MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kelly Problem

2010· other· en· W4236543556 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

VenueEncyclopedia of Quantitative Finance · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingBellman equationLogarithmMaximizationEconomicsRisk aversion (psychology)ArrowFunction (biology)Mathematical economicsInvestment (military)Asymptotically optimal algorithmValue (mathematics)CashUtility maximizationPath (computing)Expected utility hypothesisMathematicsMathematical optimizationMicroeconomicsComputer scienceFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Kelly investment strategy, namely, the period‐by‐period maximization of the expected value of a logarithmic utility function of final wealth has many good properties and some poor ones. It maximizes final wealth asymptotically and minimizes the time to achieve asymptotically large goals. But in the long run, it is very risky because its Arrow–Pratt risk aversion is essentially zero. It is the riskiest utility function one should ever use. Negative power utility, for lognormally distributed assets, is equivalent to fractional Kelly strtegies that blend cash with Kelly optimal weighting. These strategies provide a smoother wealth path but usually end up with less final wealth. Hence there is a growth–security trade‐off.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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