MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134183238 · doi:10.66238/ijcbs30

Robust Portfolio Optimization with Deep Risk Factor Models Under Regime Shifts

2025· article· W7134183238 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolio optimizationAmbiguityFactor analysisPortfolioSharpe ratioRobust optimizationHidden Markov modelSet (abstract data type)Optimization problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern portfolio management faces significant challenges arising from the non-stationary nature of financial markets, particularly during periods of structural breaks or regime shifts. Traditional factor models, while mathematically elegant, often fail to capture non-linear dependencies and struggle to adapt rapidly to changing market conditions. This paper proposes a novel framework for robust portfolio optimization that integrates Deep Learning for non-linear factor extraction with regime-switching logic to handle market uncertainty. We introduce a temporal Deep Latent Factor Model based on Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs) to disentangle idiosyncratic risk from systematic risk factors in a high-dimensional feature space. These latent factors serve as inputs to a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) that dynamically identifies market regimes. Subsequently, we formulate a distributional robust optimization problem where the ambiguity set is constrained by the Wasserstein distance, centered around the regime-dependent empirical distribution. This approach mitigates the estimation error inherent in mean-variance optimization and provides resilience against worst-case scenarios. Our empirical analysis, conducted on S&P 500 constituents over a twenty-year horizon, demonstrates that the proposed method significantly outperforms traditional benchmarks and state-of-the-art deep learning baselines in terms of Sharpe ratio and maximum drawdown control.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational and Biological SciencesSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207