MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339592748 · doi:10.1007/s42488-019-00007-w

Multiportfolio optimization with CVaR risk measure

2019· article· en· W2339592748 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

VenueJournal of Data Information and Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCVARRisk measureExpected shortfallCoherent risk measureMeasure (data warehouse)Sensitivity (control systems)ConvexityMathematical optimizationComputer scienceEconometricsRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsRisk managementMathematicsData miningBusinessFinancial economicsEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the financial industry, the trading of multiple portfolios is usually aggregated and optimized simultaneously. When multiple portfolios are managed together, unique issues such as market impact costs must be dealt with properly. Conditional Value-at-Risk ( CVaR ) is a coherent risk measure with the computationally friendly feature of convexity. In this study, we propose the new combination of CVaR with the multiportfolio optimization (MPO) problem and develop optimization models with using CVaR to measure risks in MPO problems. A five-step scheme is presented for practical operations with considering the impact costs caused by aggregating the trading of multiple portfolios. The impact of CVaR on returns and utility in MPO environment is studied, and the comparisons with existing methods and sensitivity analysis are reported.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.270 · 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