An Algorithm for Portfolio Optimization with Transaction Costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of maximizing an expected utility function of n assets, such as the mean-variance or power-utility function. Associated with a change in an asset's holdings from its current or target value is a transaction cost. This cost must be accounted for in practical problems. A straightforward way of doing so results in a 3n-dimensional optimization problem with 3n additional constraints. This higher dimensional problem is computationally expensive to solve. We present a method for solving the 3n-dimensional problem by solving a sequence of n-dimensional optimization problems, which accounts for the transaction costs implicitly rather than explicitly. The method is based on deriving the optimality conditions for the higher-dimensional problem solely in terms of lower-dimensional quantities. The new method is compared to the barrier method implemented in Cplex in a series of numerical experiments. With small but positive transaction costs, the barrier method and the new method solve problems in roughly the same amount of execution time. As the size of the transaction cost increases, the new method outperforms the barrier method by a larger and larger factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".