MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406290668 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2024.10.002

Exploring the evolution of scientific publication on portfolio optimization in the light of artificial intelligence: A bibliometric study

2025· article· en· W4406290668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mostafa Shabani, Rouzbeh Ghousi, Emran Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioField (mathematics)Data scienceComputer scienceTransformative learningContext (archaeology)Management scienceBibliometricsArtificial intelligenceKnowledge managementSociologyData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Deep Learning (DL) has profoundly influenced various domains, including portfolio optimization. In today’s dynamic and interconnected global economy, understanding the development of scientific publications in this field is crucial for both academics and practitioners. This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric study of the scientific literature on portfolio optimization, focusing on the impact of AI, ML, and DL advancements. By analyzing key trends, influential publications, and emerging research areas, this study provides valuable insights into the progression of portfolio optimization research in the context of these transformative technologies, helping to map future directions and identify knowledge gaps in the field. This paper endeavors to present an exhaustive synthesis of the most recent advancements and innovations within the domain of portfolio optimization, particularly as influenced by progressive developments in AI, ML and DL from 1996 to 2024. Employing a rigorous bibliometric analysis, this study scrutinizes the structural and global paradigms governing this field. The analytical framework integrates several dimensions, including: (1) comprehensive dataset interrogation, (2) critical evaluation of source repositories, (3) contributions of seminal authors, (4) geographical and institutional affiliations, (5) document-centric analysis, and (6) exploration of keyword dynamics. A corpus of 745 bibliographic entries, meticulously curated from the Web of Science database, forms the basis of this inquiry, which utilizes advanced Scientometric network methodologies to extrapolate substantive research insights. The discourse culminates in a robust critique of the inherent strengths and methodological limitations, while delineating strategic avenues for future research, with the objective of steering ongoing scholarly discourse in the realm of portfolio optimization. The empirical outcomes of this study enhance the understanding of prevailing intellectual trajectories, thus laying a fortified foundation for future investigative pursuits in this critically evolving discipline.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.073
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207