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

A Bayesian Approach for Asset Allocation

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

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207