A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approach to Portfolio Management
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
The tremendous advances in artificial intelligence over the past decade have led to their increasing use in financial markets. In recent years a large number of investment companies and hedge funds have been implementing algorithmic and automated trading on their trading. The speed of decision-making and execution is the most important factor in the success of institutional and individual investors in capital markets. Algorithmic trading using machine learning methods has been able to improve the performance of investors by finding investment opportunities as well as time entry and exit of trading. The purpose of this study is to achieve a better portfolio performance by designing an intelligent and fully automated trading system that investors with the support of this system, in addition to finding the best opportunities in the market, can allocate resources optimally. The present study consists of four separate steps. Respectively, tuning the parameters of technical indicators, detecting the current market regime (trending or non-trending), issuing a definite signal (buy, sell or hold) from the indicators’ signals and finally portfolio rebalancing. These 4 steps respectively are performed using genetic algorithm, fuzzy logic, artificial neural network and conventional portfolio optimization model. The results show the complete superiority of the proposed model in achieving higher returns and less risk compared to the performance of the TEDPIX and other mutual funds in the same period.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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