BEHAVIORAL PORTFOLIO CHOICE UNDER HYPERBOLIC ABSOLUTE RISK AVERSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".