Decision-making in formation of mean-VaR optimal portfolio by selecting stocks using K-means and average linkage clustering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock is one of the investment assets that has its charm for investors. It is very liquid and has a high rate of return, but it has a high risk. The strategy commonly used to minimize investment risk is to diversify through portfolio formation. A good allocation of funds must be determined in forming an optimal portfolio. In addition, the method of stock selection needs to be considered so the stocks are well diversified and the portfolio developed has good performance. This study aims to compare stock selection between K-Means and Average Linkage clustering approaches in forming an investment portfolio. Clustering analysis is used to group IDX80 stocks based on their attributes. In forming a portfolio with the Mean-VaR model, the stock selection decision criteria used are by selecting stocks with the highest positive returns from each cluster. As a result, the two clustering techniques show the superiority of the Silhouette score for a certain number of clusters, but there are still more advantages in Average Linkage. The portfolio approached by Average Linkage resulted in a better performance than the portfolio approached by K-Means. Therefore, Average Linkage clustering can be used as a better recommendation in decision-making to select stocks so as to produce optimal portfolio performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it