A bibliometric analysis and visualization of the scientific publications on multi-period portfolio optimization: From the current status to future directions
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
Portfolio optimization is a widely recognized strategy for investing that involves selecting a combination of assets that offers the optimal balance between potential gains and volatility. Traditional portfolio optimization typically focuses on a single period, considering only the current market conditions. However, multi-period portfolio optimization takes a more comprehensive approach by incorporating the dynamic nature of financial markets over multiple periods. Hence in this study, we focus on multi-period portfolio optimization. We conduct a bibliometric analysis of articles on multi-period portfolio optimization in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Through quantitative methods and the utilization of the Bibliometrix R package, we analyze publication trends, key research sites, and historical output in this field. Our findings provide valuable insights into the current state of research on multi-period portfolio optimization. This bibliometric analysis contributes to the existing literature on multi-period portfolio optimization and serves as a valuable resource for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in the field of finance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.137 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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