MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914448910 · doi:10.1142/s0219024920500454

BEHAVIORAL PORTFOLIO CHOICE UNDER HYPERBOLIC ABSOLUTE RISK AVERSION

2020· article· en· W2914448910 on OpenAlexaff
Marcos Escobar‐Anel, Andreas Lichtenstern, Rudi Zagst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsoelastic utilityCumulative prospect theoryExpected utility hypothesisVon Neumann–Morgenstern utility theoremProspect theoryPortfolioDistortion functionAmbiguity aversionRisk aversion (psychology)Subjective expected utilityDistortion (music)Spectral risk measureMathematical economicsPiecewiseMathematicsFunction (biology)EconomicsMathematical optimizationModern portfolio theoryComputer scienceMicroeconomicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the optimal investment problem for a behavioral investor with probability distortion functions and an S-shaped utility function whose utility on gains satisfies the Inada condition at infinity, albeit not necessarily at zero, in a complete continuous-time financial market model. In particular, a piecewise utility function with hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) is applied. The considered behavioral framework, cumulative prospect theory (CPT), was originally introduced by [A. Tversky & D. Kahneman (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4), 297–323]. The utility model allows for increasing, constant or decreasing relative risk aversion. The continuous-time portfolio selection problem under the S-shaped HARA utility function in combination with probability distortion functions on gains and losses is solved theoretically for the first time, the optimal terminal wealth and its replicating wealth process and investment strategy are stated. In addition, conditions on the utility and the probability distortion functions for well-posedness and closed-form solutions are provided. A specific probability distortion function family is presented which fulfills all those requirements. This generalizes the work by [H. Jin & X. Y. Zhou (2008) Behavioral portfolio selection in continuous time, Mathematical Finance 18 (3), 385–426]. Finally, a numerical case study is carried out to illustrate the impact of the utility function and the probability distortion functions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207