A fuzzy compromise programming approach for the Black-Litterman portfolio selection model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine advanced optimization approach for portfolio problem introduced by Black and Litterman to consider the shortcomings of Markowitz standard Mean-Variance optimization. Black and Litterman propose a new approach to estimate asset return. They present a way to incorporate the investor's views into asset pricing process. Since the investor's view about future asset return is always subjective and imprecise, we can represent it by using fuzzy numbers and the resulting model is multi-objective linear programming. Therefore, the proposed model is analyzed through fuzzy compromise programming approach using appropriate membership function. For this purpose, we introduce the fuzzy ideal solution concept based on investor preference and indifference relationships using canonical representation of proposed fuzzy numbers by means of their corresponding-cuts. A real world numerical example is presented in which MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International Index) is chosen as the target index. The results are reported for a portfolio consisting of the six national indices. The performance of the proposed models is compared using several financial criteria.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".