Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Cost-aware Portfolios in a Large Universe of Assets

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-step LLA portfolio estimator with SCAD penalty matches the oracle cost-aware portfolio in high dimensions.

desk verdict A solid high-dimensional portfolio paper with honest scope issues: the oracle theory targets a sparsity-constrained optimum, not the unconstrained cost-aware optimum the abstract advertises. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11575 v2 pith:ANK44BN4 submitted 2024-12-16 stat.ME q-fin.PM

Qingliang Fan , Marcelo C. Medeiros , Hanming Yang , Songshan Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEq-fin.PM MSC 62P0591G1062J07
keywords high-dimensionalportfoliooptimizationmean-variancemodeltransactioncostsSCADpenaltylocallinearapproximationoraclepropertyrebalancingSharperatio
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

The paper tries to establish that an investor can do optimal mean-variance portfolio construction and rebalancing even when the number of assets, $p$, is much larger than the number of return observations, $n$, as long as transaction costs are put inside the objective and the true optimal portfolio is sparse. It defines a cost-aware portfolio by adding proportional or quadratic trading costs to the usual mean-variance criterion together with an $\ell_0$ budget on the number of assets held, then relaxes that budget with a SCAD penalty and solves the nonconvex program with two iterations of local linear approximation. The central claim is that after two iterations the estimated portfolio equals the oracle estimator that already knows the correct asset support, with probability at least $1 - c_1 k^{-c_2}$, and differs from the true optimal portfolio by $\ell^\infty$ error $O(\sqrt{\log k/n})$. If true, this means fee-aware sparse rebalancing has a rigorous statistical justification in high dimensions, and the in-sample and out-of-sample Sharpe ratios of the estimated portfolio converge to those of the true cost-aware optimum. The paper supports the claim with simulations and with S&P 500 and Russell 2000 applications where the proposed estimator posts the highest net-of-cost Sharpe ratios among the compared strategies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the CAPE-S estimator: the minimizer of $w^\top \hat{\Sigma}_t w - \gamma w^\top \hat{\mu}_t + C_t(w) + \sum_j P_\lambda(|w_j|)$ under the budget constraint $w^\top 1 = 1$, and its rebalancing analogue for the weight-difference vector $\delta_t$, where $C_t$ is either a quadratic cost $(\beta \odot w)^\top w$ or a proportional cost $\|\alpha \odot w\|_1$ and $P_\lambda$ is the SCAD penalty, a concave sparsity-inducing penalty that avoids the bias of $\ell_1$ regularization. The key mechanism is that two iterations of the local linear approximation (LLA) algorithm, initialized at the Lasso-type CAPE-L estimate, produce a solution identical to the oracle estimator restricted to the true support: the $\beta$-min condition keeps active coefficients above the SCAD threshold while the Lasso initializer already identifies the support with high probability. Quadratic transaction costs enter as a diagonal ridge $\hat{\Sigma}_t + \mathrm{diag}(\beta)$, which regularizes the covariance matrix; proportional costs add an $\ell_1$ turnover penalty that directly induces sparsity in rebalancing.

What would settle it

Construct a simulation where the cost-aware mean-variance optimum (with the same transaction costs but no sparsity constraint) has all $p$ weights nonzero, run CAPE-S, and check whether the $\ell^\infty$ error still shrinks at the claimed $\sqrt{\log k/n}$ rate and whether the Sharpe gap to the dense optimum vanishes; if either fails, the sparsity assumption is violated and the theorem's conditions do not hold. A complementary check on the paper's own Russell 2000 sample is to compute the unconstrained cost-aware solution and count how many weights exceed a small threshold, comparing that count to the assumed $s_0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an oracle property for cost-aware portfolios: under Assumptions (A1)-(A3) and a $\beta$-min condition on the active coefficients, the two-iteration LLA solution of the SCAD-penalized program converges to the oracle estimator with probability at least $1 - c_1 k^{-c_2}$ and achieves $\| \hat{w}_1^{\beta} - w_1^* \|_\infty = O(\sqrt{\log k/n})$ at the construction stage; Theorems 2-4 give the analogous rates for rebalancing increments $\delta_t^*$ under quadratic and proportional costs, with the rate improving to $\sqrt{\log k/n}$ when previous holdings are sparse. The paper further claims that the estimated portfolio's in-sample and out-of-sample Sharpe ratios converge in probability to those of the optimal cost-aware portfolio under $s_t\sqrt{\log s_t/n} = o(1)$, and demonstrates on S&P 500 and Russell 2000 data that the estimator achieves higher overall out-of-sample Sharpe ratios than the equally-weighted, mean-variance, penalized mean-variance, and cost-aware mean-variance benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true cost-aware portfolio and each rebalancing movement are sparse, with support size at most $s_0$ and $s_t = O(\sqrt{n/\log p})$; if the unconstrained fee-aware mean-variance optimum uses many assets, the oracle and consistency claims do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After two LLA iterations, the SCAD-penalized CAPE-S estimator coincides with the oracle that knows the true support, so global optimization of the nonconvex problem is unnecessary for the stated rates.
  • Under $s_t\sqrt{\log s_t/n} = o(1)$, the estimated portfolio's in-sample and out-of-sample Sharpe ratios converge in probability to those of the optimal cost-aware portfolio.
  • Quadratic transaction costs act as a diagonal perturbation of the covariance matrix, while proportional costs add an $\ell_1$ turnover penalty; both can be interpreted as regularizers within the same framework.
  • If previous-period holdings are sparse, rebalancing increments achieve the faster rate $\sqrt{\log k/n}$; with non-sparse holdings the rate degrades to $\sqrt{\log p/n}$ but consistency is retained.
  • On S&P 500 and Russell 2000 data from 2017 to 2020, the estimator reports the highest overall out-of-sample Sharpe ratio under both quadratic and proportional cost settings, and in the Russell 2000 it is the only strategy with a positive return in the 2018 stage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-iteration result suggests a practical warm-start rule for multi-period rebalancing: initialize each period's LLA from the previous period's selected support, which the paper's sparsity condition on $w^+_{t-1}$ partially anticipates; a head-to-head test of warm-started versus cold-started CAPE-S would quantify the gain.
  • Because quadratic transaction costs enter as a diagonal ridge on the covariance matrix, raising $\beta$ should mimic stronger covariance shrinkage; one testable prediction is that turnover falls faster than risk as $\beta$ increases, independent of $\hat{\Sigma}$.
  • The consistency of the Sharpe ratios points toward a data-driven rebalancing calendar: choose the interval between rebalances by balancing estimated cost parameters against the $\sqrt{\log k/n}$ estimation error instead of a fixed annual grid.
  • Asset-specific cost coefficients in the empirical design imply a liquidity tilt: CAPE-S should hold a selected support whose average bid-ask spread is below the universe average, which is directly checkable from the reported cost estimates.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a high-dimensional, multi-period mean-variance portfolio estimator that incorporates transaction costs directly into the optimization. It defines a sparsity-constrained "cost-aware" optimal portfolio for the construction stage (Eq. 2.4) and for each rebalancing stage (Eq. 2.5), then approximates the ℓ0 constraint with a SCAD penalty and solves the problem via local linear approximation (LLA). The central theoretical claims are oracle properties: after two LLA iterations, the CAPE-S estimator converges to the oracle estimator at an ℓ∞ rate, and in-sample and out-of-sample Sharpe ratio estimators converge to those of the optimal cost-aware portfolio. The paper also reports Monte Carlo simulations and empirical applications to S&P 500 and Russell 2000 constituents with asset-specific transaction cost estimates.

Significance. If the theorems hold, the paper would be a useful contribution to a relatively thin literature on transaction-cost-aware portfolio optimization in high dimensions, and the LLA-based two-step oracle property is an attractive algorithmic result. The strengths include the explicit treatment of both quadratic and proportional transaction costs, the use of real, asset-specific cost estimates in the empirical section, and a broad simulation study. However, the central claims rest on a sparsity assumption that is imposed rather than derived, the out-of-sample Sharpe consistency statements appear to require information that is not available at the decision date, and the proofs are entirely deferred to a supplementary file that was not available for evaluation. These issues currently prevent the main results from being verified and limit the practical interpretation of the theorems.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5)] The target portfolio is defined as the minimizer of the cost-aware objective subject to a cardinality constraint ∥w∥0 ≤ s0 and ∥δ∥0 ≤ s0. This sparsity is imposed, not derived from the transaction cost structure. For quadratic costs C1(w) = (β⊙w)^T w, the unconstrained minimizer of w^TΣw − γw^Tµ + (β⊙w)^T w subject only to w^T1 = 1 is generically dense, so the ℓ0 constraint changes the economic target. The paper never bounds the approximation error between the constrained optimum in Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5) and the unconstrained cost-aware optimum. Without such a bound, Theorems 1-4 establish consistency to a constrained oracle, not to the 'optimal cost-aware portfolio' of the abstract, and the practical relevance of the consistency theorem is unquantified.
  2. [Corollary 1 and Corollary 2] The out-of-sample Sharpe ratio consistency statements use bµ2 and bΣ2 at the first construction stage and bµt+1 and bΣt+1 at stage t. At the first decision day n+1, however, only the returns R1,...,Rn are available, and no estimator bµ2 or bΣ2 is defined. If these are meant to be estimators formed from period-2 data, the corollaries use future information and are not valid out-of-sample claims. The authors should either define the out-of-sample Sharpe ratio using realized returns realized after the decision date and prove consistency of the resulting estimator, or state clearly that bµ2 and bΣ2 are independent test-period quantities and justify why they are available at the decision date.
  3. [Theorems 1-4 and Lemmas 1-4] All proofs, including the derivations of the explicit oracle solutions, the oracle properties, and the Sharpe ratio consistency results, are deferred to the Supplementary Material. The main text contains only theorem statements and informal remarks. Because the proofs were not available for review, I could not verify the central claims of the paper. At minimum, the main text should include proof sketches that convey the key concentration arguments and the role of each assumption, so that a referee can check the logic without reconstructing the full supplement.
  4. [Theorem 2(i) and Theorem 4(i)] The condition ∥w+t−1∥1 < C0 is stated as a deterministic assumption, but w+t−1 is a random quantity: it is obtained by applying the return maps f1,...,fn to the previous portfolio weight and therefore depends on the realized returns and on the previous estimator. The probability statements in Theorems 2 and 4 do not account for the event that this condition holds. The authors should either make the condition a high-probability event and include it in the probability bound, or state the theorem conditionally on the event and give a separate bound for its probability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3, Theorem 1] In the statement of Theorem 1, 'SACD penalty' is a typo and should read 'SCAD penalty'.
  2. [Lemma 2] Lemma 2 mixes the notation Op with an explicit high-probability statement: it writes 'with probability at least 1−c1p−c2' but then reports Op rates. The high-probability event should be stated explicitly in the same form as Lemma 1.
  3. [Section 3, tuning parameter] The tuning parameter λopt is selected by the highest in-sample Sharpe ratio, but the theorems require λ ≥ M sqrt(s1 log p/n). The manuscript does not connect the data-dependent selection rule to this theoretical condition, nor does it discuss how the selected λ behaves as n and p grow.
  4. [Section 5, Conclusion] The conclusion says 'we prove the sign consistency', but sign consistency is not explicitly stated in any theorem; the theorems establish ℓ∞ convergence and oracle equivalence. The conclusion should either add a formal sign-consistency result or rephrase the claim.
  5. [Theorem 1] The statement uses k ∈ [s1,p] without defining k. The reader is left to infer that k is the active-set size or the dimension of the subvector; this should be defined explicitly in the statement.
  6. [Section 2.3.2, after Corollary 2] The text 'Shape Ratio estimation errors' contains a typo and should read 'Sharpe ratio'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oracle target is explicitly defined and all consistency theorems target that definition, with only a non-load-bearing remark citing prior work by a coauthor.

full rationale

The paper's target is defined explicitly in Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5) as the minimizer of a mean-variance objective with transaction costs subject to w'1 = 1 and an l0 cardinality constraint. Theorems 1-4 and their corollaries establish that two LLA iterations initialized at the CAPE-L estimator coincide with the oracle estimator that knows the true support, and then bound the l_infinity distance to w*_1 or delta*_t. This is a standard high-dimensional oracle-property argument: the estimators do not use the true support, and the proofs do not use the data to define the target, so the consistency claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The sparsity of w*_1 and delta*_t is a stated assumption about the target (Section 2.2), not a consequence fitted from data; whether this sparse target approximates the unconstrained cost-aware optimum is an external-validity question, not a circularity. The only potentially self-referential element is Remark 1, which says Assumption (A1) 'aligns with assumptions in Cai et al. (2024)', a paper coauthored by one of the current authors; that citation is used only to comment on an assumption and is not load-bearing for any of the theorems. The empirical tuning of lambda by in-sample Sharpe ratio and the subsequent out-of-sample Sharpe comparisons are conventional model-selection exercises, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Accordingly there is no circular step to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on strong sparsity assumptions about the unknown optimal portfolio and on auxiliary assertions about shrinkage estimators that are not proven in the main text.

free parameters (4)
  • Tuning parameter λ for SCAD/Lasso penalty = data-dependent (chosen to maximize in-sample Sharpe ratio)
    Controls sparsity; the theoretical rate requires λ ≥ M sqrt(s log p/n), but the practical choice is not guaranteed to satisfy this.
  • Risk aversion inverse γ = 1/3 in simulations; fixed in theory
    User-specified trade-off between risk and return; not fitted to data.
  • Quadratic cost coefficient β = 0.15 in simulations; asset-specific in empirical section
    Models market impact; chosen by hand in simulations and estimated from bid-ask spreads in empirical analysis.
  • Proportional cost coefficient α = 0.001 in simulations; asset-specific in empirical section
    Models linear transaction cost; chosen by hand in simulations and estimated from bid-ask spreads in empirical analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Asset returns are i.i.d. sub-Gaussian within each period
    Required for the max-norm concentration bounds in Assumption (A2) and RSC in (A3). Stated in Remark 1 and Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal cost-aware portfolio w*_1 and rebalancing increments δ*_t are s0-sparse with s_t = O(sqrt(n/log p))
    Assumed after Eq. (2.5) in Section 2.2. This is load-bearing because the oracle rates depend on s_t.
  • ad hoc to paper Beta-min condition: minimum nonzero weight exceeds (a+1)λ
    Required for oracle property in Theorems 1-4.
  • ad hoc to paper Bounded pre-rebalancing weight vector ∥w+_{t-1}∥_1 ≤ C0
    Assumed in Theorem 2 and 4 part (i) to control the cross term in the rebalancing objective.
  • standard math Restricted strong convexity (RSC) of estimated covariance matrix
    Assumption (A3), Eq. (2.10). Holds for sample covariance under sub-Gaussianity; asserted for shrinkage estimators in supplementary.
  • domain assumption Uniform max-norm convergence of covariance and mean estimates
    Assumption (A2), Eq. (2.9). Holds for sample estimators under sub-Gaussianity; asserted for LSE in supplementary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cost-aware Portfolios in a Large Universe of Assets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANK44BN4

@misc{pith2026241211575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cost-aware Portfolios in a Large Universe of Assets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANK44BN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11575}
}
read the original abstract

This paper considers the finite horizon portfolio rebalancing problem in terms of mean-variance optimization, where decisions are made based on current information on asset returns and transaction costs. The study's novelty is that the transaction costs are integrated within the optimization problem in a high-dimensional portfolio setting where the number of assets is larger than the sample size. We propose portfolio construction and rebalancing models with nonconvex penalty considering two types of transaction cost, the proportional transaction cost and the quadratic transaction cost. We establish the desired theoretical properties under mild regularity conditions. Monte Carlo simulations and empirical studies using S&P 500 and Russell 2000 stocks show the satisfactory performance of the proposed portfolio and highlight the importance of involving the transaction costs when rebalancing a portfolio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First portfolio construction and reallocation diagram for multi-periods portfolios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    El Karoui, and A

    Ban, G.-Y., N. El Karoui, and A. E. Lim (2018). Machine learning and portfolio optimiza- tion. Management Science 64 (3), 1136–1154

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Best, M. J. and J. Hlouskova (2005). An algorithm for portfolio optimization with trans- action costs. Management Science 51 (11), 1676–1688

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Brown, D. B. and J. E. Smith (2011). Dynamic portfolio optimization with transaction costs: Heuristics and dual bounds. Management Science 57 (10), 1752–1770

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Cai, T. T., J. Hu, Y. Li, and X. Zheng (2020). High-dimensional minimum variance portfolio estimation based on high-frequency data. Journal of Econometrics 214 (2), 482–494

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Cai, Z., C. Li, J. Wen, and S. Yang (2024). Asset splitting algorithm for ultrahigh dimen- sional portfolio selection and its theoretical property. Journal of Econometrics 239 (2), 105291

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Medeiros, and G

    Caner, M., M. Medeiros, and G. F. Vasconcelos (2023). Sharpe ratio analysis in high dimensions: Residual-based nodewise regression in factor models. Journal of Economet- rics 235 (2), 393–417

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen, and M

    Chang, J., X. Chen, and M. Wu (2024). Central limit theorems for high dimensional dependent data. Bernoulli 30 (1), 712–742

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Garlappi, F

    DeMiguel, V., L. Garlappi, F. J. Nogales, and R. Uppal (2009). A generalized approach to portfolio optimization: Improving performance by constraining portfolio norms. Man- agement Science 55 (5), 798–812

    work page 2009

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Garlappi, and R

    DeMiguel, V., L. Garlappi, and R. Uppal (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/n portfolio strategy? The review of Financial studies 22 (5), 1915–1953. 40

    2009

  2. [10]

    Li, and X

    Ding, Y., Y. Li, and X. Zheng (2021). High dimensional minimum variance portfolio estimation under statistical factor models. Journal of Econometrics 222 (1), 502–515

    2021

  3. [11]

    Guo, and X

    Du, J.-H., Y. Guo, and X. Wang (2022). High-dimensional portfolio selection with cardi- nality constraints. Journal of the American Statistical Association 118 (542), 779–791

    2022

  4. [12]

    Engle, R. F., O. Ledoit, and M. Wolf (2019). Large dynamic covariance matrices. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 37 (2), 363–375

    2019

  5. [13]

    Fan, and J

    Fan, J., Y. Fan, and J. Lv (2008). High dimensional covariancematrix estimation using a factor model. Journal of Econometrics 147 (1), 186–197

    2008

  6. [14]

    Fan, J. and R. Li (2001). Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (456), 1348–1360

    2001

  7. [15]

    Liao, and X

    Fan, J., Y. Liao, and X. Shi (2015). Risks of large portfolios. Journal of Economet- rics 186 (2), 367–387

    2015

  8. [16]

    Wang, and Y

    Fan, J., W. Wang, and Y. Zhong (2019). Robust covariance estimation for approximate factor models. Journal of Econometrics 208 (1), 5–22

    2019

  9. [17]

    Xue, and H

    Fan, J., L. Xue, and H. Zou (2014). Strong oracle optimality of folded concave penalized estimation. The Annals of Statistics 42 (3), 819–849

    2014

  10. [18]

    Zhang, and K

    Fan, J., J. Zhang, and K. Yu (2012). Vast portfolio selection with gross-exposure con- straints. Journal of the American Statistical Association 107 (498), 592–606

    2012

  11. [19]

    Fan, Y. and J. Lv (2016). Innovated scalable efficient estimation in ultra-large gaussian graphical models. The Annals of Statistics 44 (5), 2098–2126

    2016

  12. [20]

    Zhu, and L

    Gai, Y., L. Zhu, and L. Lin (2013). Model selection consistency of dantzig selector.Statistica Sinica 23 (2), 615–634. 41

    2013

  13. [21]

    Hafner, C. M., O. B. Linton, and H. Tang (2020). Estimation of a multiplicative correlation structure in the large dimensional case. Journal of Econometrics 217 (2), 431–470

    2020

  14. [22]

    Hasbrouck, J. (2009). Trading costs and returns for us equities: Estimating effective costs from daily data. The Journal of Finance 64 (3), 1445–1477

    2009

  15. [23]

    Hautsch, N. and S. Voigt (2019, sep). Large-scale portfolio allocation under transaction costs and model uncertainty. Journal of Econometrics 212 (1), 221–240

    2019

  16. [24]

    Jagannathan, R. and T. Ma (2003). Risk reduction in large portfolios: Why imposing the wrong constraints helps. The Journal of Finance 58 (4), 1651–1683

    2003

  17. [25]

    Lam, C. and P. Feng (2018). A nonparametric eigenvalue-regularized integrated covariance matrix estimator for asset return data. Journal of Econometrics 206 (1), 226–257

    2018

  18. [26]

    Ledoit, O. and M. Wolf (2004). A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covari- ance matrices. Journal of multivariate analysis 88 (2), 365–411

    2004

  19. [27]

    Ledoit, O. and M. Wolf (2020). Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covari- ance matrices. The Annals of Statistics 48 (5), 3043–3065

    2020

  20. [28]

    Ledoit, O. and M. Wolf (2025). Markowitz portfolios under transaction costs.The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 100 , 101962

    2025

  21. [29]

    Liu, W., X. Yu, W. Zhong, and R. Li (2024). Projection test for mean vector in high dimensions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 (545), 744–756

    2024

  22. [30]

    Lobo, M. S., M. Fazel, and S. Boyd (2007). Portfolio optimization with linear and fixed transaction costs. Annals of Operations Research 152 (1), 341–365

    2007

  23. [31]

    Loh, P.-L. and M. J. Wainwright (2015). Regularized m-estimators with nonconvexity: Statistical and algorithmic theory for local optima. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search 16 (19), 559–616. 42

    2015

  24. [32]

    Chen, and P

    Luo, C., P. Chen, and P. Jaillet (2024). Portfolio optimization based on almost second- degree stochastic dominance. Management Science 71 (8), 7029–7055

    2024

  25. [33]

    Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7 (1), 77–91

    1952

  26. [34]

    Olivares-Nadal, A. V. and V. DeMiguel (2018). A robust perspective on transaction costs in portfolio optimization. Operations Research 66 (3), 733–739

    2018

  27. [35]

    Perold, A. F. (1984). Large-scale portfolio optimization. Management Science 30 (10), 1143–1160

    1984

  28. [36]

    Ren, Z., Y. Kang, Y. Fan, and J. Lv (2019). Tuning-free heterogeneous inference in massive networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association 114 (528), 1908–1925

    2019

  29. [37]

    Sun, C.-h

    Ren, Z., T. Sun, C.-h. Zhang, and H. H. Zhou (2015). Asymptotic normality and optimal- ities in estimation of large gaussian graphical models. The Annals of Statistics 43 (3), 991–1026. Ren` o, R., R. T´ edongap, and X. Zhang (2025). Pure momentum.Technical Report

    2015

  30. [38]

    Samuelson, P. A. (1975). Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming. In Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance , pp. 517–524

    1975

  31. [39]

    So, M. K., T. W. Chan, and A. M. Chu (2022). Efficient estimation of high-dimensional dynamic covariance by risk factor mapping: Applications for financial risk management. Journal of Econometrics 227 (1), 151–167

    2022

  32. [40]

    Wang, L., Z. Chen, C. D. Wang, and R. Li (2020). Ultrahigh dimensional precision matrix estimation via refitted cross validation. Journal of Econometrics 215 (1), 118–130

    2020

  33. [41]

    Zhang, C.-H. (2010). Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. The Annals of Statistics 38 (2), 894–942. 43

    2010

  34. [42]

    Zhao, P. and B. Yu (2006). On model selection consistency of lasso. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 (90), 2541–2563

    2006

  35. [43]

    Zou, H. (2006). The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101 (476), 1418–1429

    2006

  36. [44]

    Zou, H. and R. Li (2008). One-step sparse estimates in nonconcave penalized likelihood models. The Annals of Statistics 36 (4), 1509–1533. 44

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.