MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416129809 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18110637

Diffusion-Based Parameters for Stock Clustering: Sector Separation and Out-of-Sample Evidence

2025· article· en· W4416129809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piyarat Promsuwan, Paisit Khanarsa, Kittisak Chumpong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Science, Prince of Songkla UniversityPrince of Songkla University
KeywordsPortfolioCluster analysisVolatility (finance)Equity (law)Stock (firearms)Volatility clusteringProject portfolio managementSilhouette

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering techniques are widely applied to equity markets to uncover sectoral structures and regime shifts, yet most studies rely solely on empirical returns. This paper introduces a novel perspective by using diffusion-based parameters from the Black–Scholes model, namely monthly drift and diffusion, as clustering features. Using SET100 stocks in 2020, we applied k-means clustering and evaluated performances with silhouette scores, the Adjusted Rand Index, Wilcoxon tests, and an out-of-sample portfolio exercise. The results showed that diffusion-based features achieved higher silhouette scores in turbulent months, where they revealed sectoral divergence that log-returns failed to capture. The partition for November 2020 provided clearer sector separation and smaller portfolio losses, demonstrating predictive value beyond in-sample fit. Practically, the findings indicate that diffusion-based parameters can signal early signs of market stress, guide sector rotation decisions during volatile regimes, and enhance portfolio risk management by isolating persistent volatility structures across sectors. Theoretically, this model-based framework bridges equity clustering with stochastic diffusion representations used in derivatives valuation, offering a unified and interpretable tool for data-driven market monitoring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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 venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207