MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024024539 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v9n4p1

A Bayesian Approach for Asset Allocation

2020· article· en· W3024024539 on OpenAlex
Mihnea S. Andrei, J.S. Hsu

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 Statistics and Probability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia NanoSystems InstituteDivision of Materials ResearchMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBlack–Litterman modelWishart distributionPortfolioEconometricsBayesian probabilityCovariance matrixAsset (computer security)Portfolio optimizationLogarithmCovarianceAsset allocationEconomicsMathematicsComputer scienceReplicating portfolioStatisticsFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Black-Litterman model combines investors’ personal views with historical data and gives optimal portfolio weights. In this paper we will introduce the original Black-Litterman model (Section 1), we will modify the model such that it fits in a Bayesian framework by considering the investors’ personal views to be a direct prior on the means of the returns and by including a typical Inverse Wishart prior on the covariance matrix of the returns (Section 2). We will also consider an idea of Leonard & Hsu [1992] for a prior on the logarithm of the covariance matrix (Section 3). Sensitivity analysis for the level of confidence that investors have in their own personal views was performed and performance of the models was assessed on a test data set consisting of returns over the month of January 2018.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.260 · 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