MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077220221 · doi:10.1142/s0219024906003895

SOME FURTHER ANALYTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE CONSTANT CORRELATION MODEL FOR PORTFOLIO SELECTION

2006· article· en· W2077220221 on OpenAlexaff
Clarence C. Y. Kwan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioConstant (computer programming)Selection (genetic algorithm)EconometricsComputer scienceCovariance matrixPortfolio optimizationModern portfolio theoryCorrelationComputationModel selectionPost-modern portfolio theorySet (abstract data type)Variance (accounting)Matrix (chemical analysis)Mathematical optimizationReplicating portfolioMathematicsEconomicsAlgorithmMachine learningFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constant correlation model is a mean-variance portfolio selection model where, for a given set of risky securities, the correlation of returns between any pair of different securities is considered to be the same. Support for the model is from previous empirical evidence that sample averages of correlations outperform various more sophisticated models in forecasting the correlation matrix, an important input component for portfolio analysis. To enable a better understanding of the constant correlation model, this study identifies some additional analytical properties of the model and relates them to familiar portfolio concepts. By comparing computational times for portfolio construction with and without simplifying the correlation matrix in a simulation study, this study also confirms the model's computational advantage. This study is intended to provide further analytical support for the model as a viable, simple alternative to those portfolio selection models where input requirements and the attendant computations are more burdensome.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207