Research article

Convex and sphere packing approaches to portfolio optimization

  • Published: 10 March 2026
  • 90C25, 90C20, 52C17, 91G10, 91G80

  • Classical mean–variance optimization yields exact efficient-frontier allocations for prescribed return or risk levels; however, such extremal solutions may be fragile under estimation error and mandate perturbations. This paper studies portfolio construction within the quadratic mean–variance framework from a feasibility and structural stability perspective by restricting attention to $ \varepsilon $–approximate admissible allocations under return, variance, and relaxed budget constraints. Benchmark consistent feasibility restoration is formulated as a convex quadratic programming problem that computes the allocation closest to a reference portfolio while preserving the quadratic structure and guaranteeing existence and uniqueness of the admissible solution. To quantify interior stability, we introduce a sphere–packing–based geometric construction that inscribes the largest Euclidean ball within the linear return–budget region, yielding the Chebyshev center and an explicit robustness radius equal to the distance to the constraint boundary. The quadratic variance constraint is subsequently incorporated through analytic directional feasibility adjustment, ensuring membership in the intersection of linear and variance admissible sets without extremizing expected return or variance. Unlike ambiguity based or distributionally robust formulations, robustness is defined intrinsically through geometric interior maximization within the prescribed feasible region. Computational experiments calibrated to the investment mandate of the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Mongolia illustrate stable feasibility restoration and robustness under parameter perturbations, establishing sphere–packing–based interior maximization as a complementary geometric robustness principle within the classical mean–variance framework.

    Citation: Tumendelger Lkhagvasuren, Bolorsuvd Batbold, Enkhbat Rentsen. Convex and sphere packing approaches to portfolio optimization[J]. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2026, 22(4): 1672-1692. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2026062

    Related Papers:

  • Classical mean–variance optimization yields exact efficient-frontier allocations for prescribed return or risk levels; however, such extremal solutions may be fragile under estimation error and mandate perturbations. This paper studies portfolio construction within the quadratic mean–variance framework from a feasibility and structural stability perspective by restricting attention to $ \varepsilon $–approximate admissible allocations under return, variance, and relaxed budget constraints. Benchmark consistent feasibility restoration is formulated as a convex quadratic programming problem that computes the allocation closest to a reference portfolio while preserving the quadratic structure and guaranteeing existence and uniqueness of the admissible solution. To quantify interior stability, we introduce a sphere–packing–based geometric construction that inscribes the largest Euclidean ball within the linear return–budget region, yielding the Chebyshev center and an explicit robustness radius equal to the distance to the constraint boundary. The quadratic variance constraint is subsequently incorporated through analytic directional feasibility adjustment, ensuring membership in the intersection of linear and variance admissible sets without extremizing expected return or variance. Unlike ambiguity based or distributionally robust formulations, robustness is defined intrinsically through geometric interior maximization within the prescribed feasible region. Computational experiments calibrated to the investment mandate of the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Mongolia illustrate stable feasibility restoration and robustness under parameter perturbations, establishing sphere–packing–based interior maximization as a complementary geometric robustness principle within the classical mean–variance framework.



    加载中


    [1] H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, J. Finance, 7 (1952), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x
    [2] D. G. Luenberger, Investment science, Oxford University Press, 7 (1998), 419–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/md.1998.36.6.419.1
    [3] V. K. Chopra, W. T. Ziemba, The effect of errors in means, variances, and covariances on optimal portfolio choice, J. Portfolio Manag., 19 (1993), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.1993.409440 doi: 10.3905/jpm.1993.409440
    [4] R. O. Michaud, The Markowitz optimization enigma: Is optimized optimal? Financ. Anal. J., 45 (1989), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v45.n1.31
    [5] A. Ben-Tal, A. Nemirovski, Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs, Oper. Res. Lett., 25 (1999), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6377(99)00016-4 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6377(99)00016-4
    [6] L. E. Ghaoui, M. Oks, F. Oustry, Worst-case value-at-risk and robust portfolio optimization: A conic programming approach, Oper. Res., 51 (2003), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.51.4.543.16101 doi: 10.1287/opre.51.4.543.16101
    [7] D. Bertsimas, M. Sim, The price of robustness, Oper. Res., 52 (2004), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065
    [8] D. Goldfarb, G. Iyengar, Robust portfolio selection problems, Math. Oper. Res., 28 (2003), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.28.1.1.14260 doi: 10.1287/moor.28.1.1.14260
    [9] K. Kobayashi, Y. Takano, K. Nakata, Cardinality-constrained distributionally robust portfolio optimization, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 309 (2023), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.037 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.037
    [10] A. Atamtürk, M. Zhang, Two-stage robust network flow and design under demand uncertainty, Oper. Res., 55 (2007), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1070.0428 doi: 10.1287/opre.1070.0428
    [11] S. H. Di, D. Ma, P. B. Zhao, $\alpha$-robust portfolio optimization under distribution uncertainty, J. Ind. Manag. Optim., 19 (2023), 2528–2548. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2022054 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2022054
    [12] F. J. Fabozzi, D. S. Huang, G. F. Zhou, Robust portfolios: Contributions from operations research and finance, Ann. Oper. Res., 176 (2010), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0515-6 doi: 10.1007/s10479-009-0515-6
    [13] I. Kovalenko, T. Conlon, J. Cotter, Active portfolio management using robust optimization, Ann. Oper. Res., 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06757-8
    [14] J. Blanchet, K. Murthy, Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport, Math. Oper. Res., 44 (2019), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2018.0936 doi: 10.1287/moor.2018.0936
    [15] R. Gao, A. J. Kleywegt, Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance, Math. Oper. Res., 48 (2023), 603–655. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2022.1275 doi: 10.1287/moor.2022.1275
    [16] T. Björk, A. Murgoci, A theory of Markovian time-inconsistent stochastic control in discrete time, Finance Stoch., 18 (2014), 545–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-014-0234-y doi: 10.1007/s00780-014-0234-y
    [17] D. Li, W. L. Ng, Optimal dynamic portfolio selection: Multiperiod mean–variance formulation, Math. Finance, 10 (2000), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9965.00100 doi: 10.1111/1467-9965.00100
    [18] M. C. Pınar, On robust mean-variance portfolios, Optimization, 65 (2016), 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2015.1132216 doi: 10.1080/02331934.2015.1132216
    [19] X. Y. Zhou, D. Li, Continuous-time mean–variance portfolio selection: A stochastic LQ framework, Appl. Math. Optim., 42 (2000), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002450010003 doi: 10.1007/s002450010003
    [20] B. Batbold, K. Kikuchi, K. Kusuda, Semi-analytical solution for consumption and investment problem under quadratic security market model with inflation risk, Math. Financ. Econ., 16 (2022), 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11579-022-00316-6 doi: 10.1007/s11579-022-00316-6
    [21] K. Uğurlu, Terminal wealth maximization under drift uncertainty, Optimization, 74 (2025), 1743–1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2024.2324143 doi: 10.1080/02331934.2024.2324143
    [22] G. Shaidolda, K. Uğurlu, Lower partial moments for skew elliptical distributions, J. Ind. Manag. Optim., 21 (2025), 4503–4535. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2025062 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2025062
    [23] R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, Optimization of conditional value-at-risk, J. Risk, 2 (2000), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.21314/JOR.2000.038 doi: 10.21314/JOR.2000.038
    [24] A. Ben-Tal, A. Nemirovski, Robust convex optimization, Math. Oper. Res., 23 (1998), 769–805. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.23.4.769
    [25] M. L. Prado, Advances in Financial Machine Learning, Wiley, Hoboken, 33 (2019), 491–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11408-019-00341-4
    [26] R. Enkhbat, Convex maximization formulation of general sphere packing problem, Izv. Irkutsk State Univ. Ser. Math., 31 (2020), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.26516/1997-7670.2020.31.142 doi: 10.26516/1997-7670.2020.31.142
    [27] R. Enkhbat, N. Tungalag, A sphere packing approach to break-even and profitability analysis, J. Ind. Manag. Optim., 19 (2023), 6750–6764. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2022237 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2022237
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2026 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(231) PDF downloads(2) Cited by(0)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(10)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog