Adaptive Configuration Oracle for Online Portfolio Selection Methods

Favour M. Nyikosa; Michael A. Osborne; Stephen J. Roberts

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Adaptive Configuration Oracle for Online Portfolio Selection Methods

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that online portfolio selection methods can earn more by retuning their parameters every trading day through a Gaussian-process oracle, rather than fixing parameters from backtests.

desk verdict Solid application of adaptive BO to portfolio selection with real wealth gains, but the missing static-tuned baseline means the adaptivity claim isn't actually established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08258 v1 pith:IHPJ5H2K submitted 2019-08-22 stat.ML cs.LG

Favour M. Nyikosa , Michael A. Osborne , Stephen J. Roberts This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MLcs.LG

keywords onlineportfolioselectionadaptiveBayesianoptimizationGaussianprocessparameterconfigurationoraclenon-stationarymarketsmeanreversionstrategiescumulativewealth

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

Most online portfolio selection strategies fix their parameters after backtesting, even though markets shift. This paper proposes an adaptive configuration oracle that treats parameter choice as part of the online problem: it models the daily return a strategy would achieve with a given parameter setting at a given time as a spatiotemporal Gaussian process, then uses adaptive Bayesian optimization to pick the setting for each trading day. On four stock and index datasets, the oracle-tuned versions of standard strategies beat their fixed-parameter versions on most tests, with improvements such as OLMAR's cumulative wealth rising from 1.20 to 1.63 on DJIA and from 8.63 to 9.59 on SP500. The paper also argues the oracle diagnoses when tuning helps: if the learned temporal length-scale is long relative to the trading horizon, the best parameters are not moving and static settings suffice. Parameter configuration, in this view, is not a one-time chore but a sequential decision that can be optimized like the trading itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parameter configuration map $f: P \times T \to M$, the strategy's daily return as a function of parameters and time, given a Gaussian process prior $\log f \sim \mathrm{GP}(0,K)$ with the separable spatiotemporal kernel $K({\theta,t},{\theta',t'}) = K_P(\theta,\theta') K_T(t,t')$. The kernel's spatial part is a product rational-quadratic kernel, chosen because liquid assets make returns smooth under small parameter changes; its temporal part combines exponential and rational-quadratic covariance to accommodate both abrupt and gradual regime changes. Adaptive Bayesian optimization searches this map with the UCB acquisition function, respecting box constraints that shrink the feasible region using learned temporal length-scales, to produce one parameter vector per trading day. The learned temporal length-scale is also the diagnostic: short length-scales mean the best parameters evolve, long ones mean they do not.

What would settle it

A concrete test: on a held-out market period, grid-evaluate many parameter settings each day (using a paper-trading simulator) to reconstruct the true return surface $f(\theta,t)$. If adjacent parameter settings and adjacent trading days do not show positively correlated returns—for instance if the best parameter jumps discretely between days—the spatiotemporal Gaussian process model cannot track it and the oracle should be expected to match or underperform fixed settings. A cheaper check: on a dataset where the oracle failed, compare the GP's learned temporal length-scale against the actual path of best parameters; a short length-scale alongside a jagged, discontinuous best-parameter path would falsify the model's core smoothness assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the map $f(\theta,t)$ from a strategy's parameters $\theta$ and trading time $t$ to its return is learnable and worth tracking. The authors model $\log f$ as a sample from a zero-mean Gaussian process with separable kernel $K({\theta,t},{\theta',t'}) = K_P(\theta,\theta') K_T(t,t')$, where $K_P$ is a product rational-quadratic kernel and $K_T$ mixes exponential and rational-quadratic terms to allow both abrupt and smooth shifts. Each day, adaptive Bayesian optimization—simplified to the known daily evaluation schedule and using the upper confidence bound acquisition function—solves $\theta^*_t = \arg\max_{\theta\in S_t} f(\theta,t)$ and hands that parameter vector to the portfolio strategy. The experiments report that oracle-tuned methods (suffixed -O) outperform their fixed-parameter baselines on most of the four datasets, for example OLMAR-O improving cumulative wealth from 1.20 to 1.63 on DJIA and from 8.63 to 9.59 on SP500, with t-statistics the authors read as evidence the gains are skill rather than luck. The paper further claims that when the GP's temporal length-scale is long relative to the horizon, no adaptive gain materializes, so the oracle identifies when static tuning is already adequate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the surface mapping parameter settings and trading days to returns is smooth enough that a Gaussian process, fed one queried point per day, can predict which settings will work next; if return responds discontinuously to parameters or time, the oracle's choices will not be near-optimal, and the assumption that evaluations do not change the market is also load-bearing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the oracle's claim holds, static backtest-tuned parameters are leaving money on the table: the same strategy code, with parameters re-selected daily, yields higher cumulative wealth on most tested datasets.
The oracle subsumes parameter sensitivity analysis: by observing the GP's temporal length-scale, a practitioner learns whether a strategy's optimal settings drift over time and hence whether tuning effort is worthwhile.
Because the configuration map's output is a performance metric, the oracle can be redirected to maximize Sharpe ratio, minimize drawdown, or meet other risk preferences instead of raw daily return, at the cost of matching exploration to that objective.
The improvements concentrate in mean-reversion strategies (PAMR, CWMR, OLMAR), while momentum strategies EG and ONS show little or no gain, suggesting the value of adaptive configuration depends on the strategy's sensitivity to its parameters.
On DJIA, all tested methods performed poorly even with the oracle, a reminder that parameter tuning cannot rescue a strategy whose assumptions do not match the market regime.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test the paper does not run: simulate several candidate parameter settings each day on a small notional book, giving the GP more than one observation per day; this could shrink exploration regret at a known cost.
Because all experiments assume zero transaction costs, a direct extension would add a switching penalty to the acquisition function; daily parameter changes would otherwise erode the reported wealth gains under realistic costs.
If the smoothness assumption transfers, the same oracle design could tune hyperparameters of other online decision systems—learning rates, exploration schedules, model update windows—wherever a parameter-to-performance map drifts over time.
The out-of-sample evidence is historical; a prospective run on data after the collection periods, such as DJIA post-2013, would be the cleanest check of whether the reported t-statistics persist.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a decent application paper that reports real wealth gains from tuning OLPS parameters with the authors' own adaptive Bayesian optimization, but the headline claim—that adaptivity is what drives the gains—is not actually tested. The baselines are the original papers' default parameters, not tuned static configurations, so we can't tell whether the oracle is tracking a changing optimum or just finding better fixed parameters.

What's new: the specific combination of ABO with OLPS, and the empirical results. On TSE, PAMR-O improves from 264.86 to 274.24, CWMR-O from 332.62 to 357.24, OLMAR-O from 678.44 to 714.36. On DJIA, OLMAR-O goes from 1.20 to 1.63. Those are non-trivial. The paper is clearly written and honest about the zero-transaction-cost assumption; it uses public datasets and the standard OLPS toolbox, so the experiments are reproducible in principle.

The soft spots are real. Most importantly, the missing static-tuned control. The stress-test note is right: without a parameter vector tuned on the same training data, the observed gains could simply be better constant parameters, not adaptation. The fact that EG-O and ONS-O show almost no gains is consistent with that. Second, no transaction costs matter for a daily-reconfiguration scheme; the paper acknowledges this but doesn't quantify the turnover. Third, the risk-management promise isn't delivered: the risk-adjusted figures show higher volatility and drawdown with the oracle, and the paper just says other metrics could be used. Fourth, Table 6 looks wrong: the t-statistics for SP500 and TSE are identical to four decimal places, which is basically impossible, and the table is described as momentum-based while listing mean-reversion methods. That needs a fix.

The GP assumption is also untested—one point per day is a thin sample for a spatiotemporal kernel—but that's more of a robustness concern than a fatal one.

Overall: worth a serious referee, but I'd make the authors add static-tuned baselines and address the table before believing the adaptivity claim. This is for someone working on OLPS or algorithm configuration; a methods reviewer might find it too applied.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an "adaptive configuration oracle" for online portfolio selection (OLPS). It models the mapping from a strategy's parameters and time to a performance metric (daily return) as a zero-mean spatiotemporal Gaussian process, and uses adaptive Bayesian optimization (ABO) to select parameters at each trading period. The experimental section compares oracle-tuned versions (suffix "-O") of EG, ONS, PAMR, CWMR, and OLMAR against fixed-parameter versions taken from the original papers, using four public datasets (DJIA, SP500, TSE, MSCI) and a range of performance measures (cumulative wealth, annualized yield, volatility, drawdown, Sharpe ratio, Calmer ratio). The paper reports improved cumulative wealth for most oracle-tuned methods, especially for mean-reversion strategies, and interprets learned temporal length-scales as a diagnostic for whether a strategy can benefit from adaptive tuning.

Significance. If the claimed effect is real, the contribution is practically useful: it replaces manual or backtest-based parameter setting with an automated adaptive procedure and provides a principled way to detect time-varying parameter optima. The use of public datasets, the public OLPS toolbox, and out-of-sample reporting are strengths, as is the breadth of strategies and risk measures considered. However, the empirical case for the central claim is currently weakened by the absence of a static-tuned control and by the zero-transaction-cost assumption. Because the oracle-tuned versions use different parameter values than the standard versions, the observed gains could be due to better parameter settings rather than to adaptivity. The paper therefore needs additional experiments before the claim that adaptive tuning, rather than parameter selection, drives the improvements is established.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Table 5] The comparison baseline is not a tuned static configuration: the paper states that all parameters for the standard versions were set according to their original empirical studies, but no control tunes a single fixed parameter vector on the same training data. This is a load-bearing omission because the central claim is that adaptivity helps. The small or absent gains for EG-O and ONS-O in Table 5 are consistent with the alternative explanation that the oracle is mostly finding better constant parameter values rather than tracking a non-stationary optimum. Add a static-tuning baseline (e.g., grid search or BO on a training prefix, then held fixed) for each dataset and method; without it, the adaptive component of the contribution is not identified.
[Section 5] The experiments assume zero transaction costs, while the oracle reconfigures parameters daily, which creates additional portfolio turnover relative to fixed-parameter baselines. With realistic proportional costs, some of the reported cumulative wealth gains could be substantially reduced or reversed. Report turnover statistics and repeat the main comparison under a proportional cost model (e.g., 10 and 50 basis points) to quantify the sensitivity of the results to this assumption.
[Section 4.1 and Section 5] The paper claims that learned temporal length-scales indicate whether a strategy will benefit from adaptive tuning, but no quantitative threshold or validation of this diagnostic is provided. The discussion in Section 5 invokes long length-scales to explain the few underperforming cases, yet the text also acknowledges that exploration steps can cause suboptimal returns. A post-hoc explanation is not a tested predictor. Provide a systematic evaluation of the length-scale diagnostic across datasets and methods, such as a comparison of estimated length-scales with the magnitude of improvement from oracle tuning.
[Section 5, Tables 5 and 6] Cumulative wealth results are reported as single numbers with no error bars or repeated runs, even though the oracle initialization uses Latin hypercube sampling and the GP training and PSO acquisition optimization are stochastic. The t-tests in Table 6 address only the better-performing methods and only the above-market active return, not the variability of the oracle procedure itself. Add standard errors or distributions over multiple runs, or otherwise show that the results are stable across random seeds.

minor comments (6)

[Equation (11)] The notation "σf, l i, α i > 0" should be "σ_f, l_i, α_i > 0" with subscripts clearer; also the product notation over i implies a separate length-scale and exponent per dimension, which should be stated explicitly.
[Equation (12)] The temporal kernel expression appears to have a typo: the exponential term "exp((t-t')/l)" uses an undefined l, while the text mentions l1, l2, and α. Please make the definitions of l1, l2, and α consistent with the displayed formula.
[Section 2.3] The text says "this optimization determines the optimal time t," but in the known-evaluation-time case used later, the temporal part is fixed in advance. The two cases should be clearly separated to avoid confusion.
[Table 3] The header "the number tunable of parameters" should read "the number of tunable parameters."
[References] The reference to Grinold and Kahn misspells "quantitative" as "quantative."
[Equations (5) and (10)] The separability of the kernel is written with ⊙ in Equation (5) and with × in Equation (10); please use one notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oracle is an empirical bandit/BO method evaluated against external baselines, and its reported gains are not wired in by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adaptively tuning OLPS parameters with a Gaussian-process-based Bayesian optimization oracle improves cumulative wealth relative to the standard static parameter settings from the original papers. This claim is tested empirically on public datasets against external baselines, and the oracle's outputs are not equivalent to the reported evaluation metric by construction. The GP hyperparameters are fitted as part of the method, but they are not fitted to reproduce the headline cumulative-wealth result; they are fitted to model the parameter-to-return map, and the subsequent portfolio performance is a genuine out-of-sample outcome. The paper itself reports cases where the oracle does not improve over the static version (e.g., EG-O on MSCI at 0.92 vs EG at 0.93, and ONS-O on SP500 at 3.25 vs ONS at 3.34 in Table 5), which demonstrates that the improvements are not forced. The self-citation to the authors' prior adaptive Bayesian optimization work (Nyikosa et al., 2018) is a citation to a method, not to an unverified theorem that the paper's conclusion depends on; the method is described in the paper and its application to OLPS is the novel contribution. The absence of a tuned-static-parameter control is a legitimate experimental-design concern about whether adaptivity itself causes the gains, but it is a validity/correctness issue, not a circularity issue: the comparison is against externally specified baselines, and no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar required by the review rules.

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

The central claim rests on the GP surrogate model, the dynamic optimization assumption inherited from ABO, and experimental simplifications (no transaction costs, no short selling). The GP hyperparameters are fitted to the observed data stream, making them free parameters; several arbitrary choices (window size, initial samples) also affect results.

free parameters (6)

GP kernel amplitude σ_f = MAP estimate
Eq. (11), the scale of the spatial kernel, fit on the moving window of past observations.
Spatial length-scales l_i and RQ exponents α_i = MAP estimates
Eq. (11); one set per parameter dimension, fit on past data.
Temporal kernel parameters l_1, l_2, α = MAP estimates
Eq. (12); control the temporal correlation and are used to set acquisition bounds.
Moving data window size = 300
Chosen to manage GP computational cost, affects which past observations train the surrogate.
Number of initial random samples = 10
Space-filling LHS samples used to initialize the GP before BO begins.
UCB acquisition function parameters = Not specified
The UCB trade-off parameter is not reported; an important unknown for reproduction.

assumptions (6)

ad hoc to paper log f is a zero-mean GP with separable kernel K = K_P × K_T
Section 4, Eqs (9)-(12); the central modeling assumption; if false, the oracle has no valid surrogate.
domain assumption Evaluations of the optimization do not modify the dynamic optimization problem
Section 2.3, quoted from the ABO background; assumes a single trader's actions do not change market dynamics, questionable if the strategy is widely used.
domain assumption No transaction costs
Section 5, explicit assumption; daily parameter changes could incur costs that the evaluation ignores.
domain assumption Self-financing portfolios, no short selling or margin
Section 3, standard OLPS constraint.
domain assumption Daily rebalancing and known trading times
Section 5, the oracle uses the simplified ABO where times of interest are known.
ad hoc to paper The temporal length-scale heuristic determines whether adaptive tuning helps
Section 4.1 and the discussion of poor results; no rigorous derivation that the heuristic is reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Configuration Oracle for Online Portfolio Selection Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHPJ5H2K

@misc{pith2026190808258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Configuration Oracle for Online Portfolio Selection Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHPJ5H2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08258}
}

read the original abstract

Financial markets are complex environments that produce enormous amounts of noisy and non-stationary data. One fundamental problem is online portfolio selection, the goal of which is to exploit this data to sequentially select portfolios of assets to achieve positive investment outcomes while managing risks. Various algorithms have been proposed for solving this problem in fields such as finance, statistics and machine learning, among others. Most of the methods have parameters that are estimated from backtests for good performance. Since these algorithms operate on non-stationary data that reflects the complexity of financial markets, we posit that adaptively tuning these parameters in an intelligent manner is a remedy for dealing with this complexity. In this paper, we model the mapping between the parameter space and the space of performance metrics using a Gaussian process prior. We then propose an oracle based on adaptive Bayesian optimization for automatically and adaptively configuring online portfolio selection methods. We test the efficacy of our solution on algorithms operating on equity and index data from various markets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08258 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Volatility Risk. DJIA SP500 TSE MSCI Datasets 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Maximum Drawdown Risk (%) EG EG-O ONS ONS-O PAMR PAMR-O CWMR CWMR-O OLMAR OLMAR-O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Drawdown Risk. test of the statistical significance of the strategy’s abovemarket performance being due to the skill of the algorithm. As rule of thumb, a t-statistic of two or more indicates that the performance of the OLPS strategy is due to skill rather than luck. This means that the probability of observing such an active return by luck is only 5%. The statistics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Annualized Percentage Yield. DJIA SP500 TSE MSCI Datasets 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Volatility Risk (%) EG EG-O ONS ONS-O PAMR PAMR-O CWMR CWMR-O OLMAR OLMAR-O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Calmer Ratio. Additionally, one of the benefits of our oracle is that there is a lot of prior art and experience on how existing strategies are configured that can be incorporated into the GP prior of the parameter configuration map. One aspect of the prior art that i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Schapire

Amit Agarwal, Elad Hazan, Satyen Kale, and Robert E. Schapire. Algorithms for portfolio management based on the newton method. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, pages 9--16, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. ISBN 1-59593-383-2. doi:10.1145/1143844.1143846. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1143844.1143846

work page arXiv 2006
[2]

Time-Varying Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization

Ilija Bogunovic, Jonathan Scarlett, and Volkan Cevher. Time-varying G aussian process bandit optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.06650, 2016

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[3]

Thomas M. Cover. Universal portfolios. Mathematical Finance, 1 0 (1): 0 1--29, 1991

work page 1991
[4]

Gonz \'a lez, and David A

Carlos Cruz, Juan R. Gonz \'a lez, and David A. Pelta. Optimization in dynamic environments: a survey on problems, methods and measures. Soft Computing, 15 0 (7): 0 1427--1448, 2011

work page 2011
[5]

Grinold and Ronald N

Richard C. Grinold and Ronald N. Kahn. Active P ortfolio M anagement: A quantative approach for producing superior returns and selecting superior money managers , pages 487--490. M c G raw H ill, N ew Y ork, 2nd edition, 1999. ISBN 0070248826

work page 1999
[6]

On-line portfolio selection using multiplicative updates

David P Helmbold, Robert E Schapire, Yoram Singer, and Manfred K Warmuth. On-line portfolio selection using multiplicative updates. Mathematical Finance, 8 0 (4): 0 325--347, 1998

1998
[7]

Andreas Krause and Cheng S. Ong. Contextual G aussian process bandit optimization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2447--2455, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

OLPS : A toolbox for online portfolio selection

B Li, D Sahoo, and SCH Hoi. OLPS : A toolbox for online portfolio selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 2015

work page 2015

Show all 18 references

[9]

A D atabase for O n-line P ortfolio S election

Bin Li and Steven Hoi. A D atabase for O n-line P ortfolio S election. http://www.mysmu.edu.sg/faculty/chhoi/olps/datasets.html, 2012 a . Accessed: 2018-03-09

2012
[10]

Bin Li and Steven C. H. Hoi. On-line portfolio selection with moving average reversion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 2012 b

2012
[11]

Bin Li and Steven C. H. Hoi. Online portfolio selection: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 46 0 (3): 0 35:1--35:36, January 2014. ISSN 0360-0300. doi:10.1145/2512962. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2512962

2014 doi
[12]

PAMR : Passive aggressive mean reversion strategy for portfolio selection

Bin Li, Peilin Zhao, Steven Hoi, and Vivekanand Gopalkrishnan. PAMR : Passive aggressive mean reversion strategy for portfolio selection. Machine Learning, 87 0 (2): 0 221--258, 2012

2012
[13]

Hoi, Peilin Zhao, and Viveknand Gopalkrishnan

Bin Li, Steven C.H. Hoi, Peilin Zhao, and Viveknand Gopalkrishnan. Confidence weighted mean reversion strategy for on-line portfolio selection. In ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 2013

2013
[14]

J. Mockus. On B ayesian methods for seeking the extremum. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 27: 0 400--404, July 1975

1975
[15]

F. M. Nyikosa, M. A. Osborne, and S. J. Roberts. B ayesian optimization for dynamic problems. Technical report, University of Oxford, Department of Engineering Science, 2018. URL http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ favour/NyikosaABO.pdf

2018
[16]

C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006

2006
[17]

Shahriari, K

B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R. P. Adams, and N. de Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of B ayesian optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104 0 (1): 0 148--175, Jan 2016. ISSN 0018-9219. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

2016
[18]

Srinivas, A

N. Srinivas, A. Krause, S.M. Kakade, and M. Seeger. Information-theoretic regret bounds for G aussian process optimization in the bandit setting. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, 58 0 (5): 0 3250--3265, May 2012. ISSN 0018-9448. doi:10.1109/TIT.2011.2182033

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Schapire

Amit Agarwal, Elad Hazan, Satyen Kale, and Robert E. Schapire. Algorithms for portfolio management based on the newton method. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, pages 9--16, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. ISBN 1-59593-383-2. doi:10.1145/1143844.1143846. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1143844.1143846

work page arXiv 2006

[2] [2]

Time-Varying Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization

Ilija Bogunovic, Jonathan Scarlett, and Volkan Cevher. Time-varying G aussian process bandit optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.06650, 2016

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[3] [3]

Thomas M. Cover. Universal portfolios. Mathematical Finance, 1 0 (1): 0 1--29, 1991

work page 1991

[4] [4]

Gonz \'a lez, and David A

Carlos Cruz, Juan R. Gonz \'a lez, and David A. Pelta. Optimization in dynamic environments: a survey on problems, methods and measures. Soft Computing, 15 0 (7): 0 1427--1448, 2011

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Grinold and Ronald N

Richard C. Grinold and Ronald N. Kahn. Active P ortfolio M anagement: A quantative approach for producing superior returns and selecting superior money managers , pages 487--490. M c G raw H ill, N ew Y ork, 2nd edition, 1999. ISBN 0070248826

work page 1999

[6] [6]

On-line portfolio selection using multiplicative updates

David P Helmbold, Robert E Schapire, Yoram Singer, and Manfred K Warmuth. On-line portfolio selection using multiplicative updates. Mathematical Finance, 8 0 (4): 0 325--347, 1998

1998

[7] [7]

Andreas Krause and Cheng S. Ong. Contextual G aussian process bandit optimization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2447--2455, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

OLPS : A toolbox for online portfolio selection

B Li, D Sahoo, and SCH Hoi. OLPS : A toolbox for online portfolio selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 2015

work page 2015