Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Are Three Matrices All You Need To Beat the Market? Observable Matrix Dynamics for Portfolio Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A portfolio built from three price-only matrices outperforms the S&P 500 out of sample, the paper reports.

desk verdict Honest, transparent framework with a genuinely clean second test set, but the market-beating long-short's edge is never traced to the forecasts, and the paper's own unforecastability results contradict it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27461 v1 pith:QRSLOEQI submitted 2026-07-29 q-fin.PM q-fin.RMq-fin.ST

Igor Halperin This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.PMq-fin.RMq-fin.ST MSC 91G1062M0594A17
keywords portfoliooptimizationMarkovchainsmomentumlong-shortcross-sectionalrankingscorrelationdistancematrixentropyproductiontransferout-of-sampleSharpe
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a dynamic portfolio strategy for the S&P 500 can be driven entirely by three fixed-size matrices derived from daily prices, volumes, and market caps: the arccos (geodesic) distance matrix of return correlations, and the transition matrices of two Markov chains that rank names monthly by trailing return and trailing volatility. On two non-overlapping out-of-sample windows (2022–2024 and 2025–2026), the resulting market-neutral momentum long-short blended with an opportunistic long-only sleeve beats the cap-weighted index, with Sharpe ratios of 1.06 and 1.32 versus the market's 0.78 and 1.14, net of 5 basis point trading costs. The paper also reports that the volatility rank is forecastable while the return rank is near-unforecastable, and that the edge survives a cross-source rebuild with frozen hyperparameters. A sympathetic reader would care because the claim is that a transparent, invertible, parameter-light representation of the market—not a black-box predictor—can systematically beat the index from public data alone; if true, it sits alongside documented momentum and low-volatility anomalies.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is a triple of fixed-size matrices: M(t) = arccos C(t), the geodesic distance matrix of trailing one-year return correlations; and P^R, P^V, the 10×10 transition matrices of two decile-ranking Markov chains (return rank, volatility rank). The chains are extended to depend on covariates by a log-linear conditional-intensity model whose coefficients are estimated by convex maximum likelihood; conditioning can only increase entropy production, and the gap Δσ = σ_cond − σ is used to attribute directional structure to each covariate. The selection score is the calibrated probability of landing in the top return-decile next month (π^R), sometimes blended with t

What would settle it

Rebuild the combined book with the return-chain score replaced by a placebo score (e.g., permuted or reverse-ranked π^R, or random selection within the same deciles) while keeping the distance-matrix covariates, the regime timing, the no-trade band, and the long-only sleeve unchanged; if the out-of-sample Sharpe stays near 1.06 and 1.32, the claim that the three-matrix return forecast carries the edge is falsified. A complementary check is to regress the book's daily excess returns on standard factor returns (market, SMB, HML, momentum, low-vol) and require that the intercept remain economical

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the three-matrix representation—the correlation-distance matrix together with return-rank and volatility-rank transition matrices, conditioned on cross-sectionally bucketed price and volume covariates—is sufficient to build a portfolio that beats the cap-weighted S&P 500 out of sample. The author reports daily-marked, cost-net Sharpe ratios of 1.06 (2022–2024) and 1.32 (2025–2026) for a market-neutral momentum long-short blended with a regime-timed long-only sleeve, against the market's 0.78 and 1.14, and further improvement (to 1.08 and 1.44) when the long sleeve is diversified by residual distance. The paper is explicit that the volatility chain is forecastable wh

Load-bearing premise

The reported out-of-sample long-short edge is attributed to the return-chain selection score, but the paper's own calibration states that the one-month return rank is near-random and that the top-minus-bottom forward edge is never positive, so the load-bearing premise is that this long-short outperformance truly comes from the three-matrix representation rather than from volatility or regime tilts, look-ahead in the walk-forward refit, or trading-cost assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported out-of-sample results are reproducible, then a market-neutral momentum book built from rank-chain probabilities can carry a tradable edge even when univariate return forecasts look random, provided turnover is controlled by a no-trade threshold.
  • The framework's differentiation of the volatility chain (forecastable, long memory) from the return chain (near-random at monthly horizon) suggests that risk-ranking dynamics are the more reliable substrate for dynamic portfolio construction.
  • Because the method uses only prices, volumes, and market caps and never inverts a covariance matrix, it offers an interpretable, low-complexity alternative to mean-variance optimization that practitioners could adopt without proprietary data.
  • The clean 2025–2026 test, rebuilt from an independent data source with frozen hyperparameters, is the paper's strongest evidence that the edge is not an artifact of repeated inspection of the first test period.
  • The convex information-leader overlay shows an explicit mechanism to convert a network-derived signal into crash insurance without changing the Sharpe ratio, which is a concrete design for drawdown control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own calibration—one-month return rank near-random, six-month persistence mechanical, and no positive forward edge for the top-minus-bottom decile spread—implies that the reported long-short Sharpe cannot be coming from the return-chain forecast alone; an editor's inference is that the edge must be investigated for hidden channels such as a volatility tilt, the regime-timed long sleeve,
  • If the volatility chain carries genuine forecastability, a natural extension the author leaves implicit is to build the long-short from volatility-rank scores (or a blended score with lambda > 0) and test whether the edge persists; the paper's own lambda = 0 calibration suggests the author found this unhelpful, but the tension is worth resolving.
  • The information-dissipation length and spectral early-warning signals are shown to be contemporaneous rather than predictive outside 2008; a testable extension is to combine the regime-aware entropy production with the volume-turnover signal (real out of sample, too fast to trade) as a conditioning covariate at a slower horizon.
  • The strongest falsifiable prediction is the magnitude of the edge on a third, longer clean window; the paper's block bootstrap p-values (e.g., 0.04 for the diversified book on 2025–2026) leave non-trivial sampling uncertainty, so an independent replication over 2–3 years would be the decisive check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-matrix representation of an equity market—an arccos correlation-distance matrix and two Markov-chain transition matrices on monthly return and volatility deciles—and conditions the chains on market-derived covariates. It estimates covariate-conditioned forward-rank probabilities π_R and π_V, builds a monthly-rebalanced portfolio that blends a market-neutral momentum long-short with a regime-timed long-only sleeve, and reports out-of-sample Sharpe ratios of 1.06 and 1.32 (1.08 and 1.44 with residual-distance diversification) against market Sharpes of 0.78 and 1.14, net of five-basis-point costs. The paper also reports diagnostics (entropy production, transfer entropy), a second clean test window on an independent data source, and several ablations of fundamentals, spectral early-warning signals, and volume-based signals.

Significance. The framework is refreshingly simple, mostly walk-forward, and the paper is unusually honest about the ways its first out-of-sample window was inspected and about failures of candidate improvements on the clean holdout. If the central attribution is correct, the result would be practically important and would sit naturally alongside documented momentum and low-volatility anomalies. The strongest features are the second independent test window with frozen hyperparameters, the explicit cost modeling, and the many negative results reported in the appendices. However, the central attribution of the outperformance to the three-matrix forecasts is undermined by an internal inconsistency between the forecast calibration results and the traded long-short's reported edge, and the statistical significance of the headline Sharpe advantage is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, §4] Section 3.4 states that the one-month return rank is near-random, that covariates add nothing to the return-rank point forecast at any window, and that 'the next-month return of the top decile minus the bottom ... never a positive forward edge' at any ranking window. Section 4 then reports that the market-neutral long-short selected by π_R of Eq. (20) — with λ=0, so the volatility score drops out — has a 'real gross edge' (Sharpe 0.17) and an out-of-sample Sharpe of 0.63. Since §3.4 says the covariates add nothing and the book ranks on a six-month return window, π_R should be nearly equivalent to the trailing-return decile, making the traded long-short exactly the top-minus-bottom spread that §3.4 reports as never positive. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency: either the §3.4 statistic is computed on a different object than the traded book, or the long-short's edge comes from a
  2. [§5, Table 11] The statistical support for the headline claim is weak and not adjusted for multiple testing. The clean-window base-book excess-return p-value is 0.09, and the full-record base-book p-value is 0.08; only the diversified clean-window estimate reaches p=0.04. No correction is made for the many variants, periods, and refinements examined in Sections 4–5 and Appendices A–C. Moreover, the abstract's Sharpe comparisons (1.32 versus 1.14, 1.44 versus 1.14) are never tested; the bootstrap addresses only mean excess return. The paper should either provide multiple-testing-adjusted or pre-registered significance statements, report confidence intervals for the Sharpe differences, or temper the abstract's claims of beating the market.
  3. [§4.1, Table 5] The attribution of the long-only sleeve's contribution is unresolved. Table 5 shows that the long-only book's Sharpe is essentially flat in book size on the validation period and first test, and that the gain on the 2025–2026 window is 'market breadth, not selection alpha.' Because the combined book is fully long-only in rising markets (θ=1), the clean-window Sharpe of 1.44 could owe substantially to holding a broad equal-weight set of names in a strong bull market rather than to the return-chain forecasts. The paper should decompose the combined book's excess return into cap-weight market, equal-weight breadth, and selection/risk-tilt components to show what the three-matrix forecasts actually add.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 10] The text says the no-band long-short has a Sharpe of 0.17, while the Figure 10 caption reports 0.13. Please reconcile.
  2. [§5] The abstract calls both test sets 'non-overlapping out-of-sample,' but §5 concedes that the 2022–2024 period was used repeatedly to refine the book and is 'no longer perfectly clean.' Please qualify the first test in the abstract.
  3. [§2.1] The distance matrix is N×N with N varying as the S&P 500 constituent list changes; calling the three matrices 'fixed-size' is misleading. Clarify that only the transition-matrix dimensions are fixed.
  4. [§5] The Yahoo panel of 'the 475 names with a full history since 2018' still induces survivorship for the 2022–2024 cross-source slice and for the beginning of the clean window. The paper acknowledges a mild survivorship tilt for the earlier slice; please quantify the effect on the clean window as well.
  5. [General] The code repository is currently private. For a paper whose central claim is a strong empirical outperformance, public code and data or a detailed pseudocode appendix are important for verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the out-of-sample performance is measured, not derived from fitted inputs; the return-chain tension is a validity concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain runs from the three-matrix state (Eqs. 1-5), to covariate-conditioned chains (Eqs. 10-16), to the selection scores pi_R and pi_V (Eqs. 20-21), and then to the portfolio construction of Section 4 and the out-of-sample tests of Sections 4-5. At no point does any equation use the market-beating result or the reported Sharpe as an input. The hyperparameters are chosen on the validation period through 2021 and held fixed out of sample; the chain coefficients are refit walk-forward, so no future observation enters a forecast. The convexity bound sigma_cond >= sigma (Eq. 18) is proved by Jensen's inequality applied to the KL divergence, which is standard mathematics rather than a self-imported uniqueness claim. The paper relies on the author's earlier OMD-Stocks and OMD work for the representation and for diagnostic tools, but the portfolio's outperformance is measured against the capitalization-weighted market on two non-overlapping test sets, including a clean window built from an independent data source with frozen hyperparameters. Those citations therefore do not carry the load of the performance claim. The apparent inconsistency between Section 3.4's finding that the next-month return spread of the top decile minus the bottom is never positive and Section 4's reported positive out-of-sample long-short Sharpe is a substantive internal-consistency and attribution question about where the edge comes from, but it is not a circular step: the reported Sharpe is not constructed to equal pi_R or any other fitted quantity. Correctness risk and circularity are distinct, and this paper's central empirical claim is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on a small grid of hyperparameters fitted to validation data, on domain assumptions about rank-bucketing and Markov dynamics that the paper itself shows are imperfect (non-Markovianity), and on a simplified cost model. No new physical or economic entities are introduced; the three matrices and covariates are all derived from prices, volumes, and market caps.

free parameters (8)
  • Book size K = 15
    Chosen on validation 2018-2021; paper notes Sharpe is nearly flat in K and the long-only optimum is ill-posed.
  • No-trade tolerance tol = 0.08
    Chosen on validation; regime-conflicting between calm and crisis years, but the compromise value is used.
  • Regime weight lambda = 0 in rising markets, 0.75 in falling
    Fitted on validation to time the long-only sleeve's return-vs-volatility score.
  • Blend weight theta = 1 in rising markets, 0.4 in falling
    Fitted on validation; controls the long-only / market-neutral sleeve mix.
  • Diversification tilt gamma = 0.5
    Set by maximizing realized residual-distance diversification on training data, not by validation Sharpe.
  • Return ranking window tau_R = 6 months
    The score ranks on a six-month trailing return; paper tests 1-12 months and reports no positive forward edge at any window.
  • Volatility lookback for return-chain predictor = 63 days
    Chosen on the validation period; the single most informative return-chain covariate.
  • Hub overlay weight = 0.25
    A quarter of the HITS-hub long-short is overlaid on the protective sleeve; not optimized.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math KL divergence joint convexity implies sigma_cond >= sigma (Eq. 18).
    The entropy-production attribution result is a convexity argument; mathematically sound.
  • standard math The conditional-logit negative log-likelihood is convex and the matrix exponential defines valid transition probabilities (Eqs. 10-15).
    Standard results in continuous-time Markov chain and rating-transition estimation.
  • domain assumption The arccos of the Pearson correlation is a geodesic distance on the unit sphere and captures cross-sectional geometry (Eq. 1).
    The paper treats arccos(C) as a distance matrix; this is a geometric interpretation of correlation, not an empirical fact.
  • domain assumption Cross-sectional decile rank-bucketing preserves the tradeable information of each characteristic (Eq. 9).
    The entire framework depends on reducing continuous signals to ordinal deciles without losing the predictive content.
  • domain assumption Monthly ranking dynamics are approximately Markov within each walk-forward refit window.
    The chains are estimated as Markov; Section 3.4 measures non-Markovianity and does not correct for it in the portfolio.
  • domain assumption Transaction costs are 5bp per name traded, with no short-borrow or stress market-impact costs.
    The headline Sharpe numbers assume 5bp all-in costs; short-borrow fees are not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are Three Matrices All You Need To Beat the Market? Observable Matrix Dynamics for Portfolio Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRSLOEQI

@misc{pith2026260727461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are Three Matrices All You Need To Beat the Market? Observable Matrix Dynamics for Portfolio Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRSLOEQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27461}
}
abstract

We present a simple framework for dynamic portfolio management that uses nothing but daily prices, trading volumes, and market capitalizations. Its state is three fixed-size matrices built from the price history: the distance matrix of the return correlations and the transition matrices of two Markov chains that rank the S\&P 500 names monthly by trailing return and by trailing volatility. These three matrices rest on the price history alone, the same information Markowitz mean-variance optimization draws on, but they replace its expected-return vector and covariance matrix. Our method requires no matrix inversion, works on outlier-robust cross-sectional ranks, and is dynamic rather than single-period. Empirically the volatility rank is forecastable one step ahead while the return rank stays close to unforecastable. A portfolio built on the forecasts, a market-neutral momentum long-short blended with an opportunistic long-only sleeve, beats the market on two non-overlapping out-of-sample test sets, January 2022 to December 2024 and January 2025 to July 2026, at Sharpes of $1.06$ and $1.32$ against the market's $0.78$ and $1.14$, respectively, net of a five-basis-point trading cost and marked to market daily. It also outperforms the classical minimum-variance and maximum-diversification portfolios. Diversifying the long sleeve by residual distance adds a further edge on both periods, lifting the Sharpe to $1.08$ and $1.44$ and the annualized return from $18\%$ to $20\%$ and from $44\%$ to $56\%$, respectively. A convex information-leader overlay separately insures the market-neutral sleeve, buying convexity and a shallower drawdown at a small cost in return, the Sharpe unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27461 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The regime-aware buckets carry the market regime. The cross-sectional mean daily [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Covariate-conditioned volatility chain, S&P 500 over 2015–2024. (a) The entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One-step-ahead calibration, the mean next-month decile against the current decile, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-name calibration of the one-step volatility chain, four stocks spanning the volatility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trailing volatility as a predictor of the return rank, the mean realized next-month [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ranking transition matrices as heatmaps, pooled over 2015–2024. The one-day matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-Markovianity of the ranking transitions on a one-year rolling window, the nor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Entropy production of the ranking chains, regime-aware versus market-neutral. Top: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Information dissipation length from the regime-aware return chain through the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hysteresis rebalancing. Cumulative net return of the monthly momentum long-short [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The low-turnover momentum long-short (red) against the capitalization-weighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Combined portfolio, 2018–2024, cumulative return net of five basis points a name [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Number of names held in the combined book over time, on the CRSP first test panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Diversifying the long-only sleeve. Left: the held book’s realized diversification, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The residual-distance tilt does not help the long-short sleeve. Left: diversifying each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The second out-of-sample test set. Cumulative return of the OMD-Portfolio com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Fundamentals information content and lead-lag on the return rank, S&P 500, 1975– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Fundamentals ablation on the long Compustat history, out-of-sample 2000–2025. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Top transfer-entropy market leaders by period and horizon, ranked by net transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Out-of-sample test of the transfer-entropy leaders, selected on the first sixty percent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Out-of-sample market-timing forecast of the transfer-entropy leaders, regime-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Forward-drawdown area under the ROC curve for the correlation- and graph-matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The information dissipation length on the arccos distance matrices through the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polo- sukhin.Attention Is All You Need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Halperin.Observable Matrix Dynamics of Stocks.arXiv:2607.19005 (2026)

    I. Halperin.Observable Matrix Dynamics of Stocks.arXiv:2607.19005 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    E. F. Fama.Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal of Finance25(2), 383–417 (1970)

    1970

  4. [4]

    M. F. Dixon, I. Halperin, and P. Bilokon.Machine Learning in Finance: From Theory to Practice. Springer, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Markowitz.Portfolio Selection

    H. Markowitz.Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance7(1), 77–91 (1952)

    1952

  6. [6]

    Clarke, H

    R. Clarke, H. de Silva, and S. Thorley.Minimum-Variance Portfolio Composition. The Journal of Portfolio Management37(2), 31–45 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Choueifaty and Y

    Y. Choueifaty and Y. Coignard.Toward Maximum Diversification. The Journal of Portfolio Man- agement35(1), 40–51 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Halperin.Learning as Observable Matrix Dynamics: Diffusive Relaxations versus Phase Transi- tions.arXiv:2606.29679 (2026)

    I. Halperin.Learning as Observable Matrix Dynamics: Diffusive Relaxations versus Phase Transi- tions.arXiv:2606.29679 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    E. R. Fernholz.Stochastic Portfolio Theory.Springer, New York (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    A. D. Banner, R. Fernholz, and I. Karatzas.Atlas Models of Equity Markets. Annals of Applied Probability15(4), 2296–2330 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Halperin.I-BBS: Inference of Latent Sub-Manifolds in Representation Spaces Using Random Distance Matrices.2026

    I. Halperin.I-BBS: Inference of Latent Sub-Manifolds in Representation Spaces Using Random Distance Matrices.2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Bogomolny, O

    E. Bogomolny, O. Bohigas, and C. Schmit. Spectral properties of distance matrices.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36, 3595–3616 (2003). arXiv:nlin/0301044

    2003 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bogomolny, O

    E. Bogomolny, O. Bohigas, and C. Schmit.Distance matrices and isometric embeddings. arXiv:0710.2063 (2007)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Halperin.Frustrated Dynamics of Distance Matrices.arXiv:2605.05376 (2026)

    I. Halperin.Frustrated Dynamics of Distance Matrices.arXiv:2605.05376 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lando and T

    D. Lando and T. M. Skødeberg.Analyzing Rating Transitions and Rating Drift with Continuous Observations. Journal of Banking and Finance26(2–3), 423–444 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Kavvathas.Estimating Credit Rating Transition Probabilities for Corporate Bonds.Working paper, University of Chicago, 2001

    D. Kavvathas.Estimating Credit Rating Transition Probabilities for Corporate Bonds.Working paper, University of Chicago, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Schreiber.Measuring Information Transfer

    T. Schreiber.Measuring Information Transfer. Physical Review Letters85, 461–464 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    R. Quax, D. Kandhai, and P. M. A. Sloot.Information Dissipation as an Early-Warning Signal for the Lehman Brothers Collapse in Financial Time Series. Scientific Reports3, 1898 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Akiba, S

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama.Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparam- eter Optimization Framework. Proc. 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2623–2631 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Daniel and T

    K. Daniel and T. J. Moskowitz.Momentum Crashes.Journal of Financial Economics122(2), 221– 49 247 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Barroso and P

    P. Barroso and P. Santa-Clara.Momentum Has Its Moments.Journal of Financial Economics 116(1), 111–120 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Baltas.The Impact of Crowding in Alternative Risk Premia Investing

    N. Baltas.The Impact of Crowding in Alternative Risk Premia Investing. Financial Analysts Journal 75(3), 89–104 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zlotnikov, J

    V. Zlotnikov, J. Liu, I. Halperin, F. He and L. L. Huang.Model-Free Market Risk Hedging Using Crowding Networks. The Journal of Portfolio Management50(9), 132–141 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Jegadeesh and S

    N. Jegadeesh and S. Titman.Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. The Journal of Finance48(1), 65–91 (1993)

    1993

  17. [25]

    T. I. Jensen, B. T. Kelly, and L. H. Pedersen.Is There a Replication Crisis in Finance? Journal of Finance78(5), 2465–2518 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. V. George, S. Kachhara, and G. Ambika.Early Warning Signals for Critical Transitions in Complex Systems. Physica Scripta98, 072002 (2023). arXiv:2107.01210. 50

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.