buy-Hold
MVO
Random
CSMOM
TSMOM
Bollinger
MA Crossover
A2C
DDPG
VS-DRL
SRRS
RSHF
Adaptive
DREB
PPO
BRaG†
DJI
Cumulative Return
22.8053
30.561
19.649
18.678
24.241
25.315
25.625
31.926
37.192
38.268
36.959
12.275
35.708
24.023
42.522
35.594
53.977
Annual Return
12.576
16.522
10.899
10.379
13.334
13.897
14.064
17.323
20.003
20.545
19.885
6.905
19.252
13.219
22.626
17.669
28.262
Sharpe Ratio
0.883
1.117
0.976
0.713
0.661
0.914
0.814
1.062
1.067
1.165
1.193
0.457
1.289
0.947
1.405
1.164
1.472
Max Drawdown
16.369
15.916
10.663
17.142
29.982
13.501
15.991
18.443
23.631
19.724
19.351
21.524
15.701
16.401
17.968
16.208
17.958
Win Ratio
54.13
55.15
53.44
47.91
53.21
49.31
54.36
47.94
55.05
54.19
57.14
50.01
54.59
55.28
57.34
55.73
58.05
FTSE
Cumulative Return
20.443
8.604
23.597
-14.446
17.165
32.061
27.605
30.802
33.917
29.585
17.478
19.144
33.788
30.541
43.898
32.294
64.241
Table 1: Performance comparison of the proposed BRaG model against various baselines across the datasets.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Hyperparameter
Range
PPO
Hidden Dimension
[2,512]
Number of Layers
[1,8]
Activation Function
[ReLU, Tanh, Sigmoid]
Learning Rate
[e−8,e−1]
Dropout
[0,0.5]
γ
[0.9,0.99]
Appendix
Table 2: Hyperparameter configuration and search space for the proposed BRaG model.
Figure 1: Cumulative return trajectories of the proposed BRaG model and baseline strategies across the DJI, FTSE, Sensex, and TWII datasets during the out-of-sample trading period.
Dataset
Metrics
Random
A2C
DDPG
VS-DRL
SRRS
RSHF
Adaptive
DREB
PPO
BRaG†
DJI
Cumulative Return
18.68 ± 5.42
37.19 ± 3.41
38.27 ± 4.12
36.96 ± 3.85
12.28 ± 2.15
35.71 ± 2.94
24.02 ± 2.65
42.52 ± 3.10
35.59 ± 2.87
53.98 ± 1.95
Annual Return
10.38 ± 3.15
20.00 ± 1.84
20.55 ± 2.21
19.89 ± 1.95
6.91 ± 1.12
19.25 ± 1.65
13.22 ± 1.43
22.63 ± 1.75
17.67 ± 1.52
28.26 ± 1.05
Sharpe Ratio
0.71 ± 0.18
1.07 ± 0.12
1.17 ± 0.14
1.19 ± 0.13
0.46 ± 0.16
1.29 ± 0.11
0.95 ± 0.14
1.41 ± 0.09
1.16 ± 0.10
1.47 ± 0.06
Max Drawdown
17.14 ± 3.85
23.63 ± 2.15
19.72 ± 2.84
19.35 ± 2.45
21.52 ± 3.12
15.70 ± 1.85
16.40 ± 2.05
17.97 ± 1.75
16.21 ± 1.64
17.96 ± 1.25
Win Ratio
47.91 ± 2.45
55.05 ± 1.34
54.19 ± 1.65
57.14 ± 1.45
50.01 ± 1.85
54.59 ± 1.25
55.28 ± 1.55
57.34 ± 1.15
55.73 ± 1.15
58.05 ± 0.85
FTSE
Cumulative Return
-14.45 ± 6.15
33.92 ± 3.85
29.59 ± 4.15
17.48 ± 3.25
19.14 ± 3.65
33.79 ± 3.15
30.54 ± 2.95
43.90 ± 3.25
32.29 ± 3.14
64.24 ± 2.41
Appendix
Table 3: Performance comparison of the proposed BRaG model against various baselines across the datasets. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over five independent runs.
Figure 2: Distribution of Calmar and Sortino ratios across all models and datasets, illustrating comparative downside risk and risk-adjusted performance.
Figure 3: Effect of varying the number of expert trajectories used for barycenter construction on cumulative return and Sharpe ratio. Experts are added incrementally based on validation performance.
Figure 4: Effect of varying the maximum drawdown limit in the control barrier function on cumulative return and Sharpe ratio.
Barycenter weighting scheme
Cumulative Return ↑
Sharpe Ratio ↑
Maximum Drawdown ↓
Sharpe-based weighting
53.977
1.472
17.958
Equal weighting
48.502
1.281
20.133
Appendix
Table 4: Effect of expert-weighting schemes in the Wasserstein barycenter on the DJI dataset. Sharpe-based weighting assigns greater influence to experts with stronger risk-adjusted validation performance, whereas equal weighting assigns identical importance to all experts.
Component removed
Cumulative Return ↑
Sharpe Ratio ↑
Maximum Drawdown ↓
GAIL Pretraining
33.501
1.245
15.796
PPO Fine-tuning
42.378
1.335
16.953
CBF
52.951
1.258
25.874
None—Full BRaG
53.977
1.472
17.958
Appendix
Table 5: Component-wise ablation of BRaG on the DJI dataset. Each variant removes one major component from the full framework while retaining the remaining modules.
Expert Aggregation Method
Cumulative Return ↑
Sharpe Ratio ↑
Maximum Drawdown ↓
Best Single Expert
27.235
1.205
14.982
Uniform Expert Sampling
46.445
1.285
20.181
Sharpe-weighted Sampling
50.213
1.388
18.875
Full BRaG
53.977
1.472
17.958
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of expert-demonstration aggregation strategies on the DJI dataset.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Reinforcement learning has gained increasing attention as a data-driven approach for stock trading. However, learning a policy that is both profitable and stable remains challenging due to non-stationary market behaviour and noisy reward signals. Auxiliary tasks are often used to improve representation learning and stabilize training, yet they are usually designed manually and depend heavily on prior assumptions about targets and prediction horizons. Such fixed designs may not remain suitable across changing market regimes. In this work, we propose a self-supervised framework that automatically discovers auxiliary tasks to support reinforcement learning for stock trading. The auxiliary tasks are formulated as General Value Functions so that their predictions enrich the learned state representation and assist policy optimization. The framework consists of two networks. The main network learns the trading policy along with the auxiliary predictions, while the secondary network generates the definitions of auxiliary tasks through learned cumulants and discount factors. These tasks are updated using a meta gradient mechanism that accounts for their long-term impact on trading performance and improves training stability. We evaluate the proposed approach across four major equity indices: DJI, FTSE, Sensex, and TAIEX. The empirical results demonstrate that automatically discovered auxiliary tasks lead to more robust learning and improved trading performance compared to existing baselines.
Arishi Orra, Himanshu Choudhary, Manoj Thakur
School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Mandi, 175005, Himachal Pradesh, India
Consistently profitable trading is difficult because equity markets are noisy, non-stationary, and only partially predictable from historical data. We benchmark five deep reinforcement learning (DRL) actor-critic methods: A2C, PPO, DDPG, TD3, and SAC, that learn trading actions end-to-end from market states, and compare them with a supervised price-forecasting baseline. Using daily data for 20 large-capitalization S&P 500 stocks from 2000 to 2020, enriched with trend-following technical indicators and log min-max scaling, we train on 2000-2018 and backtest on 2019-2020. Each agent is evaluated both when trained once and under forward retraining, in which it is retrained on all data available before each successive test window. DDPG achieves the highest annual return (55.5%), Sharpe ratio (1.38), and alpha (0.22), but also the highest market beta (1.24). TD3 and SAC offer a better risk-return balance, with Sharpe ratios of 1.37 and 1.33 and maximum drawdowns of about 25%. Forward retraining improves A2C, PPO, and SAC, leaves TD3 essentially unchanged, and reduces DDPG's annual return from 55.5% to 29.8%, consistent with TD3's greater robustness to hyperparameters. The forecasting baseline has the smallest maximum drawdown (9.6%) and the lowest beta (0.31), underscoring a trade-off between the higher returns of end-to-end DRL and the lower risk of forecast-driven strategies.
Reinforcement learning for trading often struggles to balance upside participation with drawdown control. Profit-only policies can collapse toward passive long exposure on upward-drifting assets, while aggressively risk-penalized rewards can become too defensive during volatile periods. This paper proposes PPO-HRAP, a hybrid regime-aware policy that combines Proximal Policy Optimization with an interpretable regime prior. The agent observes both market features and portfolio-state variables, receives a reward combining portfolio log return, VIX-conditioned drawdown-increase penalty, target-exposure deviation, and turnover cost, and executes a blended action between the PPO actor output and a regime-derived target exposure. On the held-out 2020-2022 SPY test window, PPO-HRAP achieves 27.62% total return, 8.48% annualized return, 0.6447 Sharpe ratio, 0.8588 Sortino ratio, and 0.4592 Calmar ratio, while reducing maximum drawdown from 34.10% for Buy and Hold to 18.47%. Across five SPY seeds, PPO-HRAP remains stable with mean total return 0.2725±0.0109 and mean Sharpe ratio 0.6219±0.0565. Single-run cross-asset tests on QQQ and DIA further show that the proposed method ranks first on total return and Sharpe ratio for all three reported assets. These results suggest that blending learned actions with a volatility-aware regime prior is a practical way to improve risk-adjusted trading behavior, although the current policy still incurs high turnover and cross-asset robustness beyond SPY remains limited to single-run evidence.
Duong Hien Chi Kien, Thanh Trung Huynh
College of Engineering and Computer Science, VinUniversity Ha Noi, Viet Nam