A Fuzzy Entropy Approach for Portfolio Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portfolio management typically aims to achieve better returns per unit of risk by building efficient portfolios. The Markowitz framework is the classic approach used when decision-makers know the expected returns and covariance matrix of assets. However, the theory does not always apply when the time horizon of investments is short; the realized return and covariance of different assets are usually far from the expected values, and considering additional factors, such as diversification and information ambiguity, can lead to better portfolios. This study proposes models for constructing efficient portfolios using fuzzy parameters like entropy, return, variance, and entropy membership functions in multi-criteria optimization models. Our approach leverages aspects related to multi-criteria optimization and Shannon entropy to deal with diversification, and fuzzy and fuzzy entropy variants provide a better representation of the ambiguity of the information according to the investors’ deadline. We compare 418 optimal portfolios for different objectives (return, variance, and entropy), using data from 2003 to 2023 of indexes from the USA, EU, China, and Japan. We use the Sharpe index as a decision variable, in addition to the multi-criteria decision analysis method TOPSIS. Our models provided high-efficiency portfolios, particularly those considering fuzzy entropy membership functions for return and variance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".