MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512575610 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v2n3p152

Using Multiobjective Algorithms to Solve the Discrete Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection

2010· article· en· W2512575610 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationBenchmark (surveying)Multi-objective optimizationMaximizationSet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)PortfolioVariance (accounting)MinificationComputer sciencePopulationInteger (computer science)Evolutionary algorithmPareto principleMathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we tackle the standard Markowitz mean-variance model extended to include complex constraints. We formulate the problem as a bi-objective mixed integer optimization problem, i.e. maximization of return and minimization of risk. Τo find the set of Pareto-optimal portfolios, we implement two multiobjective algorithms, a population based multiobjective optimizer and a multiobjective optimizer which uses a local search evolution strategy. Finally, we evaluate the performance of the two multiobjective evolutionary algorithms on a public benchmark data set and a data set constructed using a representative emerging market’s index.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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