MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143299583 · doi:10.1080/14697680701213868

Portfolio optimization under the Value-at-Risk constraint

2007· article· en· W2143299583 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

VenueQuantitative Finance · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPortfolio optimizationPortfolioConstraint (computer-aided design)Value at riskEconomicsValue (mathematics)Expected shortfallMathematical optimizationFinancial economicsEconometricsMathematical economicsActuarial scienceRisk managementMathematicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we analyse the effects arising from imposing a Value-at-Risk constraint in an agent's portfolio selection problem. The financial market is incomplete and consists of multiple risky assets (stocks) plus a risk-free asset. The stocks are modelled as exponential Brownian motions with random drift and volatility. The risk of the trading portfolio is re-evaluated dynamically, hence the agent must satisfy the Value-at-Risk constraint continuously. We derive the optimal consumption and portfolio allocation policy in closed form for the case of logarithmic utility. The non-logarithmic CRRA utilities are considered as well, when the randomness of market coefficients is independent of the Brownian motion driving the stocks. The portfolio selection, a stochastic control problem, is reduced, in this context, to a deterministic control one, which is analysed, and a numerical treatment is proposed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.308 · 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