Entropy-based financial asset pricing: Evidence from Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entropy is an alternative measure to calculate the risk, simplify the portfolios and equity risk premium. It has higher explanatory power than capital asset price model (CAPM) beta. The comparison of Entropy and CAPM beta provide in depth analysis about the explanatory power of the model that in turn help investor to make right investment decisions that minimizes risk. In this context, this study aims to compare Shannon and Rennyi Entropies with the CAPM beta for measuring the risk. Ordinary Least square approach has been utilized using a dataset of 67 enterprises registered in Pakistan Stock exchange. The comparative analysis of CAPM beta and entropy has been carried out with the R2 parameters. The result indicates that entropy has more explanatory power as compare to CAPM beta's explanatory power, and this turns out to be the best option to evaluate the risk performances. The result implies that an investor should make the best investment decision by choosing an enterprise that provide with good returns at minimum risk based on entropy technique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".