跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1151新增论文
+896其中 AI 相关
+86已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 16:16 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 13:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 16:43 — 2026-11-06 16:43(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-06 16:16最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 13:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,055 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 16:14(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.05952

One Basket, Many Experts: Decorrelated Re-ranking for Financial Asset Recommendation

Ryuki Unno, Keigo Sakurai, Koshi Watanabe, Keisuke Maeda, Takahiro Ogawa, Miki Haseyama

Financial asset recommendation for retail investors is typically optimized for relevance, that is, how well a recommendation matches what each user will buy. From the service provider's point of view, the value of a recommendation also depends on portfolio performance: the risk-adjusted return the recommended assets (the basket) deliver, which drives user engagement and fee revenue. The two goals are rarely achieved jointly, because the recommendations that best match user behavior concentrate on a few popular assets whose returns are highly correlated, which caps the risk-adjusted return a provider can offer. We propose Decorrelated-Satellite Expert Re-ranking (\textbf{DSER}), which retains the most relevant recommendations from an expert-following list and replaces the rest with return-decorrelated alternatives. The number of replaced slots is a single integer~$m$ (a knob) that the provider sets, so the relevance--performance trade-off becomes an explicit, auditable choice rather than a property hidden inside a learned model. In experiments on the public FAR-Trans retail-brokerage dataset, under the primary protocol, replacing a few slots improves risk-adjusted return at a small relevance cost, and the gain survives realistic trading costs at typical retail portfolio sizes. Minimizing correlation would lower basket volatility, but in our data the least-correlated assets are more volatile and higher-return, so their volatility offsets that reduction while their return drives the gain, not lower volatility. The resulting trade-off is asymmetric, with the relevance cost consistent across market phases while the gain is phase-dependent. The provider sets $m$ to read off exactly how much relevance each operating point costs.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.IR · cs.CE
arXiv ↗PDF ↗