Sector rotation is a common decision in benchmark-relative portfolio management, where portfolio managers rank sectors for overweight and underweight positions. We formulate this task as ranking sector actions by expected future risk-adjusted active performance, measured with forward sector-benchmark Sharpe ratios. Such rankings should preserve temporal information, express model outputs through economically familiar signal characteristics, account for changes in signal relevance across macroeconomic environments, and capture dependencies among sectors. We propose RegimeRank, an interpretable sector-ranking model that represents fundamental and technical signals through expert-defined temporal characteristics, conditions them on learned macro factors via cross-attention, and models cross-sector dependencies through self-attention. Expected-gradient attributions identify the contributions of individual signal-transformation pairs, while macroeconomic and cross-sector attention maps provide diagnostics of the learned conditioning and relational structure. We evaluate RegimeRank on weekly S&P 500 data from 2002 to 2024 under combinatorial purged cross-validation, where it outperforms representative ranking and machine-learning baselines across multiple ranking metrics. Ablation studies support the contributions of latent macro states, regime conditioning, and cross-sector modelling, while attribution and attention analyses illustrate the temporal characteristics, macro states, and sector relationships underlying its rankings.
Figures & tables
Approach
Ranking Formulation
Temporal Dynamics
Regime Aware
Asset Relational
Mechanism Interpretability
Attribution Interpretability
Asset Ranking in Finance
RankNet / ListNet ( Song et al., 2017 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Cross-sectional LTR ( Poh et al., 2021 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Listwise Node2Vec ( Saha et al., 2021 )
✓
✓
✗
✓
✓
✗
Long-Short Listwise LTR ( Zhang et al., 2022 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
SABER ( Kouloumpris et al., 2024 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Table 1. Comparison of methodological capabilities across financial and AI-based asset-ranking approaches.
Figure 1. Overall framework for RegimeRank . The solid Regime Conditioning box is the per-sector plate, replicated S times, and the dashed boxes are the two per-pillar encoders , conditioned on the shared latent states Gt (dashed arrows). Boxes are labelled by their outputs, and the pillar embeddings are concatenated before the Cross-Sector Attention component.
Mean Spearman
Pred Acc
NDCG@3
NDCG@5
NDCG@11
Naive Benchmarks
Random Ranking
0.0095±0.0143
0.5029±0.0052
0.5219±0.0067
0.5422±0.0068
0.6142±0.0049
12-Month Momentum
−0.0495±0.0000
0.4813±0.0000
0.5097±0.0000
0.5231±0.0000
0.5901±0.0000
Asset Ranking in Finance
RankNet ( Song et al., 2017 )
−0.0243±0.0783
0.4913±0.0275
0.5136±0.0251
0.5311±0.0263
0.6007±0.0325
ListNet ( Song et al., 2017 )
−0.0244±0.0782
0.4912±0.0274
0.5137±0.0251
0.5309±0.0264
0.6007±0.0325
Table 2. Performance comparison of ranking baselines and general methods utilizing a ranking head. Each cell reports the mean and standard deviation (in subscript) across 5 runs. The best baselines are underlined, and the best results are bolded.
Figure 2. We adopt combinatorial purged cross-validation, which is often used in financial machine learning ( Joubert et al., 2024 ; Bailey et al., 2017 ) .
Mean Spearman
Pred Acc
NDCG@3
NDCG@5
NDCG@11
w/o Latent Market States
0.0662±0.0301
0.5232±0.0108
0.5530±0.0144
0.5704±0.0145
0.6365±0.0119
w/o Regime Conditioning
0.0870±0.0135
0.5300±0.0044
0.5593±0.0058
0.5771±0.0058
0.6449±0.0056
w/o Sector Self-Attention
0.0358±0.0186
0.5125±0.0070
0.5372±0.0104
0.5560±0.0096
0.6240±0.0071
RegimeRank (Ours)
0.0997±0.0163
0.5350±0.0062
0.5708±0.0118
0.5870±0.0100
0.6498±0.0063
Table 3. Ablation study. Each cell reports the mean and standard deviation (in subscript) across 5 runs.
Figure 3. Top-5 attributions for each feature type.
Cross-sectional ranking models are often deployed as if point predictions were sufficient: the model outputs scores and the portfolio follows the induced ordering. Under non-stationarity, rankers can fail during regime shifts. In the AI Stock Forecaster, a LightGBM ranker performs well overall at a 20-day horizon, yet the 2024 holdout coincides with an AI thematic rally and sector rotation that breaks the signal at longer horizons and weakens 20d. This motivates treating deployment as two decisions: (i) whether the strategy should trade at all, and (ii) how to control risk within active trades. We adapt Direct Epistemic Uncertainty Prediction (DEUP) to ranking by predicting rank displacement and defining an epistemic uncertainty signal ehat relative to a point-in-time (PIT-safe) baseline. Empirically, ehat is structurally coupled with signal strength (median correlation between ehat and absolute score is about 0.6 across 1,865 dates), so inverse-uncertainty sizing de-levers the strongest signals and degrades performance. To address this, we propose a two-level deployment policy: a strategy-level regime-trust gate G(t) that decides whether to trade (AUROC around 0.72 overall and 0.75 in FINAL) and a position-level epistemic tail-risk cap that reduces exposure only for the most uncertain predictions. The operational policy, trade only when G(t) is at least 0.2, apply volatility sizing on active dates, and cap the top epistemic tail, improves risk-adjusted performance in the 20d policy comparison and indicates DEUP adds value mainly as a tail-risk guard rather than a continuous sizing denominator.
We propose an explainable regime-aware portfolio construction framework based on a strictly causal Wasserstein Hidden Markov Model. The model combines rolling Gaussian HMM inference with predictive model-order selection and template-based identity tracking using the 2-Wasserstein distance between Gaussian components. This allows regime complexity to adapt dynamically while preserving stable economic interpretation. Regime probabilities are embedded into a transaction-cost-aware mean-variance optimization framework and evaluated on a diversified daily cross-asset universe. Relative to equal-weight and SPX buy-and-hold benchmarks, the Wasserstein HMM achieves materially higher risk-adjusted performance with Sharpe ratios of 2.18 versus 1.59 and 1.18 and substantially lower maximum drawdown of negative 5.43 percent versus negative 14.62 percent for SPX. During the early 2025 equity selloff labeled Liberation Day, the strategy dynamically reduced equity exposure and shifted toward defensive assets, mitigating peak-to-trough losses. Compared to a nonparametric KNN conditional-moment estimator using the same features and optimization layer, the parametric regime model produces materially lower turnover and smoother weight evolution. The results demonstrate that regime inference stability, particularly identity preservation and adaptive complexity control, is a first-order determinant of portfolio drawdown and implementation robustness in daily asset allocation.
We present an interpretable machine learning pipeline to decompose Cross-Sectional Equity Return Predictability into auditable factor contribution. We apply an XGBoost model with TreeSHAP attribution and conduct stress testing on 3632 Chinese A-share stocks from 2009 until 2019. Using 60-month, rolling windows over 55 months of out-of-sample data, XGBoost obtains a mean AUC of 0.547 and +2.38%/month (Newey-West t = 5.94; Annualized Sharpe 2.23) long-short spread for the top vs bottom quintiles. This alpha is persistent after adjusting for the Carhart four-factor model (+2.31%/month; t = 7.48). SHAP Decomposition indicates that behavioral signals (turnover and momentum) account for 58.2% of predictive attribution compared to 10.7% for valuation ratios, on average, across 55 industry groups. Ablation analysis serves to cross-validate this ranking and provides evidence that SHAP and ablation diverge in a manner that highlights feature substitutability structure that is largely invisible to either method used in isolation.
Xiao Han, Yao Xiao, Zhen Zhang +1
Goizueta Business School Emory University Atlanta, GA, USA · College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, USA · School of Data Science University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA +1