Decision-focused Sparse Tangent Portfolio Optimization

The portfolio optimization problem yields the optimal portfolio weights, which specify how capital is allocated across assets. Markowitz’s framework established portfolio construction as an optimization problem, and subsequent work expanded it in many directions: improved estimation of returns and covariances, alternative risk measures, and practical constraints that reflect portfolio management (Kim et al., 2024). In practice, holding many assets is costly and hard to manage, so managers often prefer sparse allocations that concentrate exposure on a small number of positions (Woodside-Oriakhi, 2011). A standard way to formalize this preference is through a cardinality constraint, which explicitly caps the number of nonzero weights.

While this constraint is conceptually straightforward, it fundamentally changes the computational nature of the problem: incorporating asset-selection discreteness into objectives turns an otherwise smooth continuous optimization into a combinatorial search, which is NP-hard in general and therefore difficult to solve exactly for large asset universes (Garey and Johnson, 2002). Controlling portfolio cardinality has been studied extensively and can be broadly categorized into three methodological directions. One line induces sparsity indirectly through regularization or norm-based penalties, trading exact asset selection for scalability (Brodie et al., 2009; Chen and Zhu, 2014; Kremer et al., 2020; DeMiguel et al., 2009). Another line tackles the discrete constraint more directly via exact or relaxation-based algorithms such as branch-and-cut and related formulations (Bienstock, 1996; Li et al., 2006; Gao and Li, 2013; Kim and Lee, 2016; Lee et al., 2020). A third line relies on heuristic methods that trade optimality guarantees for computational efficiency in large asset universes (Chang et al., 2000; Maringer and Kellerer, 2003).

Beyond mean-variance, portfolio optimization has been studied under a variety of objectives, among which risk-adjusted performance metrics naturally motivate Sharpe ratio maximization as a single-objective formulation. Several works study Sharpe ratio maximization under explicit sparsity requirements (Sharpe, 1966). The Sharpe ratio is a standard risk-adjusted performance metric that normalizes expected return by volatility, enabling comparisons across portfolios with different risk levels. Representative approaches include SDP-based relaxations that yield tractable convex approximations of the sparse Sharpe problem (Kim and others, 2016), as well as methods that reformulate the fractional objective and apply efficient first-order algorithms with theoretical guarantees (Lin et al., 2024). Complementing these optimization-centric approaches, OSCAR (Optimize, Select with Cholesky, and Re-optimize) is a practical heuristic pipeline that alternates between continuous optimization and discrete asset selection to obtain scalable, high-quality sparse portfolios in large universes (Bae et al., 2025).

Traditional workflows that perform optimization after learning typically follow a PFL paradigm, often referred to as predict-then-optimize or two-stage learning (Lee et al., 2024). A predictive model is first trained to output point estimates of unknown problem parameters using standard statistical losses like mean squared error or cross-entropy. These predictions are then treated as fixed inputs to a downstream constrained optimization model, which computes the final decision. However, PFL does not account for the structure of the downstream decision problem. It implicitly assumes that minimizing prediction loss will lead to high-quality decisions, an assumption that often fails in practice. Therefore, models trained purely on prediction loss may perform poorly in terms of the true task objective even when their forecasts are statistically accurate.

DFL was introduced to address this mismatch by aligning model training directly with decision quality rather than with intermediate prediction accuracy. In DFL, the prediction model and the optimization layer are integrated into a single end-to-end pipeline, and training minimizes a task loss that depends on the realized decision instead of a pure prediction loss (Mandi and others, 2024). This paradigm has been applied to diverse tasks including network design, resource allocation, routing, portfolio optimization, and goal-based investing, and typically yields substantial gains over PFL when decision quality is sensitive to structured errors in the predictions.

A central technical challenge in DFL is computing gradients of the task loss with respect to the prediction model parameters. The main difficulty lies in differentiating through the downstream optimization. One must characterize how the optimizer’s solution changes in response to perturbations in the predicted cost or parameters, even though the solution map is defined only implicitly as the argmin of an optimization problem and typically has no closed-form expression, leading to zero or undefined gradients over large regions of the parameter space. Accordingly, prior DFL work typically obtains usable learning signals either by analytically differentiating the optimizer’s optimality conditions when the solution map is smooth (Shah and others, 2022), or by regularizing the optimization to create stable gradients (Brodie et al., 2009; Chen and Zhu, 2014).

A standard construction of portfolio optimization for maximizing the Sharpe ratio (Sharpe, 1966) can be written as:

where $w\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ denotes the portfolio weight vector, $\mu\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ denotes the expected excess return vector, $\Sigma\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is the covariance matrix of asset returns, and $\mathbf{1}$ is the all-ones vector. Throughout this work, we allow short selling so negative entries in $w$ are permitted. The numerator represents the portfolio’s expected return, while the denominator corresponds to its risk induced by $\Sigma$.

To enhance practical interpretability and to reduce transaction costs, one often restricts the number of assets held in the portfolio via a cardinality constraint. This leads to the sparse Sharpe ratio maximization problem:

where $\operatorname{Card}(w)$ counts the number of nonzero components of $w$ with sparsity budget $k$. As discussed in Section 2.1, adding this constraint makes the problem combinatorial rather than smoothly continuous. Since cardinality-constrained portfolio selection is NP-hard in general, exact methods are typically impractical for large asset universes.

Recent work proposes OSCAR (Bae et al., 2025) as a fast heuristic for sparse tangent portfolio optimization in the classical mean-variance framework. It avoids the combinatorial complexity of cardinality-constrained portfolio optimization by separating asset selection from weight optimization, while leveraging three key structural properties of the Sharpe ratio (Kim and Lee, 2016).

As a direct consequence, the budget constraint $\mathbf{1}^{\top}w=1$ in Eq. (2) can be removed without changing the optimal Sharpe ratio value.

According to Proposition 3.2, we can alternatively compare portfolio Sharpe ratios via the angle $\theta$ to the tangency portfolio $\hat{w}$, where a smaller angle implies a larger Sharpe ratio. Let $\mathcal{K}$ denote the collection of all $k$-subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ and define:

Then the original problem can be equivalently written as minimizing this angle as:

where

It follows from Proposition 3.3 that the optimizer of Eq. (3) selects the $k$ largest components of $\lvert L_{\Sigma}^{\top}\hat{w}\rvert$. Overall, OSCAR consists of three stages. It first solves the tangency portfolio in Eq. (1) to obtain $\hat{w}$. Using this solution, it identifies a sparse support by selecting the $k$ assets corresponding to the $k$ largest entries of $\lvert L_{\Sigma}^{\top}\hat{w}\rvert$. Finally, it re-optimizes the Sharpe ratio objective restricted to the selected assets and derives the final optimal weight $w^{*}$. Proofs of Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 are provided in Appendix A for completeness.

A common formulation views the underlying decision problem as a parametric constrained optimization problem, where a solution map $x^{\star}(c)$ returns the optimal decision for parameters $c$. A standard example is regret $\mathcal{R}$, which measures the suboptimality of the decision under perfect information as $\mathcal{R}=f\bigl(x^{\star}(c),c\bigr)-f\bigl(x^{\star}(\hat{c}),c\bigr)$, where $f(x,c)$ denotes the task objective to be maximized for decision $x$ evaluated under the true parameters $c$, and $\hat{c}$ is the prediction produced by the model. By differentiating this loss through the optimization layer and updating the prediction model accordingly, DFL learns to produce parameter estimates that are explicitly tuned for downstream performance. The gradient can be calculated via the chain rule as

where $\theta$ denotes the parameters of the prediction model. The first and last terms in Eq. (4) are straightforward to differentiate, whereas the middle term $\partial x^{\star}(\hat{c})/\partial\hat{c}$ poses a substantial challenge, as the solution map is defined implicitly by an optimization problem and often lacks a closed-form expression. Moreover, for many practically relevant models, the mapping $\hat{c}\mapsto x^{\star}(\hat{c})$ can be non-smooth or even piecewise constant, leading to zero or undefined gradients on large regions of the parameter space.

A common approach to addressing this challenge is the use of differentiable convex optimization layers when the downstream problem is convex. Frameworks such as OptNet and CVXPYlayers provide principled gradients by differentiating through the solver (Agrawal and others, 2019). To enable such differentiation, the optimization problem must satisfy the rules of Disciplined Convex Programming (DCP), and when problem data are treated as learnable inputs, the formulation must also obey Disciplined Parametrized Programming (DPP), ensuring affine dependence on parameters and well-behaved solution maps.

We now turn to the methodological core of our approach. Our end-to-end decision framework follows a select-and-reoptimize pipeline, but is designed to be fully differentiable for learning. To embed Eq. (1) as a differentiable decision layer, the optimization problem must satisfy the rules of DPP. However, the standard Sharpe ratio formulation is non-convex and cannot be expressed using valid DPP atoms, preventing direct differentiation through a solver layer.

To obtain a tractable optimization program that is compatible with DPP, we follow the classical homogenization technique (Iyengar and Kang, 2005). Introducing a scaling variable $t\geq 0$ and defining $y=tw$, Eq. (1) can be equivalently rewritten as the convex Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming (QCQP) problem. Note that this QCQP is convex, but still not DPP-compliant. The difficulty arises because the problem data $\Sigma$ appear inside the nonlinear term $\sqrt{y^{\top}\Sigma y}$, violating the requirement that parameters must enter the program affinely. Since the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is positive semidefinite, we apply its Cholesky factorization $\Sigma={L_{\Sigma}}L_{\Sigma}^{\top}$. Substituting this factorization into the QCQP yields a formulation that satisfies the requirements of DPP, enabling reliable differentiation of the solution map through CVXPYlayers and allowing the optimization step to be embedded within DFL as shown in Eq. (5).

In the asset selection step, we classify assets in the Cholesky-transformed space by computing $x=|L_{\Sigma}^{\top}w|\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and selecting the top-$k$ indices. A hard top-$k$ produces a $k$-hot mask but is discontinuous, and thus gradients do not flow through the selection step. To address this, we replace it with a simple differentiable top-$k$ operator that behaves like a soft $k$-hot mask and still enforces a strict sum–to–$k$ constraint (Ahle, 2022).

We describe the training loss used when applying DFL to Sharpe ratio maximization. The decision-focused component is a regret-style loss based on the maximization problem in the objective of Eq. (5). Given the true mean returns $\mu^{*}$ and the predicted mean returns $\hat{\mu}$, we compare the portfolio $w^{*}(\hat{\mu})$ that is optimal under the prediction with the portfolio $w^{*}(\mu^{*})$ that is optimal under the ground-truth parameters. The resulting loss is:

Since the first term on the right-hand side is constant with respect to the model parameters, we omit it from the loss to reduce computational cost.

Purely decision-focused loss can suffer from noisy or vanishing gradients, especially when the optimization landscape is relatively flat around the optimum. To alleviate this limitation, we augment the regret loss with a standard prediction term that penalizes the squared error between $\hat{\mu}$ and $\mu^{*}$. Concretely, we train the network using the task loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{Task}}$:

where $\alpha\in[0,1]$ controls the balance between decision quality and prediction accuracy. Note that the MSE loss is defined as $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MSE}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\mu_{i}^{*}-\hat{\mu}_{i}\|_{2}^{2}$. This combined loss leads to more stable training and encourages the model to produce forecasts that are both accurate and well aligned with the downstream portfolio optimization task.

We use a 10-year daily closing price dataset from Yahoo Finance covering four markets: EuroStoxx50, FTSE100, KOSPI200, and Nikkei225. The sample period spans from January 2016 to December 2025. We restrict attention to constituents with stable index membership, omitting any firms that enter or leave the index during the period.

For the prediction model, we first preprocess the time series into rolling windows of daily returns with a 100-day look-back horizon. Each input feature vector $X_{t}$ consists of the past 100 days of returns up to day $t$, and the network is trained to predict the one-step-ahead return $\hat{\mu}_{t+1}$. This predicted mean vector is then passed to the optimization layer, which solves the portfolio problem and outputs the corresponding optimal weights $w^{*}(\hat{\mu}_{t+1})$. The full dataset is split chronologically into training and test sets with an 80/20 ratio. Throughout all experiments, the input covariance matrix is estimated in a rolling-window manner for each sample, using the same historical look-back window that forms the model input. Once computed for a given sample, covariance is held fixed within the corresponding downstream optimization layer and is not learned or predicted by the neural network. In other words, the covariance structure varies across samples through the rolling window, but remains exogenous with respect to the predictive model parameters. This design avoids feeding noisy model outputs into the risk constraints of the downstream optimization, which can otherwise lead to unstable or infeasible problem instances, while still allowing the risk estimate to reflect local market conditions.

We evaluate our proposed framework against two conventional learning-optimization frameworks and three state-of-the-art portfolio optimization models for cardinality-constrained Sharpe ratio maximization.