Asset Returns: Reimagining Generative ESG Indexes and Market Interconnectedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial economists have long studied factors related to risk premiums, pricing biases, and diversification impediments. This study examines the relationship between a firm’s commitment to environmental, social, and governance principles (ESGs) and asset market returns. We incorporate an algorithmic protocol to identify three nonobservable but pervasive E, S, and G time-series factors to meet the study’s objectives. The novel factors were tested for information content by constructing a six-factor Fama and French model following the imposition of the isolation and disentanglement algorithm. Realizing that nonlinear relationships characterize models incorporating both observable and nonobservable factors, the Fama and French model statement was estimated using an enhanced shallow-learning neural network. Finally, as a post hoc measure, we integrated explainable AI (XAI) to simplify the machine learning outputs. Our study extends the literature on the disentanglement of investment factors across two dimensions. We first identify new time-series-based E, S, and G factors. Second, we demonstrate how machine learning can be used to model asset returns, considering the complex interconnectedness of sustainability factors. Our approach is further supported by comparing neural-network-estimated E, S, and G weights with London Stock Exchange ESG ratings.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".