Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Myopic robust index tracking with Bregman divergence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Robust myopic index tracking has a semi-analytical solution: the optimal portfolio and the worst-case distribution solve a small system of nonlinear equations, and the strategy pays off most in market downturns.

desk verdict A mostly sound robustness extension for index tracking, but the heavy-tailed t(10) example silently violates the moment conditions of Theorem 3.1 and needs to be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07659 v2 pith:5XKWV2H3 submitted 2019-08-21 q-fin.PM stat.ME

Spiridon Penev , Pavel Shevchenko , Wei Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.PMstat.ME
keywords indextrackingrobustportfoliooptimizationBregmandivergenceKullback-Leiblerdensitypowerworst-casedistributiondistributionalrobustnessmarketdownturn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Index tracking normally means minimizing a historical quadratic tracking error; this paper argues that the problem should instead be forward-looking and robust, with the expected squared tracking error minimized against the worst-case distribution inside a Bregman divergence ball — a neighbourhood of distributions defined by a dissimilarity measure — around a nominal model. The central claim is Theorem 3.1: for a fixed, small $\lambda > 0$, the robust myopic tracking portfolio is characterized by a finite system of nonlinear equations, and the worst-case density is a power transform of the nominal density. The Kullback-Leibler version emerges as the limit $\lambda \to 0$. The practical message, supported by simulations and a Hang Seng out-of-sample test, is that the robust portfolio matches the non-robust one when the model is right and outperforms it when the model drifts, most visibly during market downturns. A sympathetic reader comes away with a semi-analytical handle on a problem that otherwise looks like a hard minimax exercise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the functional Bregman divergence $D_{\mathrm{Breg}}(E) = \mathbb{E}(G(E))$ with $G(E) = \frac{1}{\lambda}E^{\lambda+1} - \frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}E + 1$, built from the strictly convex function $F_\lambda(z) = z^{\lambda+1} - (\lambda+1)z$ and normalized so that $\lambda \to 0$ recovers the Kullback-Leibler divergence; this is the density power divergence used in robust statistics. It defines the ambiguity ball $B(\eta) = \{g : \mathbb{E}(G(g/f)) \le \eta\}$ around the nominal density $f$. The argument runs through the inner minimization: stationarity of the Lagrangian in $E$ yields the power-form worst-case likelihood ratio, a convexity argument along feasible directions verifies it is the inner minimizer, and a cited strong-duality theorem converts the two-stage problem into the finite nonlinear system of Theorem 3.1, whose solution gives the optimal portfolio.

What would settle it

Discretize a small instance: pick a two- or three-asset nominal distribution, fix $\lambda$ and $\eta$, and compute the inner infimum over the Bregman ball directly by numerical search; if the resulting value or optimizer $E$ differs from the power-form $E^*$ of Theorem 3.1 — or if the theorem's system has no admissible solution while the direct infimum exists — the central claim fails on that instance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that robustification does not force a black-box minimax computation: for a fixed, small $\lambda > 0$, the optimal robust tracking portfolio $u$ solves the system $\theta^*\mathbf{1} = \mathbb{E}\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial u}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}\left(\frac{-\beta^*-H(u)}{\alpha^*}\right)+1\right)^{1/\lambda}\right)$, $\mathbf{1}^\top u = 1$, $\mathbb{E}(G(E^*)) = \eta$, $\mathbb{E}(E^*) = 1$, where $H(u) = -(R^\top u - B)^2$, $G(E) = \frac{1}{\lambda}E^{\lambda+1} - \frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}E + 1$, and $E^* = \left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}\left(\frac{-\beta^*-H(u)}{\alpha^*}\right)+1\right)^{1/\lambda}$ is the worst-case likelihood ratio of Eq. (12). As $\lambda \to 0$ the system converges to the Kullback-Leibler robust tracker of Corollary 3.2. The paper extends the construction to smoothed one-sided losses that avoid penalizing outperformance, and its simulations with multivariate normal and $t$ actual distributions show lower expected tracking error and a higher share of out-performance for the robust tracker, with the gap widening as the ambiguity radius $\eta$ grows.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on two assumptions the paper does not verify in context: that solving the Lagrangian equations really finds the worst-case distribution inside the Bregman ball (a cited duality theorem is invoked without checking its conditions), and that for the chosen $\lambda$ and $\eta$ the nonlinear system actually has a solution with $\alpha^* > 0$, for which the paper offers only numerical evidence, conceding that precise conditions on $\lambda$ are very difficult to find.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For moderate portfolio sizes the robust strategy is implemented by solving a box-constrained nonlinear system rather than by an outer approximation of a minimax problem, which is what makes the approach practicable.
  • Setting $\lambda \to 0$ recovers the Kullback-Leibler robust tracker (Corollary 3.2), so the Bregman construction contains the classical KL-based distributionally robust solution as a boundary case.
  • The simulated comparisons show the robust tracker's advantage grows with the ambiguity radius $\eta$ and is largest when the actual distribution is far from the nominal one, which is exactly the regime where robustness is wanted.
  • With the smoothed one-sided losses the robust tracker beats the non-robust one in the large majority of downturn scenarios (up to roughly 99% of simulated cases at the largest radius), and in the Hang Seng out-of-sample test it wins 27 of 52 periods with quadratic loss and 42 of 52 with the one-sided loss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper reports numerically that if some $\lambda'$ works then every smaller $\lambda$ works; proving that monotonicity would turn an observed regularity into a theorem and give a constructive rule for choosing the robustification level.
  • Since the least-favorable distribution inside the ball is never computed, the decisive test of the method is to recover $E^*$ from the solved system and simulate from it directly; the paper's boundary-of-the-ball distributions are only a proxy for the true worst case.
  • The same Bregman-ball construction should transfer to other smooth convex tracking losses with computable gradients — drawdown, downside deviation, or volatility-targeting objectives — provided the duality step can be re-verified for each new loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a myopic, forward-looking index tracking problem in which the tracking error is the expected squared difference between the portfolio return and the index return, and robustness is obtained by minimizing over a Bregman divergence ball around a nominal distribution. The main theoretical result, Theorem 3.1, states that if a nonlinear system admits a solution (α*>0, β*, θ*) with E* given by Eq. (12), and E(E*)=1 and E(G(E*))=η hold, then the corresponding portfolio u is an optimal robust tracking portfolio. The paper also gives a KL-divergence corollary, extends the loss to smoothed asymmetric functions, and reports simulation and Hang Seng data studies. The claim is that the robust portfolio is advantageous, especially during market downturns.

Significance. The conditional result is a useful contribution: it gives a semi-analytical characterization of the robust portfolio, it avoids fitting any constant to the performance data, and the derivation is self-contained, with an explicit Hessian verification in Appendix 7.2. The closed-form Bregman divergence for multivariate normals in Eqs. (5)-(6) is also a useful by-product. However, the paper does not state conditions guaranteeing existence of α*, β*, θ* or integrability of E*, and the heavy-tailed numerical example in Section 5.2 lies outside the domain in which Theorem 3.1 is applicable. Because the core derivation is sound under appropriate assumptions, the manuscript is salvageable, but the stated claims currently overreach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Theorem 3.1, Eq. (12)] The multivariate t example with ν=10 and λ=0.1 is outside the domain of Theorem 3.1. Since H(u)=-(R^T u - B)^2, in the tails E* behaves as const·|R|^(2/λ), so the constraint E(E*)=1 requires a finite 2/λ-th moment under the nominal, and E(G(E*))=η requires a finite 2(λ+1)/λ-th moment. For the t(10) nominal with λ=0.1 these orders are 20 and 22, both exceeding 10, so the population expectations diverge for every finite α,β. Hence the nonlinear system has no solution in the true nominal model, and the numerical results in Tables 7-8 must have been obtained from Monte Carlo empirical expectations rather than from the nominal t model. With a finite sample the empirical sums are finite, so a numerical solution can be found, but it solves a different problem and is not justified by Theorem 3.1; moreover, the sample moments of order 20 and 22 are not consistent estimators of the infinite population moments. This is a provable failure of existence in exactly the heavy-tailed regime the paper motivates.
  2. [Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 3.1] Strong duality for the inner minimization problem is asserted by citing Ben-Tal, Teboulle and Charnes (1988, Theorem 2.1) without verifying its conditions. The convexity argument in the proof shows that E* minimizes the Lagrangian for fixed u, but it does not by itself establish sup_u inf_E J(E,u) = sup_u min_E L_inner(E,u), nor that the KKT conditions characterize the saddle point. The theorem needs an explicit statement of the constraint qualification, integrability of E* and E(G(E*)), and existence of a strictly feasible density inside the Bregman ball. This is load-bearing because, without strong duality, a solution of the Theorem 3.1 system need not be an optimal robust portfolio.
  3. [Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3] The condition β*/α* < 1 + 1/λ is omitted from the statement of Theorem 3.1 even though it is needed for E* in Eq. (12) to be real-valued and positive almost surely. Because H(u)=0 on the set R^T u = B, the base of the power in Eq. (12) equals 1 - (λ/(λ+1))(β*/α*) on that set, and if the inequality fails the candidate E* is not a positive density ratio. Remark 3 places this condition only after the theorem and admits that precise conditions on λ are very difficult to find. The theorem should state this inequality as part of its hypotheses, or replace it with a general positivity condition on the base in Eq. (12).
  4. [Section 5, numerical protocol] The numerical validation does not test the worst-case guarantee asserted by the theory. The paper itself notes in the introduction to Section 5 that the 'actual' distributions used for simulation are chosen at the maximal Bregman distance from the nominal but are not necessarily least favorable, and Section 6 reiterates that the least favorable distribution is never known in practice. Consequently, Tables 1-8 quantify the performance under particular contaminations, not under the least favorable distribution in the Bregman ball, and the abstract's claim that the robust strategy is 'very advantageous' is supported only for those selected scenarios. To substantiate the robust guarantee, the authors would need to compare the robust and non-robust portfolios under the worst-case E* implied by Eq. (12), or provide bounds on the performance gap over the entire ball.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Tables 1-4] The ETE differences in Tables 1-4 are reported to many decimal places without Monte Carlo standard errors; given the extremely small differences in some rows, confidence intervals or standard errors would help the reader assess whether the improvements are numerically meaningful.
  2. [Section 5.3] The sentence 'The the next 52 weeks are set to be the out-of-sample (or validation) period' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  3. [Theorem 3.1, system notation] The notation θ*1 in the first equation of Theorem 3.1 is ambiguous: it should be clarified that θ* is a scalar multiplier and the right-hand side is a d-dimensional vector, likely θ* · 1, rather than a product of a vector θ* with the scalar 1.
  4. [References] There are typographical errors in the references, e.g., 'Maching Learning' in the Poczos and Schneider entry and 'scinces' in the Amari and Cichocki entry; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: Theorem 3.1 is a standalone optimality-system derivation; self-citations are modeling context and the simulation design is not a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The central result is self-contained. The robust portfolio in Theorem 3.1 is obtained by writing the Lagrangian for the inner problem (9), solving the first-order condition (10)-(11), invoking strong duality (Ben-Tal et al. 1988), and then deriving first-order conditions and a negative-semidefinite Hessian for the outer problem (Appendix 7.2). The quantities E(E*)=1 and E(G(E*))=eta are the normalization and radius constraints of the Bregman ball; alpha*, beta*, theta* are Lagrange multipliers, not constants fitted to the performance tables. No reported ETE/BT number is used to calibrate the portfolio. The self-citations (Penev and Naito 2018 for the functional Bregman divergence and F_lambda) provide a modeling choice, but the paper also identifies this divergence with the known beta/Tsallis divergence (Amari and Cichocki 2010; Dey and Juneja 2010), so the derivation does not rest on an unverified self-citation chain. The simulation studies place the 'actual' distribution on the Bregman ball of radius eta, the same set used to formulate the robust problem; this is an aligned stress test, and the paper explicitly states these distributions are on the maximal allowable distance but are not necessarily least-favorable, so the robust/non-robust comparison is not arithmetically forced by construction. The most serious vulnerability is not circularity: for a multivariate t(10) nominal with lambda=0.1, E* in (12) grows like |R|^(2/lambda), making E(E*) and E(G(E*)) divergent and the Section 5.2 system possibly unsolvable under the true nominal; that is an existence/moment gap (related to the admitted difficulty in Remark 3), not a reduction of the output to the input. No passage shows an equation whose prediction equals its fitted input, so no circular step meets the quote-and-reduction standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces two tuning parameters (lambda and eta) that control the strength of robustness and the size of the uncertainty set, plus a smoothing parameter epsilon for the asymmetric loss. The theoretical derivation assumes standard probability setup, short-selling allowed, known nominal distribution, and perturbations absolutely continuous with respect to the nominal. Strong duality and existence of the Lagrange multipliers are assumed rather than proved. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda = 0.1, 0.05 in simulations; 0.2 in real data
    Controls the divergence family and robustness strength; chosen by hand, no automatic selection rule.
  • eta = 0.1 to 5 in simulations; 0.005 in real data
    Radius of the Bregman uncertainty ball; chosen by hand, no automatic selection rule.
  • epsilon = 0.01
    Smoothing parameter in the approximate asymmetric loss functions l1(x) and l2(x); set to 0.01 in numerical experiments.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math All random variables are defined on a complete probability space (Omega, F, P) with F = sigma(r, B).
    Section 2 states this setup; it is a standard measure-theoretic framework.
  • domain assumption Short selling is permitted and admissible portfolios satisfy 1^T u = 1.
    Section 2 defines the set U; this is a modeling choice that excludes constraints typical in practice.
  • domain assumption The nominal density f is known, and any perturbation density g is absolutely continuous with respect to f, so the ratio E = g/f is finite almost everywhere.
    Section 3 defines S_f and the Bregman ball; if the true distribution is not absolutely continuous with respect to the nominal, E is not well-defined.
  • ad hoc to paper Strong duality holds for the inner optimization problem inf_E E(E H(u)) subject to E(G(E)) <= eta and E(E) = 1, as per Ben-Tal et al. (1988, Theorem 2.1).
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 3.1, Section 3.3; the conditions are not verified.
  • ad hoc to paper There exist alpha* > 0, beta*, theta* solving the nonlinear system in Theorem 3.1, and E* is positive for the chosen lambda.
    Assumed in Theorem 3.1; the paper only provides numerical evidence for the existence (Remark 3).
  • domain assumption In numerical illustrations, the 'actual' distribution is placed on the boundary of the Bregman ball by rescaling the mean vector, which represents a contamination scenario.
    Section 5.1; this is a validation choice and is not a consequence of the theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Myopic robust index tracking with Bregman divergence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XKWV2H3

@misc{pith2026190807659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Myopic robust index tracking with Bregman divergence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XKWV2H3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07659}
}
read the original abstract

Index tracking is a popular form of asset management. Typically, a quadratic function is used to define the tracking error of a portfolio and the look back approach is applied to solve the index tracking problem. We argue that a forward looking approach is more suitable, whereby the tracking error is expressed as expectation of a function of the difference between the returns of the index and of the portfolio. We also assume that there is an uncertainty in the distribution of the assets, hence a robust version of the optimization problem needs to be adopted. We use Bregman divergence in describing the deviation between the nominal and actual distribution of the components of the index. In this scenario, we derive the optimal robust index tracking strategy in a semi-analytical form as a solution of a system of nonlinear equations. Several numerical results are presented that allow us to compare the performance of this robust strategy with the optimal non-robust strategy. We show that, especially during market downturns, the robust strategy can be very advantageous.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time series plot of Bt = 1 + bt and of its estimation using R ⊺ tu ∗ -the robust myopic index tracking method. First 104 points: learning sample, next 52 points: out-of-sample approximation. Legend: circle-observed, asterix:robust estimator 31) is relatively high, and in the same setting as in Guastaroba and Speranza (2012), two years of in-sample training and a subsequent 12 months of out-of-sample testing has been… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Information Geometry and Its Applications

    Amari,Shun-ichi, 2016. Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer, Japan

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    & Cichotski, A

    Amari, S. & Cichotski, A. (2010). Information geometry of divergence functions. Bulletin of the Polish academy of scinces. Tehcnical sciences, 58 (1), 183--195

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    & Nomikos, N

    Andriosopoulos, K. & Nomikos, N. (2014). Performance replication of the Spot Energy index with optimal equity portfolio selection: Evidence from the UK, US and Brazilian markets. European Journal of Operational Research 234 (2), 571--582

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    & Dhillon, I

    Banerjee, A.& Merugu, S. & Dhillon, I. & Ghosh, J. (2005). Clustering with Bregman Divergences. Journal of Machine Learning Research 6, 1705--1749

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Basu, A., & Harris, N., & Hjort, N., & Jones, M.C. (1998). Robust and efficient estimation by minimizeing a denisty power divergence. Biometrika 85 , 549--559

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Beasley J. E., A. & Meade, N. & Chang T.J. (2003). An evolutionary heuristic for the index tracking problem. European Journal of Operational Research 148 (3), 621--643

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    (2018) Sparse Portfolios for High-Dimensional Financial Index Tracking

    Benidis, K., & Feng, Y., & Palomar, D. (2018) Sparse Portfolios for High-Dimensional Financial Index Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66 (1), 155-170

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    & Teboulle, M

    Ben-Tal, A. & Teboulle, M. & Charnes A. (1988). The role of duality in optimization problems involving entropy functionals with applications to information theory. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 58 (2), 209--223

    work page 1988

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    and Yuan, Z

    Blanchet, J., Lam, H., Tang, Q. and Yuan, Z. (2019). Robust actuarial risk analysis. North American Actuarial Journal 23 (1), 33-63

    2019

  2. [10]

    & Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization. (Seventh printing with corrections 2009) Cambridge University Press

    2004

  3. [11]

    Bregman, L. M. (1967). The relaxation method of finding the common points of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7 (3), 200--217

    1967

  4. [12]

    A.& Beasley, J

    Canakgoz, N. A.& Beasley, J. E. (2009). Mixed-integer programming approaches for index tracking and enhanced indexation. European Journal of Operational Research 196 (1), 384--399

    2009

  5. [13]

    and Mangasarian, O

    Chen, C. and Mangasarian, O. (1995). Smoothing methods for convex inequalities and linear complementarity problems. Mathematical Programming 71, 51--69

    1995

  6. [14]

    Chiam S. C., A. & Tan, K.C. & Mamun A.A. (2013). Dynamic index tracking via multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. Applied Soft Computing 13 (7), 3392--3408

    2013

  7. [15]

    & Amari, S

    Cichocki, A. & Amari, S. (2018). Families of Alpha- Beta- and Gamma- Divergences: Flexible and Robust Measures and Similarities. Entropy 12, 1532--1568

    2018

  8. [16]

    & Juneja, S

    Dey, S. & Juneja, S. (2010). Entropy approach to incorporate fat tailed constraints in financial models. SSRN electronic journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1647048, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Mumbai, India (last download 27 11 2017)

    2010

  9. [17]

    red Gn\"agi, M.& Strub, O. (2020). Tracking and outperforming large stockmarket indices. Omega 90, 101999

    2020

  10. [18]

    & Speranza, M.G

    red Guastaroba, G. & Speranza, M.G. (2012). Kernel Search: An application to the index tracking problem

    2012

  11. [19]

    de Paulo, W. L. & de Oliveira, E. M. & Vosta, O. L. do V. (2016). Enhanced index tracking optimal portfolio selection. Finance Research Letter 16, 92--102

    2016

  12. [20]

    & Cincotti, S

    Dose, C. & Cincotti, S. (2005). Clustering of financial time series with application to index and enhanced index tracking portfolio. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 355 (1), 145--151

    2005

  13. [21]

    Fabozzi, F. J. (2007). Robust portfolio optimization and management. Wiley, New Jersey

    2007

  14. [22]

    & Guastaroba, G

    Filippi, C. & Guastaroba, G. & Speranza, M. (2016). A heuristic framework for the bi-objective enhanced index tracking problem. Omega 65, 122--137

    2016

  15. [23]

    Gaivoronski, A. A. & Krylov, A. & Wijst, N. van der (2005). Optimal portfolio selection and dynamic benchmark tracking. European Journal of Operational Research 163 (1), 115--131

    2005

  16. [24]

    Glasserman, P. & Xu, X. B. (2014). Robust risk measurement and model risk. Quantitative Finance 14 (1), 29--58

    2014

  17. [25]

    & Strub, O

    Gn\"agi,M. & Strub, O. (2020). Tracking and outperforming large stock-market indices. Omega, 90, 101999

    2020

  18. [26]

    & Dey, D

    Goh, G. & Dey, D. (2014). Bayesian model diagnostics using functional Bregman divergence. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 124, 371--383

    2014

  19. [27]

    & Mansini, R

    Guastaroba, G. & Mansini, R. & Ogryczak W. & Speranza, M.G. (2016). Linear programming models based on Omega ratio for the enhanced index tracking problem. European Journal of Operational Research 251 (3), 938--956

    2016

  20. [28]

    & Speranza, M.G

    Guastaroba, G. & Speranza, M.G. (2012). Kernel Search: An application to the index tracking problem. European Journal of Operational Research 217 (1), 54--68

    2012

  21. [29]

    Huber, P.& Ronchetti, E. (2009). Robust Statistics, 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York

    2009

  22. [30]

    Lejeune, M. A. (2012). Game theoretical approach for reliable enhanced indexation. Decision Analysis 9 (2), 146--155

    2012

  23. [31]

    Maginn, J. L. & Tuttle, D. L. & McLeavey, D. W. & Pinto, J. E. (2007). Managing Investment Portfolios. (3rd Edition) John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    2007

  24. [32]

    & Salkin, G

    Meade, N. & Salkin, G. R.(1990). Developing and Maintaining an Equity Index Fund. The Journal of Operational Research Society 41 (7), 599--607

    1990

  25. [33]

    & Eguchi, S

    Mihoko, M. & Eguchi, S. (2002). Robust Blind Source Separation by Beta Divergence. Neural Computation, 14, 8, 1859--1886

    2002

  26. [34]

    Montfort, K. V. & Visser, E. & Draat, L. F. V.(2008). Index Tracking by Means of Optimized Sampling. The Journal of Portfolio Management Winter 34 (2), 143--152

    2008

  27. [35]

    & Kotz, S

    Nadarajah, S. & Kotz, S. (2008). Estimation Methods for the Multivariate t Distribution. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae 102 (1), 99--118

    2008

  28. [36]

    & Naito, K

    Penev, S. & Naito, K. (2018). Locally robust methods and near-parametric asymptotics. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 167, 395--417

    2018

  29. [37]

    & Prvan, T

    Penev, S. & Prvan, T. (2016). Robust estimation in structural equation models using Bregman and other divergences with t-centre approach to estimate the covariance matrix. ANZIAM Journal, 56, (Proceedings CTAC2014), C339-C354

    2016

  30. [38]

    & Schneider, J

    Poczos B., A. & Schneider, J. (2011). On the estimation of -divergences. Journal of Maching Learning Research: Workshops and Conferences 15, 609--617

    2011

  31. [39]

    Roll, R. (1992). A mean/variance analysis of tracking error. The Journal of Portfolio Management 18, 13--22

    1992

  32. [40]

    & Baumann, P

    Strub, O. & Baumann, P. (2018). Optimal construction and rebalancing of index-tracking portfolios. European Journal of Operational Research 264 (1), 370--387

    2018

  33. [41]

    & Liu, M

    Vemuri, B. & Liu, M. & Amari, S-I. & Nielsen, F. (2011). Total Bregman Divergence and Its Applications to DTI Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 30, 475-483

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.