Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2611.04826

Safe Portfolio Learning from Untrusted Predictions: Signed Trust, Abstention, and Cross-Universe Polarity Failure

Abstract

Portfolio use of machine predictions must often proceed while the predictions' economic direction, reliability, and timing remain untrusted, and while feedback from overlapping multi-period positions arrives with delay. A controller chooses among Safe, Follow, and Reverse portfolio actions, so signal orientation is learned rather than assumed. A share-adaptive master updates action probabilities from matured Safe-relative rewards, an evidence gate can abstain by transferring unsupported directional probability to Safe, a delayed collateral budget reserves worst-case loss capacity before exposure is funded, and a protected split account caps the capital adaptive decisions may touch. The architecture carries a dual certificate, tracking regret against switching action sequences under delay and one-sided intervention, together with a pathwise collateral safety bound that holds when predictions fail. On a 24-stock development universe a conservative prediction-assisted overlay stays near equal-weight performance at a fraction of the turnover. On a frozen 82-stock holdout, the pre-specified Reverse orientation fails to outperform Equal Weight; a separately labeled post-holdout diagnostic shows that permanently flipping the sign to Follow also does not recover a return edge. Under the post-holdout controller, protected wealth remains within 15.9 basis points of the Safe benchmark throughout. The contribution is safe adaptive use of untrusted predictions, not demonstrated alpha.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Amirhossein MohammadpourAzari, Mohammad Zarei, MohammadAmin Fazli. 2026-11-03. Safe Portfolio Learning from Untrusted Predictions: Signed Trust, Abstention, and Cross-Universe Polarity Failure. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04826

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Walraswap: equilibrium-based decentralized exchange integrating external AMM liquidity

This article advocates the development of a decentralized exchange protocol for Ethereum based on Walrasian equilibrium. Building on previous work (arXiv:2111.02719, arXiv:2210.04929), it develops a mathematical framework that incorporates liquidity from independent automated market makers (AMMs). Trade orders are represented by continuous monotonic pairwise supply functions and external AMMs are represented by concave swap functions. Under a connectivity condition, we establish the existence of a common clearing-price vector and external swaps that jointly fulfill the prescribed orders while leaving a nonnegative surplus of every token. External AMMs execute ordinary swaps according to their own pricing rules, including swap fees. For the selected clearing-price vector, the prescribed external swaps maximize the value of the batch surplus. We also establish structural properties of equilibrium, including invariance of individual net trades across equilibria, and formulate equilibrium computation as a convex optimization problem. We then outline Walraswap, an exchange protocol for Ethereum with off-chain batch construction and on-chain settlement. Its proposed governance and solver accountability mechanisms aim to encourage public order disclosure and discourage censorship. The protocol design explores how the mathematical construction could support decentralized trading with reduced opportunities for maximal extractable value.

q-fin.MF↗

Partially Active Automated Market Makers

We introduce a new class of automated market maker (AMM), the \emph{partially active automated market maker} (PA-AMM). PA-AMM divides its reserves into two parts, the active and the passive parts, and uses only the active part for trading. At the top of every block, such a division is done again to keep the active reserves always being \(λ\)-portion of total reserves, where \(λ\in (0, 1]\) is an activeness parameter. We show that this simple mechanism reduces adverse selection costs, measured by loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR), and thereby improves the wealth of liquidity providers (LPs) relative to plain constant-function market makers (CFMMs). As a trade-off, the asset weights within a PA-AMM pool may deviate from their target weights implied by its invariant curve. Motivated by the optimal index-tracking problem literature, we also propose and solve an optimization problem that balances such deviation and the reduction of LVR.

q-fin.MF↗

Does the Market Anticipate? Can it? Should it?

A nuance to 'no arbitrage' is studied: it can be suboptimal to act upon an arbitrage immediately; in such cases optimised trading can suppress the anticipation of predictable risk-outcomes, creating an apparent Status Quo Bias. This is shown for asset-pricing under model- or event-risk. Unlike standard treatments, we allow pre-horizon revelations of risk-outcomes; the associated technical challenges are addressed through results from the weak viability and (in)side-information literature. The conflict between 'anticipation', 'no arbitrage' and 'information efficiency', and the competition between the 'signal-to-noise of data' and the 'inference-free risk-premium drift', are exposed.

q-fin.MF↗