The Worst Case GARCH-Copula CVaR Approach for Portfolio Optimisation: Evidence from Financial Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portfolio optimisation aims to efficiently find optimal proportions of portfolio assets, given certain constraints, and has been well-studied. While portfolio optimisation ascertains asset combinations most suited to investor requirements, numerous real-world problems impact its simplicity, e.g., investor preferences. Trading restrictions are also commonly faced and must be met. However, in adding constraints to Markowitz’s basic mean-variance model, problem complexity increases, causing difficulties for exact optimisation approaches to find large problem solutions inside reasonable timeframes. This paper addresses portfolio optimisation complexities by applying the Worst Case GARCH-Copula Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) approach. In particular, the GARCH-copula methodology is used to model the portfolio dependence structure, and the Worst Case CVaR (WCVaR) is considered as an alternative risk measure that is able to provide a more accurate evaluation of financial risk compared to traditional approaches. Copulas model the marginal of each asset separately (which may be any distribution) and also the interdependencies between assets This allows an accurate risk to investment assessment to be applied in order to compare it with traditional methods. In this paper, we present two case studies to evaluate the performance of the WCVaR and compare it against the VaR measure. The first case study focuses on the time series of the closing prices of six major market indexes, while the second case study considers a large dataset of share prices of the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) oil-based companies. Results show that the values of WCVaR are always higher than those of VaR, demonstrating that the WCVaR approach provides a more accurate assessment of financial risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".