MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122724187 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.15384

Optimal Asset Allocation For Outperforming A Stochastic Benchmark Target

2020· preprint· en· W3122724187 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chendi Ni, Yuying Li, Peter Forsyth, Ray Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsset allocationComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)PortfolioRobustness (evolution)Mathematical optimizationStochastic controlPortfolio optimizationAsset (computer security)Optimal controlEconomicsFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a data-driven Neural Network (NN) optimization framework to determine the optimal multi-period dynamic asset allocation strategy for outperforming a general stochastic target. We formulate the problem as an optimal stochastic control with an asymmetric, distribution shaping, objective function. The proposed framework is illustrated with the asset allocation problem in the accumulation phase of a defined contribution pension plan, with the goal of achieving a higher terminal wealth than a stochastic benchmark. We demonstrate that the data-driven approach is capable of learning an adaptive asset allocation strategy directly from historical market returns, without assuming any parametric model of the financial market dynamics. Following the optimal adaptive strategy, investors can make allocation decisions simply depending on the current state of the portfolio. The optimal adaptive strategy outperforms the benchmark constant proportion strategy, achieving a higher terminal wealth with a 90% probability, a 46% higher median terminal wealth, and a significantly more right-skewed terminal wealth distribution. We further demonstrate the robustness of the optimal adaptive strategy by testing the performance of the strategy on bootstrap resampled market data, which has different distributions compared to the training data.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207