Constrained portfolio optimization with discrete variables: An algorithmic method based on dynamic programming.

Portfolio optimization is one of the most important issues in financial markets. In this regard, the more realistic are assumptions and conditions of modelling to portfolio optimization into financial markets, the more reliable results will be obtained. This paper studies the knapsack-based portfolio optimization problem that involves discrete variables. This model has two very important features; achieving the optimal number of shares as an integer and with masterly efficiency in portfolio optimization for high priced stocks. These features have added some real aspects of financial markets to the model and distinguish them from other previous models. Our contribution is that we present an algorithm based on dynamic programming to solve the portfolio selection model based on the knapsack problem, which is in contrast to the existing literature. Then, to show the applicability and validity of the proposed dynamic programming algorithm, two case studies of the US stock exchange are analyzed.

1.Introduction

Portfolio optimization is one of the most important issues in financial markets and has many applications in financial planning and decision making. In the early 1950s, the theoretical foundations of this issue and the modern portfolio theory were founded by Markowitz [1,2]. Traditional asset allocation methods like Markowitz theorem gives the solution as a percentage and this ratio may suggest allocation of half of a share on the market, which is impractical. Many portfolio optimization problems deal with allocation of assets which carry a relatively high market price. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the integer value of assets when we deal with portfolio optimization. Therefore, Vaezi et al. [3-5] study the portfolio optimization problem with integer variables. The Genetic Algorithm(GA) and Discrete Firefly Algorithm (DFA) is designed to find the near optional solutions of knapsack-based portfolio optimization with discrete variables. The aim of this study is to find a more efficient method for the portfolio optimization problems with discreet variables. Hence, in this study, an algorithmic method based on dynamic programming is designed for the knapsack-based constrained portfolio optimization to find the optional solutions, exactly.

Dynamic programming is an efficient mathematical method for multi-stage optimization problems. Dynamic planning, using systems-oriented processes based on the two properties of overlapping sub-problems and optimal infrastructure, provides a combination of sequential decisions that maximize computational efficiency. Bellman [6] introduced this method in 1953. Unlike linear programming, there is no standard framework for formulizing dynamic programming problems. In fact, dynamic programming provides a general approach to solve these types of problems. In each case, special equations and mathematical relations must be written that match the conditions of the problem. The main contribution to multi-stage financial decisions has been made by Merton [7,8]. AÏT-SAHALI and Brandt [9] also used this template based on dynamic programming in continuous time. Sadjadi et al. [10] proposed a dynamic programming approach for the classical mean-variance Markowitz model, which included risky and riskless assets. Thus, Zhu et al. [11] presented a generalized mean-variance portfolio optimization with the possibility of controlling bankruptcy risk using the Lagrangian dual method and the parametric approach of the dynamic programming. Shin [12] presented the optimal consumption and portfolio selection model with risky and riskless assets using the dynamic programming based on the approach presented by Karatzas et al. [13] to extract the value function and optimal strategies in closed form. Using Bi-level programming and dynamic programming techniques, Chen and Song [14] examined a multi-period portfolio optimization by considering and controlling bankruptcy risk in the financial market. Moreover, some studies have used a dynamic programming approach based on the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations to examine limited portfolio optimization in the probability or expected size of wealth or consumption [15-19]. Palczewski [20] suggested an efficient numerical algorithm based on Bellman’s dynamic programming approach to optimize a dynamic portfolio optimization with transaction costs that depend on different times and scenarios. Najafi and Pourahmadi [21] proposed a heuristic method based on dynamic programming for a multi-period portfolio optimization problem with transaction costs under uncertain conditions. Moreover, Guigues [22-24] suggested dual dynamic programming with cut selection for convex optimization problems and proved that the obtained method is faster than methods such as simplex in portfolio optimization problems. Mohebbi and Najafi [25] considered a multi-period horizon and transaction costs in the proposed model. They used a median absolute deviation as a risk measurement. Moreover, the uncertain condition was also considered based on the scenario tree in this model and dynamic programming was applied to solve this model. Moreover, Cui et al. [26] analyzed management fees in portfolio optimization using stochastic dynamic programming and Valladão et al. [27] provided a Markov chain stochastic dual dynamic programming in order to assign the asset allocation. As well as, Zhang et al. [28] combined the approximate dynamic programming method with the game theory and create an iteration method to apply the optimal portfolio. Hence, some studies have concentrated on the project portfolio optimization problem by applying stochastic dynamic programming such as Nowak and Trzaskalik [29].

As noted above, the mentioned methods based on dynamic programming are presented to solve classical portfolio optimization problems with continuous variables. Given that capital markets are facing a wider range of investors day by day and investors have very little time to choose the appropriate shares, any delay in decision-making can lead to a reduction in investor returns. Therefore, in this study, we are focused to propose an algorithmic method based on dynamic programming to solve the knapsack-based constrained portfolio optimization with discrete variables.

The proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming divides complex large-scale portfolio optimization problems into simpler sub-problems and stores their results to prevent recalculation of results. The proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming finds the optimal solution for the sub-problems and then makes an informed choice by combining the results of these sub-problems to find the most optimal solution. In fact, in the proposed algorithm, instead of calculating the same sub-problems over and over again, the solutions are stored in the first memory and used in the next steps if needed. In the proposed algorithm, this feature is a great idea to save time and memory, where using the extra space, the time required to find the optimal solution is improved. According to the comparison of the results of solving the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming with the results of solving the metaheuristic algorithms, the proposed algorithm has the ability to achieve the most optimal solution in an acceptable time. Moreover, the greedy algorithm seeks an optimal solution at every local stage. Thus, greedy algorithms can offer a hypothesis that seems optimal at the time, but looks worrying in the future and does not guarantee global optimization.

The outline of the paper is as follows. According to the knapsack problem, the portfolio selection model is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, a proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming is designed for the knapsack-based constrained portfolio optimization. In section 4, two case studies of the US stock exchange are analyzed. In Section 5, the results of the suggested algorithm are compared with another method to show the efficiency of the proposed techniques. Finally, a summary of the paper and some results are provided in Section 6.

2. Portfolio optimization problem

The portfolio selection model is based on the knapsack problem and the following notations are applied:

the expected return of a portfolio;

Z the objective function with the coefficient (λ) as a penalty;

λ the coefficient of the cardinality constraint;

N, the dimension of the decision variable;

B, the budget;

, the rate of return per unit of share i;

ρ, the price per unit of share i;

l, the lower bound of share i;

u, the upper bound of share i;

k, the number of y that can be in the portfolio;

x, the integer variable that indicates the number of share i;

y, the binary variable; y = 1, if share i is involved in the portfolio, andy = 0 in any other way.

The proposed model is formulated as follows:

S. t.

Eq (1) provides the portfolio that has the highest returns with respect to a consent of the considered constraints. Eqs (2), (3) and (4) are the budget, cardinality, and quantity constraints, respectively. This model, which has discrete variables (Eqs (5) and (6)), has two very important features; achieving the optimal number of shares as an integer and with masterly efficiency in portfolio optimization for high priced stocks. These features have added some real aspects of financial markets to the model and distinguish them from other previous models (Vaezi et al. [3-5]).

As the number of constraints in the portfolio selection models increases, the complexity of implementing the dynamic programming approach increases and sometimes makes the process difficult or impossible. We have tried to simplify this process by adding a cardinality constraint with a coefficient to the objective function. Therefore, the previous model is rewritten as follows:

S.t.

In fact, Eq (3) is added to the objective function with the coefficient (λ) as a penalty. The important point is that the objective function becomes non-convex in this case.

3. Proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming

Dynamic programming is generally a powerful technique for algorithm design and can be considered as a kind of exhaustive search. Dynamic programming divides a complex problem into sub-problems and stores their results to prevent recalculation of results. Instead of calculating the same sub-problem over and over again, it is necessary to save your solution in the first memory and use it in the next steps if needed. This is a great idea to save time and memory, where it is accessible to use the extra space in order to improve the time required to find a solution [30].

An important feature of problems that can be solved by dynamic programming is interference. This feature distinguishes dynamic programming from other methods such as the divide and conquer technique [31].

In other methods such as greedy algorithms, the best option is only chosen by considering the existing conditions. Thus, greedy algorithms can provide a hypothesis that seems optimal at the time but does not guarantee a global optimization in the future. However, dynamic programming finds the optimal solution for the sub-problems and makes an informed choice to find the most optimal solution by combining the results of these sub-problems [32].

The first step to solve the problems using a dynamic programming approach is to determine the stage, state, and action for that problems. In the proposed dynamic programming approach, each stage belongs to a type of share or asset. Moreover, the state is the amount of available budget, which is defined as an interval. In fact, the problem shifts from continuous to discrete states with budget interruptions. Finally, the action is considered the number of shares. The number of shares fluctuates between their predetermined upper and lower bounds and is an integer. The solution method is the backward recursion approach using the following recursive equation.

In Eq (12), i, S and x are the stage, state, and action, respectively. ϕ(i, S, x) is the value considered for decisions making based on three input parameters. In fact, this value is the rate of return obtained from . λ is obtained by a sequential approximation method.

Note that, in addition, to calculate the rate of return, the amount of consumption budget resulting from this decision is also calculated according to ρx in each section. Thus, f*(i+1, S) is the maximum profit or return of the stage i+1 for the remaining capital.

Given that the present problem has become a non-convex optimization problem, it is important to pay attention to the final table and select the global optimal point in the proposed approach. In the following, the pseudocode of the proposed dynamic programming algorithm is described in detail.

Step 1 describes the structure of dynamic scheduling tables. In this step, the solution method, the state, the number of rows, the actions, and the number of columns (m). The solution method is the backward recursion approach (i = N,…,1). Note that, the state depends on the length of the selected step (L) for the budget interval defined by the user. The states intervals are defined as [SΓ−1, SΓ), Γ∈{1,2,…,n} and according to SΓ = Γ*L (S0 = S1 = 0, S = B). Therefore, the number of rows (n) is defined according to . Moreover, the actions in stage i are determined by the number of shares that fluctuate between their predetermined lower bound (l) and upper bound (u). Hence, the number of table columns in stage i (m) is determined by the number of actions in stage i according to m = u−l+1. Hence, six variables with the symbols; R, P, , P, P and R are being assigned in each cell. R and P are the return and price of the current stage (stage i) in each cell. are the best return and its price of the pervious stage (stage i+1) in each cell. P and R are the total price and return in each cell. In addition, the last two columns contain the maximum values of the objective function in each row and the action assigned to it, respectively.

Step 2 describes how to fill each cell in the first state table. Moreover, Step 3 describes how to fill each cell in the next states tables. Step 4 also provides the final solution. Due to the objective function of the problem is non-convex, the final solution to the problem is to select the maximum value from the optimal column values associated with each row in the final table and the actions assigned to that value. Finally, the pseudocode of the proposed dynamic programming approach is as follows:

Algorithm 1: Pseudocode of dynamic programming.

For i = N,…,1 then

Set m = u−l+1 and j = 1,2,…,m

Set and Γ = 1,2,…,n

Create a table with m columns and n rows and call it the i-th window

Put x at the top of column j

Assign the Γ−th row of the table to interval [SΓ−1,SΓ)

If Γ = 1, then

Set SΓ−1 = SΓ = 0

End if

If Γ

Set S

End if

If Γ = n, then

Set S = B

End if

Display the point of the table where the j−th column and the Γ−th row meets CΓ.

Assign six variables with the symbols; in each cell, which in the general view of the table we display them with the symbols;

Consider two columns for each table to store the value of

Assign two variables with the symbols; in each cell of , which in the general view of the table we display them with the symbols;

If i = N then

Set

For j = 1,2…,m do

Set w = x*ρ and

Find the interval which the w belongs to it.

Suppose that w belongs to k-th interval.

Set C.P = w and C.R = r

End for

For p = 1,2,…,n.

Find the maximum value among the C. R∀ j = 1,2…,m

Suppose

Get the optimal vector based on the optimal answer index

End for

End if

If i

Fore j = 1,2…,m do

Set w = x*ρ and

Find the interval which the w belongs to it.

Suppose that w belongs to k-th interval.

Set C.P = w and C.R = r

Set Z = S−w

Go to i+1−th window

Find the interval which Z belongs to that

Suppose Z belongs to I−th interval

If then

Set

Else if then

Set

End if

Set

For p = 1,2,…,n. p≠k

Set q = S−w

Go to i+1−th window

Find the interval which q belongs to that

Suppose q belongs to I−th interval

If q>0 and then

Set

Else if q>0 and then

Set

Set ξ = Cp. P+w

If ξ∈p−th interval then

Set C.P = w and C.R = r

Set C.P = Cp.P+C.P and

Else if ξ∉p−th interval then

Set C.P = 0 and C.R = 0

Set

Set C.P = Cp.P and

End if

Else if q<0 then

Set C.P = 0 and C.R = 0

Set

Set C.P = Cp.P and

End if

End for

End for

For p = 1,2,…,n then

Find the maximum value among the C.R ∀ j = 1,2…,m

Suppose

Get the optimal vector based on the optimal answer index

End for

End if

If i = 1 then

Set

Set

End if

End for

Figs 1 and 2 show the flowchart of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming to better understand the suggested approach.

Fig 1

Table shape.

Fig 2

Flowchart of the proposed algorithm.

4.Numerical results

In this section, two case studies are presented. The first case study for the knapsack-based portfolio optimization problem is considered in small dimensions so that the proposed approach is better understood and the problem can be resolved manually to verify the validity of the results. The second case study for the knapsack-based portfolio optimization problem is considered in larger dimensions to further investigate the program execution time and sensitivity analysis of the proposed algorithm in each state.

4.1 Case study (1)

Table 1 provides the information on the prices (ρ), returns(), lower bounds (l) and upper bounds (u) of shares belong to five environmental companies. To obtain this information, daily time series data during a five-year period from 1/9/2014 to 1/9/2019 has been used.

Table 1

Information on environmental shares.

	Symbol	ρ i	R_i	l i	u i
1	NEE	138.2866	2.0009	2	6
2	ECOL	50.9708	2.8934	6	11
3	WM	72.5707	3.3595	5	9
4	ORA	48.5614	1.7468	5	11
5	WCN	57.5193	1.4793	5	10

In the case study, the budget (B) and the step length (L) are 650$ and 65, respectively. Therefore, the number of the state is 10. As well as, given that there are five different types of shares, five stages are defined in the case study. The actions are also considered the number of shares in each stage. Moreover, the number of y that can be in the portfolio is considered 2 (K = 2) and the solution method is backwards.

The first step to solve the case study is to obtain the optimal value of the coefficient of the cardinality constraint (λ) that is λ*. λ* is obtained from the sequential approximation method using the designed MATLAB code (S1 Appendix). Moreover, the Intlinprog solver in MATLAB has also been used to check the accuracy and validity of the designed MATLAB code results (S2 Appendix). Eventually, Information on the objective function and variables for different values of λ in the interval [–2 2] with a step length of 0.05 is provided in S3 Appendix. According to the results, the first place where K in the cardinality constraint equals 2 (K = 2) is where λ is -1.1(λ* = −1.1). Eventually, this model was solved by the proposed algorithm code based on dynamic programming provided in S4 Appendix. The software output is provided in S5 Appendix. The results include , and takes 1.320s to precede. Moreover, to gain validity and reliability of the designed code, the case study is manually solved in the form of dynamic scheduling tables (S6 Appendix).

Table 2 shows the results of various changes in the state by changes in the step length (L) belonging to budget intervals and sensitivity analysis.

Table 2

Sensitivity analysis of environmental shares.

L	K	λ	yi*,xi*	Z	E(R)	T (s)
5	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	11.156
10	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	4.885
15	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	3.762
20	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	2.588
35	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	1.941
50	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	1.345
65	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	1.320
100	2	-1.1	s2 = 7, s4 = 6	32.9346	30.7346	0.845

In this case study, the change of L does not change the answer. In other words, the error rate of different changes in the state by changes in the step length (L) belongs to budget intervals is zero for this case study in the proposed dynamic programming approach.

4.2 Case study (2)

The second case study includes the Dow Jones Industrial Average listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The data includes daily time series over a period of 5 years from 1/9/2014 to 1/9/2019. Table 3 provides the information on the prices (ρ), returns(), lower bounds (l) and upper bounds (u) of shares.

Table 3

Information on Dow Jones shares.

	Symbol	u i	l i	R_i	ρ i
S1	BA	15	5	1.0872	224.6760
S2	WBA	25	10	2.7748	75.3938
S3	MMM	17	7	1.3920	183.1025
S4	PG	20	8	3.6375	86.8938
S5	KO	29	5	7.2013	44.3095
S6	AAPL	21	6	1.1563	145.0188
S7	AXP	25	8	1.7023	86.7325
S8	UTX	20	10	1.9853	115.0255
S9	CVX	30	9	3.6870	109.3446
S10	JNJ	17	8	2.2278	120.2702
S11	NKE	22	10	1.7581	62.1748
S12	UNH	17	7	0.7944	176.3504
S13	MSFT	23	8	2.8306	74.5001
S14	IBM	24	7	2.4800	151.2383
S15	TRV	17	8	1.8364	120.2462
S16	MRK	28	13	4.7896	62.7606
S17	XOM	30	6	4.5384	82.5577
S18	WMT	33	10	3.0755	81.7679
S19	GS	31	3	0.6580	204.6388
S20	CAT	19	9	2.8098	106.9702
S21	V	21	10	0.6549	101.0469
S22	CSCO	35	8	8.2878	35.4706
S23	HD	16	7	1.3595	150.6731
S24	JPM	14	2	2.8655	84.7972
S25	PFE	15	10	9.7546	35.4576
S26	MCD	23	6	1.9919	139.4249
S27	VZ	25	4	8.8849	50.6500
S28	INTC	25	7	6.9075	39.4024
S29	DIS	30	6	1.2969	106.9172

In the case study, the budget (B) and the number of y that can be in the portfolio (K) are 3100$ and 6, respectively. Table 4 provides information on the objective function and variables for different step lengths (L) belonging to budget intervals. Noted that each L has a special λ, which is obtained with a sequential approximation method and step length of 0.05.

Table 4

Sensitivity analysis of Dow Jones shares.

L	K	λ	yi*,xi*	Z	T (s)
5	6	-16.7	s2 = 13, s5 = 7s22 = 21, s25 = 15s27 = 4, s28 = 8	597.8439	491.722
10	6	-16.48	s2 = 12, s5 = 11s22 = 16, s25 = 15s27 = 5, s28 = 8	590.0002	250.226
15	6	-12.25	s2 = 14, s5 = 8s22 = 16, s25 = 15s27 = 4, s28 = 8	539.6810	179.231
20	6	-11.65	s2 = 15, s5 = 7s22 = 16, s25 = 15s27 = 4, s28 = 8	531.6545	132.407
50	6	-17.95	s2 = 16, s5 = 9s22 = 13, s25 = 15s27 = 4, s28 = 7	554.8610	55.427
80	6	-19.35	s2 = 16, s5 = 7s22 = 14, s25 = 14s27 = 4, s28 = 8	554.2991	34.108
100	6	-16.85	s2 = 16, s5 = 9s22 = 14, s25 = 14s27 = 4, s28 = 7	546.7942	30.201
150	6	-16.95	s2 = 15, s5 = 6s22 = 17, s25 = 13s27 = 6, s28 = 7	555.8941	20.547

According to Table 4, the answers of are the same for different step lengths (L) belong to budget intervals and selected λ for each L. Therefore, there is no error in this part. However, there is a difference in the selected number of each selected share . Due to one of the factors that affect the objective function is , the objective function also changes. This type of error sometimes occurs due to the transformation of the budget state from continuous to an interval in the proposed approach.

Eventually, according to the program execution time in each state and the results, we find that the suggested dynamic programming method is very efficient.

5. Comparative study

In the section, the results of the suggested algorithm based on dynamic programming compare with another method to show the efficiency of the proposed techniques. To compare the efficiency of the proposed techniques with well-known existing techniques, Discrete Firefly Algorithm (DFA) and Genetic Algorithm (GA) designed to solve portfolio optimization problem with discrete variables according to Vaezi et al. [3-5].

In addition, to select appropriate parameters, the Taguchi method is used for five parameters of DFA. Finally, parameters selected in this algorithm are attractiveness (β0 = 1), randomization parameter (φ = 0.2), absorption coefficient (γ = 1), number of iterations (Max-Generation = 500), and number of fireflies (Population = 29).

The average results of DFA compare with the average results of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming and their results are reported in Table 5.

Table 5

The average results of solving DFA and proposed algorithm and comparing them with each other.

	Mean Solution of E(R_P)	Mean Time (s)
Mean result of proposed algorihm	655.0135	149.2336
Mean result of DFA	747.9531	59.693
SE. Mean	46.5	44.8
S.D.	65.7	63.3
P-Value*	0.042	0.258

* denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.01 level.

As can be seen in Table 5, the standard errors of mean (SE. Mean), standard deviations (S.D.) and probability values (P-value) are 46.5, 65.7 and 0.042, simultaneously.

Next, the appropriate parameters of GA are Number of iterations (MaxIt = 500), Population size (nPop = 500), Single point crossover whit probability 0.8 and Swap mutation for permutation with probability 0.2. These parameters are also selected using the Taguchi method.

Moreover, the average results of GA compare with the average results of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming and their results are also reported in Table 6.

Table 6

The average results of solving GA and proposed algorithm and comparing them with each other.

	Mean Solution of E(R_P)	Mean Time (s)
Mean result of proposed algorihm	655.0135	149.2336
Mean result of GA	766.1489	48.977
SE. Mean	55.6	50.1
S.D.	78.6	70.9
P-Value*	0.050	0.298

* denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.01 level.

As can be seen in Table 6, the standard errors of mean (SE. Mean), standard deviations (S.D.) and probability values (P-value) are 55.6, 78.6 and 0.050, simultaneously.

Note that the mean result of proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming is more accurate than the mean result of GA and DFA and also the program execution time of the proposed algorithm is acceptable, the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming is very valid. Finally, all results confirm the reliability and credibility of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming to solve the constrained portfolio optimization problem whit discreet variables.

6. Conclusion

In the paper, we have presented a dynamic programming algorithm to solve the portfolio selection model based on the knapsack problem. This model, which has discrete variables, has two very important features; achieving the optimal number of shares as an integer and with masterly efficiency in portfolio optimization for high priced stocks. These features have added some real aspects of financial markets to the model and distinguish them from other previous models. To solve the knapsack based portfolio selection model in larger and more complex dimensions by proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming, MATLAB code has been used. Then, to show the applicability and validity of the proposed dynamic programming algorithm, two case studies have been considered. The first case study consists of shares belong to five environmental companies. The case study was solved using designed MATLAB code. Then, it was solved manually in the form of dynamic programming tables. Finally, by comparing the results of the two approaches, the validity of the designed code was analyzed. Hence, the second case study, which was larger in dimensions and included the Dow Jones shares, was reviewed. Finally, the results of the suggested algorithm based on dynamic programming were compared with another method to show the efficiency of the proposed techniques. To compare the efficiency of the proposed techniques with well-known existing techniques, DFA and GA were designed to solve portfolio optimization problem with discrete variables according to Vaezi et al. [3-5].

Note that the mean result of proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming was more accurate than the mean result of GA and DFA and also the program execution time of the proposed algorithm was acceptable, the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming was very valid. Finally, all results confirmed the reliability and credibility of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming to solve the constrained portfolio optimization problem whit discreet variables. Eventually, according to the program execution time in each state, the results confirmed that the designed dynamic programming algorithm is absolutely valid.

Moreover, the presentation and development of a dynamic programming approach for the portfolio optimization problem based on the knapsack problem, considering investment risk, uncertainty conditions and other practical constraints, can be considered as examples of future research.

The designed MATLAB code for obtaining the optimal value of the coefficient of the cardinality constraint.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The Intlinprog solver in MATLAB.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Information on the objective function and variables for different values of λ.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The designed MATLAB code of the proposed algorithm based on dynamic programming.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The software output of the fifth environmental share.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

The manually solution of the fifth environmental share.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Seyedali Mirjalili

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper proposes a methodology for solving a portfolio optimization problem using a dynamic programming method. The manuscript has several structural drawbacks, some of which are as follows :

- The introduction section is not written in a proper condition. The contributions in this section are not adequately expressed. The difference between the proposed method and the previously published papers on applying the dynamic programming method to portfolio optimization problems is not discussed. Based on an author's claim, “The study aims to find a more efficient method for the portfolio optimization problems.” The reasons for the superiority of the proposed method should be considered in the introduction section.

- Based on constraint (3), eq(7) is incorrect.

- In the first presentation of the portfolio optimization problem, each constraint is numbered, but this is not the case in the second statement of the problem.

- The notation of eq(2) differed from the corresponding equation in Eq(7).

- The title “Dynamic programming” is a general topic that is unsuitable for a research paper.

- This paper needs a flowchart.

- The steps in algorithm 1 need a simple example to make following the method easier.

- The numerical result section should be improved critically. In the first step, different case studies should be defined clearly. The input parameters for each case are described in the tables, and appropriate references should be assigned to each section. Please make sure that all parameters are defined precisely. Finally, the results are discussed.

- The achieved results should be compared with other methods, especially the evolutionary methods.

Reviewer #2: This topic is interesting and seems to be practical. However, the quality of the manuscript should be improved carefully and based on the following comments.

1- The English and writing of the manuscript should be improved. It needs extensive editing; the choice of words, language, syntax, phrasing, punctuation should be thoroughly checked and revised.

2- To make the contribution of the paper more clear, authors should summarize the characteristics of their method in the section of the introduction.

3- The literature review sections should be improved; the focus should be on a critical analysis of the gradual advancement, as well as the current level, of the state-of-the-art, with quantitative information on the time & space complexity, as well as on the accuracy obtained by each cited methodology. The advancement offered by each cited methodology should be made clear.

4- Please provide the information of all indices in front of each mathematical equation. For example: Z, S, x

5- The comparative part of this paper is very weak. The author should make a more comparative study to compare the efficiency of the proposed techniques with well-known existing techniques. For this optimization problem, it is better to compare several algorithms.

6- Section 4 is not available!! (In section 4, two case studies of the US stock exchange are analyzed)

7- There are two sections 5 and in terms of numbering the sections of the article should be corrected.

8- To better understand the algorithm, it is recommended to use a flowchart with the algorithm.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ali Mohammadzadeh

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Jun 2022

-

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

8 Jul 2022

Constrained portfolio optimization with discrete variables: An algorithmic method based on dynamic programming

PONE-D-22-09775R1

Dear Dr. Jezeie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Please note that there are some minor comments suggested by the second reviewer on the quality of equations and figures that can be addressed in the proof.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Seyedali Mirjalili

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: it is better to change the format of Tables 5 and 6.

please separate the column of firefly and GA from the proposed method

they have incorrect format

Reviewer #2: The authors could improve the quality of the manuscript such that I appreciate it. However, there are still some minor points to be taken into account.

1- Check the equation numbers (e.g., Equation 8).

2- Increase figure quality . (e.g., Remove the red underline from the images)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ali Mohammadzadeh

**********

20 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-09775R1

Constrained portfolio optimization with discrete variables: An algorithmic method based on dynamic programming

Dear Dr. Jezeie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Seyedali Mirjalili

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE