- Research Article
- Open Access

# Penalty Algorithm Based on Conjugate Gradient Method for Solving Portfolio Management Problem

- Zhong Wan
^{1}Email author, - Shao Jun Zhang
^{1}and - Ya Lin Wang
^{2}

**2009**:970723

https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/970723

© Zhong Wan et al. 2009

**Received:**17 December 2008**Accepted:**7 July 2009**Published:**18 August 2009

## Abstract

A new approach was proposed to reformulate the biobjectives optimization model of portfolio management into an unconstrained minimization problem, where the objective function is a piecewise quadratic polynomial. We presented some properties of such an objective function. Then, a class of penalty algorithms based on the well-known conjugate gradient methods was developed to find the solution of portfolio management problem. By implementing the proposed algorithm to solve the real problems from the stock market in China, it was shown that this algorithm is promising.

## Keywords

- Stock Market
- Conjugate Gradient Method
- Portfolio Management
- Fuzzy Goal Programming
- Unconstrained Minimization Problem

## 1. Introduction

Portfolio management problem concerns itself with allocating one's assets among alternative securities to maximize the return of assets and to minimize the investment risk. The pioneer work on this problem was Markowitz's mean variance model [1], and the solution of his mean-variance methodology has been the center of the consequent research activities and forms the basis for the development of modern portfolio management theory. Commonly, the portfolio management problem has the following mathematical description.

where is a vector of all ones. Up to our knowledge, almost all of the existing models of portfolio management problems evolved from the basic model (1.4).

Summarily, the past attempts on the portfolio management problems concentrated on two major issues. The first one is to propose new models. In this connection, some recent notable contributions mainly include the following:

(i)mean-absolute deviation model (Simaan [2]),

(ii)maximizing probability model (Williams [3]),

(iii) different types of mean-variance models (Best and Jaroslava [4], Konna and Suzuki [5] and Yoshimoto [6]),

(iv) min-max models (Cai et al. [7], Deng et al. [8]),

(v)interval programming models (Giove et al. [9], Ida [10], Lai et al. [11]),

(vi) fuzzy goal programming model (Parra et al. [12]),

(vii) admissible efficient portfolio selection model (Zhang and Nie [13]),

(viii)possibility approach model with highest utility score (Carlsson et al. [14]),

(ix)upper and lower exponential possibility distribution based model (Tanaka and Guo [15]),

(x)model with fuzzy probabilities (Huang [16, 17], Tanaka and Guo [15]).

where is the expected value vector of , and are two given vectors denoting the lower and the upper bounds of decision vector, respectively.

Obviously, if in (1.5), then it implies that the return is maximized regardless of the investment risk. On the other hand, if , then the risk is minimized without consideration on the investment income. Increasing value of in the interval indicates an increasingly weight of the invest risk, and vice versa.

For a fixed , it is noted that (1.5) is a quadratic programming problem. Since it has been shown that the matrix is positive semidefinite, the problem (1.5) is a convex quadratic programming (CQP). For a CQP, there exist a lot of efficient methods to find its minimizers. Among them, active-set methods, interior-point methods, and gradient-projection methods have been widely used since the 1970s. For their detailed numerical performances, one can see [24–30] and the references therein. However, the efficiency of those methods seriously depends on the factorization techniques of matrix at each iteration, often exploiting the sparsity in for a large-scale quadratic programming. So, from the viewpoint of smaller storage requirements and computation cost, the methods mentioned above must not be most suitable for solving the problem (1.5) if is a dense matrix.

Fortunately, recent research shows that the conjugate gradient methods can remedy the drawback in factorization of Hessian matrix for an unconstrained minimization problem. At each conjugate-gradient iteration, it is only involved with computing the gradient of objective function. For details in this direction, see, for example, [31–34].

Motivated by the advantage of the conjugate gradient methods, the first aim of this paper is to reformulate problem (1.5) as an equivalent unconstrained optimization problem. Then, we are going to develop an efficient algorithm based on conjugate gradient methods to find its solution. The effectiveness of such algorithm will be tested by implementing the designed algorithm to solve some real problems from the stock market in China.

The lay out of the paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the reformulation of the original constrained problem. Some features of the subproblem will be presented. Then, in Section 3, we are going to develop a penalty algorithm based on conjugate gradient methods. Section 4 will provide applications of the proposed algorithm. The last section concludes with some final remarks.

## 2. Reformulation

Since the covariance matrix is symmetric positive semidefinite, also has such property. Thus, is a convex function.

Actually, the larger the absolute value of is, the further from the feasible region is.

is said to be a penalty function of the problem (2.2). It is noted that has the following features:

is a piecewise quadratic polynomial;

is piecewise continuously differentiable;

If is positive semidefinite, then is a piecewise convex quadratic function.

Then, has the following more compact form:

Next, we are going to present some properties of .

Proposition 2.1.

pieces.

Proposition 2.2.

where each of the other rows is . Then, the following results hold.

, where denotes the rank of a matrix.

For a fixed , all matrices , where , have the same eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

When , all matrices , where , have nonnegative eigenvalue, and hence they are positive semidefinite. When , they are positive definite matrices.

Proof.

From the construction of and the linear algebra theory, it is not difficult to prove the above two propositions. We omit it.

In the following, we turn to state the relation between the global minimizer of and that of the original problem (1.5).

Theorem 2.3.

For a given sequence , suppose that as . Let be an exact global minimizer of . Then, every accumulation point of is a solution of problem (1.5).

Proof.

By definition, (2.11) is equivalent to

Let be an accumulation point of . Without loss of generality, assume that

Therefore, we have proved that is a feasible point.

In the following, we prove that is a global minimizer of problem (1.5).

Because

The desired result has been proved.

Without difficulty, the following result can be proved.

Theorem 2.4.

Suppose that is a solution of problem (1.5). Then, is a global minimizer of for any .

Based on Theorems 2.3 and 2.4, we will develop an algorithm to search for a solution of problem (1.5) by solving a sequence of piecewise quadratical programming problems.

## 3. Penalty Algorithm Based on Conjugate Gradient Method

Among all methods for the unconstrained optimization problems, the conjugate gradient method is regarded as one of the most powerful approaches due to its smaller storage requirements and computation cost. Its priorities over other methods have been addressed in many literatures. For example, in [27, 32, 34–38], the global convergence theory and the detailed numerical performances on the conjugate gradient methods have been extensively investigated.

Since the number of the possible selected securities in the investment management is large and the matrix may be dense, it is natura that the conjugate gradient method is selected to find the minimizer of for some given . However, it is noted that (2.7) is not a classical quadratic function. The standard procedures of minimizing a quadratic function can not be directly employed. To develop a new algorithm, we first propose an rule of updating the coefficients in .

Although there exist several variants on the conjugate gradient method, the fundamental computing procedures for the solution of (3.6) include the following two steps.

At the current iterate point , determinate a search direction:

where is chosen such that is a conjugate direction of with respect to the matrix .

Along the direction , choose a step size such that, at the new iterate point

the absolute value of the function decreases sufficiently.

The following lemma presents a method to determine the search direction.

Lemma 3.1.

then in (3.8) is a conjugate direction of with respect to .

Proof.

the desired result is obtained.

Actually, the formula (3.10) is called HS method.

we have the following global convergence theorem.

Theorem 3.2.

In particular, if is an accumulation point of the sequence , then is a global minimizer of .

Remark 3.3.

then the results in Theorem 3.2 still hold. Equation (3.16) is called FR method.

Based on the discussion above, we now come to develop a penalty algorithm based on conjugate gradient method in the last of this section.

Algorithm 1 (Penalty Algorithm Based on Conjugate Gradient Method).

Step 1 Z (Initialization).

Given constant scalars , , , and . Input the expected return vector , and compute and . Choose an initial solution . Set , , and .

Step 1 (Reformulation).

and go to Step 4; otherwise, go to Step 2.

Step 2 (Search Direction).

Compute the search direction by (3.8) and (3.10).

Step 3 (Exact Line Search).

Return to Step 1.

Step 4 (Feasibility Test).

the algorithm terminates; otherwise, go to Step 5.

Step 5 (Update).

Set , , . At the new iterate point , modify the matrix and the vector by (3.2) and (3.4), respectively. Set , and return to Step 1.

Remark 3.4.

implies that is feasible. From Theorem 2.3, it leads that is a global minimizer of the original problem (1.5) if is a global minimizer of problem (3.6).

## 4. Numerical Experiments

In this section, we are going to test the effectiveness of Algorithm 1. All the test problems come from the real stock market in China, in 2007. The computer procedures are implemented on MATLAB 6.5.

We implement Algorithm 1 to solve ten real problems. Each of them has a different dimension ranging from 10 to 100. In these problems, the expected return rates of each stock come from the monthly data in the stock market of China, in 2007. In Table 3, we list the data used to form a real problem whose size of dimension is 30.

In Table 1, is the dimensional size of each problem; the third and the forth columns report the CPU time when is evaluated by HS method and FR method, respectively. indicates the number of updating penalty parameter, is the penalty parameter, and denotes the value of penalty term.

Optimal solutions of the ten problems.

Problem 1 | |

Problem 2 | |

Problem 3 | |

Problem 4 | |

Problem 5 | |

Problem 6 | |

Problem 7 | |

Problem 8 | |

Problem 9 | |

Problem 10 | |

The return rates collected from the stock market in China, 2007.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

No.1 | 0.4600 | 0.1900 | 0.1800 | 0.1130 | 0.2400 | 0.4600 | 0.4200 | 0.1500 | 0.1700 | 0.1140 | 0.2100 | 0.4200 |

No.2 | 0.6420 | 0.6560 | 0.6630 | 0.6990 | 0.6080 | 0.5420 | 0.6210 | 0.5550 | 0.6590 | 0.5810 | 0.6850 | 0.6210 |

No.3 | 0.1190 | 0.0590 | 0.2100 | 0.1100 | 0.1200 | 0.1190 | 0.1280 | 0.0580 | 0.2100 | 0.1100 | 0.1300 | 0.1280 |

No.4 | 0.0800 | 0.0830 | 0.0960 | 0.0800 | 0.1000 | 0.1100 | 0.1200 | 0.1000 | ||||

No.5 | 0.7170 | 0.0940 | 0.4400 | 0.1430 | 0.6880 | 0.7170 | 0.7080 | 0.0190 | 0.3100 | 0.1470 | 0.6810 | 0.7080 |

No.6 | 0.0151 | 0.0105 | 0.0749 | 0.0081 | 0.0133 | 0.0151 | 0.0179 | 0.0083 | 0.0309 | 0.0090 | 0.1390 | 0.0179 |

No.7 | 0.2530 | 0.2430 | 0.3100 | 0.0480 | 0.1500 | 0.2530 | 0.2470 | 0.2440 | 0.3000 | 0.0480 | 0.1500 | 0.2470 |

No.8 | 0.3400 | 0.3006 | 0.3500 | 0.2280 | 0.4800 | 0.3400 | 0.3400 | 0.3026 | 0.3500 | 0.2270 | 0.4800 | 0.3400 |

No.9 | 0.0804 | 0.0579 | 0.1190 | 0.0420 | 0.0600 | 0.0804 | 0.0833 | 0.0597 | 0.1070 | 0.0430 | 0.0600 | 0.0833 |

No.10 | 0.0360 | 0.0230 | 0.0300 | 0.0140 | 0.0360 | 0.0360 | 0.0740 | 0.0210 | 0.0420 | 0.0150 | 0.0540 | 0.0740 |

No.11 | 0.0050 | 0.0130 | 0.0234 | 0.0020 | 0.0020 | 0.0050 | 0.0046 | 0.0130 | 0.0187 | 0.0020 | 0.0014 | 0.0046 |

No.12 | 0.2897 | 0.3100 | 0.4303 | 0.1153 | 0.1930 | 0.2897 | 0.2893 | 0.3200 | 0.3893 | 0.1151 | 0.1927 | 0.2893 |

No.13 | 0.7690 | 0.8060 | 0.9050 | 0.5340 | 0.4980 | 0.7690 | 0.7670 | 0.8090 | 0.8600 | 0.4350 | 0.5700 | 0.7670 |

No.14 | 0.0160 | 0.0110 | 0.0258 | 0.0006 | 0.0050 | 0.0160 | 0.0170 | 0.0171 | ||||

No.15 | 0.0820 | 0.0370 | 0.0640 | 0.0200 | 0.0550 | 0.0820 | 0.0770 | 0.0370 | 0.0690 | 0.0200 | 0.0490 | 0.0770 |

No.16 | 0.4714 | 0.3607 | 0.6000 | 0.1275 | 0.2700 | 0.4714 | 0.4295 | 0.3585 | 0.5700 | 0.1275 | 0.2600 | 0.4295 |

No.17 | 0.2280 | 0.0950 | 0.1240 | 0.0820 | 0.1650 | 0.2280 | 0.2150 | 0.0970 | 0.1250 | 0.0812 | 0.1520 | 0.2150 |

No.18 | 0.0107 | 0.0053 | 0.0120 | 0.0040 | 0.0070 | 0.0107 | 0.0108 | 0.0416 | 0.0040 | 0.0120 | 0.0108 | |

No.19 | 0.1400 | 0.2000 | 0.2400 | 0.0518 | 0.1100 | 0.1400 | 0.1400 | 0.2000 | 0.2300 | 0.0512 | 0.1200 | 0.1400 |

No.20 | 0.1500 | 0.1600 | 0.2100 | 0.0400 | 0.1100 | 0.1500 | 0.1500 | 0.1500 | 0.2000 | 0.0400 | 0.1100 | 0.1500 |

No.21 | 0.9850 | 1.3137 | 1.3200 | 0.2567 | 0.6100 | 0.9850 | 0.8130 | 1.3179 | 1.2900 | 0.1336 | 0.4300 | 0.8130 |

No.22 | 0.4717 | 0.4800 | 0.5730 | 0.0150 | 0.4271 | 0.4717 | 0.4285 | 0.2500 | 0.2338 | 0.0130 | 0.3816 | 0.4285 |

No.23 | 0.2500 | 0.1250 | 0.3300 | 0.0780 | 0.2000 | 0.2500 | 0.2400 | 0.1260 | 0.3400 | 0.0770 | 0.2000 | 0.2400 |

No.24 | 0.0310 | 0.0600 | 0.0880 | 0.0060 | 0.0300 | 0.0310 | 0.0240 | 0.0600 | 0.0950 | 0.0060 | 0.0190 | 0.0240 |

No.25 | 0.1190 | 0.0590 | 0.2100 | 0.1100 | 0.1200 | 0.1190 | 0.1280 | 0.0580 | 0.2100 | 0.1100 | 0.1300 | 0.1280 |

No.26 | 0.0110 | 0.0139 | 0.0140 | 0.0040 | 0.0090 | 0.0110 | 0.0020 | 0.0137 | 0.0080 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0020 |

No.27 | 0.0100 | 0.0640 | 0.0515 | 0.0040 | 0.0100 | 0.0630 | ||||||

No.28 | 0.2680 | 0.2770 | 0.4320 | 0.0230 | 0.1900 | 0.2680 | 0.2680 | 0.2740 | 0.4320 | 0.0220 | 0.1880 | 0.2680 |

No.29 | 0.0061 | 0.0033 | 0.0050 | 0.0061 | 0.0131 | 0.0039 | 0.0099 | 0.0131 | ||||

No.30 | 0.0600 | 0.0250 | 0.0400 | 0.0600 | 0.0450 | 0.0080 | 0.0300 | 0.0450 |

## 5. Final Remarks

In this paper, the biobjectives optimization model of portfolio management was reformulated as an unconstrained minimization problem. We also presented the properties of the obtained quadratic function.

Regarding the features of the optimization models in portfolio management, a class of penalty algorithms based on the conjugate gradient method was developed. The numerical performance of the proposed algorithm in solving the real problems verifies its effectiveness.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the editors and the anonymous three referees for their suggestions, which have greatly improved the presentation of this paper. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Fund of China (grant no.60804037) and the project for Excellent Talent of New Century, Ministry of Education, China(grant no.NCET-07-0864).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Markowitz H:
**Portfolio selection.***Journal of Finance*1952,**7:**77–91. 10.2307/2975974Google Scholar - Simaan Y:
**Estimation risk in portfolio selection: the mean variance model versus the mean absolute deviation model.***Management Science*1997,**43:**1437–1446. 10.1287/mnsc.43.10.1437View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Williams JO:
**Maximizing the probability of achieving investment goals.***Journal of Portfolio Management*1997,**24:**77–81. 10.3905/jpm.1997.409627View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Best MJ, Jaroslava H:
**The efficient frontier for bounded assets.***Mathematical Methods of Operations Research*2000,**52**(2):195–212. 10.1007/s001860000073MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Konno H, Suzuki K:
**A mean-variance-skewness optimization model.***Journal of Operations Research Society of Japan*1995,**38:**137–187.MATHGoogle Scholar - Yoshimoto A:
**The mean-variance approach to portfolio optimization subject to transaction costs.***Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan*1996,**39**(1):99–117.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Cai X, Teo KL, Yang X, Zhou XY:
**Portfolio optimization under a minimax rule.***Management Science*2000,**46**(7):957–972. 10.1287/mnsc.46.7.957.12039View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Deng XT, Li ZF, Wang SY:
**A minimax portfolio selection strategy with equilibrium.***European Journal of Operational Research*2005,**166**(1):278–292. 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.040MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Giove S, Funari S, Nardelli C:
**An interval portfolio selection problem based on regret function.***European Journal of Operational Research*2006,**170**(1):253–264. 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.05.030View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Ida M:
**Solutions for the portfolio selection problem with interval and fuzzy coefficients.***Reliable Computing*2004,**10**(5):389–400.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Lai KK, Wang SY, Xu JP, Zhu SS, Fang Y:
**A class of linear interval programming problems and its application to portfolio selection.***IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems*2002,**10**(6):698–704. 10.1109/TFUZZ.2002.805902View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Parra MA, Terol AB, Uria MVR:
**A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection.***European Journal of Operational Research*2001,**133**(2):287–297. 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00298-8MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Zhang WG, Nie ZK:
**On admissible efficient portfolio selection problem.***Applied Mathematics and Computation*2004,**159:**357–371. 10.1016/j.amc.2003.10.019MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Carlsson C, Fullér R, Majlender P:
**A possibilistic approach to selecting portfolios with highest utility score.***Fuzzy Sets and Systems*2002,**131**(1):13–21. 10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00251-2MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Tanaka H, Guo P:
**Portfolio selection based on upper and lower exponential possibility distributions.***European Journal of Operational Research*1999,**114:**115–126. 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00033-2View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Huang XX:
**Fuzzy chance-constrained portfolio selection.***Applied Mathematics and Computation*2006,**177**(2):500–507. 10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.027MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Huang XX:
**Two new models for portfolio selection with stochastic returns taking fuzzy information.***European Journal of Operational Research*2007,**180**(1):396–405. 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.04.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Best MJ, Grauer RR:
**The efficient set mathematics when mean-variance problems are subject to general linear constrains.***Journal of Economics and Business*1990,**42:**105–120. 10.1016/0148-6195(90)90027-AView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Pang JS:
**A new and efficient algorithm for a class of portfolio selection problems.***Operations Research*1980,**28**(3, part 2):754–767. 10.1287/opre.28.3.754MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Kawadai N, Konno H:
**Solving large scale mean-variance models with dense non-factorable covariance matrices.***Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan*2001,**44**(3):251–260.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Perold AF:
**Large-scale portfolio optimization.***Management Science*1984,**30**(10):1143–1160. 10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1143MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Sharpe WF:
*Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets*. McGraw-Hil, New York, NY, USA; 1970.Google Scholar - Szegö GP:
*Portfolio Theory, Economic Theory, Econometrics, and Mathematical Economics*. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA; 1980:xiv+215.Google Scholar - Andersen ED, Gondzio J, Meszaros C, Xu X:
**Implementation of interior-point methods for large scale linear programs.**In*Interior Point Methods of Mathematical Programming, Applied Optimization*.*Volume 5*. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 1996:189–252. 10.1007/978-1-4613-3449-1_6View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Gondzio J, Grothey A:
**Parallel interior-point solver for structured quadratic programs: application to financial planning problems.***Annals of Operations Research*2007,**152:**319–339. 10.1007/s10479-006-0139-zMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Mehrotra S:
**On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method.***SIAM Journal on Optimization*1992,**2**(4):575–601. 10.1137/0802028MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Nocedal J, Wright SJ:
*Numerical Optimization, Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering*. 2nd edition. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 2006:xxii+664.MATHGoogle Scholar - Potra F, Roos C, Terlaky T (Eds): In
*Special Issue on Interior-Point Methods, Optimization Method and Software*. 1999.,**11–12:**Google Scholar - Solodov MV, Tseng P:
**Modified projection-type methods for monotone variational inequalities.***SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*1996,**34**(5):1814–1830. 10.1137/S0363012994268655MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Coleman TF, Hulbert LA:
**A direct active set algorithm for large sparse quadratic programs with simple bounds.***Mathematical Programming*1989,**45**(3):373–406. 10.1007/BF01589112MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Andrei N:
**A Dai-Yuan conjugate gradient algorithm with sufficient descent and conjugacy conditions for unconstrained optimization.***Applied Mathematics Letters*2008,**21**(2):165–171. 10.1016/j.aml.2007.05.002MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Dai Y, Ni Q:
**Testing different conjugate gradient methods for large-scale unconstrained optimization.***Journal of Computational Mathematics*2003,**21**(3):311–320.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Shi Z-J, Shen J:
**Convergence of Liu-Storey conjugate gradient method.***European Journal of Operational Research*2007,**182**(2):552–560. 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.066MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Sun J, Yang X, Chen X:
**Quadratic cost flow and the conjugate gradient method.***European Journal of Operational Research*2005,**164**(1):104–114. 10.1016/j.ejor.2003.04.003MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Dai YH, Yuan Y:
**Convergence properties of the conjugate descent method.***Advances in Mathematics*1996,**25**(6):552–562.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Liu Y, Storey C:
**Efficient generalized conjugate gradient algorithms. I. Theory.***Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*1991,**69**(1):129–137. 10.1007/BF00940464MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Nocedal J:
**Conjugate gradient methods and nonlinear optimization.**In*Linear and Nonlinear Conjugate Gradient-Related Methods*. Edited by: Adams L, Nazareth JL. SIAM, Philadelphia, Pa, USA; 1996:9–23.Google Scholar - Sun J, Zhang JP:
**Convergence of conjugate gradient methods without line search.***Annals of Operations Research*2001,**103:**161–173. 10.1023/A:1012903105391MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.