ChatGPT-based Investment Portfolio Selection
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
<title>Abstract</title> In this paper, we explore potential uses of generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, for investment portfolio selection. Trusting investment advice from Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) models is a challenge due to model "hallucinations", necessitating careful verification and validation of the output. Therefore, we take an alternative approach. We use ChatGPT to obtain a universe of stocks from S&P500 market index that are potentially attractive for investing. Subsequently, we compared various portfolio optimization strategies that utilized this AI-generated trading universe, evaluating those against quantitative portfolio optimization models as well as comparing to some of the popular investment funds. Our findings indicate that ChatGPT is effective in stock selection but may not perform as well in assigning optimal weights to stocks within the portfolio. But when stocks selection by ChatGPT is combined with established portfolio optimization models, we achieve even better results. By blending strengths of AI-generated stock selection with advanced quantitative optimization techniques, we observed the potential for more robust and favorable investment outcomes, suggesting a hybrid approach for more effective and reliable investment decision-making in the future.
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 | 0.063 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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