MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125280627 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2014.4.011

Asset management using an extended Markowitz theorem

2014· article· en· W2125280627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reza Raei, Paria Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)Computer scienceAsset managementMathematical economicsBusinessMathematicsEconomicsEconometricsFinanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markowitz theorem is one of the most popular techniques for asset management. The method has been widely used to solve many applications, successfully. In this paper, we present a multi objective Markowitz model to determine asset allocation by considering cardinality constraints. The resulted model is an NP-Hard problem and the proposed study uses two metaheuristics, namely genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to find efficient solutions. The proposed study has been applied on some data collected from Tehran Stock Exchange over the period 2009-2011. The study considers four objectives including cash return, 12-month return, 36-month return and Lower Partial Moment (LPM). The results indicate that there was no statistical difference between the implementation of PSO and GA methods.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207