MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High Frequency Data-Driven Dynamic Portfolio Optimization for Cryptocurrencies

2023· article· en· W4390482029 on OpenAlexaff
Sulalitha Bowala, A. Thavaneswaran, Ruppa K. Thulasiram, Thimani Ranathungage, Joy Dip Das

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptocurrencyPortfolioSharpe ratioPortfolio optimizationEconometricsVolatility (finance)Covariance matrixComputer scienceEconomicsFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently there has been a growing interest in constructing portfolios with stocks and cryptocurrencies. As cryptocurrency prices increase over the years, there is a growing interest in investing in cryptocurrencies, along with diversifying portfolios by adding multiple cryptocurrencies to the existing portfolios. Even though investing in cryptocurrency leads to high returns, it also leads to high risk due to the high un-certainty of cryptocurrency price changes. Thus, more robust risk measures have been introduced to capture market risk and avoid investment loss, along with different types of portfolios to mitigate risks. Many portfolio techniques assume asset returns are normally distributed with constant variance. However, these assumptions are violated in many cases. Unlike the existing work, this study investigates the recently proposed data-driven exponentially weighted moving average (DDEWMA) covariance model to estimate the variance-covariance matrix for high frequency (hourly data) cryptocurrency returns in Markowitz portfolio optimization. The experimental results show that for high-frequency data, the DDEWMA approach outperforms the existing portfolio optimization model that uses the empirical variance-covariance matrix. Improvements have been identified in terms of the Sharpe ratio as well as risks (volatility, mean absolute deviation (MAD), Value-at-Risk (VaR), and Expected shortfall (ES)).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207