arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.30446

End-to-End Neural Shrinkage of Indefinite Pairwise Correlation Matrices for Small-Cap-Inclusive Portfolios

Abstract

Small-cap-inclusive equity universes contain recently listed and intermittently traded securities, so enforcing a common look-back discards a substantial fraction of the available information. Pairwise-complete estimation preserves the longest overlap for each asset pair, but the resulting correlation matrix can be indefinite because its entries are computed on different samples. This prevents direct use in Markowitz optimization and falls outside the assumptions of standard random-matrix shrinkage. We adapt a rotation-invariant neural covariance estimator to this setting. The model computes mask-aware marginal moments and a pairwise correlation matrix proxy, processes its signed spectrum, and uses a bidirectional gated recurrent unit conditioned on factor-aligned effective sample lengths derived from the overlap matrix and eigenvector loadings. It maps all eigenvalues, including negative ones, to a positive inverse spectrum. The reconstructed covariance is positive definite and is trained end-to-end to minimize five-day realized global-minimum-variance risk. We evaluate 26 expanding-window models from 2000 to 2025 on up to 1,500 U.S. equities in a closing-auction simulator with point-in-time selection, commissions, financing, corporate actions, and market impact. Across the 26-year out-of-sample period, the neural estimator reduces annualized five-day volatility by approximately 20\% and increases the Sharpe ratio by approximately 40\% relative to the next-best covariance estimator. These improvements are consistent across realized risk, risk-adjusted performance, and drawdown control, remain after the modeled execution frictions, and are supported by a 99.9\% Model Confidence Set that retains only the neural estimator.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Christian Bongiorno, Lorenzo Villassero. 2026-08-31. End-to-End Neural Shrinkage of Indefinite Pairwise Correlation Matrices for Small-Cap-Inclusive Portfolios. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30446

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing: Methodological Foundations

Recent advances in LLM agents enable a new paradigm for asset pricing, which we call Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing (AEAP): systems that autonomously conduct the scientific discovery process itself. We define AEAP and identify its core building blocks. Existing evaluation practices backtest only the outputs (factors or trades), not the autonomous discovery system that produced them. We focus on factor discovery, contributing a reference architecture, a rigorous evaluation standard for discovered factors, and a method for out-of-sample backtesting the discovery system. As a concrete instance of that architecture, we evaluate SEADS against five re-implemented baselines on two US equity panels using this standard: no single metric ranks the systems consistently, motivating evaluation on multiple axes at once. A separate rolling re-execution then asks the complementary question of whether the discovery process itself, not one static output, is reliable. We also report negative findings and limitations that surface further evaluation pitfalls for future AEAP systems.

cs.AI

PortBench: A Correlation-Aware, Full-Pipeline Benchmark for LLM-Driven Portfolio Management

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across diverse financial tasks, yet portfolio management (PM) remains poorly benchmarked. Existing benchmarks exhibit two gaps: they are often equity-only and ignore cross-asset correlations; they fail to evaluate the complete PM decision pipeline. We introduce PortBench, a benchmark spanning six heterogeneous asset classes from 2015 to 2025. PortBench comprises a static QA dataset of 6,269 questions across seven task templates and a dynamic five-stage allocation pipeline. To evaluate these layers, we introduce two metrics: a dual-layer correlation score for inter-class hedging and intra-class concentration, and CEPS, which quantifies how reasoning errors compound across pipeline stages. We further evaluate under three stress windows and three risk profiles, and support real-time evaluation to mitigate pretraining contamination on historical markets. Across ten frontier LLMs, strong financial QA performance fails to translate into superior portfolio performance: only 32.5\% of 120 evaluations beat equal weighting on Sharpe across four market periods. Our source code is available at \href{https://github.com/AgenticFinLab/portbench}{this https URL}.

cs.AI

The Axiomatic Trader: Latent Regularity, Information Budgets, and the Canonical Form of a Quantitative Investment System

Systematic trading rests on one article of faith: that regularities found in the past persist. This paper does three things. First, it states that faith as five axioms, each a commonplace practitioners already accept: (A1) a decision may use only what was known when it was made; (A2) what looks like the market changing its rules is the market changing its unobserved state, the machinery being the same in every era; (A3) the future may replay stretches of the past, though not in history's proportions; (A4) states persist for a while, and the dependence they carry eventually dies out; (A5) whatever predictability exists is slight, even for a rule that knows the state. What turns these into axioms is quantification, and the quantities are declared rather than estimated: an invariance defect $\varepsilon_0$, a recurrence bound $Λ$ at a block scale $b$, coherence times $\ell_i$, a signal ceiling $ρ$ and an invariance ratio $κ$. These five declarations are the whole of the premises' empirical content. Second, it proves that the axioms force a five-stage canonical form for a quantitative investment system -- a declared representation, a capacity-bounded shrunk ensemble, contiguous purged block evaluation aggregated by $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1/Λ}$, a budgeted and deflated search, robust fractional Kelly sizing -- each stage necessary: a procedure omitting it does strictly worse under a law the axioms admit. Third, it tests the axioms where they are falsifiable, each only at its declared constants, on real market series: no axiom is so far overturned; what the data reject are particular declarations, the conservative $κ= 1$ and the exponential decay instance among them.

cs.LG