Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop an approach to forming the subjective probabilities of future stock returns in the presence of multiple behavioral heuristics. This approach relaxes the assumption that behavioral heuristics are independent and makes it possible to investigate the individual effects as well as the joint effect of different behavioral heuristics on the investor’s probability assessment. In contrast to the objective probabilities, these subjective probabilities reflect the investor’s attitudes towards anticipated changes in the market conditions. They coincide with the objective probabilities when the investor is rational. To illustrate the use of this approach, we explore the implications of anchoring, overconfidence/doubt, and the availability heuristic for the predictability of individual stock returns based on past return data. We find empirically that the existing evidence against the random walk hypothesis may stem from the fact that the objective probabilities of large stock returns of either sign overstate the probabilities that the investor assigns to these returns given the market conditions that are anticipated to occur in the next period, which generates the “peso problem” in the data. Allowing for overconfidence in the subjective distribution of stock returns (induced by the anticipated decrease in the return volatility or the inability of the investor to adequately adjust the limits of the confidence interval away from the anchoring value) substantially decreases (compared with the case of the investor’s rationality) the degree, to which individual stock returns are predictable based on their past history, and, therefore, helps solve the stock return predictability puzzle.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".