MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Portfolio Optimization Using Novel Intelligent Probabilistic Forecasts of Risk Measures

2021· article· en· W3199502854 on OpenAlexaff
You Liang, A. Thavaneswaran, Alexander Paseka, Ruppa K. Thulasiram, Ethan Johnson-Skinner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioPortfolio optimizationVolatility (finance)EconometricsStochastic volatilityRate of return on a portfolioPost-modern portfolio theoryEWMA chartExpected shortfallValue at riskComputer scienceEconomicsReplicating portfolioFinancial economicsRisk managementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a growing interest in studying risk forecasting using data-driven exponential weighted moving average (DD-EWMA) volatility models as well as nonlinear neuro volatility models based on Neural network (NN). However, the recently proposed volatility forecasting models have not been used to study portfolio optimization. Large kurtosis of the portfolio return sequence shows that it follows a heavy-tailed t distribution. Significant sample autocorrelations of the absolute portfolio returns and squared portfolio returns suggest that time-varying volatility models are more appropriate to model the volatility. In this paper, a DD-EWMA portfolio volatility forecasting model is used to study the generalized portfolio optimization using the intelligent probabilistic risk forecasts based on data-driven t distribution of the portfolio returns. Optimal portfolio weights are obtained by minimizing the corresponding risk forecasts of portfolio volatility, mean absolute deviation (MAD), Value-at-Risk (VaR), and conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) for minimum risk forecast portfolios. Moreover the portfolio weights of the generalized tangency portfolios with different risk measures are obtained by maximizing the corresponding portfolio Sharpe ratio (PSR) forecasts. Experiments are conducted to show that the DD-EWMA volatility forecasting model is most computationally efficient (less computing time), whereas neuro volatility model takes longer time to obtain one-step ahead portfolio volatility forecasts. Moreover, the superiority of the portfolio selection based on data-driven volatility forecasts over the portfolio selection based on volatility estimates is demonstrated through numerical experiments using ten frequently traded stocks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207