Grounding Investor Views: Neural Predicates in the Black-Litterman Model

Marcos Florencio

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Grounding Investor Views: Neural Predicates in the Black-Litterman Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that neural predicate output distributions can supply the direction, magnitude, and uncertainty of Black-Litterman views, making view generation reproducible, interpretable, and differentiable.

desk verdict A clean, novel formal mapping from neural predicates to Black-Litterman views, but the entropy-based Ω is not calibrated uncertainty and the demo's numbers don't match its own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20533 v1 pith:W4JHGHLR submitted 2026-07-10 cs.LG cs.AI

Marcos Florencio This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI MSC 91G1068T0762F15

keywords Black-Littermanmodelneuralpredicatesportfoliooptimizationviewuncertaintyentropyneuro-symbolicAIBayesianupdatingdifferentiableinference

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

This paper claims that the weak point of the Black-Litterman model—investors having to manually specify views on asset returns and their uncertainty—can be closed by neural predicates. A neural predicate processes structured analytical data and outputs a probability distribution over market stances (bullish, neutral, bearish); the paper shows this distribution is enough to construct all three Black-Litterman inputs: the pick matrix, the view return, and the view uncertainty. Uncertainty is derived from the entropy of the stance distribution, so confident assessments are weighted more heavily than diffuse ones without needing an analyst to invent a confidence number. If the mapping holds, view generation becomes reproducible, interpretable (every weight traces back through a logical chain), and differentiable, enabling end-to-end learning. The paper is explicitly a theoretical proposal: empirical calibration and validation are left to future work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neural predicate: a logical predicate whose truth probability over an output set (e.g., {bullish, bearish, neutral}) is generated by a neural network through a softmax layer, formalized as a neural annotated disjunction. Compositional logical rules (of the kind used in probabilistic logic programming) combine atomic predicate outputs into a derived stance distribution via weighted model counting, which is differentiable. The load-bearing identities are equation (17), which defines the view return as the expectation of stance returns under this distribution, and equations (22)/(24), which define view uncertainty as an affine function of the distribution's entropy, ca

What would settle it

A reliability/calibration test on the neural predicate: collect many stance distributions and compare the stated probability of each stance with realized frequencies. If, for example, assets assigned P(bullish)=0.6 are not bullish about 60% of the time across a large sample, the entropy-based ω is invalid and the posterior weights will be overconfident. A portfolio-level falsifier would be to feed deliberately miscalibrated predicate outputs into the Black-Litterman update and show that posterior expected returns deviate from ex-post realized returns more than the model's stated uncertainty im

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the output distribution π_i of a neural predicate over stances is structurally isomorphic to a Black-Litterman view triplet (p_k, q_k, Ω_k). The dominant stance sets the direction of the view; a linear expectation over stance returns maps probabilities to the view return q; and the normalized entropy of the distribution maps to the view uncertainty ω. The paper argues this is not a heuristic but a genuine alignment: both representations treat beliefs as distributions, update them with evidence, and propagate uncertainty explicitly. Compositional rules let atomic predicates combine into derived stance predicates, and when multiple predicates are applied to one asset,

Load-bearing premise

The mapping assumes the predicate's output probabilities are calibrated epistemic probabilities, so entropy is a valid measure of view uncertainty; the paper never tests this, and if the probabilities are miscalibrated the ω values are wrong and the Bayesian update puts incorrect weight on views.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mapping is correct, views can be generated at scale from structured financial data without manual elicitation, making Black-Litterman portfolios reproducible and auditable.
Because every step is differentiable, the entire pipeline—predicate networks, stance-return parameters, and possibly the view-inclusion threshold—can be trained end-to-end on a portfolio objective.
The entropy-based uncertainty mapping generalizes the common fixed-scalar convention: setting alpha_min = alpha and entropy = 0 recovers the standard 'view uncertainty proportional to prior variance' heuristic as a special case.
Compositional predicate hierarchies produce interpretable multi-asset views (sector-level macro predicates plus asset-level micro predicates), so the structure of the analysis is preserved in the pick matrix.
If predicates disagree in direction, the disagreement penalty increases view uncertainty, so the model does not become overconfident on conflicting evidence.

Reading between the lines

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

The author leaves implicit that the same entropy-to-uncertainty mapping could be applied to any Bayesian setting where a prior is expressed as a probability distribution over discrete states, not only Black-Litterman views—for example, economic scenario forecasts or macro models.
A testable extension not in the paper is to calibrate the stance-return parameters r_bull and r_bear by regressing realized excess returns on past stance probabilities; the paper treats these parameters as given.
A natural empirical prediction from the framework is that portfolios built from predicate-generated views should outperform portfolios built from the ad hoc proportional-covariance uncertainty convention on out-of-sample risk-adjusted return, because ω would reflect actual analytical confidence rather than an arbitrary scalar.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: the paper gives a clean formal mapping from DeepProbLog-style neural predicates to the full Black-Litterman (P,q,Ω) triplet. That mapping is new in the cited literature and the algebra in Sections 3 and 4 is coherent. The entropy-to-Ω step, however, is the load-bearing weakness, and the illustrative example contains numerical inconsistencies.

What is genuinely new: no prior work, among those cited, turns the predicate's stance distribution into all three BL components. Eq. (17) is a sensible expected-return encoding, Eq. (22)-(24) at least give a monotone relation between confidence and uncertainty, and the compositional layer in Section 4.5 — precision-weighted aggregation plus a disagreement penalty — is a reasonable way to combine views. The paper is also appropriately modest about its empirical status: it repeatedly says implementation, calibration, and validation are future work, and it ships code for the demo.

The soft spots, in order of size. First, Ω is not actually grounded. Eq. (22) equates view uncertainty with Shannon entropy, but q_i is the expected stance return under π_i. The forecast-error variance of that expectation is Var(q)=Σ_s π(s)(r_s−q)^2, which is not entropy. The stress-test example is right: for r_bull=0.20, r_bear=−0.15, r_neutral=0, the distributions (0.5,0.5,0) and (0.5,0,0.5) both have H=ln2, but their view variances are 0.0306 and 0.0100 respectively. Since BL weights Ω^{-1}, this is a real allocation difference. Section 4.6's claim that 'calibration is achieved by deriving ω from entropy' overstates what (24) delivers, which is only monotonicity. The paper's own conclusion concedes the calibration point, so the central epistemic claim is asserted, not shown.

Second, the demo: Table 3 says q_Acme=0.080 and q_Globex=−0.061, but plugging Table 2 into Eq. (17) gives 0.0975 and −0.035. That is a concrete error in the demonstration of the paper's core mapping. It may be a typo, but it needs to be fixed before the example can be trusted.

Third, the free parameters (r_bull, r_bear, α_min, α_max, γ, λ, τ, δ) are all inputs. That's acceptable for a theoretical proposal, but it means the 'data-driven' framing is only partially earned; the mapping is data-driven conditional on these knobs.

Who should read this: anyone working on view generation for BL or on neuro-symbolic portfolio tools. They'll get a useful construction and a sharp reminder that entropy is not variance. I would send it to peer review, but with the expectation that the referee asks for substantive revisions: fix the example, replace 'calibration achieved' with 'monotone confidence mapping,' and either provide a calibration argument for Ω or reframe it as a tunable hyperparameter. The idea is worth building on; the paper as written overclaims its central property.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a formal pipeline in which neural predicates—probabilistic logic programs whose atoms are neural network outputs—generate Black-Litterman views. Stance distributions π_i over {bullish, bearish, neutral} are mapped to the pick matrix P (dominant stance and thresholding), view returns q_i (Eq. 17, the expected stance return), and view uncertainties ω_i (Eqs. 22–24, a linear interpolation in Shannon entropy). Multi-predicate aggregation through precision weighting (Eqs. 28–30) is also proposed. A two-asset toy example uses GPT-4o as the predicate and reports posterior tilts. The paper is explicitly theoretical: no empirical validation is attempted, and the conclusion states that implementation, calibration, and validation are left to future work.

Significance. If the proposed mapping were valid, it would address a real gap: systematic, reproducible, and interpretable generation of Black-Litterman view triplets. The paper contributes a clear algebraic framework, a compositional view of how predicate structure can define P, and a public code repository for the demonstration. The derivations in Sections 3–4 are transparent and the paper is honest about the absence of empirical validation. However, the central epistemic link—entropy as calibrated view uncertainty—is asserted rather than derived from the Black-Litterman noise model, and the worked example does not reproduce its own equations. The framework is therefore promising but currently unsubstantiated at its core, and the accuracy of the mapping from π to Ω is load-bearing for the posterior update.

major comments (3)

[§4.4, Eqs. (22)–(24); §3.5, Eq. (11)] The entropy-based definition of ω_i does not correspond to the role of Ω in the Black-Litterman update. Under Eq. (17), q_i is the expected stance return, so the natural uncertainty in the view q_i = Pμ + ε is the forecast-error variance Var(q_i) = Σ_s π_i(s)(r_s − q_i)^2. Eq. (22) assigns identical ω to any two distributions with equal Shannon entropy. For r_bull=0.20, r_bear=−0.15, r_neutral=0, the distributions (0.5,0.5,0) and (0.5,0,0.5) both have H=ln2, so Eq. (24) gives the same ω, yet Var(q) is 0.0306 versus 0.0100. Since posterior (11) weights views by Ω^{−1}, this mis-specification changes the allocation. Section 4.6's statement that calibration is achieved by Eq. (24) only establishes monotonicity, not calibration. The mapping should be derived from the predictive distribution or empirically calibrated.
[§5, Table 3; Eq. (17)] The numerical example does not reproduce the paper's own mapping. With Table 2 probabilities and the stated r_bull=0.20, r_bear=−0.15, r_neutral=0, Eq. (17) gives q_Acme=0.60·0.20+0.15·(−0.15)+0.25·0=0.097, not 0.080; and q_Globex=0.20·0.20+0.50·(−0.15)+0.30·0=−0.035, not −0.061. The confidence values 0.147 and 0.063 are consistent with Eq. (31), so the discrepancy is isolated to the q column, but it means the demonstration does not validate the stated formulas. In addition, Table 3 reports ω only as 'low'/'high' and does not provide α_min, α_max, or the exact 'Idzorek method applied to normalized entropy,' so the Ω construction is not reproducible from the text.
[§4.6; §6] The paper overclaims calibration. Section 4.6 states 'Calibration is achieved by deriving ω_i from entropy (21)', but this conflates monotonicity with probabilistic calibration. The neural predicate outputs are raw classifier/LLM probabilities; no evidence is provided that they are calibrated epistemic probabilities. Without calibration, ω_i is not the variance of the view error, and posterior (11) is not a correctly weighted Bayesian update. The paper's honest caveat in §6 that 'implementation, calibration, and empirical validation are left to future work' should be reflected in §4.6 as well; the current wording asserts a property that Eq. (24) does not establish.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2, Eq. (17); §5] Eq. (17) uses r_neutral = Π_i (the equilibrium return), but Section 5 sets r_neut = 0.00. Clarify which value is used in the numerical example, since this changes q_i.
[Table 3] Include the numerical ω_i values and the α bounds used. The current table gives only 'low'/'high' and cites an ambiguous 'Idzorek method applied to normalized entropy.'
[References, [7]] DeepProbLog is cited as 'Preprint. Work in progress.' A published version exists; please update the reference.
[Abstract; §5] The abstract claims 'fully differentiable, enabling end-to-end learning,' but the GPT-4o implementation in §5 is a frozen API call with no gradient path into the predicate. Clarify that end-to-end learning applies to the general framework, not to the demonstration.
[§5, Implementation Note] The note says temperature is set to zero to ensure deterministic outputs, but later acknowledges non-deterministic behavior across runs. Reconcile these statements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

One definitional 'calibration' claim; the rest is explicit construction, not circularity

self definitional [Section 4.6 ('Theoretical Properties'), with Eqs. (21)–(24); cf. Conclusion]
"Calibration is achieved by deriving ωi from entropy (21): uncertain predicates generate larger ωi and therefore weaker updates, while confident predicates produce smaller ωi, a property that follows from the mapping (24) itself."

The claimed property ('calibration') is stated as a consequence of the chosen mapping (24), which makes ωi an affine decreasing function of entropy by construction. No independent probabilistic-calibration check is provided, and the paper later concedes 'implementation, calibration, and empirical validation are left to future work.' Thus the 'calibration' result is equivalent to the definition of ωi, not an independent finding. This is the only self-definitional load-bearing claim; the rest of the chain (π from neural predicates, the BL posterior, and the optimization step) is either standard or explicitly proposed.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is explicit construction rather than a hidden reduction. Eq. (17) defines qi as an expected stance return under πi; Eqs. (22)–(24) define ωi via normalized Shannon entropy; and P is built from thresholded predicate outputs. These are stated proposals, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and the numerical example is conceded to be purely demonstrative. The Black-Litterman posterior (11) and mean-variance step (12)–(13) are standard, and the DeepProbLog semantics are externally cited. The notable circular element is Section 4.6's claim that calibration 'is achieved' by the entropy mapping: the monotone confidence-to-uncertainty property is hard-wired into Eq. (24), so the assertion that the approach is calibrated by construction reduces to the definition of ωi. The skeptic's variance-vs-entropy objection (Ω is not the variance of q under Eq. (17)) and the arithmetic mismatch between Table 3 and Eq. (17) are substantive validity/correctness concerns, but they are not circularity. The paper's own limitation statement about future calibration further supports treating the calibration passage as a definitional overreach rather than an empirical derivation.

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

The central claim rests on six free parameters and several domain assumptions. The stance returns and entropy-uncertainty bounds are the critical uncalibrated inputs; they are introduced by the paper, not inherited from prior literature. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)

stance return parameters r_bullish, r_bearish = 0.20, -0.15 (expository example)
Eqs. (16)-(17); treated as given; calibration via regression is 'left to implementation'. The entire view return q_i is a linear function of these numbers.
uncertainty bounds alpha_min, alpha_max = not specified
Eqs. (22)-(24); chosen by hand; set the scale of view uncertainty and hence the strength of posterior updates.
view inclusion threshold gamma = not specified
Eq. (18); chosen in (0,1/3); controls how many assets receive views.
disagreement penalty lambda = not specified
Eq. (30); scales how much inter-predicate disagreement inflates view uncertainty.
prior uncertainty scalar tau = standard convention, not stated in example
Sections 3.4-3.5; treated as given; weights the equilibrium prior against the views.
market risk aversion delta = 2.5 (example)
Eqs. (8), (12); chosen for exposition; affects the equilibrium prior and the optimizer.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Neural predicate probabilities are calibrated epistemic probabilities.
Eqs. (21)-(24) use Shannon entropy as view uncertainty; this only tracks true uncertainty if the three probabilities are well-calibrated. Not tested in the paper.
ad hoc to paper Bullish, bearish, and neutral are exhaustive and mutually exclusive semantic stances, and bullish implies positive excess return while bearish implies negative.
Eq. (16) postulates r_bullish > 0 and r_bearish < 0 as an 'investment hypothesis'; no evidence is provided.
ad hoc to paper Entropy is a valid monotone measure of view uncertainty, with linear interpolation between omega_min and omega_max.
Eq. (22) is the paper's primary contribution and is a design choice, not derived or validated.
ad hoc to paper View uncertainty is proportional to prior variance tau*Sigma_ii via alpha bounds.
Eq. (23) preserves scale-invariance but is an unverified convention.
standard math Aggregate views combine as independent Gaussian estimates.
Eqs. (28)-(29) use standard precision-weighting for independent errors, appropriate under the Gaussian view model of Eq. (10).
domain assumption CAPM equilibrium returns Pi = delta*Sigma*w_mkt are a valid prior.
Section 3.4; the paper says it is agnostic to this choice, but the numerical example depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grounding Investor Views: Neural Predicates in the Black-Litterman Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4JHGHLR

@misc{pith2026260720533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grounding Investor Views: Neural Predicates in the Black-Litterman Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4JHGHLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20533}
}

abstract

Portfolio construction under the Black-Litterman model requires investors to specify views on asset returns alongside explicit uncertainty estimates -- a process that remains largely subjective and difficult to scale. We propose a formal approach in which neural predicates serve as a structured, probabilistic mechanism for view generation. In our formulation, structured financial analysis data is processed through a compositional hierarchy of neural predicates whose outputs -- probability distributions over market stances -- are mapped to the pick matrix $\mathbf{P}$, the view return vector $\mathbf{q}$, and the view uncertainty matrix $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ of the Black-Litterman model. View confidence is derived from predicate output distributions, providing a data-driven alternative to subjective uncertainty elicitation. The resulting approach is interpretable, in the sense that any portfolio weight can be traced back through the predicate's logical chain to the underlying data, and fully differentiable, enabling end-to-end learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20533 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Portfolio selection.The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91, March 1952

Harry Markowitz. Portfolio selection.The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91, March 1952

1952
[2]

Asset allocation: Combining investor views with market equilibrium.The Journal of Fixed Income, 1(2):7–18, September 1991

Fischer Black and Robert Litterman. Asset allocation: Combining investor views with market equilibrium.The Journal of Fixed Income, 1(2):7–18, September 1991

1991
[3]

Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, September/October 1992

Fischer Black and Robert Litterman. Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, September/October 1992

1992
[4]

William F. Sharpe. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk.The Journal of Finance, 19(3):425–442, September 1964

1964
[5]

The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfoliosandcapitalbudgets.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1):13–37, Febru- ary 1965

John Lintner. The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfoliosandcapitalbudgets.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1):13–37, Febru- ary 1965. 13

1965
[6]

Thomas M. Idzorek. A step-by-step guide to the Black-Litterman model: Incorporating user-specified confidence levels. Technical report, Zephyr Associates, Inc., July 2004

2004
[7]

Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10872, 2018

Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumančić, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10872, 2018. Preprint. Work in progress

arXiv 2018
[8]

optimized

Richard O. Michaud. The markowitz optimization enigma: Is “optimized” optimal?Fi- nancial Analysts Journal, 45(1):31–42, January 1989

1989

Show all 40 references

[9]

Potentialperformanceandtestsofportfolioefficiency.Journal of Financial Economics, 10(4):433–466, 1982

J.D.JobsonandBobKorkie. Potentialperformanceandtestsofportfolioefficiency.Journal of Financial Economics, 10(4):433–466, 1982

1982
[10]

Best and Robert R

Michael J. Best and Robert R. Grauer. On the sensitivity of mean-variance-efficient port- folios to changes in asset means: Some analytical and computational results.The Review of Financial Studies, 4(2):315–342, 1991

1991
[11]

Honey, I shrunk the sample covariance matrix.The Journal of Portfolio Management, 30(4):110–119, 2004

Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. Honey, I shrunk the sample covariance matrix.The Journal of Portfolio Management, 30(4):110–119, 2004

2004
[12]

Goldfarb and G

D. Goldfarb and G. Iyengar. Robust portfolio selection problems.Mathematics of Opera- tions Research, 28(1):1–38, February 2003. ISSN 0364-765X

2003
[13]

Barber and Terrance Odean

Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean. All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors.Review of Financial Studies, 21(2):785–818, 2008

2008
[14]

Fama and Kenneth R

Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds.Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1):3–56, 1993

1993
[15]

Beyond Black-Litterman: Views on non-normal markets.Risk Magazine, 19:87–92, 2006

Attilio Meucci. Beyond Black-Litterman: Views on non-normal markets.Risk Magazine, 19:87–92, 2006

2006
[16]

Historical scenarios with fully flexible probabilities.GARP Risk Profes- sional, pages 47–51, December 2010

Attilio Meucci. Historical scenarios with fully flexible probabilities.GARP Risk Profes- sional, pages 47–51, December 2010

2010
[17]

Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search.Communications of the ACM, 19(3):113–126, March 1976. 1975 ACM Turing Award Lecture

1976
[18]

Rumelhart, Geoffrey E

David E. Rumelhart, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Ronald J. Williams. Learning representations by back-propagating errors.Nature, 323(6088):533–536, October 1986

1986
[19]

Fodor and Zenon W

Jerry A. Fodor and Zenon W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.Cognition, 28(1–2):3–71, 1988

1988
[20]

McCulloch and Walter Pitts

Warren S. McCulloch and Walter Pitts. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4):115–133, 1943

1943
[21]

Towell and Jude W

Geoffrey G. Towell and Jude W. Shavlik. Knowledge-based artificial neural networks. Artificial Intelligence, 70:119–165, 1994. Submitted January 1992; final pre-publication revisions August 1994

1994
[22]

d’Avila Garcez and G

A. d’Avila Garcez and G. Zaverucha. The connectionist inductive learning and logic pro- gramming system.Applied Intelligence, 11(1):59–77, 1999

1999
[23]

Manoel V. M. França, Gerson Zaverucha, and Artur S. d’Avila Garcez. Fast relational learning using bottom clause propositionalization with artificial neural networks.Machine Learning, 94(1):81–104, 2014. 14

2014
[24]

Empirical asset pricing via machine learning

Shihao Gu, Bryan Kelly, and Dacheng Xiu. Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(5):2223–2273, May 2020

2020
[25]

Deep learning in asset pricing

Luyang Chen, Markus Pelger, and Jason Zhu. Deep learning in asset pricing. June 2019

2019
[26]

Paul C. Tetlock. Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market.The Journal of Finance, 62(3):1139–1168, 2007

2007
[27]

When is a liability not a liability? textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-ks.The Journal of Finance, 66(1):35–65, 2011

Tim Loughran and Bill McDonald. When is a liability not a liability? textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-ks.The Journal of Finance, 66(1):35–65, 2011

2011
[28]

Huang, Amy Y

Allen H. Huang, Amy Y. Zang, and Rong Zheng. Evidence on the information content of text in analyst reports.The Accounting Review, 93(5):25–49, 2018

2018
[29]

Wisdom of crowds: The value of stock opinions transmitted through social media.Management Science, 60(1):1–24, 2014

Hailiang Chen, Prabuddha De, Yu (Jeffrey) Hu, and Byoung-Hyoun Hwang. Wisdom of crowds: The value of stock opinions transmitted through social media.Management Science, 60(1):1–24, 2014

2014
[30]

Can chatgpt forecast stock price movements? return predictability and large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07619, 2025

Alejandro Lopez-Lira and Yuehua Tang. Can chatgpt forecast stock price movements? return predictability and large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07619, 2025

2025
[31]

Gah-Yi Ban, Noureddine El Karoui, and Andrew E. B. Lim. Machine learning and portfolio optimization.Management Science, 64(3):1136–1154, 2018

2018
[32]

Deeplearningforportfoliooptimization

ZihaoZhang, StefanZohren, andStephenRoberts. Deeplearningforportfoliooptimization. The Journal of Financial Data Science, 2(4):8–20, Fall 2020

2020
[33]

Deep hedging of long-term financial derivatives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15128, July 2020

Alexandre Carbonneau. Deep hedging of long-term financial derivatives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15128, July 2020

2007 arXiv
[34]

The intuition behind black-litterman model portfo- lios

Guangliang He and Robert Litterman. The intuition behind black-litterman model portfo- lios. Technical report, Goldman Sachs Investment Management Division, December 1999

1999
[35]

Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2010

Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2010

2010
[36]

Predicate logic as programming language.Information Processing, 74: 569–574, 1974

Robert Kowalski. Predicate logic as programming language.Information Processing, 74: 569–574, 1974

1974
[37]

The symbol grounding problem.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42 (1–3):335–346, 1990

Stevan Harnad. The symbol grounding problem.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42 (1–3):335–346, 1990

1990
[38]

ProbLog: A probabilistic Pro- log and its application in link discovery

Luc De Raedt, Angelika Kimmig, and Hannu Toivonen. ProbLog: A probabilistic Pro- log and its application in link discovery. InProceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2468–2473, 2007

2007
[39]

Lundberg and Su-In Lee

Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017

2017
[40]

GPT-4 technical report

OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. Technical report, OpenAI, 2024. URLhttps://openai. com/research/gpt-4. 15

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Portfolio selection.The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91, March 1952

Harry Markowitz. Portfolio selection.The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91, March 1952

1952

[2] [2]

Asset allocation: Combining investor views with market equilibrium.The Journal of Fixed Income, 1(2):7–18, September 1991

Fischer Black and Robert Litterman. Asset allocation: Combining investor views with market equilibrium.The Journal of Fixed Income, 1(2):7–18, September 1991

1991

[3] [3]

Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, September/October 1992

Fischer Black and Robert Litterman. Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, September/October 1992

1992

[4] [4]

William F. Sharpe. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk.The Journal of Finance, 19(3):425–442, September 1964

1964

[5] [5]

The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfoliosandcapitalbudgets.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1):13–37, Febru- ary 1965

John Lintner. The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfoliosandcapitalbudgets.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1):13–37, Febru- ary 1965. 13

1965

[6] [6]

Thomas M. Idzorek. A step-by-step guide to the Black-Litterman model: Incorporating user-specified confidence levels. Technical report, Zephyr Associates, Inc., July 2004

2004

[7] [7]

Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10872, 2018

Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumančić, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10872, 2018. Preprint. Work in progress

arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

optimized

Richard O. Michaud. The markowitz optimization enigma: Is “optimized” optimal?Fi- nancial Analysts Journal, 45(1):31–42, January 1989

1989