Machine Learning Classification and Portfolio Construction: Does the Loss Function Matter?

Financial sentiment classifiers are commonly evaluated against human labels, but strong linguistic performance does not necessarily imply economically useful return predictability. This study separates these questions through two experiments. First, we construct a unified three-class benchmark from five financial text datasets and compare TF--IDF Naive Bayes, off-the-shelf FinBERT and Financial-RoBERTa encoders, zero-shot Qwen2.5-7B, and QLoRA-adapted Qwen2.5-7B, LLaMA3-8B, and Mistral-7B models. Mistral-7B achieves the best test accuracy (0.8840) and macro-F1 (0.8771), while QLoRA raises Qwen2.5's macro-F1 from 0.7274 to 0.8615. An inverse-frequency class-weighted loss does not improve Qwen2.5. Second, we evaluate economic validity on a temporally separate 2019 Benzinga sample containing 10,637 unique headlines and 13,115 headline--stock observations for a fixed S&P~100 universe. Model probabilities are converted into continuous sentiment scores, aggregated by stock and signal date, and aligned with next-session returns over one-, two-, three-, and five-day horizons. All seven downstream models produce positive but small mean rank information coefficients at the one-day horizon; the largest is 0.0143 for FinBERT. None of the 28 model--horizon tests remains significant after Newey--West inference and false-discovery-rate correction. Portfolio results likewise fail to establish a robust advantage for the best-performing classifiers. The findings show that QLoRA is effective for financial sentiment adaptation, while also documenting a clear gap between classification accuracy and tradable cross-sectional signals.

Classical alpha mining achieves strong risk-adjusted returns by combining many low-correlated predictive signals, yet deep learning stock-ranking methods typically produce a single alpha per stock, rely on increasingly complex architectures with diminishing gains, and obtain diversity only through separate models or implicit routing, without explicitly controlling inter-alpha correlation. We introduce MAPLE (Multi-Alpha Position-aware Listwise Ensembling), a backbone-agnostic framework that recovers this diversity principle within a single training pass. MAPLE combines a unified, capacity-scaled prediction head with an extreme-rank weighted listwise ranking loss and a diversity regularizer that explicitly penalizes pairwise correlation across alphas. Across four equity markets spanning the US, China, and Japan, MAPLE achieves the best average Sharpe and Calmar ratios among nine baselines, using up to 55x fewer parameters and 2.5x less training time, and generalizes across five backbone architectures with Sharpe and Calmar Ratio gains of 10-23% and 17-43%, respectively. Behavioral analysis further shows why each component works: the unified head already reduces inter-alpha correlation before any diversity loss is applied, and the extreme-rank loss lets diversity regularization improve rather than erode per-alpha ranking quality as capacity scaling sustains this balance at scale. These results show that principled loss design and capacity allocation, rather than architectural complexity, drive diverse and effective multi-alpha generation.

Algorithms in machine learning and AI do critically depend on at least three key components: (i) the risk function, which is the expectation of the loss function, (ii) the function space, which is often called the hypothesis space, and (iii) the set of probability measures, which are allowed for the specified algorithm. This paper gives a survey of a certain class of loss functions, which we call ratio-based. In supervised learning, margin-based loss functions for classification tasks depending on the product of the output values $y_i$ and the predictions $f(x_i)$ as well as distance-based loss functions depending on the difference of $y_i$ and $f(x_i)$ for regression are common. Distance-based loss functions are in particular useful, if an additive model assumption seems plausible, i.e. the common signal plus noise assumption. However, in the literature, several loss functions proposed for regression purposes have a multiplicative error structure in mind and pay attention to relative errors, i.e. to the ratio of $y_i$ and $f(x_i)$. In this survey article, we systematically investigate such ratio-based loss functions and propose a few new losses, which may be interesting for future research. We concentrate on investigating general properties of ratio-based loss functions like continuity, Lipschitz-continuity, convexity, and differentiability, because these properties play a central role in most machine learning algorithms. Therefore, we do not focus on some specific machine learning algorithm to derive universal consistency, learning rates, or stability results. Instead, we want to enable future research in this direction.