Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops the analytics and geometry of the investment opportunity set (IOS) and the test statistics for self-financing portfolios. A self-financing portfolio is a set of long and short investments such that the sum of their investment weights, or net investment, is zero. This contrasts with a standard portfolio that has investment weights summing to one. Examples of self-financing portfolios are hedges, overlays, arbitrage portfolios, swaps, and long/short portfolios. A standard portfolio plus the IOS of self-financing portfolios form a restricted IOS hyperbola with restricted efficient set constants that differ from the usual constants. The restrictions affect statistical tests of portfolio efficiency, which are developed for the self-financing restrictions. As an application, we consider the self-financing portfolios formed by Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1995), based on market capitalization and value. In contrast to Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1995), we find that their restricted IOS is significantly different from the unrestricted IOS with the implication that the Fama-French tests are misspecified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".