Portfolio Optimization

LLM agents increasingly operate in open-ended environments spanning hundreds of sequential episodes, yet they remain largely stateless: each task is solved from scratch without converting past experience into better future behavior. The central obstacle is not \emph{what} to remember but \emph{how to use} what has been remembered, including which retrieval policy to apply, how to interpret prior outcomes, and when the current strategy itself must change. We introduce \emph{Agent Evolving Learning} (\ael{}), a two-timescale framework that addresses this obstacle. At the fast timescale, a Thompson Sampling bandit learns which memory retrieval policy to apply at each episode; at the slow timescale, LLM-driven reflection diagnoses failure patterns and injects causal insights into the agent's decision prompt, giving it an interpretive frame for the evidence it retrieves. On a sequential portfolio benchmark (10 sector-diverse tickers, 208 episodes, 5 random seeds), \ael{} achieves a Sharpe ratio of 2.13$\pm$0.47, outperforming five published self-improving methods and all non-LLM baselines while maintaining the lowest variance among all LLM-based approaches. A nine-variant ablation reveals a ``less is more'' pattern: memory and reflection together produce a 58% cumulative improvement over the stateless baseline, yet every additional mechanism we test (planner evolution, per-tool selection, cold-start initialization, skill extraction, and three credit assignment methods) \emph{degrades} performance. This demonstrates that the bottleneck in agent self-improvement is \emph{self-diagnosing how to use} experience rather than adding architectural complexity. Code and data: https://github.com/WujiangXu/AEL.

Consider betting against a sequence of data in $[0,1]$, where one is allowed to make any bet that is fair if the data have a conditional mean $m_0 \in (0,1)$. Cover's universal portfolio algorithm delivers a worst-case regret of $O(\ln n)$ compared to the best constant bet in hindsight, and this bound is unimprovable against adversarially generated data. In this work, we present a novel mixture betting strategy that combines insights from Robbins and Cover, and exhibits a different behavior: it eventually produces a regret of $O(\ln \ln n)$ on almost all paths (a measure-one set of paths if each conditional mean equals $m_0$ and intrinsic variance increases to $\infty$), but has an $O(\log n)$ regret on the complement (a measure zero set of paths). Our paper appears to be the first to point out the value in hedging two very different strategies to achieve a best-of-both-worlds adaptivity to stochastic data and protection against adversarial data. We contrast our results to those in Agrawal and Ramdas [2026] for a sub-Gaussian mixture on unbounded data: their worst-case regret has to be unbounded, but a similar hedging delivers both an optimal betting growth-rate and an almost sure $\ln\ln n$ regret on stochastic data. Finally, our strategy witnesses a sharp game-theoretic upper law of the iterated logarithm, analogous to Shafer and Vovk [2005].

In black-box optimization, a central question is which algorithm to use to solve a given, previously unseen, problem. Selecting a single algorithm, however, entails inherent risks: inaccuracies in the selector may lead to poor choices, and even well-performing algorithms with high variance can yield unsatisfactory results in a single run. A natural remedy is to split the evaluation budget across multiple runs of potentially different algorithms. Such sequential algorithm portfolios benefit from variance reduction and complementarities between algorithms, often outperforming approaches that allocate the entire budget to a single solver. While effective portfolios can be constructed post-hoc, transferring this idea to the algorithm selection setting is non-trivial. We show that a naive portfolio constructed over the full training set already outperforms the strongest traditional baseline, the virtual best solver. We then propose a simple yet effective k-nearest-neighbor-based finetuning approach to construct portfolios tailored to unseen instances, yielding further improvements and highlighting the effectiveness of portfolio selection in fixed-budget black-box optimization.

Sparsity or complexity? In modern high-dimensional asset pricing, these are often viewed as competing principles: recent empirical evidence favors richer models, while economic intuition has long favored parsimony. We reconcile this tension by distinguishing capacity sparsity-restrictions on effective model capacity-from factor sparsity-the parsimonious structure of priced risks. Revisiting the benchmark empirical design of Didisheim et al. (2025), we combine nonlinear feature expansions with basis pursuit, using column generation and GPU acceleration to scale estimation to 432 million candidate factors. Reaching this scale reveals a reversal in out-of-sample performance: sparse portfolios trail dense ridgeless benchmarks at lower complexity but achieve a higher Sharpe ratio and lower pricing error at the largest candidate set. Capacity expansion and factor sparsity are therefore complements: enlarging the candidate space allows a parsimonious pricing kernel to outperform its dense counterpart.

In typical black-box optimization applications, the available computational budget is often allocated to a single algorithm, typically chosen based on user preference with limited knowledge about the problem at hand or according to some expert knowledge. However, we show that splitting the budget across several algorithms yield significantly better results. This approach benefits from both algorithm complementarity across diverse problems and variance reduction within individual functions, and shows that algorithm portfolios do NOT require parallel evaluation capabilities. To demonstrate the advantage of sequential algorithm portfolios, we apply it to the COCO data archive, using over 200 algorithms evaluated on the BBOB test suite. The proposed sequential portfolios consistently outperform single-algorithm baselines, achieving relative performance gains of over 14%, and offering new insights into restart mechanisms and potential for warm-started execution strategies.

We study reinforcement learning for controlled diffusion processes with unbounded continuous state spaces, bounded continuous actions, and polynomially growing rewards: settings that arise naturally in finance, economics, and operations research. To overcome the challenges of continuous and high-dimensional domains, we introduce a model-based algorithm that adaptively partitions the joint state-action space. The algorithm maintains estimators of drift, volatility, and rewards within each partition, refining the discretization whenever estimation bias exceeds statistical confidence. This adaptive scheme balances exploration and approximation, enabling efficient learning in unbounded domains. Our analysis establishes regret bounds that depend on the problem horizon, state dimension, reward growth order, and a newly defined notion of zooming dimension tailored to unbounded diffusion processes. The bounds recover existing results for bounded settings as a special case, while extending theoretical guarantees to a broader class of diffusion-type problems. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of our approach through numerical experiments, including applications to high-dimensional problems such as multi-asset mean-variance portfolio selection.

Multi-period portfolio optimization is important for real portfolio management, as it accounts for transaction costs, path-dependent risks, and the intertemporal structure of trading decisions that single-period models cannot capture. Classical methods usually follow a two-stage framework: machine learning algorithms are employed to produce forecasts that closely fit the realized returns, and the predicted values are then used in a downstream portfolio optimization problem to determine the asset weights. This separation leads to a fundamental misalignment between predictions and decision outcomes, while also ignoring the impact of transaction costs. To bridge this gap, recent studies have proposed the idea of end-to-end learning, integrating the two stages into a single pipeline. This paper introduces IPMO (Integrated Prediction and Multi-period Portfolio Optimization), a model for multi-period mean-variance portfolio optimization with turnover penalties. The predictor generates multi-period return forecasts that parameterize a differentiable convex optimization layer, which in turn drives learning via portfolio performance. For scalability, we introduce a mirror-descent fixed-point (MDFP) differentiation scheme that avoids factorizing the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) systems, which thus yields stable implicit gradients and nearly scale-insensitive runtime as the decision horizon grows. In experiments with real market data and two representative time-series prediction models, the IPMO method consistently outperforms the two-stage benchmarks in risk-adjusted performance net of transaction costs and achieves more coherent allocation paths. Our results show that integrating machine learning prediction with optimization in the multi-period setting improves financial outcomes and remains computationally tractable.

Classification outperforms regression across matched machine learning models in portfolio construction. A stacking ensemble of gradient boosted tree, random forest, and neural network yields a value-weighted annualized Sharpe ratio of 1.83 for classification and 1.11 for regression. This outperformance persists in multiclass settings, across subsamples, and after transaction costs. Spanning tests show that classification retains economically large alphas after we control for regression, whereas regression alphas shrink substantially once we control for classification. These results indicate that classification extracts more return information than matched regression. Our diagnostics trace classification's advantage to sharper and more precise separation of return deciles.