MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407021778 · doi:10.1007/s10479-024-06390-x

Value-at-risk constrained portfolios in incomplete markets: a dynamic programming approach to Heston’s model

2025· article· en· W4407021778 on OpenAlexaff
Marcos Escobar‐Anel, Yevhen Havrylenko, Rudi Zagst

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Operations Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersTechnische Universität München
KeywordsTheory of computationDynamic programmingHeston modelIncomplete marketsValue (mathematics)Value at riskEconometricsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsEconomicsMathematical economicsRisk managementStochastic volatilityStatisticsSABR volatility modelMicroeconomicsVolatility (finance)AlgorithmFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We solve an expected utility-maximization problem with a Value-at-risk constraint on the terminal portfolio value in an incomplete financial market due to stochastic volatility. To derive the optimal investment strategy, we use the dynamic programming approach. We demonstrate that the value function in the constrained problem can be represented as the expected modified utility function of a vega-neutral financial derivative on the optimal terminal wealth in the unconstrained utility-maximization problem. Via the same financial derivative, the optimal wealth and the optimal investment strategy in the constrained problem are linked to the optimal wealth and the optimal investment strategy in the unconstrained problem. In numerical studies, we substantiate the impact of risk aversion levels and investment horizons on the optimal investment strategy. We observe a $$20\%$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>20</mml:mn> <mml:mo>%</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> relative difference between the constrained and unconstrained allocations for average parameters in a low-risk-aversion short-horizon setting.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Operations ResearchSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207