Skip to main content
Log in

Multiobjective optimization using differential evolution for real-world portfolio optimization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Portfolio optimization is an important aspect of decision-support in investment management. Realistic portfolio optimization, in contrast to simplistic mean-variance optimization, is a challenging problem, because it requires to determine a set of optimal solutions with respect to multiple objectives, where the objective functions are often multimodal and non-smooth. Moreover, the objectives are subject to various constraints of which many are typically non-linear and discontinuous. Conventional optimization methods, such as quadratic programming, cannot cope with these realistic problem properties. A valuable alternative are stochastic search heuristics, such as simulated annealing or evolutionary algorithms. We propose a new multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for portfolio optimization, which we call DEMPO—Differential Evolution for Multiobjective Portfolio Optimization. In our experimentation, we compare DEMPO with quadratic programming and another well-known evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization called NSGA-II. The main advantage of DEMPO is its ability to tackle a portfolio optimization task without simplifications, while obtaining very satisfying results in reasonable runtime.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbass HA, Sarker R (2002) Pareto differential evolution algorithm. Int J Artif Intell Tool 11(4): 551–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbass HA, Sarker R, Newton C (2002) Pde: A pareto-frontier differential evolution approach for multi-objective optimization problems. In: Proceedings congress on evolutionary computation (CEC’2001), pp 971–978

  • Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber JM, Heath D (1997) Thinking coherently. Risk Mag 10: 68–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber JM, Heath D (2005) Multiobjective differential evolution (mode) for optimization of adiabatic styrene reactor. Chem Eng Sci 60(17): 4822–4837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang TJ, Meade N, Beasley JE, Sharaiha YM (2000) Heuristics for cardinality constrained portfolio optimization. Comput Oper Res 27: 1271–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chankong V, Haimes Y (1983) Multiobjective decision making theory and methodology. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coello-Coello CA (1999) A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Knowl Inform Syst Int J 1(3): 269–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Coello-Coello CA, David AVV, Gary BL (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cont R (2001) Empirical properties of asset returns: stylised facts and statistical issues. Quant Financ 1: 223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2): 182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (1996) On the performance assessment and comparison of stochastic multiobjective optimizers. In: Voigt H-M, Ebeling W, Rechenberg I, Schwefel HP (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature IV. Springer, Berlin, pp 584–593

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gaivoronski AA, Pflug G (2005) Value at risk in portfolio optimization: properties and computational approach. J Risk 7(2): 1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilli M, Kellezi E, Hysi H (2006) A data-driven optimization heuristic for downside risk minimization. J Risk 8: 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes Y, Lasdon L, Wismer D (1971) On a bicriterion formulation of the problems of integrated system identification and system optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1: 296–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles J, Corne D (2000) Approximating the nondominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy. Evol Comput 8(2): 149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krink T, Paterlini S, Resti A (2007) Using differential evolution to improve the accuracy of bank rating systems. Comput Stat Data Anal 50(5): 1220–1247

    Google Scholar 

  • Krink T, Paterlini S, Resti A (2008) The optimal structure of pd buckets. J Banking Financ 32(10): 2275–2286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krink T, Mittnik S, Paterlini S (2009) Differential evolution and combinatorial search for constrained index tracking. Ann Oper Res. doi:10.1007/s10479-009-0552-1

  • Lampinen J (2009) A bibliography of differential evolution algorithm. http://www2lutfi/~jlampine/debibliohtm

  • Maringer D, Oyewumi O (2007) Index tracking with constrained portfolios. Intell Syst Financ Account Manage 15: 57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7: 77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RR (1975) Integer and mixed-integer programming models: general properties. J Optim Theory Appl 16: 191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalewicz Z, Fogel DB (2004) How to solve it. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterlini S, Krink T (2006) Differential evolution and particle swarm optimisation in partitional clustering. Comput Stat Data Anal 50(5): 1220–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price K, Storn R, Lampinen J (2004) Differential evolution—a practical approach to global optimization. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintero LVS, Coello-Coello CA (2005) An algorithm based on differential evolution for multi-objective problems. Int J Comput Intell Res 1(2): 151–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafeller RT, Uryasev S (2002) Conditional Value-at-Risk for general loss distributions. J Bank Financ 25(7): 1443–1471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker R, Coello-Coello CA (2002) Assessment methodologies for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: Sarker R, Mohammadian M, Yao X (eds) Evolutionary optimization. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, pp 177–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3): 221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution: a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11: 341–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streichert F, Ulmer H, Zell A (2003) Evolutionary algorithms and the cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problem. In: Selected papers of the international conference on operations research, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 253–260

  • Vedarajan G, Chan LC, Goldberg DE (1997) Investment portfolio optimization using genetic algorithm. In: Koza J (eds) Late breaking papers at the genetic programming 1997 conference. Stanford University California, Stanford University Bookstore, pp 255–263

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Paterlini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krink, T., Paterlini, S. Multiobjective optimization using differential evolution for real-world portfolio optimization. Comput Manag Sci 8, 157–179 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-009-0107-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-009-0107-6

Keywords

Navigation