Financial optimization modeling on asset liability management with weighted goal programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asset Liability Management (ALM) can be overseen using financial ratios derived from financial statements. These statements provide a comprehensive picture of a company's status and necessitate analysis to evaluate performance. This research aims to analyze financial ratios to describe the financial condition, measure business development over time, and evaluate the achievement of the company's objectives. An optimization analysis of financial ratios is performed using the Weighted Goal Programming (WGP) model, which addresses multiple objectives by applying weights based on their priorities. The Best-Worst Method (BWM) was used to determine the priority weights of deviation variables from each financial ratio target. Financial ratios were selected based on their impact on profit using factor analysis. The constructed WGP model aims to minimize deviations in Return on Assets, Operating Ratios, Operating Income Ratio, Total Assets Turnover, and Current Ratio. Computational calculations to solve the WGP model are performed using Python, with pseudocode provided. A case study on a company in the garment and textile sector was conducted and found that the Operating Ratio, Return on Assets, Operating Income Ratio, and Current Ratio still need improvement by developing strategies to achieve the targets. Sensitivity analysis was also employed to assess the resilience of the model in response to alterations in data.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".