MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231710278 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaa102

Arbitrage Portfolios

2020· article· en· W4231710278 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharpe ratioArbitrageEconometricsPortfolioCapital asset pricing modelStatistical arbitrageStock (firearms)EconomicsFinancial economicsArbitrage pricing theoryPredictive powerRisk arbitrageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a new methodology for forming arbitrage portfolios that utilizes the information contained in firm characteristics for both abnormal returns and factor loadings. The methodology gives maximal weight to risk-based interpretations of characteristics’ predictive power before any attribution is made to abnormal returns. We apply the methodology to simulated economies and to a large panel of U.S. stock returns. The methodology works well in our simulation and when applied to stocks. Empirically, we find the arbitrage portfolio has (statistically and economically) significant alphas relative to several popular asset pricing models and annualized Sharpe ratios ranging from 1.31 to 1.66.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.189 · 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