MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172710537 · doi:10.1080/17517575.2021.1939425

Informative index for investment based on Kelly criterion

2021· article· en· W3172710537 on OpenAlexaff
Mu‐En Wu, Jia-Hao Syu, Gautam Srivastava, Jerry Chun‐Wei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueEnterprise Information Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsPortfolioInvestment valueRobustness (evolution)Stock market indexProject portfolio managementMathematicsStock (firearms)Index (typography)Asset managementAsset allocationCorrelation coefficientStatisticsEconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinanceEngineeringStock marketManagementProject management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to asset allocation and portfolio management, Kelly criterion is a mathematical formula used to optimise expected log-returns over the long term. Nonetheless, not all stocks are well suited for analysis using Kelly criterion, due to their transient nature and noisy data. This paper presents an innovative index by which to assess the suitability of stocks for analysis using the Kelly criterion. When applied to real-world stock data, the correlation coefficient between the proposed KSI and log-returns based on the Kelly criterion was −57.045% with a p-value of 1.215×10−1. In a robustness test based on the Mid-Cap 100 dataset, the correlation coefficient was −44.064% with a p-value of 2.438×10−5. The results demonstrate the efficacy of the KSI for portfolio management.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnterprise Information SystemsSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207