IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/fininn/v11y2025i1d10.1186_s40854-024-00720-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personalized fund recommendation with dynamic utility learning

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxin Wei

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

  • Jia Liu

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

Abstract

This study introduces a fund recommendation system based on the $$\epsilon$$ ϵ -greedy algorithm and an incremental learning framework. This model simulates the interaction process when customers browse the web-pages of fund products. Customers click on their preferred fund products when visiting a fund recommendation web-page. The system collects customer click sequences to continually estimate and update their utility function. The system generates product lists using the $$\epsilon$$ ϵ -greedy algorithm, where each product on the list has the probability of 1- $$\epsilon$$ ϵ of being selected as an exploitation strategy, and the probability of $$\epsilon$$ ϵ is chosen as the exploration strategy. We perform a series of numerical tests to evaluate the estimation performance with different values of $$\epsilon$$ ϵ .

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxin Wei & Jia Liu, 2025. "Personalized fund recommendation with dynamic utility learning," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:fininn:v:11:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s40854-024-00720-5
    DOI: 10.1186/s40854-024-00720-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40854-024-00720-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40854-024-00720-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Humoud Alsabah & Agostino Capponi & Octavio Ruiz Lacedelli & Matt Stern, 2021. "Robo-Advising: Learning Investors’ Risk Preferences via Portfolio Choices [Mean-variance versus Full-scale Optimisation: In and out of Sample]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 369-392.
    2. Jian Hu & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2015. "Robust decision making over a set of random targets or risk-averse utilities with an application to portfolio optimization," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 358-372, April.
    3. Yu, Shi & Wang, Haoran & Dong, Chaosheng, 2023. "Learning risk preferences from investment portfolios using inverse optimization," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    5. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, March.
    6. Denis Sauré & Juan Pablo Vielma, 2019. "Ellipsoidal Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 315-338, March.
    7. Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, 2021. "Inverse Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 7113-7141, November.
    8. Erick Delage & Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, 2018. "Minimizing Risk Exposure When the Choice of a Risk Measure Is Ambiguous," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 327-344, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, 2021. "Inverse Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 7113-7141, November.
    2. Wei Wang & Huifu Xu, 2023. "Preference robust state-dependent distortion risk measure on act space and its application in optimal decision making," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-51, December.
    3. Beck, Yasmine & Ljubić, Ivana & Schmidt, Martin, 2023. "A survey on bilevel optimization under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(2), pages 401-426.
    4. William B. Haskell & Wenjie Huang & Huifu Xu, 2018. "Preference Elicitation and Robust Optimization with Multi-Attribute Quasi-Concave Choice Functions," Papers 1805.06632, arXiv.org.
    5. Jerry Anunrojwong & Krishnamurthy Iyer & David Lingenbrink, 2024. "Persuading Risk-Conscious Agents: A Geometric Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 151-166, January.
    6. Erick Delage & Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, 2018. "Minimizing Risk Exposure When the Choice of a Risk Measure Is Ambiguous," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 327-344, January.
    7. Hu, Jian & Bansal, Manish & Mehrotra, Sanjay, 2018. "Robust decision making using a general utility set," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 699-714.
    8. Wei Wang & Huifu Xu, 2023. "Preference robust distortion risk measure and its application," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 389-434, April.
    9. Silvana Pesenti & Qiuqi Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2020. "Optimizing distortion riskmetrics with distributional uncertainty," Papers 2011.04889, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    10. Liu, Haiyan, 2024. "Worst-case risk with unspecified risk preferences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 235-248.
    11. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    12. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    14. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Balter, Anne G. & Chau, Ki Wai & Schweizer, Nikolaus, 2022. "Rabin’s calibration theorem revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    16. Luo, Haohan & Liu, Xin & Lv, Xingyang & Hu, Yubei & Ahmad, Ali J., 2024. "Investors’ willingness to use robo-advisors: Extrapolating influencing factors based on the fiduciary duty of investment advisors," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Anne G. Balter & Nikolaus Schweizer, 2021. "Robust Decisions for Heterogeneous Agents via Certainty Equivalents," Papers 2106.13059, arXiv.org.
    18. Scharwenka, Nina & Mattes, Martin & Kröll, Markus & Giese, Moritz, 2018. "Mehrwert durch nutzenbasierte Preissetzung bei Konsumgütern," Marketing Review St.Gallen, Universität St.Gallen, Institut für Marketing und Customer Insight, vol. 35(5), pages 46-53.
    19. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Personalized fund recommendation; $$epsilon$$ ϵ -greedy algorithm; Dynamic utility learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:fininn:v:11:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s40854-024-00720-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.