MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT WITH CONSTRAINTS

2007· article· en· W2004727703 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Finance · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPortfolioBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationSelection (genetic algorithm)UniquenessProject portfolio managementComputer scienceClass (philosophy)Portfolio optimizationInvestment strategySeparation propertyIndex (typography)EconomicsMathematical economicsReplicating portfolioMathematicsMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional portfolio selection problem concerns an agent whose objective is to maximize the expected utility of terminal wealth over some horizon. This basic problem can be modified by adding constraints. In this paper we investigate the portfolio selection problem for an investor who desires to outperform some benchmark index with a certain confidence level. The benchmark is chosen to reflect some particular investment objective and it can be either deterministic or stochastic. The optimal strategy for this class of problems can lead to nonconvex constraints raising issues of existence and uniqueness. We solve this optimal portfolio selection problem and investigate the procedure for both deterministic and stochastic benchmarks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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