A Generalized Entropy Approach to Portfolio Selection under a Hidden Markov Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops a dynamic portfolio selection model incorporating economic uncertainty for business cycles. It is assumed that the financial market at each point in time is defined by a hidden Markov model, which is characterized by the overall equity market returns and volatility. The risk associated with investment decisions is measured by the exponential Rényi entropy criterion, which summarizes the uncertainty in portfolio returns. Assuming asset returns are projected by a regime-switching regression model on the two market risk factors, we develop an entropy-based dynamic portfolio selection model constrained with the wealth surplus being greater than or equal to the shortfall over a target and the probability of shortfall being less than or equal to a specified level. In the empirical analysis, we use the select sector ETFs to test the asset pricing model and examine the portfolio performance. Weekly financial data from 31 December 1998 to 30 December 2018 is employed for the estimation of the hidden Markov model including the asset return parameters, while the out-of-sample period from 3 January 2019 to 30 April 2022 is used for portfolio performance testing. It is found that, under both the empirical Sharpe and return to entropy ratios, the dynamic portfolio under the proposed strategy is much improved in contrast with mean variance models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".