MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996521679 · doi:10.1109/nabic.2014.6921888

Portfolio diversification using ant brood sorting clustering

2014· article· en· W1996521679 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSortingCluster analysisBroodComputer scienceDiversification (marketing strategy)PortfolioAnt colonyArtificial intelligenceSwarm intelligenceProcess (computing)Machine learningAnt colony optimization algorithmsFinanceEconomicsEcologyBusinessAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of uncovering underlying intelligence in financial time series is non-intuitive; therefore, data analysis techniques such as clustering (i.e. grouping a collection of objects such that objects in the same group are more similar to each other than those in the other groups) are often used to extract intelligence from financial time series. In this paper, we investigate using the ant brood sorting clustering technique to extract a new form of intelligence from financial time series that can be used in diversifying portfolio composition. Brood sorting is a nature-inspired computing technique modeled after the natural phenomenon of cemetery organization and sorting of broods amongst ants. The technique reveals promising results that can be used in making informed decision on the collection of assets that can be owned together in order to minimize possible losses (in the case of a down-turn of the economy) or maximize gain (in the case of a growing economy).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207