7
$\begingroup$

I have a finite sequence of positive real numbers $p_1,\dots, p_n$ and I am looking for a monotonically ascending sequence of indices $z_1,\dots, z_k$ that starts with $z_1 = 1$ and ends with $z_k = n$ in order to maximize the following product over all $k,z_1,\dots, z_k$: $$ \prod_{i = 1}^{k - 1} \frac{p_{z_i} + p_{z_{i + 1}}}{2 \sqrt{p_{z_i} p_{z_{i + 1}}}}. $$ How do I approach this optimization problem? Ideally, I am looking for an efficient algorithm that can find the optimal sequence $(z_i)$ given any input sequence $(p_i)$, typically containing millions of elements.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why 'Talmudic'? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 12:55
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The question is originated from the Talmud trading strategy. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 12:57
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AntonSalikhmetov can you give a link to something that might explain that trading strategy? $\endgroup$
    – Mitch
    Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 14:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ mysmu.edu/faculty/tujun/TZ_JFE_10.pdf $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 14:52

2 Answers 2

9
$\begingroup$

This is a special case of finding the longest path in a directed acyclic graph. Namely, the vertices of our graph are $1$, $2$, ..., $n$, there is an edge $i \to j$ for each $i<j$ and the length of that edge is $\log \tfrac{p_i + p_j}{2 \sqrt{p_i p_j}}$. We want the longest path from $1$ to $n$.

There are a number of standard efficient algorithms for this; see for example Section 4.7 in Dasgupta, Papadimitriou and Vazirani's Algorithms.

An observation: If we chose to include $z_i$, then we must have $$\frac{p_{z_{i-1}} + p_{z_i}}{2 \sqrt{p_{z_{i-1}} p_{z_i}}}\ \frac{p_{z_{i}} + p_{z_{i+1}}}{2 \sqrt{p_{z_{i}} p_{z_{i+1}}}} \geq \frac{p_{z_{i-1}} + p_{z_{i+1}}}{2 \sqrt{p_{z_{i-1}} p_{z_{i+1}}}}$$ and multiplying this out and rearranging gives $$\left( \frac{p_{z_{i+1}}}{p_{z_i}} - \frac{p_{z_{i}}}{p_{z_{i+1}}}\right) \left( \frac{p_{z_{i}}}{p_{z_{i-1}}} - \frac{p_{z_{i-1}}}{p_{z_{i}}}\right) < 0$$ so either $p_{z_{i-1}} < p_{z_i} > p_{z_{i+1}}$ or $p_{z_{i-1}} > p_{z_i} < p_{z_{i+1}}$. In other words, the sequence $p_{z_1}$, $p_{z_2}$, ..., $p_{z_k}$ is alternating. Finding the longest alternating subsequence of a sequence is a well studied problem, and good algorithms for that might be good heurisitics for this.

Another thought (and I'm going to drop out of this conversation soon): Running times for longest path algorithms depends on the number of edges in the graph. If the optimal solution uses the edge $j \to \ell$, then we must have $p_k$ between $p_j$ and $p_{\ell}$ for all $j < k < \ell$. (Otherwise, inserting $p_k$ would be an improvement.) Let's call $(j, \ell)$ a good pair if this condition holds.

Let's insert a preprocessing step which finds all good pairs $(j, \ell)$ and restrict the graph algorithm to them. Here is how that preprocessing step works. For each $j$, do the following. Suppose $p_{j+1} > p_j$ (if $p_{j+1} < p_j$, reverse all inequalities that follow.) Let $k_j$ be the smallest index $k_j>j$ for which $p_{k_j}<p_j$. If the $p_i$ are independently identically distributed, then $k_j-j=r$ with probability $1/2^{r-1}$ for $r \geq 2$. The good pairs are $(j,\ell)$ with $j < \ell < k_j$ where $p_{\ell}$ is the maximum of $(p_{j+1}, p_{j+2}, \dots, p_{\ell})$. So the expected search time to find $k_j$ is $\sum_{r \geq 2} r/2^{r-1} =3$ and the expected number of such $\ell$ is $\sum_{r \geq 2} 2^{-(r-1)} (1+1/2+\cdots+1/(r-1)) = 2 \log 2 \approx 1.39$.

Thus, if your $p_i$ are independently identically distributed, then in $O(n)$ time you can find the good pairs, and there are only about $1.39 n$ of them. Djisktra's algorithm on a graph with $O(n)$ edges, implemented with a binary heap, runs in time $O(n \log n)$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the quick answer! While the path-finding algorithm is quite efficient for arbitrary directed acyclic graphs, it means basically brute-force with respect to my problem, resulting in almost $O(n^2)$ time which is unfeasible for millions of elements. Are there any better approaches, assuming $(p_i)$ is already preprocessed as an alternating sequence? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ See edit above. Also, it might be worth spelling out what the $p_i$ mean in your model; the link you gave did not make it clear what the relevance of this function is. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ $p_i$ stand for prices, and the product to maximize is the total relative growth of geometric mean of two balances resulting from Talmudic transactions at $p_{z_i}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ First of all, all the searching I can find just suggests that the Talmudic strategy is to take a number of pluasible assets and invest in them equally (referencing Rebbe Yitzchak in Bava Metzia 42a "A person should always divide his money into three: one third in land, one third in commerce, and one third at hand.") That doesn't give a geometric ratio that I see. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But more to the point: The only reason I imagine that these prices come in a natural sequence is that they are revealed sequentially and you have to make decisions as they appear. In which case (1) you might want to look at doi.org/10.1239/jap/1324046022 and (2) it matters whether your time frame is rapid enough that prices are effectively independently distributed or whether we expect them to be generally drifting in one direction. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 16:28
0
$\begingroup$

It is easy to see that the optimal subsequence needs to be a zigzag. Then, assuming the $(p_i)$ sequence is replaced with its longest zigzag subsequence, one can define cuts as intervals that do not increase the product that needs to be maximized: $$ \operatorname{Cut}(a, b) \Leftrightarrow \prod_{i = a}^{b - 1} \frac{p_i + p_{i + 1}}{2 \sqrt{p_i p_{i + 1}}} \le \frac{p_a + p_b}{2 \sqrt{p_a p_b}}. $$ Also, let an interval be called solid when it does not include any shorter cuts: $$ \operatorname{Solid}(a, b) \Leftrightarrow \nexists i,j \in [a, b]: \operatorname{Cut}(i, j) \wedge j - i < b - a. $$ Finally, it will be particularly useful to distinguish solid cuts: $$ \operatorname{SolidCut}(a, b) \Leftrightarrow \operatorname{Solid}(a, b) \wedge \operatorname{Cut}(a, b). $$ Due to the properties discussed in this paper, any solid cut needs to have an odd length: $$ \operatorname{SolidCut}(a, b) \Rightarrow b - a = 2k + 1 \wedge k \ge 1, $$ and any chain of overlapping solid cuts is also a cut. Thus the optimal subsequence cannot include any elements that are within solid cuts. However, after removing all elements that are within solid cuts, the resulting sequence can have some new solid cuts, so the process needs to be repeated until no cuts remain, reaching the optimal subsequence.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .