Risk-return adaptive receding Horizon Index Tracking Strategy
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
Index tracking is a well-established financial strategy for passive investing. Typical index tracking models are single period in nature, deriving an optimal tracking portfolio based on future price/return estimates, using most if not all index constituent assets. In this article, we propose a framework for index tracking that can accommodate multi-periods and asset selection. First, we propose a risk-return-based index tracking strategy within a multi-period adaptive receding horizon framework. The framework demonstrates strong tracking fidelity with the benchmark whilst accounting for future tracking states. We then adapt a Penalized Alternating Direction Method (PADM) to the multi-period framework to efficiently enforce a limit on tracking portfolio size (cardinality). The PADM produces high-quality solutions to the cardinality-constrained models and can be used effectively in both low and higher re-balancing frequency environments. Finally, we generalize our base multi-period formulation to an enhanced index tracking strategy, which can easily accommodate possible portfolio manager (PM) preferences. We present computational results that indicate that our cardinality-constrained and non-cardinality-constrained adaptive receding horizon framework for index tracking yields high tracking accuracy when compared to equivalent single-period or return-based models used in a rolling horizon framework.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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