MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286977784 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.07005

WaveCorr: Correlation-savvy Deep Reinforcement Learning for Portfolio\n Management

2021· preprint· W4286977784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erick Delage, Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, Jeremie Desgagne-Bouchard, Carl Dussault

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningPortfolioExploitComputer scienceAsset managementProject portfolio managementSharpe ratioArtificial intelligenceInvariant (physics)Asset allocationPortfolio optimizationAsset (computer security)EconometricsEconomicsMathematicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of portfolio management represents an important and challenging\nclass of dynamic decision making problems, where rebalancing decisions need to\nbe made over time with the consideration of many factors such as investors\npreferences, trading environments, and market conditions. In this paper, we\npresent a new portfolio policy network architecture for deep reinforcement\nlearning (DRL)that can exploit more effectively cross-asset dependency\ninformation and achieve better performance than state-of-the-art architectures.\nIn particular, we introduce a new property, referred to as \\textit{asset\npermutation invariance}, for portfolio policy networks that exploit multi-asset\ntime series data, and design the first portfolio policy network, named\nWaveCorr, that preserves this invariance property when treating asset\ncorrelation information. At the core of our design is an innovative permutation\ninvariant correlation processing layer. An extensive set of experiments are\nconducted using data from both Canadian (TSX) and American stock markets (S&P\n500), and WaveCorr consistently outperforms other architectures with an\nimpressive 3%-25% absolute improvement in terms of average annual return, and\nup to more than 200% relative improvement in average Sharpe ratio. We also\nmeasured an improvement of a factor of up to 5 in the stability of performance\nunder random choices of initial asset ordering and weights. The stability of\nthe network has been found as particularly valuable by our industrial partner.\n

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207