FinLoRA: Finetuning Quantized Financial Large Language Models Using Low-Rank Adaptation

Bo Jin; Daniel Kim; Dannong Wang; Steve Yang; Tianfan Fu; Xiao-Yang Liu; Xingjian Zhao

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

FinLoRA: Finetuning Quantized Financial Large Language Models Using Low-Rank Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Finetuning Llama 3.1 models with quantized low-rank adaptation lifts accuracy on financial tasks while cutting GPU memory enough to run on a single 48GB GPU.

desk verdict Solid workshop application paper with useful memory numbers and a new XBRL extraction set, but the loose evaluation protocol keeps the 48% accuracy claim from being fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11378 v2 pith:LPIBA6DG submitted 2024-12-16 cs.LG

Dannong Wang , Daniel Kim , Bo Jin , Xingjian Zhao , Tianfan Fu , Steve Yang , Xiao-Yang Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords QLoRAlow-rankadaptationfinanciallargelanguagemodelsquantizationGPUmemoryreductionsentimentanalysisnamedentityrecognitionXBRLextraction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FinLoRA claims that applying QLoRA—quantizing the frozen base model to 4 or 8 bits and training only low-rank adapters—lets Llama 3.1 8B and 70B models be finetuned locally on financial tasks while using a fraction of the GPU memory. On the paper's nine financial datasets, the finetuned 8B model raises accuracy from 68.73% to 86.30% on financial sentiment, from 48.89% to 96.63% on named entity recognition, and from 2.85% to 70.45% on XBRL tagging, with an average accuracy increase of up to 48% across tasks. A sympathetic reader would care because privacy and regulatory constraints make local finetuning desirable, and the memory numbers suggest it can fit on commodity hardware: 4-bit finetuning of the 8B model uses about 8.7 GB instead of 30.9 GB, and the 70B model drops from over 300 GB to about 42.8 GB.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-rank update $\Delta W = BA$ added to frozen pretrained weights $W_0$, making the forward pass $y = W_0 x + BA x$ with rank $r \ll n$; QLoRA keeps $W_0$ in 4-bit or 8-bit quantized form and leaves only the small adapter matrices $A$ and $B$ in 16-bit precision. The low rank shrinks trainable parameters to about 0.039% of the original weight matrix at $n=4096$, $r=8$, and quantization shrinks resident model size; the paper adds distributed data parallelism, pipeline parallelism, BF16, and a communication-efficient optimizer to make local finetuning and inference faster and cheaper.

What would settle it

Evaluate the base Llama 3.1 8B Instruct on FPB and NER using exactly the instruction prompts, one-shot examples, and inclusion-based scoring given to the finetuned models; if its 68.73% and 48.89% scores jump toward the finetuned 86.30% and 96.63%, the claimed accuracy gains are mostly prompt-format compliance rather than learned financial skill.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is empirical: quantized low-rank finetuning turns an instruction-tuned general model into a strong financial model across sentiment analysis, named entity recognition, headline classification, and XBRL tagging and extraction. With a rank-4 LoRA adapter on a 4-bit quantized Llama 3.1 8B, accuracy rises from 68.73% to 86.30% on FPB, from 48.89% to 96.63% on NER, from 45.34% to 88.03% on Headline, and from 2.85% to 70.45% on FiNER, while the 70B quantized-finetuned model reaches 80.94%, 98.88%, and 96.38% on FPB, NER, and Headline. The same configuration cuts GPU memory for 8B finetuning from 30.9 GB at 16-bit to 8.7 GB at 4-bit and for 70B from over 300 GB to 42.8 GB, and the paper states all finetuning can run on a single 48GB GPU with longer training time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the base models received the same task instructions, one-shot examples, and lenient substring-inclusion scoring as the finetuned models, since otherwise the reported accuracy gaps could reflect output-format compliance rather than financial knowledge learned by finetuning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 4-bit rank-4 adapter is enough for the 8B model to reach 86.30% on FPB and 96.63% on NER, so memory-saving settings do not cost accuracy.
The QLoRA-finetuned 8B model outscores the unadapted 70B base model on all nine reported tasks, showing task adaptation can beat raw scale for financial workloads.
Finetuning the 70B model in 4-bit fits in 42.8 GB of GPU memory, which puts large-model financial finetuning within reach of a single high-end GPU.
XBRL tagging accuracy jumps from 2.85% to 70.45% and XBRL tag/value extraction from 79.37%/55.26% to 95.00%/96.05%, making local LLM-based XBRL report analysis practical.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: Because scoring is inclusion-based, a strict exact-match rescoring of the same outputs would separate real gains in factual precision from gains in producing verbose text that happens to contain the answer.
Inference: The paper leaves the 70B QLoRA model unevaluated on XBRL tasks; running it on FiNER, tag, and value extraction would show whether the 8B XBRL gains transfer to the larger model.
Inference: The FPB train/test split is manually created; repeating the sentiment experiments on the standard public split would indicate how much of the 68.73% to 86.30% jump depends on split choice.
Inference: Keeping adapter weights separate at inference invites a multi-adapter router that lets one quantized base model switch among sentiment, NER, headline, and XBRL tasks, which the paper names as its future mixture-of-experts direction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read: this is a workshop-grade application paper, not a methods contribution. The authors apply QLoRA to Llama 3.1 8B/70B on a set of financial tasks and report large accuracy gains over the base models plus concrete memory and speed numbers. The most useful new artifact is the XBRL extraction benchmark built from Dow Jones 30 filings; the 4-bit/rank-4 vs 8-bit/rank-8 sweep is a practical data point.

What they do well: they position the work honestly as a follow-up to FinGPT and QLoRA, the resource tables are reproducible in principle, and the finding that 4-bit/rank-4 comes close to 8-bit/rank-8 while using less memory is a genuinely useful empirical observation. The numbers in Table 3 are internally consistent: the finetuned 8B outperforms the 70B base on most tasks, which is the kind of result that makes local finetuning attractive.

Where it's soft: the evaluation protocol is under-specified. There is no documentation of the prompts given to the base models on the classification tasks, so the stress-test concern is fair: part of the gain could be format compliance (the model learning to emit exactly 'positive' or 'negative' instead of a sentence). The scoring rule is lenient—inclusion of the ground truth anywhere in the response—and the FPB split is manually created. Only the base model is used as baseline; no comparison to full finetuning, other PEFT methods, or even regular Adam vs the 0/1 Adam optimizer. The headline 'up to 48% average increase' is not backed by the table: the average absolute gain is about 35 points, and 'up to 48%' seems to be the best single-task NER case, not an average. That should be fixed before publication.

None of these are load-bearing flaws if the paper is understood as a demo. The central claim—QLoRA improves financial LLM accuracy while cutting memory—is plausible and consistent with prior work. It just isn't established to the standard the abstract implies.

My recommendation: send it to peer review for a workshop or systems/demo track. Require the authors to document the exact prompts and decoding settings for both base and finetuned models, and to report per-task prompt templates. I'd take it as a serious referee but I'd ask for those clarifications.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FinLoRA, a recipe for locally finetuning quantized large language models (Llama 3.1 8B and 70B Instruct) on financial tasks using QLoRA, distributed data parallelism, and pipeline parallelism. The authors report accuracy and F1 results on six classification-style datasets (FPB, FiQA SA, TFNS, NWGI, Headline, NER) and three XBRL tasks (Tagging, Tags, Values), along with GPU memory, training time, adapter size, and inference speed measurements. The central empirical claim is that QLoRA finetuning yields large accuracy improvements over the base models (e.g., from 48.89% to 96.63% on NER for the 8B 4-bit rank-4 model) while reducing GPU memory requirements and enabling finetuning on commodity GPUs.

Significance. If the evaluation is fair, the paper provides a practically useful demonstration that QLoRA can adapt publicly available instruction-tuned LLMs to diverse financial tasks with modest compute, and the resource-usage tables are a useful reference for practitioners. The manuscript's strengths include the use of public datasets, a released code repository, and a clear presentation of the quantization and parallelism techniques. The headline accuracy gains are plausible in direction, but the current evidence does not yet isolate the source of those gains: the base-model evaluation protocol is underspecified, the accuracy metric is permissive, and the construction of the FPB split is not documented. These are fixable concerns, so the contribution could become acceptable after a revised evaluation that controls for prompt, decoding, and scoring differences between base and finetuned models.

major comments (4)

[Implementation Details / Performance Metrics] The central claim that QLoRA finetuning yields large accuracy gains over the base Llama models requires that base and finetuned models are evaluated under identical conditions. The paper does not report the exact instruction prompts, few-shot templates, decoding parameters, or answer parsers used for the base models on the classification tasks; the only mention of task-specific prompting is the one-shot example for XBRL extraction 'to allow better instruction following for the base model' (Implementation Details). If the base models were queried without task-specific instructions or with different output-format expectations, a substantial part of the reported gains could reflect format compliance rather than acquired financial knowledge. Please provide the full prompt templates used for both base and finetuned models, the generation settings (temperature, max tokens, etc.), and the programmatic scoring procedure, and rerun the base-model evaluations under those same conditions.
[Performance Metrics] The accuracy metric is defined as 'an answer is considered correct if the ground truth answer is included in the generated response.' This inclusion test is too lenient for the classification and extraction tasks: a model that emits multiple candidate labels or verbose text containing the correct token can be scored correct even when it has not isolated the intended answer. This is especially consequential for NER (where 'location' might appear incidentally) and for XBRL value extraction (where a number might appear in a longer narrative). Please report exact-match accuracy or a stricter structured-output metric, and describe the parsing used to extract the answer from the generated text. If the lenient metric is retained, justify its validity for each task.
[Abstract / Conclusion / Table 3] The statement 'up to a 48% average increase in accuracy' is not backed by a clear computation. For Llama-3.1-8B-4bits-r4 relative to the 8B base, the per-task relative improvements in Table 3 range roughly from 19.7% (XBRL Tags) to 97.7% (NER), with the FiNER value an extreme outlier (2.85% to 70.45%); the simple average across the nine tasks is well above 48%, while the average across the six classification tasks is near 62%, and for the 70B model the average is nearer 33%. Please specify exactly which tasks and which averaging scheme produce the claimed 48%, and ensure the wording distinguishes 'up to 48% average increase' from the per-task maxima shown in the table.
[Datasets] The FPB train/test split is described only as 'manually created' with train/test sizes of 1.2K/3.6K. This is not reproducible and creates a risk of distribution shift or leakage relative to the standard FPB split used in prior work. Please provide the exact split (e.g., as a data file or hash of the indices) or use a publicly available split, and state whether any hyperparameter or early-stopping decisions were made using the test set.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract promises improvements in 'accuracy, GPU memory usage, and time efficiency,' but time-to-accuracy or training-time comparisons against a non-quantized baseline are not provided; consider qualifying this claim.
[Table 3] The column headers 'Tags V alues' contain a spacing artifact; also, F1 scores are only reported for the classification datasets, not for the XBRL tasks, and the dashes make the table harder to read. Consider reporting complete metric rows or stating why F1 is omitted for XBRL.
[Finetuning LLMs with Quantized Low-rank Adaptation (QLoRA)] The sentence 'This is different from (Hu et al. 2021), because we will explore the Mixture of Experts approach...' is a forward-looking justification that is not substantiated by any experiments in this paper; it should be rewritten to describe the actual inference behavior used in the reported results.
[Implementation Details] Please specify the number of training runs, seeds, and variance across runs; no standard deviations or error bars are reported for any of the accuracy or memory numbers.
[Global] There are several typos, including 'consistancy' in the Datasets section, 'show casing' in Results and Analysis, and inconsistent spacing in references; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy claims are empirical comparisons against base Llama models on public datasets, with no derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical one: QLoRA finetuning improves accuracy on financial tasks relative to the base Llama 3.1 Instruct models. The reported numbers come from evaluations on public datasets (FPB, FiQA, TFNS, NWGI, Headline, NER, FiNER, and XBRL extraction tasks), not from any equation that fits the outcome by construction. The method section restates standard LoRA/QLoRA definitions and engineering choices; no 'prediction' is derived from a parameter fitted to the same target quantity. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors (FinGPT, Liu et al. 2024a, 0/1 Adam, XBRL Agent), but these citations support background, optimizer choice, and dataset provenance rather than the central accuracy result. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The main evaluative weakness is that the exact prompts and decoding settings for the base models on classification tasks are not reported, and the inclusion-based accuracy metric may reward verbose outputs; however, this is an evaluation-protocol concern, not a circularity where an output equals its input by definition. The measured comparisons are externally grounded against base models on public benchmarks, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no mathematical derivation; the central claim is an empirical measurement. The free parameters are standard training hyperparameters (rank, learning rate, epochs) chosen by the authors. The main unproved assumptions are that the evaluation metric is a valid measure of task performance and that the public datasets and hand-made splits are appropriate. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

LoRA rank (r) = 4, 8
Chosen by hand, not fitted; controls the number of trainable parameters.
Learning rate = 1e-4
Standard value from prior work, not tuned.
LoRA alpha = 32
Standard value.
LoRA dropout = 0.1
Standard value.
Number of epochs = 4 for classification, 1 for XBRL extraction
Chosen per task; short training to avoid overfitting.
FPB train/test split = 1.2K/3.6K
Manually created; no seed or code provided, potential leakage.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption QLoRA reduces memory usage while maintaining model performance
Assumed from Dettmers et al. 2023; not re-verified here beyond base model comparisons.
ad hoc to paper The accuracy metric (ground truth string appears in the generated response) is a valid measure of task performance
Introduced in 'Performance Metrics'; lenient and may favor models that echo the answer.
domain assumption The public datasets and manual FPB split are correctly labeled and representative
Assumed from dataset papers; the manual split is not documented.
domain assumption Llama 3.1 models are appropriate base models for financial tasks
Standard choice, not specifically justified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FinLoRA: Finetuning Quantized Financial Large Language Models Using Low-Rank Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LPIBA6DG

@misc{pith2026241211378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FinLoRA: Finetuning Quantized Financial Large Language Models Using Low-Rank Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LPIBA6DG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11378}
}

read the original abstract

Finetuned large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in financial tasks, such as sentiment analysis and information retrieval. Due to privacy concerns, finetuning and deploying Financial LLMs (FinLLMs) locally are crucial for institutions. However, finetuning FinLLMs poses challenges including GPU memory constraints and long input sequences. In this paper, we employ quantized low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) to finetune FinLLMs, which leverage low-rank matrix decomposition and quantization techniques to significantly reduce computational requirements while maintaining high model performance. We also employ data and pipeline parallelism to enable local finetuning using cost-effective, widely accessible GPUs. Experiments on financial datasets demonstrate that our method achieves substantial improvements in accuracy, GPU memory usage, and time efficiency, underscoring the potential of lowrank methods for scalable and resource-efficient LLM finetuning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Open FinLLM Leaderboard: Towards Financial AI Readiness
cs.CE 2025-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The paper presents an open, continuously updated FinLLM leaderboard that aggregates existing financial benchmarks and demos for comparing models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Chen, J.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cao, X.; Lin, M.; Xu, H.; Wu, J.; Xiao, C.; Sun, J.; et al. 2024 a . Trialbench: Multi-modal artificial intelligence-ready clinical trial datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00631

arXiv 2024
[4]

E.; Herrington, D

Chen, L.; Lu, Y.; Wu, C.-T.; Clarke, R.; Yu, G.; Van Eyk, J. E.; Herrington, D. M.; and Wang, Y. 2021. Data-driven detection of subtype-specific differentially expressed genes. Scientific reports, 11(1): 332

2021
[5]

Chen, T.; Hao, N.; Lu, Y.; and Van Rechem, C. 2024 b . Uncertainty Quantification on Clinical Trial Outcome Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03482

arXiv 2024
[6]

Chen, T.; Hao, N.; Van Rechem, C.; Chen, J.; and Fu, T. 2024 c . Uncertainty quantification and interpretability for clinical trial approval prediction. Health Data Science, 4: 0126

work page 2024
[7]

Dettmers, T.; Pagnoni, A.; Holtzman, A.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2023. QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs. arXiv:2305.14314

arXiv 2023
[8]

Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; and et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv:2407.21783

arXiv 2024

Show all 27 references

[9]

M.; and Wang, Y

Fu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, G.; Liu, C.; Clarke, R.; Herrington, D. M.; and Wang, Y. 2024. DDN3. 0: Determining significant rewiring of biological network structure with differential dependency networks. Bioinformatics, btae376

2024
[10]

Han, S.; Kang, H.; Jin, B.; Liu, X.-Y.; and Yang, S. Y. 2024. XBRL Agent: Leveraging Large Language Models for Financial Report Analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, ICAIF '24, 856–864. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing M...

2024
[11]

J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W

Hu, E. J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685

2021 arXiv
[12]

D.; Mudigere, D.; Mellempudi, N.; Das, D.; Banerjee, K.; Avancha, S.; Vooturi, D

Kalamkar, D. D.; Mudigere, D.; Mellempudi, N.; Das, D.; Banerjee, K.; Avancha, S.; Vooturi, D. T.; Jammalamadaka, N.; Huang, J.; Yuen, H.; Yang, J.; Park, J.; Heinecke, A.; Georganas, E.; Srinivasan, S. M.; Kundu, A.; Smelyanskiy, M.; Kaul, B.; and Dubey, P. K. 2019. A Study o...

2019 arXiv
[13]

Li, S.; Zhao, Y.; Varma, R.; Salpekar, O.; Noordhuis, P.; Li, T.; Paszke, A.; Smith, J.; Vaughan, B.; Damania, P.; and Chintala, S. 2020. PyTorch distributed: experiences on accelerating data parallel training. Proc. VLDB Endow., 13(12): 3005–3018

2020
[14]

Liu, X.-Y.; Wang, G.; Yang, H.; and Zha, . D. 2023. Data-centric FinGPT : Democratizing Internet-scale data for financial large language models. In Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Following, NeurIPS

2023
[15]

Liu, X.-Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, G.; Tong, W.; and Walid, A. 2024 a . Efficient Pretraining and Finetuning of Quantized LLMs with Low-Rank Structure . In 2024 IEEE 44th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 300--311. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Compute...

2024
[16]

Liu, X.-Y.; Zhu, R.; Zha, D.; Gao, J.; Zhong, S.; White, M.; and Qiu, M. 2024 b . Differentially Private Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Model Using Federated Learning. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems

2024
[17]

Loukas, L.; Fergadiotis, M.; Chalkidis, I.; Spyropoulou, E.; Malakasiotis, P.; Androutsopoulos, I.; and Paliouras, G. 2022. F i NER : Financial Numeric Entity Recognition for XBRL Tagging. In Muresan, S.; Nakov, P.; and Villavicencio, A., eds., Proceedings of the 60th Annual M...

2022
[18]

D.; and He, Y

Lu, Y.; Li, C.; Zhang, M.; Sa, C. D.; and He, Y. 2022 a . Maximizing Communication Efficiency for Large-scale Training via 0/1 Adam. arXiv:2202.06009

2022 arXiv
[19]

J.; Cheng, Z.; Saylor, G.; Van Eyk, J

Lu, Y.; Wu, C.-T.; Parker, S. J.; Cheng, Z.; Saylor, G.; Van Eyk, J. E.; Yu, G.; Clarke, R.; Herrington, D. M.; and Wang, Y. 2022 b . COT : an efficient and accurate method for detecting marker genes among many subtypes. Bioinformatics Advances, 2(1): vbac037

2022
[20]

Maia, M.; Handschuh, S.; Freitas, A.; Davis, B.; McDermott, R.; Zarrouk, M.; and Balahur, A. 2018. WWW'18 Open Challenge: Financial Opinion Mining and Question Answering. 1941--1942

2018
[21]

Malo, P.; Sinha, A.; Takala, P.; Korhonen, P.; and Wallenius, J. 2013. Good Debt or Bad Debt: Detecting Semantic Orientations in Economic Texts. arXiv:1307.5336

2013 arXiv
[22]

Rahman, M. A. 2022. Twitter financial news sentiment. http://precog.iiitd.edu.in/people/anupama

2022
[23]

Saeedi, A.; Richards, J.; and Smith, B. 2007. An Introduction to XBRL. In British Accounting Association s Annual Conference

2007
[24]

C.; Verspoor, K.; and Baldwin, T

Salinas Alvarado, J. C.; Verspoor, K.; and Baldwin, T. 2015. Domain Adaption of Named Entity Recognition to Support Credit Risk Assessment. In Hachey, B.; and Webster, K., eds., Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2015, 84--90. Parramatta, ...

2015
[25]

Sinha, A.; and Khandait, T. 2020. Impact of News on the Commodity Market: Dataset and Results. arXiv:2009.04202

2020 arXiv
[26]

S.; Zha, D.; White, M.; Xiao, K.; and Liu, X.-Y

Tian, F.; Byadgi, A.; Kim, D. S.; Zha, D.; White, M.; Xiao, K.; and Liu, X.-Y. 2024. Customized FinGPT Search Agents Using Foundation Models. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, 469--477

2024
[27]

Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Ma, Z.; Xu, H.; Du, B.; Gao, H.; and Wu, J. 2024. TWIN-GPT : Digital Twins for Clinical Trials via Large Language Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01273

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Chen, J.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cao, X.; Lin, M.; Xu, H.; Wu, J.; Xiao, C.; Sun, J.; et al. 2024 a . Trialbench: Multi-modal artificial intelligence-ready clinical trial datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00631

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

E.; Herrington, D

Chen, L.; Lu, Y.; Wu, C.-T.; Clarke, R.; Yu, G.; Van Eyk, J. E.; Herrington, D. M.; and Wang, Y. 2021. Data-driven detection of subtype-specific differentially expressed genes. Scientific reports, 11(1): 332

2021

[5] [5]

Chen, T.; Hao, N.; Lu, Y.; and Van Rechem, C. 2024 b . Uncertainty Quantification on Clinical Trial Outcome Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03482

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Chen, T.; Hao, N.; Van Rechem, C.; Chen, J.; and Fu, T. 2024 c . Uncertainty quantification and interpretability for clinical trial approval prediction. Health Data Science, 4: 0126

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Dettmers, T.; Pagnoni, A.; Holtzman, A.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2023. QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs. arXiv:2305.14314

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; and et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv:2407.21783

arXiv 2024