Estimation of fuzzy portfolio efficiency via an improved DEA approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) is a nonparametric approach that has been used to estimate fuzzy portfolio efficiency. In this paper, we propose an approach under the fuzzy theory framework that can both improve the DEA frontier and suggest a replicable benchmark for investors. We first construct an improved DEA model using the proposed approach and then investigate the relationships among the evaluation model based on a portfolio frontier, the traditional DEA model and the improved DEA model. We show the convergence of the improved DEA model under the fuzzy framework. The simulation indicates that the improved DEA frontier is closer to the portfolio frontier than to the traditional DEA frontier. More importantly, we incorporate the diversification DEA model and improved DEA model to analyze the performance of China’s open-end fund. The empirical results indicate that the improved DEA model not only provides a quicker way to assess the investment funds compared to the diversification DEA model but also makes up for the shortcoming of the traditional DEA model, which overestimates the fuzzy portfolio efficiency.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it