DCC: Differentiable Cardinality Constraints for Partial Index Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Index tracking is a popular passive investment strategy aimed at optimizing portfolios, but fully replicating an index can lead to high transaction costs. To address this, partial replication have been proposed. However, the cardinality constraint renders the problem non-convex, non-differentiable, and often NP-hard, leading to the use of heuristic or neural network-based methods, which can be non-interpretable or have NP-hard complexity. To overcome these limitations, We propose a Differentiable Cardinality Constraint (DCC) for index tracking and introduce a floating-point precision-aware method to address implementation issues. We theoretically prove our methods calculate cardinality accurately and enforce actual cardinality with polynomial time complexity. We propose the range of the hyperparameter ensures that our method has no error in real implementations, based on theoretical proof and experiment. Our method applied to mathematical method outperforms baseline methods across various datasets, demonstrating the effectiveness of the identified hyperparameter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".