ArticlePloS one2023
HPOSS: A hierarchical portfolio optimization stacking strategy to reduce the generalization error of ensembles of models.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surrogate models are frequently used to replace costly engineering simulations. A single surrogate is frequently chosen based on previous experience or by fitting multiple surrogates and selecting one based on mean cross-validation errors. A novel stacking strategy will be presented in this paper. This new strategy results from reinterpreting the model selection process based on the generalization error. For the first time, this problem is proposed to be translated into a well-studied financial problem: portfolio management and optimization. In short, it is demonstrated that the individual residues calculated by leave-one-out procedures are samples from a given random variable ϵi, whose second non-central moment is the i-th model's generalization error. Thus, a stacking methodology based solely on evaluating the behavior of the linear combination of the random variables ϵi is proposed. At first, several surrogate models are calibrated. The Directed Bubble Hierarchical Tree (DBHT) clustering algorithm is then used to determine which models are worth stacking. The stacking weights can be calculated using any financial approach to the portfolio optimization problem. This alternative understanding of the problem enables practitioners to use established financial methodologies to calculate the models' weights, significantly improving the ensemble of models' out-of-sample performance. A study case is carried out to demonstrate the applicability of the new methodology. Overall, a total of 124 models were trained using a specific dataset: 40 Machine Learning models and 84 Polynomial Chaos Expansion models (which considered 3 types of base random variables, 7 least square algorithms for fitting the up to fourth order expansion's coefficients). Among those, 99 models could be fitted without convergence and other numerical issues. The DBHT algorithm with Pearson correlation distance and generalization error similarity was able to select a subgroup of 23 models from the 99 fitted ones, implying a reduction of about 77% in the total number of models, representing a good filtering scheme which still preserves diversity. Finally, it has been demonstrated that the weights obtained by building a Hierarchical Risk Parity (HPR) portfolio perform better for various input random variables, indicating better out-of-sample performance. In this way, an economic stacking strategy has demonstrated its worth in improving the out-of-sample capabilities of stacked models, which illustrates how the new understanding of model stacking methodologies may be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.