Portfolio Optimization within a Wasserstein Ball
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We study the problem of active portfolio management where an investor aims to outperform a benchmark strategy’s risk profile while not deviating too far from it. Specifically, an investor considers alternative strategies whose terminal wealth lies within a Wasserstein ball surrounding a benchmark’s terminal wealth—being distributionally close—and that have a specified dependence/copula tying state-by-state outcomes to it. The investor then chooses the alternative strategy that minimizes a distortion risk measure of terminal wealth. In a general complete market model, we prove that an optimal dynamic strategy exists and provide its characterization through the notion of isotonic projections. We further propose a simulation approach to calculate the optimal strategy’s terminal wealth, making our approach applicable to a wide range of market models. Finally, we illustrate how investors with different copula and risk preferences invest and improve upon the benchmark using the Tail Value-at-Risk, inverse S-shaped, and lower- and upper-tail distortion risk measures as examples. We find that investors’ optimal terminal wealth distribution has larger probability masses in regions that reduce their risk measure relative to the benchmark while preserving the benchmark’s structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".