MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324833241 · doi:10.1002/num.21836

Continuous time mean‐variance optimal portfolio allocation under jump diffusion: An numerical impulse control approach

2013· article· en· W2324833241 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equationViscosity solutionMathematicsJump diffusionMonotone polygonEfficient frontierPartial differential equationMathematical optimizationPortfolioApplied mathematicsOptimal controlJumpMathematical analysisEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present efficient partial differential equation methods for continuous time mean‐variance portfolio allocation problems when the underlying risky asset follows a jump‐diffusion. The standard formulation of mean‐variance optimal portfolio allocation problems, where the total wealth is the underlying stochastic process, gives rise to a one‐dimensional (1D) nonlinear Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman (HJB) partial integrodifferential equation (PIDE) with the control present in the integrand of the jump term, and thus is difficult to solve efficiently. To preserve the efficient handling of the jump term, we formulate the asset allocation problem as a 2D impulse control problem, 1D for each asset in the portfolio, namely the bond and the stock. We then develop a numerical scheme based on a semi‐Lagrangian timestepping method, which we show to be monotone, consistent, and stable. Hence, assuming a strong comparison property holds, the numerical solution is guaranteed to converge to the unique viscosity solution of the corresponding HJB PIDE. The correctness of the proposed numerical framework is verified by numerical examples. We also discuss the effects on the efficient frontier of realistic financial modeling, such as different borrowing and lending interest rates, transaction costs, and constraints on the portfolio, such as maximum limits on borrowing and solvency. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Numer Methods Partial Differential Eq 30: 664–698, 2014

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.267 · 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