Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

FinRipple: Aligning Large Language Models with Financial Market for Event Ripple Effect Awareness

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An LLM aligned to market structure predicts event ripple effects: R² up to 0.34 on next-day residuals, Sharpe 1.153 on a daily portfolio.

desk verdict A plausible pipeline undermined by unresolved temporal leakage and self-referential evaluation; get the cutoffs right and re-evaluate before trusting any number. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23826 v1 pith:M6ZV5OC5 submitted 2025-05-28 cs.SI

Yuanjian Xu , Jianing Hao , Kunsheng Tang , Jingnan Chen , Anxian Liu , Peng Liu , Guang Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.SI
keywords rippleeffectpredictionfinancialknowledgegraphlargelanguagemodelsreinforcementlearningCAPMresidualsassetpricingportfoliomanagementeventstudy
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

The paper is trying to establish that the ripple effect of a financial event — the way one company's news moves the stock prices of connected companies — is a definable and predictable quantity, not just a narrative. Its claim is that a large language model can be aligned to the market by training it, through reinforcement learning, to predict the part of next-day returns that the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) cannot explain, using a time-varying knowledge graph of four relationship channels as the market context. If the claim holds, event-driven residual returns are substantially forecastable from public news plus structured market relationships, and the route to that capability is domain alignment through a financial reward signal rather than larger models. The paper also introduces ripple-effect prediction as a standardized task with an open benchmark, so future work can be measured against a common target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the reward-driven alignment loop between predicted and realized shocks. Formally, the reward is $R(Z, \epsilon) = \frac{Z \cdot \epsilon}{\|Z\| \|\epsilon\|} + \lambda \frac{\sum_j \min(|Z_j|, |\epsilon_j|)}{\|\epsilon\|_1}$: the first term rewards the direction match between the predicted impact vector $Z$ and the realized CAPM residual vector $\epsilon$, while the second, scaled by $\lambda = 0.1$, rewards magnitude coverage so that the model names as many genuinely affected firms as possible. This scalar signal is passed to PPO to fine-tune the LLM backbone while the adapter layers — the parameters that encode the time-varying knowledge graph — remain frozen. The graph $G_t = (C_t, R_t)$ with four edge types (leadership overlaps, mutual-fund cross-holdings, patent-based technical similarity, supply-chain links) supplies the market structure, and the CAPM regression supplies the residual that defines what 'unexplained by the market' means. The conjunction of these three pieces — time-varying graph, frozen adapters, residual-matching reward — is what the paper argues converts a general LLM into an event-ripple analyst.

What would settle it

Rebuild the monthly knowledge graphs as strictly point-in-time, deleting any edge (a mutual-fund holding, a supply-chain transaction, a patent, or a leadership appointment) dated after the prediction day, then re-run the Table 1 regression and the Table 3 backtest; if the $R^2$ collapses from 0.34 toward the 0.05–0.12 baseline band, or the Sharpe falls toward the 0.82–1.02 benchmark range, the reported gains came from look-ahead in the graphs rather than from ripple-effect reasoning. A complementary check is to permute the news-to-graph pairings and verify that the alignment reward loses its specificity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ripple effect of a market event is a learnable prediction target: for a news event $e_t$ and the current market structure $G_t$, the propagator $\Phi_{e_t,\theta}$ outputs a cross-sectional vector of next-day shocks, and its value is validated against CAPM residuals $\epsilon_j^{t+\Delta t}$, the return component unexplained by market $\beta$. FinRipple achieves this by injecting a time-varying knowledge graph into the LLM through frozen adapters and fine-tuning the backbone with PPO, using a reward that scores both the direction and the magnitude coverage of predicted shocks against realized residuals. The reported results are strongest on the vicuna-13b backbone: $R^2 = 0.340$ for explaining the level of next-day CAPM residuals ($p < 0.001$), with $R^2$ rising to 0.55 and 0.59 for Fama-French three- and five-factor residuals, and a long-short portfolio formed on predicted impact achieving Sharpe 1.153 over the January 2020 to June 2022 test window. The authors state that alignment with the market, not graph injection alone, is the component that produces the gain, and that the framework constitutes the first standardized definition of ripple-effect prediction.

Load-bearing premise

For every daily prediction, that month's knowledge-graph snapshot must contain only relationships knowable before the prediction day; the paper never specifies the exact cutoff inside each month, and its own limitations section concedes that stale or delayed graphs degrade the system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, next-day CAPM residuals for S&P 500 firms are substantially cross-sectionally predictable from news plus a four-channel knowledge graph, implying that a large share of 'abnormal' returns is event propagation rather than noise.
  • A daily long-short portfolio built from predicted event impact (top decile long, bottom decile short) is claimed to beat equal-weight, volatility-weight, Markowitz, and min-variance benchmarks on return, Sharpe, and drawdown over the 2020–2022 test window.
  • Market alignment via PPO is the necessary ingredient: the 'FinRipple/w-o alignment' comparison shows that injecting the graph without the residual-matching reward yields only marginal gains.
  • The same reward design transfers across 7B–13B base models and explains Fama-French three- and five-factor residuals better than CAPM residuals, indicating the mechanism is not tuned to a single pricing model.
  • Model scale is secondary to domain alignment: after alignment, smaller open models exceed the unaligned performance of larger closed models, repositioning domain alignment as the binding constraint for financial LLMs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the temporal-integrity condition holds, the framework generalizes the event-study paradigm: the unit of analysis shifts from one firm's abnormal return to a full cross-sectional residual vector, and any factor model's residual could serve as the alignment target.
  • The reported Sharpe of 1.153 is pre-cost and pre-slippage, and the test window (2020–2022) includes unusual volatility; a natural stress test is to rerun the backtest on a longer, calmer window with transaction costs, where the edge may narrow.
  • The paper's own ablation ranking — supply-chain edges matter most — suggests a testable implication the authors do not draw: predictive power should concentrate in episodes of supply-chain stress, so performance could be decomposed by news category to expose where the ripple mechanism actually operates.
  • Casting 'alignment' as agreement with a stochastic environmental target rather than human preference offers a template for other domains — energy grids, epidemiological spread, logistics networks — where a structured model of the environment defines the residual to be explained.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FinRipple, a three-stage framework for predicting financial market ripple effects from news events. Stage one constructs a time-varying knowledge graph of S&P 500 firms from patent, supply-chain, leadership, and mutual-fund-holding data. Stage two injects each monthly KG snapshot into a frozen LoRA adapter through instruction tuning. Stage three aligns the LLM with the market by fine-tuning the backbone with PPO, using a reward that combines the cosine similarity between the propagator-aggregated prediction Z and the CAPM residual epsilon with a magnitude-coverage term. The main empirical claims are cross-sectional R2 values up to 0.34 for explaining CAPM residuals (Table 1) and a daily long-short portfolio with Sharpe ratio 1.153 (Table 3) over January 2020 to June 2022.

Significance. The paper introduces a clearly defined task, a multi-channel time-varying KG, and a plausible adapter-based mechanism for injecting structured market knowledge into an LLM. The breadth of baselines across open- and closed-source models is substantial, and the case study in Figure 5 is a useful illustration of the intended reasoning behavior. If the empirical claims were valid, the work would be a meaningful step toward using LLMs for event-driven asset pricing and portfolio construction. However, the reported evidence is not currently interpretable as out-of-sample prediction: the point-in-time integrity of the monthly KG snapshots is not established, the main evaluation metric coincides with the training reward, and the theoretical appendix contains an inconsistent generalization bound. These are load-bearing issues for the central claim, not presentation concerns.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.2–3.2.3 and Appendix B.2] The point-in-time integrity of the knowledge graph is not established. The paper states that 'for each news item, we retrieve the corresponding KG for the relevant time' (Section 3.2.2) and that the model injects 'the KG corresponding to the specific month' (Section 3.2.3), but Appendix B.2 reports only month ranges for the training and testing sets, not per-record disclosure cutoffs. The KG sources (USPTO patents, Thomson/Refinitiv mutual fund holdings, Compustat-Capital IQ supply-chain filings, BoardEx leadership records) are subject to publication and filing lags. If a monthly snapshot paired with a news item dated day d contains edges that became observable only after day d, then the next-day CAPM residual epsilon is informationally contaminated by the input, and Tables 1 and 3 would measure lookahead rather than ripple-effect prediction. The paper must specify the exact information cutoff for every edge, verify that no edge uses data posterior to the news timestamp, and confirm that the CAPM beta rolling windows are strictly trailing. Without this, the central empirical claims are uninterpretable.
  2. [Section 3.2.2 (reward) and Table 1] The main evaluation metric is the same statistical quantity that the training reward maximizes. The first reward term in Section 3.2.2 is R(Z, epsilon) = Z·epsilon / (||Z|| ||epsilon||), the cosine similarity between the aggregated prediction and the CAPM residual, and Table 1 reports the R2 from regressing those residuals on the predictions. For a simple regression, R2 is a monotone transformation of the squared correlation between Z and epsilon, so PPO directly optimizes the statistic used as headline evidence. The comparison against untrained baselines therefore shows that the model can optimize this objective, but it does not provide an independent test of ripple-effect prediction. An evaluation metric not used in training, such as event-time cumulative abnormal returns computed from raw returns with a point-in-time factor model, or decile portfolio spreads net of transaction costs, is needed to support the claim.
  3. [Appendix A, Theorem 1] The generalization bound is not a reliable basis for the paper's theoretical claims. The theorem states an additive term of order C·kl·sqrt(m), while the proof concludes with a term of order C·kl/sqrt(m); these differ by a factor of m, and the statement that a constant 'absorbs all logarithmic factors' cannot repair a mismatch in the dependence on m. In addition, the derivation of the inequality sum_i sum_j a_ij^2 <= H sum_i (sum_j a_ij)^2 from Assumption 3 requires the errors a_ij to be nonnegative, which is not assumed anywhere. The appendix should be corrected or removed; as written, it does not support the claimed theoretical grounding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix E.3] The ablation study removes 'Technical Relevance,' 'Supply Chain,' and 'Shared Leadership,' but Section 3.2.1 introduces four relationship types; there is no ablation removing mutual fund holdings, so the claim that all relationship types are useful is incomplete.
  2. [Section 3.2.2 (reward)] The magnitude-coverage term is described as maximizing 'recall rate,' but the expression min(|Z_j|,|epsilon_j|)/||epsilon||_1 is not a standard recall or coverage statistic; its interpretation as a recall measure should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text describes the strategy as 'intraday' in one place and as a daily portfolio that rebalances at the end of each trading day in the steps; this terminology should be made consistent, and the backtest should state whether transaction costs and trading frictions are included.
  4. [Appendix G.2] The reproducibility statement says that a training framework and benchmark dataset 'will be released in the future,' but no code, data, or benchmark link is provided. Given that the point-in-time construction is the central validity concern, the absence of an auditable artifact is a serious practical obstacle for verification.
  5. [Section 1 and Appendix G.2] The abstract and contributions describe an 'open-source benchmark,' but the paper only promises future release; the wording should be corrected to avoid overstating the current availability of the resource.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reward/evaluation alignment is supervised learning on a temporally held-out test period, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

full rationale

FinRipple's central claim is that an LLM aligned via PPO can predict next-day CAPM residuals from news and a time-varying knowledge graph. The reward function in Section 3.2.2 does directly maximize the correlation between the aggregated prediction Z and the CAPM residual epsilon, and Table 1 evaluates exactly the explanatory power of Z on epsilon. This is not circular, however, because the test set is explicitly disjoint in time: 'We selected 10,000 news articles about S&P 500 companies from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022, as the test set, while approximately 110,000 articles from other years were used for training.' The reported R2 and portfolio results are therefore out-of-sample generalization metrics, not in-sample fits renamed as predictions. The formal analysis in Appendix A is a standard Rademacher generalization bound and does not assume the target residual as an input. The self-citations (Xu et al. 2024 for portfolio benchmarks; Hao et al. 2024 for structured extraction) are methodological and not load-bearing. The reader's concern about monthly KG snapshots potentially containing post-event information is a data-integrity/lookahead risk, not a circularity reduction: no equation in the paper makes the test label an input by construction. The Limitations section acknowledges KG update delays but does not assert or depend on a circular step. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

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

The central empirical claim rests on the CAPM residual being the right target, on the KG channels being complete, on the temporal integrity of monthly snapshots, and on a linear aggregation rule; the generalization bound offered as theoretical support is invalid.

free parameters (6)
  • Reward regularization weight lambda = 0.1
    Set by hyperparameter tuning (Appendix G) to balance direction match and magnitude coverage in the PPO reward.
  • LoRA rank r = 64
    LoRA rank used for backbone fine-tuning, chosen in hyperparameter tuning (Appendix G).
  • LoRA alpha = 16
    LoRA scaling parameter, Appendix G.
  • LoRA dropout = 0.1
    LoRA dropout, Appendix G.
  • Generation sampling parameters (temperature, top-k, top-p) = Per model, e.g., llama2-7b: 0.8, 40, 0.85
    Tuned per base model (Table 12) to minimize refusal-to-answer rate; affects outputs and thus results.
  • CAPM beta rolling window = not specified
    Beta is estimated via OLS over rolling windows (Section 3.2.2), but the window length is not given; a free choice that affects residual computation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CAPM is the correct benchmark; residuals represent unexplained event-driven return.
    The reward and evaluation target CAPM residuals; if multi-factor models explain more, residual-based alignment may be mis-specified. The paper itself tests Fama-French residuals in Appendix E.2.
  • domain assumption The four KG relationship types (leadership, fund holdings, patents, supply chain) capture the channels through which ripple effects propagate.
    Section 3.2.1 and Appendix B.2; no evidence that these channels are complete or that edge weights mu_t are correct.
  • ad hoc to paper The propagator aggregation Z_j = sum_i mu_t(c_i,c_j)*Y_ij correctly converts per-pair impact predictions into firm-level shock magnitudes.
    Section 3.2.2, equation for Z; a linear aggregation assumption with no justification.
  • domain assumption Events and news articles at time t are sufficient to predict day t+1 CAPM residuals.
    Core modeling assumption; the strong R2 values imply a predictability that contradicts most asset-pricing evidence.
  • standard math Rademacher complexity generalization bound with sparsity assumptions (Appendix A) is valid.
    The theorem as stated is dimensionally inconsistent (B/n + Ckl*sqrt(m) grows with sqrt(m)); the proof uses an invalid step with signed errors. Invoked but not usable.
  • domain assumption The test-period KG snapshots do not contain information from after the prediction date.
    Monthly KG snapshots are used for 'the relevant time' (Section 3.2.2); if a month-t snapshot includes relationships revealed later in month t, future information leaks into predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FinRipple: Aligning Large Language Models with Financial Market for Event Ripple Effect Awareness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6ZV5OC5

@misc{pith2026250523826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FinRipple: Aligning Large Language Models with Financial Market for Event Ripple Effect Awareness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6ZV5OC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23826}
}
read the original abstract

Financial markets exhibit complex dynamics where localized events trigger ripple effects across entities. Previous event studies, constrained by static single-company analyses and simplistic assumptions, fail to capture these ripple effects. While large language models (LLMs) offer emergent reasoning capabilities, their direct application falters due to structural market unawareness and limited capacity to analyze ripple effects. We propose FinRipple, an elegant framework that empowers LLMs with the ability to analyze ripple effects through financial theory-guided large-scale reinforcement learning. We begin by relaxing the assumptions of previous methods, incorporating a time-varying knowledge graph to accurately represent market structure. By seamlessly integrating classical asset pricing theory, we align the LLM with the market, enabling it to predict ripple effects. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide a standardized definition of ripple effect prediction, a task that is extremely important yet unexplored in the financial domain. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FinRipple provides a promising solution to this task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of market ripple effects. The announcement of Starbucks’s CEO change not only boosted its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of FinRipple. The framework comprises three stages: (1) KG Construction: transforming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example where subgraph search is not applicable. As shown in the figure, this news event impacts the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This diagram compares candidate companies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Using CoT to analyze the reasoning process of vicuna-13b-chat. The model is aligned by FinRipple. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The statistics results of our collected news articles. (A) demonstrates the temporal distribution of news [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variable importance of Fama-French 5 factors on 2018 returns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Allan Friedman, and Rahul Telang. 2006. Is there a cost to privacy breaches? an event study. ICIS 2006 proceedings, page 94

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Garima Agrawal, Tharindu Kumarage, Zeyad Alghamdi, and Huan Liu. 2024. Can knowledge graphs reduce hallucinations in llms? : A survey. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 16-21, 2024 ,...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Matin N Ashtiani and Bijan Raahemi. 2023. News-based intelligent prediction of financial markets using text mining and machine learning: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 217:119509

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    David H Austin. 1993. An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: The case of biotechnology. The American economic review, 83(2):253--258

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    D Eric Boyd, Rajesh K Chandy, and Marcus Cunha Jr. 2010. When do chief marketing officers affect firm value? a customer power explanation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6):1162--1176

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877--1901

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Yubo Chen, Yong Liu, and Jurui Zhang. 2012. When do third-party product reviews affect firm value and what can firms do? the case of media critics and professional movie reviews. Journal of Marketing, 76(2):116--134

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Zhuo Chen, Yichi Zhang, Yin Fang, Yuxia Geng, Lingbing Guo, Xiang Chen, Qian Li, Wen Zhang, Jiaoyan Chen, Yushan Zhu, et al. 2024. Knowledge graphs meet multi-modal learning: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05391

    arXiv 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Dawei Cheng, Fangzhou Yang, Xiaoyang Wang, Ying Zhang, and Liqing Zhang. 2020. Knowledge graph-based event embedding framework for financial quantitative investments. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retri...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Rui Cheng and Qing Li. 2021. Modeling the momentum spillover effect for stock prediction via attribute-driven graph attention networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 55--62

    2021

  3. [11]

    Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2023. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net

    2023

  4. [12]

    Xiao Ding, Yue Zhang, Ting Liu, and Junwen Duan. 2014. Using structured events to predict stock price movement: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1415--1425

    2014

  5. [13]

    Xiao Ding, Yue Zhang, Ting Liu, and Junwen Duan. 2015. Deep learning for event-driven stock prediction. In Twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence

    2015

  6. [14]

    Haibing Gao, Jinhong Xie, Qi Wang, and Kenneth C Wilbur. 2015. Should ad spending increase or decrease before a recall announcement? the marketing--finance interface in product-harm crisis management. Journal of Marketing, 79(5):80--99

    2015

  7. [15]

    Jianing Hao, Zhuowen Liang, Chunting Li, Yuyu Luo, Jie Li, and Wei Zeng. 2024. Vistr: Visualizations as representations for time-series table reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03753

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  9. [17]

    Jie Huang and Kevin Chen - Chuan Chang. 2023. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023 , pages 1049--1065. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2023

  10. [18]

    Nourhan Ibrahim, Samar Aboulela, Ahmed Ibrahim, and Rasha Kashef. 2024. A survey on augmenting knowledge graphs (kgs) with large language models (llms): models, evaluation metrics, benchmarks, and challenges. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1):76

    2024

  11. [19]

    Zeynep Hilal Kilimci and Selim Akyoku s . 2019. The analysis of text categorization represented with word embeddings using homogeneous classifiers. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA), pages 1--6. IEEE

    2019

  12. [20]

    Charles MC Lee, Stephen Teng Sun, Rongfei Wang, and Ran Zhang. 2019. Technological links and predictable returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 132(3):76--96

    2019

  13. [21]

    Laetitia Lepetit, Stephanie Patry, and Philippe Rous. 2004. Diversification versus specialization: an event study of m&as in the european banking industry. Applied Financial Economics, 14(9):663--669

    2004

  14. [22]

    Patrick Lewis, Aleksandra Piktus, Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Wen-tau Yih, Ledell Wu, Harm de Vries, Yonatan Bisk, Marie-Francine Moens, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Informat...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2020. K-bert: Enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 2901--2908

    2020

  16. [24]

    Yu Ma, Rui Mao, Qika Lin, Peng Wu, and Erik Cambria. 2023. Multi-source aggregated classification for stock price movement prediction. Information Fusion, 91:515--528

    2023

  17. [25]

    Kostadin Mishev, Ana Gjorgjevikj, Irena Vodenska, Lubomir T Chitkushev, and Dimitar Trajanov. 2020. Evaluation of sentiment analysis in finance: from lexicons to transformers. IEEE access, 8:131662--131682

    2020

  18. [26]

    Mehryar Mohri and Afshin Rostamizadeh. 2008. Rademacher complexity bounds for non-iid processes. Advances in neural information processing systems, 21

    2008

  19. [27]

    Venkata Sasank Pagolu, Kamal Nayan Reddy, Ganapati Panda, and Babita Majhi. 2016. Sentiment analysis of twitter data for predicting stock market movements. In 2016 international conference on signal processing, communication, power and embedded system (SCOPES), pages 1345--1350. IEEE

    2016

  20. [28]

    Vikash Ramiah, Belinda Martin, and Imad Moosa. 2013. How does the stock market react to the announcement of green policies? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5):1747--1758

    2013

  21. [29]

    Alina Sorescu, Nooshin L Warren, and Larisa Ertekin. 2017. Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45:186--207

    2017

  22. [30]

    Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. Colake: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online)...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Shikun Feng, Siyu Ding, Chao Pang, Junyuan Shang, Jiaxiang Liu, Xuyi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Yuxiang Lu, et al. 2021. ERNIE 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for language understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02137

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yajiao Tang, Zhenyu Song, Yulin Zhu, Huaiyu Yuan, Maozhang Hou, Junkai Ji, Cheng Tang, and Jianqiang Li. 2022. A survey on machine learning models for financial time series forecasting. Neurocomputing, 512:363--380

    2022

  25. [33]

    Xiaoyan Wang, Pavan Kapanipathi, Ryan Musa, Mo Yu, Kartik Talamadupula, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Maria Chang, Achille Fokoue, Bassem Makni, Nicholas Mattei, et al. 2019. I mproving natural language inference using external knowledge in the science questions domain. In Proceedings of...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022 a . Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on N...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022 b . Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  28. [36]

    Yilin Wen, Zifeng Wang, and Jimeng Sun. 2024. Mindmap: Knowledge graph prompting sparks graph of thoughts in large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, ...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Qingsheng Wu, Xueming Luo, Rebecca J Slotegraaf, and Jaakko Aspara. 2015. Sleeping with competitors: the impact of npd phases on stock market reactions to horizontal collaboration. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43:490--511

    2015

  30. [38]

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. 2023. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Guiyang Xiong and Sundar Bharadwaj. 2013. Asymmetric roles of advertising and marketing capability in financial returns to news: Turning bad into good and good into great. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6):706--724

    2013

  32. [40]

    Yuanjian Xu, Anxian Liu, Jianing Hao, Zhenzhuo Li, Shichang Meng, and Guang Zhang. 2024. Plutus: A well pre-trained large unified transformer can unveil financial time series regularities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10111

    2024

  33. [41]

    Hongyang Yang, Xiao-Yang Liu, and Christina Dan Wang. 2023 a . Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06031

    2023

  34. [42]

    Linyao Yang, Hongyang Chen, Zhao Li, Xiao Ding, and Xindong Wu. 2023 b . Chatgpt is not enough: Enhancing large language models with knowledge graphs for fact-aware language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11489

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Yao Yao, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2023. Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Michihiro Yasunaga, Antoine Bosselut, Hongyu Ren, Xikun Zhang, Christopher D Manning, Percy S Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Deep bidirectional language-knowledge graph pretraining. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37309--37323

    2022

  37. [45]

    Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational ...

    2021

  38. [46]

    Dong Yin, Ramchandran Kannan, and Peter Bartlett. 2019. Rademacher complexity for adversarially robust generalization. In International conference on machine learning, pages 7085--7094. PMLR

    2019

  39. [47]

    Yangyang Yu, Haohang Li, Zhi Chen, Yuechen Jiang, Yang Li, Denghui Zhang, Rong Liu, Jordan W Suchow, and Khaldoun Khashanah. 2024 a . Finmem: A performance-enhanced llm trading agent with layered memory and character design. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume ...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yangyang Yu, Zhiyuan Yao, Haohang Li, Zhiyang Deng, Yupeng Cao, Zhi Chen, Jordan W Suchow, Rong Liu, Zhenyu Cui, Zhaozhuo Xu, et al. 2024 b . Fincon: A synthesized llm multi-agent system with conceptual verbal reinforcement for enhanced financial decision making. arXiv preprin...

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chong Zhang, Xinyi Liu, Zhongmou Zhang, Mingyu Jin, Lingyao Li, Zhenting Wang, Wenyue Hua, Dong Shu, Suiyuan Zhu, Xiaobo Jin, et al. 2024 a . When ai meets finance (stockagent): Large language model-based stock trading in simulated real-world environments. arXiv preprint arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wenbin Zhang and Steven Skiena. 2010. Trading strategies to exploit blog and news sentiment. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 4, pages 375--378

    2010

  43. [51]

    Wentao Zhang, Lingxuan Zhao, Haochong Xia, Shuo Sun, Jiaze Sun, Molei Qin, Xinyi Li, Yuqing Zhao, Yilei Zhao, Xinyu Cai, et al. 2024 b . A multimodal foundation agent for financial trading: Tool-augmented, diversified, and generalist. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conf...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Greaselm : Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08860

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Xin Zhang, Chunxia Zhang, Jingtao Guo, Cheng Peng, Zhendong Niu, and Xindong Wu. 2023. Graph attention network with dynamic representation of relations for knowledge graph completion. Expert Systems with Applications, 219:119616

    2023

  46. [54]

    Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: enhanced language representation with informative entities. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August...

    2019

  47. [55]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  48. [56]

    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 gl...

  49. [57]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  50. [58]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  51. [59]

    Company A announces a partnership with Company B to jointly develop new technology, expected to significantly enhance production efficiency and increase market share

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.