MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119502417 · doi:10.63575/cia.2024.20212

Machine Learning-Enhanced Dynamic Asset Allocation in Target-Date Investment Strategies for Pension Funds

2024· article· W7119502417 on OpenAlexaff
Amelia Crowford, Yiyi Cai, Victor Langford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing Innovations and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset allocationCapital allocation lineInvestment strategyProbabilistic logicGradient boostingInvestment (military)Volatility (finance)Boosting (machine learning)PensionInvestment performance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Target-date funds constitute the dominant default investment vehicle in defined contribution pension systems, managing approximately $3.4 trillion globally. Traditional glide path designs employ static allocation rules failing to adapt to evolving market regimes. This research develops a machine learning framework integrating temporal feature engineering with ensemble prediction models to construct adaptive asset allocation strategies. Our probabilistic optimization transforms static age-based allocation into a dynamic system responsive to macroeconomic indicators, volatility patterns, and correlation structures. Empirical analysis across 15-year backtesting demonstrates ML-enhanced strategies achieve 1.8% annual excess returns while reducing maximum drawdown by 34% compared to conventional glide paths. The framework incorporates gradient boosting machines for regime classification and LSTM networks for return forecasting, establishing differentiable optimization objectives balancing growth with capital preservation. Implementation protocols address overfitting through walk-forward validation and transaction cost constraints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing Innovations and ApplicationsSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207