MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776446206 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n1p40

Review on Reformulation of the Mean-Variance Model with Real-life Trading Restrictions

2017· article· en· W2776446206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardinality (data modeling)Mathematical optimizationSolverContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Quadratic programmingBranch and boundComputer scienceRelaxation (psychology)PortfolioInteger (computer science)Selection (genetic algorithm)Lift (data mining)MathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a class of portfolio selection problems with cardinality and minimum buy-in threshold constraints in real-life which can be formulated as mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP). Two reformulation methods that generate the same tight continuous relaxation of original problem are compared in the context under the branch-and-bound algorithm, one is the Perspective Reformulation and another is the Lift-and-Convexification Reformulation (LCR). Computational results show that the (PC) is more competitive than the (LCR) method in terms of computing time and nodes in MIQP solver CPLEX 12.7, what's more, this outperformance becomes more obvious as the size of instances grows.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207