Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling the complexities of the multi-constrained portfolio optimization problem with the support of a novel MOEA

  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

The incorporation of additional constraints to the basic mean–variance (MV) model adds realism to the model, but simultaneously makes the problem difficult to be solved with exact approaches. In this paper we address the challenges that have arisen by the multi-constrained portfolio optimization problem with the assistance of a novel specially engineered multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA). The proposed algorithm incorporates a new efficient representation scheme and specially designed mutation and recombination operators alongside with efficient algorithmic approaches for the correct incorporation of complex real-world constraints into the MV model. We test the algorithm’s performance in comparison with two well-known MOEAs by using a wide range of test problems up to 1317 stocks. For all examined cases the proposed algorithm outperforms the other two MOEAs in terms of performance and processing speed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Anagnostopoulos K and Mamanis G (2010). A portfolio optimization model with three objectives and discrete variables. Computers & Operations Research 37(7):1285–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babaei S, Sepehri MM and Babaei E (2015). Multi-objective portfolio optimization considering the dependence structure of asset returns, European Journal of Operational Research 244(2):525–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baykasoğlu A, Yunusoglu MG and Burcin Özsoydan F (2015). A GRASP based solution approach to solve cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 90(C):339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley JE (1990). OR-Library: Distributing test problems by electronic mail. Journal of the Operational Research Society 41(11):1069–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertsimas D and Shioda R (2009). Algorithm for cardinality-constrained quadratic optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications 43(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield T, Leftwich R and Long J (1977). Portfolio strategies and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 5(2):201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branke J, Scheckenbach B, Stein M, Deb K and Schmeck H (2009). Portfolio optimization with an envelope-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research 199(3):684–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesarone F, Scozzari A and Tardella F (2008). Efficient algorithms for mean–variance portfolio optimization with hard real-world constraints. In: The 18th AFIR colloquium: Financial risk in a changing world, Rome.

  • Chang TJ, Meade N, Beasley JE and Sharaiha YM (2000). Heuristics for cardinality constrained portfolio optimisation. Computers & Operations Research 27(13):1271–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corazza M, Fasano G and Gusso R (2013). Particle swarm optimization with non-smooth penalty reformulation, for a complex portfolio selection problem, Applied Mathematics and Computation 224:611–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K and Agrawal RB (1995). Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Systems 9(2):115–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb K and Tiwari S (2008). Omni-optimizer: A generic evolutionary algorithm for single and multi-objective optimization. European Journal of Operational Research 185(3):1062–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JL and Archer SH (1968). Diversification and the reduction of dispersion: An empirical analysis. Journal of Finance 23(5):761–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher L and Lorie JH (1970). Some studies of variability of returns on investments in common stocks. Journal of Business 43(2):99–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2013). An elitist polynomial mutation operator for improved performance of MOEAs in computer networks. In: Computer communications and networks (ICCCN), 2013 22nd international conference on, pp 1–5. doi:10.1109/ICCCN.2013.6614105.

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2014). A new probe guided mutation operator and its application for solving the cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem. Expert Systems with Applications 41(14):6274–6290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2015a). An experimental analysis of a new two-stage crossover operator for multiobjective optimization. Soft Computing. doi: 10.1007/s00500-015-1810-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2015b). An experimental analysis of a new interval-based mutation operator. International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications 14(3):1550018. doi:10.1142/S1469026815500182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2015c). Efficient portfolio construction with the use of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Best practices and performance metrics. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 14(3):535–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2015d). Enhancing the performance of MOEAs: An experimental presentation of a new fitness guided mutation operator. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1080/0952813X.2015.1132260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagkouras K and Metaxiotis K (2015e). A new probe guided mutation operator for more efficient exploration of the search space: An experimental analysis. International Journal of Operational Research 25(2):212–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lwin K, Qu R and Kendall G (2014). A learning-guided multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for constrained portfolio optimization. Applied Soft Computing 24:757–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz H (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance 7(1):7 7–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metaxiotis, K and Liagkouras K. (2012) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for portfolio management: A comprehensive literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 39(14):11685–11698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metaxiotis K and Liagkouras K (2013). A fitness guided mutation operator for improved performance of MOEAs electronics, circuits, and systems (ICECS). In: 2013 IEEE 20th international conference on, pp 751–754. doi:10.1109/ICECS.2013.6815523.

  • Mishra SK, Panda G and Majhi R (2014). A comparative performance assessment of a set of multiobjective algorithms for constrained portfolio assets selection. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 16:38–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra SK, Panda G and Majhi B (2016). Prediction based mean-variance model for constrained portfolio assets selection using multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 28(2016):117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saborido R, Ruiz AB, Bermúdez JD, Vercher E and Luque M (2016). Evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms for fuzzy portfolio selection. Applied Soft Computing 39:48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw DX, Liu S and Kopman L (2008). Lagrangian relaxation procedure for cardinality-constrained portfolio optimization. Optimisation Methods & Software 23(3):411–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storn R and Price K (1997). Differential evolution—A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization 11(4):341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streichert F, Ulmer H and Zell A (2004a). Evaluating a hybrid encoding and three crossover operators on the constrained portfolio selection problem. In: Proceedings of the Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2004), Portland, pp 932–939.

  • Streichert F, Ulmer H and Zell A (2004a). Comparing discrete and continuous genotypes on the constrained portfolio selection problem. In: Deb K et al. (ed) Genetic and evolutionary computation—GECCO 2004. Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3103. Springer, Seattle, pp 1239–1250.

  • Vercher E and Bermúdez JD (2015). Portfolio optimization using a credibility mean-absolute semi-deviation model. Expert Systems with Applications 42(20):7121–7131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside-Oriakhi M, Lucas C and Beasley JE (2011). Heuristic algorithms for the cardinality constrained efficient frontier. European Journal of Operational Research 213(3):538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside-Oriakhi M, Lucas C and Beasley JE (2013). Portfolio rebalancing with an investment horizon and transaction costs. Omega 41(2):406–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q and Li H (2007). MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11(6):712–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang P and Zhang WG (2014). Multiperiod mean absolute deviation fuzzy portfolio selection model with risk control and cardinality constraints. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 255(16):74–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E and Thiele L (1999). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3(4):257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Deb K and Thiele L (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary Computation 8(2):173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Foneseca CM and Fonseca VG (2003). Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: An analysis and review. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7(2):117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Support Systems Laboratory, Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli & Dimitriou Str., 18534, Piraeus, Greece

    K. Liagkouras & K. Metaxiotis

Authors
  1. K. Liagkouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Metaxiotis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Liagkouras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liagkouras, K., Metaxiotis, K. Handling the complexities of the multi-constrained portfolio optimization problem with the support of a novel MOEA. J Oper Res Soc (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0209-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0209-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation