Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Photonic Quantum Computing vs. Classical Solvers in Constrained Factor Portfolio Optimization
arXiv
Authors: Nirvik Sahoo, Chyng Wen Tee, Paul Robert Griffin
Year
2026
Paper ID
75658
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
134
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The authors present a rigorous empirical evaluation of three distinct optimization paradigms for institutional factor portfolio construction: an entropy-based photonic quantum annealer (Dirac-3, Quantum Computing Inc.), a commercial mixed-integer programming solver (Gurobi), and a model-free deep reinforcement learning agent (SAC). Evaluating these pipelines on the Jensen-Kelly-Pedersen 13-factor equity library across 164 months test window, we implement a full factorial penalty sweep comprising 48 hyperparameter configurations that govern return, volatility, and skewness trade-offs. Our findings demonstrate that while photonic hardware can locate superior risk-return topologies within a narrow operating range, classical mixed-integer programming remains superior for risk-constrained mandates requiring tight tail-risk control and cross-seed stability. Furthermore, we document structural failure modes in reinforcement learning factor allocators under unanchored higher-moment shaping. We translate these empirical results into actionable, mandate-specific guidelines for quantitative portfolio managers deploying advanced optimization engines.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- The authors present a rigorous empirical evaluation of three distinct optimization paradigms for institutional factor portfolio construction: an entropy-based photonic quantum...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.