Journal of the Physical Society of Japan

FULL PAPERS

Random matrix approach for primal-dual portfolio
optimization problems

arXiv:1709.04620v2 [q-fin.PM] 20 Sep 2017

Daichi Tada† , Hisashi Yamamoto† and Takashi Shinzato ∗
†

Graduate School of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University,
Hino, Tokyo 191-0065, Japan

∗

Department of Management Science, College of Engineering, Tamagawa University,
Machida, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
(Received September 14, 2017; accepted *** 1, 2017)

In this paper, we revisit the portfolio optimization problems of the minimization/maximization of investment risk under constraints of budget and investment concentration (primal problem) and the maximization/minimization of investment concentration under constraints of budget and investment risk (dual problem) for the case
that the variances of the return rates of the assets are identical. We analyze both optimization problems by using the Lagrange multiplier method and the random matrix
approach. Thereafter, we compare the results obtained from our proposed approach
with the results obtained in previous work. Moreover, we use numerical experiments to
validate the results obtained from the replica approach and the random matrix approach
as methods for analyzing both the primal and dual portfolio optimization problems.
KEYWORDS: mean variance model, primal and dual problems, investment risk, investment concentration,
random matrix approach, Stieltjes transformation, replica analysis

1. Introduction
When investors invest in financial instruments traded in the securities market, it is
important for them to implement an appropriate risk management strategy since the
return of an asset is uncertain. For this reason, Markowitz formulated the portfolio
optimization problem to mathematically analyze risk management based on diversified
investment.1) Following his pioneering work, many mathematical models and analytical
approaches have been reported in operations research.2, 3) Recently, the properties of
the optimal portfolio of the portfolio optimization problem have been actively explored
∗

Corresponding author, shinzato@eng.tamagawa.ac.jp

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

using the analytical approaches developed in the cross-disciplinary research fields involving econophysics and statistical mechanical informatics. For instance, Laloux et al.
investigated the statistical structure of the empirical correlation matrix for 406 assets in
the S&P500 based on daily normalized returns for a total of 1309 days during 1991–1996
and proposed a technique for pruning the noise from the empirical correlation matrix
by comparing the eigenvalue distribution of the empirical correlation matrix with that
of a random matrix.4, 5) Plerou et al. analyzed the eigenvalue spacing distribution to
investigate whether the empirical correlation matrix exhibits the universal statistical
properties predicted by random matrix theory. For that purpose, they used stock price
data of U.S. publicly traded companies over the 2-year period 1994-1995.6) Pafka et al.
quantitatively evaluated the correlation between assets by comparing the eigenvalue distribution of the empirical correlation matrix of return calculated from actual data with
the Marčenko-Pastur distribution.7) Ciliberti et al. applied the replica analysis method
to the mean-absolute deviation model and the expected shortfall model, and analyzed
the phase transition that occurs when the number of data periods is large relative to
the number of assets.8) Shinzato showed that the minimal investment risk and its investment concentration satisfy the self-averaging property by using the large deviation
principle, and he compared the minimal investment risk per asset derived using replica
analysis with the minimal expected investment risk per asset derived using operations
research and concluded that a portfolio which can minimize the expected investment
risk does not necessarily minimize the investment risk.9) Additionally, Shinzato analyzed the minimization of investment risk under constraints of budget and investment
concentration along with the dual problem by using replica analysis in order to clarify their primal-dual structure.10, 11) Varga-Haszonits et al. examined the minimization
of risk function defined by the sample variance under constraints of the budget and
the expected return by using replica analysis and analyzed the stability of the replica
symmetric solution.12) Shinzato examined the optimal portfolio which can minimize
the investment risk with short selling using replica analysis and disclosed the phase
transition of this investment system.13) Kondor et al. also analyzed the minimization
of investment risk under constraints of budget and short selling in the case that the
variances of the return rates of the assets are not identical by using replica analysis and
reconfirmed that this disordered system involves a phase transition.14)
Although Ciliberti et al., Kondor et al., and Shinzato et al. have all studied the properties of the optimal solution of the portfolio optimization problem by using replica anal-

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

ysis, it is generally known that the validities of several methods used in replica analysis,
for example, the analytic continuation of the replica number, have not been guaranteed
theoretically.15, 16) Therefore, we need to validate results obtained from replica analysis
by another approach that is mathematically guaranteed, such as the random matrix
approach. In addition, as mentioned above, the application of random matrix theory to
the portfolio optimization problem is mainly based on the evaluation of the correlation
matrix of the return rate, whereas its application to investment risk and investment
concentration of the optimal portfolio has not been sufficiently examined.
In the present paper, we reassess the minimal/maximal investment risk per asset
with budget and investment concentration constraints and the maximal/minimal investment concentration with constraints of budget and investment risk using the random
matrix approach. Moreover, we consider whether it can be applied to the evaluation of
the minimal/maximal investment risk per asset and investment concentration derived
by the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution when the number of assets is sufficiently large
but finite (not the thermodynamical limit).
This paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we formulate the minimization/maximization of investment risk under constraints of budget and investment concentration (primal problem) and the counterpart problems, the maximization/minimization of investment concentration under constraints of budget and investment risk (dual problem). In Sec. III, we analyze these two problems using the Lagrange
multiplier method and the random matrix approach. In Sec. IV, numerical experiments
for the portfolio optimization problems are carried out to validate the replica approach
and the random matrix approach. Finally, in Sec. V, we devote our conclusions and
future work.
2. Model Setting
The present study considers the optimal diversification investment based on the
mean variance model as the primal problem and dual problem with N assets over p
periods in a stable investment market where short selling is not regulated. The position
on asset i (= 1, 2, · · · , N) is denoted as wi , and the portfolio of N assets is represented

as w
~ = (w1 , w2 , ..., wN )T ∈ RN , where notation T indicates the transpose operator.
Note that wi takes any real number due to there being no restriction on short selling.

Furthermore, x̄iµ shows the return rate of asset i at period µ(= 1, 2, · · · , p), where the

return rates are independent and identically distributed with mean E[x̄iµ ] and variance

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

V [x̄iµ ] = 1.
Herein, the objective function of the primal problem, HP (w),
~ is defined as follows:
!2
p
N
N
X
1 X X
HP (w)
~ =
x̄iµ wi −
E[x̄iµ ]wi ,
(1)
2N µ=1 i=1
i=1
P
PN
where N
i=1 x̄iµ wi is the return rate of the portfolio at period µ and
i=1 E[x̄iµ ]wi is its
expectation. We will call HP (w)
~ in Eq. (1) investment risk hereafter. Investment risk
can be rewritten as follows:

1 T
w
~ J w,
~
(2)
2
where J = {Jij } ∈ RN ×N is the variance-covariance matrix (or Wishart matrix) with
P
components i, j given by Jij = N1 pµ=1 xiµ xjµ in terms of the modified return rate
HP (w)
~

=

xiµ = x̄iµ − E[x̄iµ ]. In the primal problem, the portfolio w
~ is under the constraints

defined as follows:

N
X

wi

=

N,

wi2

=

Nτ

(3)

i=1

N
X

τ ≥ 1,

i=1

(4)

where Eq. (3) is the budget constraint and Eq. (4) is the investment concentration
constraint. τ in Eq. (4) is a constant which characterizes an investment concentration
P
2
of risk management strategy. Investment concentration qw = N1 N
i=1 wi is an index for

assessing the dispersion of the portfolio w,
~ and it shows the achievement of diversified

investment in the same way as the Herfindahl-Hirschman index.11) In addition, the
P
budget constraint in Eq. (3), which is different from the budget constraint N
i=1 wi = 1
used in operations research, is rescaled so that wi is O(1) in the limit as the number

of assets N approaches infinity, and it is possible to give a statistical interpretation to
P
2
11)
investment concentration qw = N1 N
Moreover, the subset of
i=1 wi by using Eq. (3).

feasible portfolios, that is, those satisfying Eqs. (3) and (4), WP , is defined as follows:

WP =
w
~ ∈ RN w
~ T~e = N, w
~Tw
~ = Nτ ,
(5)
where ~e = (1, 1, · · · , 1)T ∈ RN is the ones vector. For the primal problem, we consider

the minimal investment risk per asset εmin and the maximal investment risk per asset
εmax :
εmin

=

lim min

N →∞ w∈W
~
P




1
HP (w)
~ ,
N

(6)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS




1
εmax = lim max
HP (w)
~ .
(7)
N →∞ w∈W
~
N
P
Note, the primal problem and the dual problem have been evaluated already by
replica analysis in previous work and the validity of the findings by replica analysis were
verified by numerical experiments.11) However, the validity of the analytical approach
of replica analysis has not been mathematically guaranteed. Thus, it is expected that
there may be some resistance to conducting investment actions based on the results of
replica analysis. For this reason, we reevaluate the primal problem and the dual problem
by using the random matrix approach guaranteed mathematically. In previous work,
using replica analysis, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin was derived as follows:
√

ατ +τ −1−2 ατ (τ −1)

1 − τ1 ≤ α


2
εmin =
(8)



0
otherwise,
where the period ratio α = p/N ∼ O(1) is used.10) In addition, the maximal investment
risk per asset εmax is as follows:

p
ατ + τ − 1 + 2 ατ (τ − 1)
α > 0.
(9)
εmax =
2
Similarly, we set the dual problem corresponding to this primal problem. In this
case, the objective function, HD (w),
~ is defined as follows:
N

HD (w)
~ =

1X 2
w .
2 i=1 i

(10)

This function corresponds to the investment concentration in Eq. (4), which is one of
the constraints of the primal problem. The constraints of the dual problem are the
budget constraint in Eq. (3) and the investment risk constraint defined as follows:
1 T
w
~ Jw
~ = Nκε0 .
(11)
2
This equation uses the minimum investment risk per asset in the portfolio optimization
problem with only the budget constraint imposed, ε0 =

α−1 9)
.
2

This constraint implies

that the investment risk for N assets is κ(≥ 1) times the minimal investment risk
imposed on the budget for N assets, which is Nε0 . We call κ the risk coefficient. Then
the feasible portfolio subset satisfying Eq. (3) and Eq. (11) is defined as follows:


1 T
T
N
~ Jw
~ = Nκε0 .
(12)
~ ~e = N, w
WD =
w
~ ∈R w
2
For the dual problem, we consider the maximal investment concentration qw,max and

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

the minimal investment concentration qw,min:
qw,max
qw,min


2
HD (w)
~ ,
= lim max
N →∞ w∈W
~
N
D


2
= lim min
HD (w)
~ .
N →∞ w∈W
~
N
D


(13)
(14)

In previous work,11) using replica analysis, the maximal investment concentration qw,max
was also analyzed as
2
√
ακ + κ − 1
α > 1,
(15)
qw,max =
α−1
and the minimal investment concentration qw,min was assessed as
2
√
√
ακ − κ − 1
qw,min =
α > 1.
(16)
α−1
In the replica analysis of previous work,11) for instance, in the case of the primal
√

problem, the minimum investment risk per asset εmin was evaluated using the following
equation:



∂
1
εmin = lim −
lim
E[log Z] ,
(17)
β→∞
∂β N →∞ N
where the partition function Z is defined using the Boltzmann distribution of the inverse
temperature β as
Z

=

Z

~
dwe
~ −βHp (w)
,

(18)

w∈W
~
P

and the notation E[·] means the expectation with respect to the modified return rate
xiµ , which is called the configuration average. In the process of evaluating E[log Z]
included in the right-hand side of Eq. (17), an identity called a replica trick,
∂
E[log Z] = lim
log E[Z n ],
(19)
n→0 ∂n
is often used. In replica analysis, one first assumes that the replica number in Eq. (19), n,
is an integer and that one can implement a configuration average of Z n (that is, calculate
E[Z n ]). Then, we assume that the replica number is real and that analytic continuation
of E[Z n ] can be executed. However, the validity of the analytic continuation with respect
to replica number from an integer to a real number has not yet been mathematically
guaranteed for portfolio optimization problems, which is also the case for many problems
in cross-disciplinary research fields.15) Therefore, we reexamine the primal problem and
the dual problem mathematically in the present work by using the Lagrange multiplier
method and the random matrix approach, as alternatives to replica analysis.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

3. Lagrange multiplier method and random matrix approach
In this section, we consider the primal problem and the dual problem via the Lagrange multiplier method and the random matrix approach.17–19)

3.1 Minimal investment risk with budget and investment concentration constraints
First, we examine the minimal investment risk with budget and investment concentration constraints as the primal problem. The Lagrange function corresponding to
the minimization problem of the investment risk LP (w,
~ k, θ) is defined using Lagrange

multipliers k, θ as follows:

LP (w,
~ k, θ) =
s.t.

θ
~ T w),
~
HP (w)
~ + k(N − w
~ T~e) + (Nτ − w
2
k∈R
θ ≤ λi

∀i = 1, 2, ..., N,

(20)

where λi represents the eigenvalue of the Wishart matrix J and the constraint in Eq. (20)
is a condition to guarantee that the Lagrange function LP (w,
~ k, θ) is convex with respect
to w.
~ 17–19) This constraint can be rewritten as θ ≤ λmin = min1≤i≤N λi , for which λmin
in the limit as N approaches infinity is known:

 (1 − √α)2
λmin =
 0

α≥1

(21)

0 < α < 1,

where the asymptotical spectrum of J (Marčenko-Pastur law) is used in the limit as N
goes infinity keeping α = p/N ∼ O(1).20) Note that the Lagrange multiplier method
can also handle the investment risk with only the budget constraint imposed when
θ = 0 (see Appendix for details). From the extremum equations
∂LP (w,k,θ)
~
∂k

∂LP (w,k,θ)
~
∂w
~

= 0 and

= 0,
w
~∗
k∗

= k ∗ (J − θIN )−1~e,
1
=
,
SN (θ)

(22)
(23)

are obtained, where IN in Eq. (22) is the N × N identity matrix, J − θIN is a regular

matrix because of Eq. (20), and SN (θ) is defined as follows:

~eT (J − θIN )−1~e
.
(24)
N
Let us employ the properties of SN (θ) in the limit as N approaches infinity in order to
SN (θ) =

analyze briefly the optimal θ of the Lagrange function. The singular value decomposition

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

of the return rate matrix X =

n

x
√iµ
N

o

∈ RN ×p is expressed as X = UDV T using N × N

orthogonal matrix U, p × p orthogonal matrix V , and diagonal matrix D = diag{di } ∈
√
RN ×p , where di = ± λi are the singular values. Then the Wishart matrix J is rewritten
as J = XX T = UDD T U T . From this, SN (θ) can be rewritten as follows:
SN (θ) =

=

N
1 X u2k
N k=1 λk − θ

Z

∞

−∞

N
1 1 X 2
u δ(λ − λk )dλ,
λ − θ N k=1 k

(25)

where ~u is defined as ~u = U T~e = (u1 , u2 , ..., uN )T ∈ RN and the Dirac delta function
δ(x) is used. Since ~u satisfies ~uT~u = ~eT~e = N, it is known that uk is asymptotically,

independently, and identically distributed according to the standard normal distribution
in the limit that N goes to infinity.21, 22) Further, SN (θ) has the self-averaging property
in the thermodynamic limit of N, so that SN (θ) converges to S(θ) = limN →∞ E[SN (θ)],
which is given by the following equation:
S(θ) =
where ρ(λ) (= limN →∞

1
N

Z

∞

−∞

PN

k=1 δ(λ−λk ))

ρ(λ)
dλ,
λ−θ

(26)

is an asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of the

Wishart matrix J, that is, the Marčenko-Pastur law.20) The integral defined in Eq. (26),
S(θ), is generally called the Stieltjes transform for the Marčenko-Pastur law.23, 24) For
the details of the evaluation of Eq. (26), see Appendices A and B.
Based on the above argument, the investment risk per asset ε(θ) can be represented
as a function of θ in the thermodynamic limit of N as follows:
1
ε(θ) = lim
L P (w
~ ∗ , k ∗ , θ)
N →∞ N


1
1
+ τθ .
(27)
=
2 S (θ)
Then the minimal investment risk per asset εmin is given by the following extremum:
εmin

=

sup ε(θ).

(28)

θ≤λmin

From this, it is possible to analytically evaluate εmin by using Eq. (27) and Eq. (A·5).
Notice that this equation is equivalent to the minimization of investment risk per asset
with respect to portfolio w.
~ In the following, we consider the minimal investment risk
per asset εmin in the ranges of (i) α ≥ 1 and (ii) 0 < α < 1.
(i) First, in the range α ≥ 1, λmin = (1 −

√

α)2 is given in Eq. (21) and there exists θ

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

θ∗

=

∂ε
∂θ

= 0. This implies
r
α
1 + α − (2τ − 1)
.
τ (τ − 1)

in the range θ ≤ λmin such that

(29)

From this, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin = ε(θ∗ ) is obtained as follows:
p
ατ + τ − 1 − 2 ατ (τ − 1)
εmin =
.
(30)
2
(ii) Next, in the range 0 < α < 1, λmin = 0 is already given in Eq. (21). Then

1
∂ε
∂ε
= 21 τ − 1−α
is calculated. When limθ→λmin ∂θ
< 0, that is, 1 − τ1 <
limθ→λmin ∂θ

α < 1, since the investment risk per asset ε(θ) is maximal at θ∗ given by Eq. (29),
the same result as Eq. (30) is derived. On the other hand, when limθ→λmin

∂ε
∂θ

> 0,

that is, 0 < α < 1 − τ1 , since the investment risk per asset ε(θ) is maximal at

θ∗ = λmin = 0, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin = ε(λmin) is
εmin = 0.

(31)

By the above argument, θ∗ = arg supθ≤λmin ε(θ) is given by the following equation:

q
α


1
+
α
−
(2τ
−
1)
1 − τ1 < α

τ (τ −1)

θ∗ =
(32)



 0
otherwise.
Thus, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin = ε(θ∗ ) is
√

ατ +τ −1−2 ατ (τ −1)

1 − τ1 < α


2
εmin =



0
otherwise.

(33)

This result is consistent with the findings in previous work using replica analysis.10)
3.2 Maximal investment risk with budget and investment concentration constraints
Next, we consider the maximal investment risk with budget and investment concentration constraints as the primal problem. The Lagrange function corresponding to the
maximization problem of the investment risk LP (w,
~ k, θ) is defined as follows:
θ
~ T w)
~
LP (w,
~ k, θ) = HP (w)
~ + k(N − w
~ T~e) + (Nτ − w
2
s.t.
k∈R
θ ≥ λi

∀i = 1, 2, ..., N,

(34)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

where the constraint in Eq. (34) is a condition to guarantee that the Lagrange function
LP (w,
~ k, θ) is concave with respect to w.
~ 17–19) This constraint can be rewritten as θ ≥

λmax = max1≤i≤N λi , where λmax in the thermodynamical limit of N is known to be
given by
λmax

=

(1 +

√

α)2 ,

(35)

which again uses the Marčenko-Pastur law.20) Since the optimality of w
~ and k are
already shown in the previous subsection (Eqs. (22) and (23)), the maximal investment
risk per asset εmax is derived as follows:
εmax

=

inf ε(θ),

(36)

θ≥λmax

where ε(θ) is in Eq. (27). Note that this equation is equivalent to the maximization of
investment risk per asset with respect to portfolio w.
~ For any α > 0, since there exists
θ∗ of

∂ε
∂θ

= 0 in the range θ∗ ≥ λmax ,
θ

∗

= 1 + α + (2τ − 1)

r

α
,
τ (τ − 1)

and thus the maximal investment risk per asset εmax = ε(θ∗ ) is as follows:
p
ατ + τ − 1 + 2 ατ (τ − 1)
.
εmax =
2
This derived result also is consistent with findings in previous work.10)

(37)

(38)

3.3 Maximal investment concentration with constraints of budget and investment risk
Next, we consider the maximal investment concentration with constraints of budget
and investment risk as the dual problem. The Lagrange function corresponding to the
maximization problem of the investment concentration LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) is defined using
Lagrange multipliers h, ϕ as follows:

 1
h T
LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) = HD (w)
~ +
w
~ ~e − N +
ϕ
ϕ
s.t.
h∈R
ϕ−1 λi ≥ 1



∀i = 1, 2, ..., N,


1 T
κNε0 − w
~ Jw
~ ,
2
(39)

where the constraint in Eq. (39) is a condition to guarantee that the Lagrange function
LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) is concave with respect to w.
~ 17–19) This constraint can be rewritten as
√
0 ≤ ϕ ≤ λmin = (1− α)2 by using the Marčenko-Pastur law in the limit that N goes to

infinity (we consider the maximal/minimal investment concentration in the range α ≥ 1

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

because ε0 ≥ 0). From the extremum conditions
w
~∗
h∗

∂LD (w,h,ϕ)
~
∂w
~

= 0 and

∂LD (w,h,ϕ)
~
∂h

= h∗ (J − ϕIN )−1~e,
1
=
,
SN (ϕ)

= 0,
(40)
(41)

are obtained and the investment concentration qw (ϕ) can be represented as a function
of ϕ:
2
L D (w
~ ∗ , h∗ , ϕ)
N


1
1
− 2κε0 .
(42)
= −
ϕ S(ϕ)
Thus, the maximal investment concentration is derived from the following extremum:
qw (ϕ)

=

qw,max

lim

N →∞

=

inf

0≤ϕ≤λmin

qw (ϕ).

(43)

Note that this equation is equivalent to the maximization of investment concentration
with respect to portfolio w.
~ For any α > 1, since there exists ϕ∗ of
of 0 ≤ ϕ∗ ≤ λmin ,
ϕ∗

=

∂qw
∂ϕ

= 0 in the range




p
p
κ − ακ(κ − 1) κ − 1 − ακ(κ − 1)


,
1
α
κ + α−1
κ − α−1

(44)

and the maximal investment concentration qw,max = qw (ϕ∗ ) is calculated as follows:
2
√
√
ακ + κ − 1
.
(45)
qw,max =
α−1
This result also is consistent with results of previous work.11)
3.4 Minimal investment concentration with constraints of budget and investment risk
Finally, we consider the minimal investment concentration with constraints of budget and investment risk as the dual problem. The Lagrange function corresponding to
the minimization problem of the investment concentration LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) is defined as
follows:

 1
h T
LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) = HD (w)
~ +
w
~ ~e − N +
ϕ
ϕ
s.t.
h∈R
ϕ−1 λi ≤ 1



∀i = 1, 2, ..., N,


1 T
κNε0 − w
~ Jw
~ ,
2
(46)

where the constraint in Eq. (46) is a condition to guarantee that the Lagrange function
LD (w,
~ h, ϕ) is concave with respect to w.
~ 17–19) This constraint can be rewritten as
√
ϕ ≥ λmax = (1 + α)2 or ϕ ≤ 0 by using the Marčenko-Pastur law when the number of

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

assets N is large enough. Since the optimality of w
~ and h have already been shown in
Eq. (40) and (41), the minimal investment concentration qw,min is given by the following
equation:
qw,min

=

qw (ϕ),

sup

(47)

ϕ≤0,ϕ≥λmax

where qw (ϕ) is in Eq. (42). Note that this equation is equivalent to the minimization of
investment concentration with respect to portfolio w.
~ We can derive ϕ∗ of
the ranges of ϕ ≤ 0 and ϕ ≥ λmax as follows:



p
p
κ + ακ(κ − 1) κ − 1 + ακ(κ − 1)


ϕ∗ =
,
α
1
κ − α−1
κ + α−1
where there exists ϕ∗ such that ϕ∗ ≤ 0 when κ <

α
α−1

∂qw (ϕ)
∂ϕ

= 0 in

and ϕ∗ ≥ λmax when κ >

(48)
α
.
α−1

Thus, the minimal investment concentration qw,min = qw (ϕ∗ ) is obtained as follows:
2
√
√
ακ − κ − 1
qw,min =
.
(49)
α−1
This result also is consistent with results of previous work.11)
From our results for the dual problem, if we assume that the maximal investment
concentration√qw,max in Eq. (45) is equal to τ , then since κ can be represented as
ατ +τ −1−2 ατ (τ −1)
κ=
, the investment risk per asset ε = κε0 is as follows:
α−1
p
ατ + τ − 1 − 2 ατ (τ − 1)
ε =
,
(50)
2
which agrees with the minimal investment risk per asset εmin in Eq. (30). That is, the
primal-dual relationship holds between the minimization of investment risk per asset
under constraints of budget and investment concentration and the maximization of
investment concentration under constraints of budget and investment risk. Similarly, if
we also assume that the minimal investment concentration √
qw,min in Eq. (49) is consistent
with τ , then since κ can be represented as κ =

ατ +τ −1+2 ατ (τ −1)
,
α−1

the investment risk

per asset ε = κε0 is as follows:
p
ατ + τ − 1 + 2 ατ (τ − 1)
ε =
,
(51)
2
which agrees with the maximal investment risk per asset εmax in Eq. (38). That is, the
primal-dual relationship also holds between the maximization of investment risk under
constraints of budget and investment concentration and the minimization of investment
concentration under constraints of budget and investment risk.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

4. Numerical experiments
In the analysis in the previous section, we used the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution based on random matrix theory without a detailed discussion of whether the upper
and lower bounds of investment risk per asset ε and investment concentration qw in actual investment market size can be evaluated or not. In fact, it has not been confirmed
whether the theoretical results (Eqs. (33), (38), (45), and (49)) are valid or not when the
number of assets N is sufficiently large but finite (not the thermodynamical limit of N).
In this section, we confirm the consistency of theoretical results using the asymptotic
eigenvalue distribution by calculating typical values of upper and lower bounds of investment risk and investment concentration in numerical experiments for the case that
N is sufficiently large but finite. In numerical experiments, the return rates of the assets
xiµ are taken to be independently and identically distributed according to the standard
n xm o
normal distribution and M return rate matrices X m = √iµN ∈ RN ×p (m = 1, 2, ..., M)

are prepared as sample sets. Furthermore, the number of assets in a numerical sim-

ulation N is set as N = 1000 and the period ratio α = p/N is set as α = 2 (also,
M = 100 is assumed). We assess the optimal solutions by using the steepest descent
method for the Lagrange function defined by each return rate matrix X m and then
calculate investment risk εm and investment concentration qwm . We also evaluate their
sample averages,
ε

qw

=

=

100
1 X m
ε ,
100 m=1

100
1 X m
q ,
100 m=1 w

(52)

(53)

and compare them with the findings derived using our proposed approach.
Firstly, the results of the primal problem are considered, shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 1 shows the minimal investment risk per asset εmin and Fig. 2 shows the maximal
investment risk per asset εmax . In both figures, the vertical axis is the investment risk
per asset ε and the horizontal axis is the coefficient of the investment concentration
constraint τ . The solid lines (red) represent theoretical results and the symbols with
error bars (black and gray) represent the results of numerical experiments. Using these
figures, we confirm that the upper and lower bounds of the investment risk per asset
for N = 1000 assets (finite market size) can be evaluated with the theoretical results,
since the results for both cases are equivalent.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

Next, the results of the dual problem are considered. Figs. 3 and 4 show respectively
the maximal investment concentration qw,max and the minimal investment concentration
qw,min. In both figures, the vertical axis is investment concentration ε and the horizontal axis is the risk coefficient κ. The solid lines (red) represent theoretical results and
the symbols with error bars (black and gray) represent the results of numerical experiments. Using these figures, we also confirm that the upper and lower bounds of the
investment concentration for N = 1000 assets (finite market size) can be evaluated with
the theoretical results since in both cases the results are consistent.
5. Conclusion and future work
In this paper, we revisited the portfolio optimization problem, specifically the minimization/maximization of investment risk under constraints of budget and investment
concentration (primal problem) and the maximization/minimization of investment concentration under constraints of budget and investment risk (dual problem). Both problems had already been analyzed using replica analysis in previous work. However, since
the validity of the analytical continuation of the replica number from integer to real values has not been mathematically guaranteed, we formally reconsidered both problems
by using the Lagrange multiplier method and the random matrix approach. Specifically, we expressed investment risk per asset and investment concentration as functions
of Lagrange multipliers and applied Stieltjes transformation of the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of the Wishart matrix so as to accurately assess the investment risk
and investment concentration. In this assessment, it was possible to easily find the optimal value of each optimization problem. In addition, since the results obtained by
replica analysis were consistent with the results derived by our proposed approach for
both the primal problem and the dual problem, the validity of replica analysis for this
portfolio optimization problem was confirmed. Furthermore, from the results of numerical experiments, it was confirmed that the upper and lower bounds of the investment
risk and the investment concentration when the number of assets is large enough but
finite can be consistent with the theoretical results based on the asymptotic eigenvalue
distribution, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the random matrix approach and
replica analysis for analyzing the portfolio optimization problem.
We showed in this study that investment risk per asset and investment concentration can be obtained analytically using Stieltjes transformation for the case that the
variances of the return rates of assets are identical. As an extension of this result, we

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

could evaluate easily the primal problem and the dual problem for the case that the
variances of the return rates of assets are not identical in future work. Another issue to
consider is that two constraints were used in the present study but it is also necessary
to examine whether the random matrix approach is suitable for obtaining the optimal
solution of the portfolio optimization problem under even more realistic conditions,
for instance, when short selling regulations or other linear inequality constraints are
imposed.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for detailed discussions with H. Hojo, A. Seo, M. Aida,
Y. Kainuma, S. Masuda, and X. Xiao. One of the authors (DT) also appreciates T. Nakamura and T. Ishikawa for their fruitful comments. This work was supported in part by
Grants-in-Aid Nos. 15K20999, 17K01260, and 17K01249; Research Project of the Institute of Economic Research Foundation at Kyoto University; and Research Project
No. 4 of the Kampo Foundation.
Appendix A: Stieltjes transformation for Marčenko-Pastur distribution
In this appendix, we evaluate Eq. (26) by using the residue theorem. If we assume
that the modified return rates xiµ are independently and identically distributed with
mean E[xiµ ] = 0 and variance V [xiµ ] = 1, then the empirical eigenvalue distribution of
P
Wishart matrix ρN (λ) = N1 N
k=1 δ(λ − λk ) converges to the asymptotic eigenvalue dis-

tribution called the Marčenko-Pastur distribution in the limit as N approaches infinity
as follows:20)

p
[λ+ − λ]+ [λ − λ− ]+
ρ(λ) = [1 − α]+ δ(λ) +
.
(A·1)
2πλ
√
where [x]+ = max(x, 0) and λ± = (1 ± α)2 . Initially, we calculate S(θ) in the range

√ 
α ≥ 1 by using Eq. (A·1). S(θ) for θ ∈ C can be rewritten using λ = 1+α+ α ξ + 1ξ
as follows:

S(θ)

=

i
4π

I

(ξ 2 − 1)2
dξ,
|ξ|=1 (ξ − ξ0 )(ξ − ξ1 )(ξ − ξ2 )(ξ − ξ3 )(ξ − ξ4 )

(A·2)

where the poles ξi , i = 0, 1, · · · , 4, are as follows:
ξ0

=

ξ1

=

ξ2

=

0,
√
− α,
1
−√ ,
α

(A·3)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

ξ3

=

ξ4

=

p

(1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
√
,
2 α
p
−(1 + α − θ) − (1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
√
.
2 α
−(1 + α − θ) +

The residues at the poles, Res[ξi ], i = 0, 1, · · · , 4, are
Res[ξ0 ] =

1,
α−1
Res[ξ1 ] =
,
θ
α−1
,
(A·4)
Res[ξ2 ] = −
θ
p
(1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
,
Res[ξ3 ] =
θ
p
(1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
Res[ξ4 ] = −
.
θ
Since ξ1 ξ2 = 1 and ξ3 ξ4 = 1 are satisfied, one of ξ1 (ξ3 ) and ξ2 (ξ4 ) satisfies |ξ| < 1 and

the other satisfies |ξ| > 1. Thus, owing to |ξ1 | > 1 because α ≥ 1, the combination of

poles present inside the unit circle |ξ| = 1 is (i) ξ0 , ξ2 , ξ3 when |ξ3 | < 1 and (ii) ξ0 , ξ2 , ξ4

when |ξ4| < 1. Furthermore, |ξ3 | < 1 and |ξ4 | < 1 can be rewritten as λ− > θ and
λ+ < θ, respectively, for θ ∈ R, so that S(θ) becomes the real-valued function given by

the following equation:

S(θ)

=











α−1−θ−

√

α−1−θ+

√

(1+α−θ)2 −4α
2θ

λ− > θ
(A·5)

2

(1+α−θ) −4α
2θ

λ+ < θ,

In contrast, the real part of S(θ) diverges in the range λ− ≤ θ ≤ λ+ since the denomi-

nator of the integrand can be 0. As a result, for example, since there does not exist an


1
upper bound of 21 S(θ)
+ τ θ in the range λ− ≤ θ ≤ λ+ , we cannot solve Eq. (28). That

is, the optimization problems derived with the Lagrange function cannot be solved in
the range λ− ≤ θ ≤ λ+ . For this reason, in this paper, we consider only the optimization

problems for λ− > θ and λ+ < θ, where S(θ) takes only real values. Furthermore, in the

range 0 < α < 1, it is also possible to calculate poles and fortunately the same result
as Eq. (A·5) is obtained.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

Appendix B: Replica approach for Stieltjes transformation
In this appendix, we reexamine S(θ) from a different direction than in Appendix A.
Initially, we consider a partition function Z to obtain S(θ) as follows:
Z ∞
dw
~ − 1 w~ T (J−θIN )w~
2
Z =
.
N e
−∞ (2π) 2

(B·1)

Then, the logarithm of this partition function is summarized as follows:
1
log Z = − log det |J − θIN |.
2
S(θ) can be obtained using the following identities:

(B·2)

∂φ(θ)
,
(B·3)
∂θ
1
φ(θ) = lim
E[log Z],
(B·4)
N →∞ N
where configuration averaging is performed in Eq. (B·4) since S(θ) satisfies the selfS(θ) =

2

averaging property in a similar way to in Sec. 3.1. From Eqs. (B·3) and (B·4), it can be
seen that we need to analytically assess φ(θ) in order to derive S(θ). Therefore, φ(θ) is
calculated with E[Z n ] for n ∈ Z as follows:
1
φ(n, θ) = lim
log E[Z n ]
N →∞ N

α
1
= Extr − log det |In + Qw | + TrQw Q̃w
2
2
Qw ,Q̃w

1
− log det |Q̃w − θIn | ,
2

(B·5)

where Qw = {qwab } and Q̃w = {q̃wab } are n × n symmetric matrices and In is the

n × n identity matrix. We will also use the notation ExtrA f (A) as the extrema of f (A)
with respect to A. Furthermore, extremum conditions with respect to Qw , Q̃w are the

following equations:
Q̃w

=

α(In + Qw )−1 ,

(B·6)

Qw

=

(Q̃w − θIn )−1 .

(B·7)

Since Eqs. (B·6) and (B·7) contain only In besides terms Qw and Q̃w , Qw and Q̃w of
the extremum conditions can be written as scalar multiples of In ; that is, Qw and Q̃w
can be expressed as Qw = χw In and Q̃w = χ̃w In , respectively. From this, χw and χ̃w
are obtained as follows:
χw

=

α−θ−1+c

p

(1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
,
2θ

(B·8)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

χ̃w

=
=

α − 1 − θχw

α−1+θ−c

p

(1 + α − θ)2 − 4α
,
2

(B·9)

where c = ±1. Then φ(n, θ) is as follows:
n
n
nα
log(1 + χw ) + χw χ̃w − log(χ̃w − θ).
(B·10)
φ(n, θ) = −
2
2
2
Since this result satisfies φ(n, θ) = nφ(1, θ), the following holds:
1
1
lim
log E[Z n ] = lim
log(E[Z])n .
(B·11)
N →∞ N
N →∞ N
That is, E[Z n ] ≃ (E[Z])n for sufficiently large N. From this, E[log Z] can be calcuP
(1−Z)n
lated with the Taylor expansion of the logarithmic function, log Z = − ∞
, as
n=1
n
follows:

E[log Z]

=
=

−

∞
X
(1 − E[Z])n

n

n=1

log E[Z].

(B·12)

Then φ(θ) (= φ(1, θ)) is given by the following equation:
χw χ̃w 1
α
− log(χ̃w − θ).
(B·13)
φ(θ) = − log(1 + χw ) +
2
2
2
χw in Eq. (B·8) and χ̃w in Eq. (B·9) each consist of two solutions, from c = ±1. However,

the relevant solution of each solution is selected by the extremum operator in Eq. (B·5).
Thus, φ(θ) is as follows:
φ(θ) =
=

max(φ− (θ), φ+ (θ))

 φ (θ) λ > θ
−
−
 φ+ (θ) λ+ < θ,

(B·14)

where φ− (θ) means the φ(θ) evaluated with χw and χ̃w in the case of c = −1 and φ+ (θ)

means the φ(θ) evaluated with χw and χ̃w in the case of c = +1. As a result, from
Eqs. (B·3) and (B·13), S(θ) is given by the following equation:
S(θ)

where χw =

1
χ̃w −θ

= χw





=





α−1−θ−

√

α−1−θ+

√

(1+α−θ)2 −4α
2θ

λ− > θ
(B·15)

2

(1+α−θ) −4α
2θ

λ+ < θ,

is used to derive this equation. This result is consistent with Eq. (A·5),

which was derived using the residue theorem.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

Appendix C: Minimal investment risk and investment concentration with
budget constraint
In the main part of this paper, we showed that investment risk per asset ε and
investment concentration qw can be evaluated by using Stieltjes transform S(θ). In this
appendix, using S(θ), we derive the minimal investment risk per asset εmin and its
investment concentration for the portfolio optimization problems with only a budget
constraint imposed, and confirm whether they agree with the results of previous work.9)
Since only the budget constraint is imposed, the Lagrangian function of this minimization problem is the same as that in Eq. (20) with θ = 0. Note that we consider the
minimization problem in the range α > 1 (when α < 1, the optimal solution cannot
be uniquely determined). Thus, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin is given by
Eq. (28) as follows:
εmin

1
.
θ→0 2S (θ)

=

lim

(C·1)

Its investment concentration is given by substituting 0 into θ in Eqs. (22) and (23) as
follows:
′

qw

S (θ)
.
= lim
θ→0 (S(θ))2

(C·2)

For this calculation, limθ→0 S(θ) and limθ→0 S ′ (θ) are obtained by using S(θ) in the
range λ− > θ as follows:

1
,
(C·3)
θ→0
α−1
α
lim S ′ (θ) =
.
(C·4)
θ→0
(α − 1)3
Thus, the minimal investment risk per asset εmin and its investment concentration qw
lim S(θ) =

are as follows:
α−1
,
(C·5)
2
α
.
(C·6)
qw =
α−1
We can confirm that these results agree with those of previous work.9) In addition,
εmin

=

it is possible to obtain the minimal investment risk per asset εmin and investment
concentration qw for the case that the variances of return rates of the assets are not
identical if we can evaluate the Stieltjes transformation S(θ) corresponding to this
optimization problem.

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

Appendix D: Minimal investment risk with budget and inequality investment concentration constraints
In this appendix, we evaluate the minimal investment risk per asset with a budget constraint and an inequality constraint on investment concentration which is an
extension of the equality constraint in Eq. (4) in the primal problem, as follows:
N
X

wi2

≥ Nτ

τ ≥ 1,

(D·1)

wi2

≤ Nτ

τ ≥ 1.

(D·2)

i=1

N
X
i=1

If we assume that the constraint in Eq. (D·1) is imposed instead of Eq. (4), then the
minimal investment risk per asset εmin is assessed as follows:
εmin

= sup ε(θ),

(D·3)

θ≤0

where Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions are used.17–19) θ∗ = arg supθ≤0 ε(θ) in the range
θ ≤ 0 is as follows:

θ∗

=


q
α

1
+
α
−
(2τ
−
1)

τ (τ −1)











0

τ −1
τ

<α<

τ
τ −1

(D·4)
otherwise.

Thus, the minimal investment risk per asset corresponding to Eq. (D·4) is as follows:


0
α ≤ τ −1

τ







√
ατ +τ −1−2 ατ (τ −1)
τ −1
τ
εmin =
(D·5)
< α < τ −1
2
τ







 α−1

τ
α ≥ τ −1
.
2
In contrast, if we apply the constraint in Eq. (D·2) instead of Eq. (4), then the minimal
investment risk per asset εmin is given by the following equation:
εmin

=

sup
0≤θ≤λmin

ε(θ),

(D·6)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

where Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions are also used.17–19) θ∗ = arg sup0≤θ≤λmin ε(θ) in
the range 0 ≤ θ ≤ λmin is as follows:

q
α


1
+
α
−
(2τ
−
1)

τ (τ −1)

θ∗ =



 0

α>

τ
τ −1

(D·7)

otherwise.

Thus, the minimal investment risk per asset corresponding to Eq. (D·7) is as follows:


0
0<α<1








α−1
τ
1 ≤ α ≤ τ −1
εmin =
(D·8)
2






√


 ατ +τ −1−2 ατ (τ −1) α > τ .
2
τ −1

This result also is consistent with that of previous work.10)

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

investment risk per asset ( ¿ )

1.0

FULL PAPERS

Results of our proposed method
Results of numerical experiments

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

investment concentration ( Î )
Fig. 1. Minimal investment risk per asset

investment risk per asset ( ¿ )

18.0

Results of our proposed method
Results of numerical experiments

16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

investment concentration ( Î )
Fig. 2.

Maximal investment risk per asset

6.0

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

investment concentration ( —Ó )

16.0

FULL PAPERS

Results of our proposed method
Results of numerical experiments

14.0
12.0

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0

0.0
1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

risk coefficient ( Ä )
Fig. 3.

2

Results of our proposed method
Results of numerical experiments

1.9

investment concentration ( —Ó )

Maximal investment concentration

1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4

1.3
1.2
1.1
1

0.9
1

1.5

2

2.5

risk coefficient ( Ä )
Fig. 4. Minimal investment concentration

3

J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.

FULL PAPERS

References
1) H. Markowitz, J. Fin. 7, 77 (1952).
2) H. Konno and H. Yamazaki, Man. Sci. 37, 519 (1991).
3) R. T. Rockafellar and S. Uryasev, J. of Risk 2, 21 (2000).
4) L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, J. P. Bouchaud, and M. Potters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(7), 1467
(1999).
5) L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, M. Potters, and J. P. Bouchaud, Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance
3(3), 391 (2000).
6) V. Plerou, P. Gopikrishnan, B. Rosenow, L. A. N. Amaral, and H. E. Stanley, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 83(7), 1471 (1999).
7) S. Pafka and I. Kondor, Physica A. 319, 487 (2003).
8) S. Ciliberti and M. Mezard, Eur. Phys. J. B. 57, 175 (2007).
9) T. Shinzato, PLoS One 10 e0133846 (2015).
10) T. Shinzato, J. Stat. Mech. 023301 (2017).
11) T. Shinzato, in press in Physica A.
12) I. Varga-Haszonits, F. Caccioli, and I. Kondor, J. Stat. Mech. 123404 (2016).
13) T. Shinzato, Tech. Rep. IEICE 110(461), 23 (2011).
14) I. Kondor, G. Papp, and F. Caccioli, https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07067 (2016).
15) T. Tanaka, Inter. Inf. Sci. 13, 17 (2007).
16) T. Shinzato, https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07277, (2016).
17) S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2012).
18) J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization, Springer (2006).
19) R. T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton Univ. Pr. (1996).
20) V. A. Marc̆enko and L. A. Pastur, Mathematics USSR-Sbornik 1, 457 (1967).
21) G. Akemann, J. Baik, and P. D. Francesco, The Oxford Handbook of Random
Matrix Theory, Oxford Univ. Pr. (2015).
22) A. M. Tulino and S. Verdu, Random Matrix Theory and Wireless Communications,
Now Publishers (2004).
23) Z. Bai, Ann. Probab. 21, 625 (1993).
24) Z. Bai, Ann. Probab. 21, 649 (1993).

