MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412662697 · doi:10.1002/ijfe.70012

Using Deep Learning Conditional Value‐at‐Risk Based Utility Function in Cryptocurrency Portfolio Optimisation

2025· article· en· W4412662697 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Finance & Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsCryptocurrencyEconomicsPortfolioEconometricsValue at riskExpected shortfallValue (mathematics)Financial economicsPortfolio optimizationFunction (biology)Computer scienceRisk managementMachine learningFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT One of the critical risks associated with cryptocurrency assets is the so‐called downside risk, or tail risk. Conditional Value‐at‐Risk (CVaR) is a measure of tail risks that is not normally considered in the construction of a cryptocurrency portfolio. In this paper, we propose a new approach to portfolio construction based on a deep learning CVaR utility function. This approach is designed to address the issue of tail risk. We evaluate the performance of this approach in comparison to other portfolio construction techniques, including the naïve, minimum variance and mean‐variance portfolios. Our findings indicate that the proposed approach outperforms traditional optimisation models.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.308 · 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