Lightweight Optimization of Investment Portfolios: An Empirical Study Based on the SPEA2 Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm
Abstract
Portfolio optimization is a classical yet computationally complex problem in computational finance, particularly when multiple conflicting objectives, such as maximizing return and controlling investment risk, are considered simultaneously. Many existing evolutionary and interactive optimization approaches can generate high-quality portfolio solutions; however, their long runtime and high computational cost limit their practical use in resource-constrained or time-sensitive decision-making environments. This paper presents a lightweight portfolio optimization framework that reduces computational complexity by deliberately limiting the search space through the selection of a small but representative set of assets. The proposed framework employs the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 (SPEA2) as the main optimization engine, owing to its Pareto-based selection mechanism and external archive structure, which support effective convergence while maintaining lower computational overhead. Experiments were conducted on a dataset consisting of 14 selected stocks over a monthly investment horizon. The performance of SPEA2 was compared with the widely used Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) under identical experimental settings. The results show that SPEA2 achieved a final portfolio value of $1,847,560.42, compared with $1,775,711.48 for NSGA-II. In addition, SPEA2 completed the optimization process in 8,041 seconds, whereas NSGA-II required 160,809.30 seconds, making SPEA2 approximately 20 times faster. The combined time-return efficiency also favored SPEA2, with $105.46 profit per second compared with $4.82 for NSGA-II. These findings indicate that SPEA2, when combined with controlled dimensionality reduction, can provide a practical and efficient approach for portfolio optimization under computational and time constraints.
Keywords:
Portfolio optimization, Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Strength pareto evolutionary algorithm 2, Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-IIReferences
- [1] Markowitz, H. M. (1959). Portfolio selection: Efficient diversification of investments. Yale University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bh4c8h
- [2] Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., & Słowiński, R. (2088). Multiobjective optimization: Interactive and evolutionary approaches. Springer. https://www.amazon.com/Multiobjective-Optimization-Interactive-Evolutionary-Approaches/dp/3540889078
- [3] Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6(2), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017
- [4] Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., & Thiele, L. (2001). SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004284029
- [5] Guarino, A., Santoro, D., Grilli, L., Zaccagnino, R., & Balbi, M. (2024). EvoFolio: A portfolio optimization method based on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Neural computing and applications, 36(13), 7221–7243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-09456-w
- [6] Coello, C. A. C., Lamont, G. B., & Veldhuizen, D. A. Van. (2007). Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36797-2_7
- [7] Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiobjective versions of polynomially solvable problems. In Multicriteria optimization (pp. 221–270). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27659-9_9
- [8] Zitzler, E., & Künzli, S. (2004). Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. Parallel problem solving from nature - PPSN VIII (pp. 832–842). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30217-9_84
- [9] Ponsich, A., Jaimes, A. L., & Coello, C. A. C. (2013). A survey on multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for the solution of the portfolio optimization problem and other finance and economics applications. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 17(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2012.2196800
- [10] Ma, Y., Han, R., & Wang, W. (2021). Portfolio optimization with return prediction using deep learning and machine learning. Expert systems with applications, 165, 113973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113973
- [11] Qian, Y., & Wang, J. (2024). Multi-period portfolio optimization: A parallel NSGA-III algorithm with real-world constraints. Finance research letters, 60, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104868
- [12] Muteba Mwamba, J. W., Mbucici, L. M., & Mba, J. C. (2025). Multi-objective portfolio optimization: An application of the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm III. International journal of financial studies, 13(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs13010015
- [13] Cui, T., Du, N., Yang, X., & Ding, S. (2024). Multi-period portfolio optimization using a deep reinforcement learning hyper-heuristic approach. Technological forecasting and social change, 198, 122944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122944
- [14] Yan, Z. (2025). Investment portfolio optimization with supervised learning and attention mechanism. Egyptian informatics journal, 32, 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2025.100839
- [15] Agal, S., Raulji, K., & Odedra, N. D. (2025). A machine learning approach to risk based asset allocation in portfolio optimization. Scientific reports, 15(1), 42263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-26337-x
- [16] Dang, D. C., Opris, A., & Sudholt, D. (2024). Illustrating the efficiency of popular evolutionary multi-objective algorithms using runtime analysis. Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 484–492). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3638529.3654177
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Intelligent Decision and Computational Modelling

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.