MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kelly Problem

2010· other· en· W4236543556 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard C. MacLean, William T. Ziemba

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.004

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Quantitative FinanceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207