Optimal Portfolio Construction Using the Realized Volatility Concept: Empirical Evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of constructing optimal equity portfolios under volatile market conditions by minimizing realized volatility—an alternative risk quantifier that more accurately captures short-term market fluctuations than traditional variance-based approaches. This issue is particularly relevant for investors seeking robust risk management strategies in dynamic and uncertain environments. We propose a mathematical optimization framework that determines portfolio weights by minimizing realized volatility, subject to expected return constraints. The model is empirically validated using historical data from stocks listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand 50 (SET50) index. Through a comparative analysis of realized volatility and variance-based optimization across multiple portfolio sizes and return levels, we find that portfolios constructed using realized volatility consistently achieve higher Sharpe ratios, indicating superior risk-adjusted performance. We further introduce an efficiency metric based on the Euclidean distance between optimal portfolio weight vectors to evaluate the stability of allocations under extended investment horizons. The findings underscore the practical advantages of realized volatility in portfolio construction, offering enhanced responsiveness to market dynamics and improved performance outcomes. The novelty of this study lies in integrating realized volatility into a constrained portfolio optimization model and empirically demonstrating its superiority, thereby extending traditional mean-variance methods in both scope and effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".