MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782132685

MaxEnt-Based Explanation of Why Financial Analysts Systematically Under-Predict Companies' Performance

2017· article· en· W2782132685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Владик Крейнович, Songsak Sriboonchitta

Bibliographic record

VenueThai Journal of Mathematics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomQuarter (Canadian coin)RecessionPhenomenonEconometricsPrinciple of maximum entropyFinanceEntropy (arrow of time)EconomicsFinancial economicsMathematicsBusinessActuarial scienceMacroeconomicsStatisticsEngineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have shown that financial analysts systematically under-predict the companies' performance, so that quarter after the quarter, 70-75% of the companies outperform these predictions. This percentage remains the same where the economy is in a boom or in a recession, whether we are in a period of strong or weak regulations. In this paper, we provide a possible Maximum Entropy-based explanation for this empirical phenomenon -- an explanation rooted in the fact that financial analysts mostly analyze financial data, while to get a more accurate prediction, it is important to go deeper, into the technical issues underlying the companies functioning.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueThai Journal of MathematicsSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207