Jacob Robinson's Blog

I have a problem with running my mouth more than I need to, so I’ll keep it quick: I’m retiring weekly updates to this blog.

It’s gotten to that point where I realize I’m doing something without knowing why I’m doing it anymore.

In the past few years, I’ve run out of time for writing full, original blog posts for this website. I’ve tried a few experiments with AI: everything from me typing up my thoughts and an AI just expanding it to a full blog, to me asking AI questions and having a blog written that way, to me just putting in research articles and getting the AI to automatically summarize them. This last one is what finally killed the camel. While I do think the research article posts are helpful, and it does allow me to post even more frequently than I had been doing… it was no longer me. And at the end of the day, this website is a portfolio all about me.

It’s also worth noting that none of the AI-generated or AI-augmented posts have gotten any sort of traction. I see the stats, and my most popular articles by far are my post on the Paris Catacombs tape and my post on Cognitohazards. Two posts written by me with no AI input, and funnily enough were originally meant to be videos.

Honestly though, I fuck with this outcome. I like both of these posts and am glad they went semi-viral the way that they did. I think this is the sort of content I want as mainstays on the blog, alongside classics like the MMO, Metaverse, and NFT articles. However, in order to do that, I have to (officially) give up on one of the website’s original tenets: weekly posting.

I’ve already stumbled a few times with this, and honestly see it better to just officially give up. I’m also not sure about the future of text-writing in general. I think things will go more to the realm of video and audio as faking text with AI becomes easier and easier and video becomes the last place you can truly tell is real. And even then you’ll have trouble.

This means that writing becomes less profitable (non-fiction writing that is — I think fiction writing will be fine, but that’s for another day). However, because it is not profitable, it becomes less engrained in the stress of performance. And if you don’t need to perform, you can just write about whatever stupid bullshit you want.

So that’s what I’m going to do. In parallel with this realization, I also realize that I suck at video essays — but apparently, my normal essays work just fine. So any current video ideas I’m going to straight up move to the essay realm, alongside any future ideas. And the goal is just to be out when its out.

And while this is the semi-death of the blog, it is not the death of the website. I actually have a big feature coming which you may notice appear soon. I’ll let that one speak for itself

Finally, I’m going to be doing a Pinochet-esque purging of the content of this website. As I’ve already said, some of my experiments here have really pissed me off. So day by day — starting with the oldest posts — I’m reading what I’ve sent and am keeping only the ones I feel aged well and fit with the overall vibe. I am aware that my strategy of “project culling” (I prefer to it as the much nicer term “garden tending”) is controversial, so here’s your notice to save any articles you really like to make sure you have access to them in the future.

The post So, about this blog… appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

Imagine you could run a powerful language model on a smartphone or a small server, without waiting ages for answers or emptying the battery. That dream is made possible in part by quantization—a technique that shrinks the model’s numbers from fancy high-precision weights to smaller, simpler numbers. But does this trimming mess with what the model “knows” inside, or does it keep the essential behavior intact? A recent study dives into this question, not just by checking how well the model performs, but by peeking inside the model’s brain to see how individual neurons behave when you quantize.

In this blog post, we’ll unpack what quantization is, why it matters for real-world use, and what this research found about how 4-bit and 8-bit quantization affects model confidence, neuron activity, and the way neurons team up to make predictions. We’ll also pull out practical takeaways you can use if you’re exploring quantization for your own projects.

What is quantization, and why bother?Quantization in a sentence: It’s a model compression technique that uses lower-precision numbers for weights (and sometimes activations). Think of turning fancy 32-bit numbers into smaller, faster-to-compute 4-bit or 8-bit numbers.Why it helps: Smaller models run faster, use less memory, and are easier to deploy on devices with limited resources. This is especially appealing for multilingual, large-scale language models (LLMs) that otherwise need big, power-hungry hardware.What’s at stake: People worry that squeezing numbers down to fewer bits might degrade the model’s knowledge, confidence, or how neurons (the units inside the network) contribute to predictions.

The study we’re looking at asks a broader question: beyond task accuracy, how does quantization influence what the model “knows” and how it uses its internal components to decide on an answer?

How the study approached the questionModels and settings: The researchers examined multiple open-source LLMs and quantified them under two low-precision settings—4-bit and 8-bit—and compared them to the full-precision (fp16) baseline.What they measured:Model confidence and calibration (do the predicted probabilities reflect reality?).Neuron activations (how many neurons are effectively silent or “dead” across the dataset).Neuron attribution and salience (which neurons actively contribute to a given prediction).Redundancy (how many neurons end up learning similar information).Methods in plain terms:Confidence: average “trust” the model shows in its top prediction.Calibration: how well the model’s confidence matches actual outcomes (does it over- or under-predict?).Neuron attribution: using techniques like Integrated Gradients to see which neurons contribute to a prediction and how strongly.Redundancy: looking at how many neuron pairs carry overlapping information.

This multi-faceted approach lets us see not just whether a quantized model is accurate, but whether its internal reasoning patterns survive the quantization process.

Key findings: what changes (and what doesn’t)

1) Confidence and calibration

Quantization does not cause substantial changes in model confidence or calibration.In short: even when the numbers are packed into 4-bit or 8-bit representations, the model’s sense of how sure it should be remains broadly reliable.

2) Neuron activations and “dead” neurons

The number of dead neurons (those that sit near zero activation across the dataset) stays largely the same after quantization.Translation: quantization doesn’t dramatically silence large swaths of neurons or make the network systematically inactive.

3) Salient neurons and attribution

When looking at which neurons drive predictions (neuron salience), a pattern emerges:Smaller full-precision models tend to have fewer salient neurons.Larger full-precision models tend to have more salient neurons.An exception to this pattern shows up with the Llama-2-7B model, where the trend isn’t exactly the same.For quantized models, the change in how many neurons stand out as important isn’t uniform across models. Some models show little to moderate shifts; others show a bit more, but nothing catastrophic.Takeaway: quantization reshapes but does not utterly rewrite which parts of the network matter for a given prediction—and the direction of that reshaping depends on the model size and architecture.

4) Redundancy of neurons

Redundancy refers to how many neurons learn the same information (and thus could be redundant for the same task).Different models behave differently:In Phi-2, the full-precision model showed more redundancy (more correlated neuron pairs) than its quantized counterparts.In Llama-2-7B, quantization caused only a minor shift in redundancy.Translation: quantization’s effect on neuron redundancy is not uniform; it depends on the specific model family and setup.

5) Overall takeaway

The effects of quantization are nuanced and vary by model and task. Yet, there isn’t evidence of drastic changes that would discourage using quantization for practical deployment.An important implication: to reliably understand how quantization will behave in a given real-world setting, it’s wise to pair performance checks with dataset- and model-specific interpretability analyses.What this means in plain languageYou don’t have to fear that shrinking numbers to 4-bit or 8-bit will instantly “confuse” the model or erase what it has learned.The model’s confidence in its own answers stays reasonably steady, and the internal “dead” neurons don’t suddenly explode in number.The way the model decides which internal neurons matter is sensitive to model size and type, but quantization doesn’t wipe out this internal logic wholesale.Some models retain more redundancy (extra neurons encoding the same information) when kept in full precision, while others show minimal changes under quantization. Again, this isn’t uniform and depends on the architecture.

In short: quantization is a practical tool, and its impact is real but manageable. The exact effects hinge on the model you’re using and the tasks you care about.

Practical implications and takeawaysIf you’re deploying LLMs in resource-constrained environments (mobile apps, on-device AI, or lightweight servers), quantization is a viable option that generally preserves reliability:Expect similar calibration and confidence levels to full-precision models.Don’t assume a single rule of thumb for all models—check the specific model family you’re using.When interpretability matters (e.g., in finance, healthcare, or safety-critical applications), consider pairing quantization with lightweight interpretability checks:Look at which neurons are salient for your tasks and how that changes with quantization.Assess whether key relationships or knowledge remain intact after quantization for your particular data domain.Beware model-by-model differences:Some models may show shifts in neuron salience or redundancy after quantization; others may stay nearly the same.For example, Phi-2 and Llama-2-7B can behave differently in terms of redundancy under quantization. Don’t assume uniform results across architectures.Use a two-pronged evaluation approach:Task performance (downstream NLP tasks) to ensure practical usefulness.Interpretability analyses (confidence, calibration, neuron attribution, redundancy) to understand internal reliability and knowledge preservation.

Conclusion: Quantization holds up to the interpretability test

The study offers reassuring news for teams aiming to deploy language models in tighter resources without throwing away reliability. Quantization—particularly to 4-bit and 8-bit representations—tends to preserve calibration, keeps the number of dead neurons in check, and preserves the overall story of how neurons contribute to predictions. The picture is nuanced: the exact effects depend on the model and task, and different models show different patterns of redundancy and salience under quantization.

For enthusiasts and practitioners, the practical message is clear: quantization remains a valuable, practical method for compressing LLMs, especially when you pair it with targeted interpretability checks to ensure your specific model and use case stay trustworthy and effective.

The post Quantizing Big Language Models: Do Tiny Numbers Really Change the Big Picture? appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

What if your phone could think faster, understand images as well as you do, and call tools — all without sending your data to the cloud? Apple’s new generation of foundation models aims to do just that. They’ve built two complementary AI systems: a compact on-device model that runs efficiently on iPhone/iPad silicon, and a powerful server model designed for Private Cloud Compute. Together, they power smarter features across Apple’s apps while keeping privacy front and center.

If you’re curious about how big AI models actually run on devices or in private clouds, and how a company balances speed, accuracy, and safety, this post breaks down the core ideas in plain language. We’ll tour the two architectures, the clever tricks that make them fast and scalable, and why they matter for both developers and everyday users.

Why two models? A quick map of the strategyOn-device model: A compact, about 3-billion-parameter neural network optimized to run quickly with low resource usage. Its design makes it possible to run locally on Apple devices, delivering fast responses with privacy-preserving performance.Server model: A scalable, high-accuracy transformer built for the Private Cloud Compute platform. It uses a novel Parallel-Track Mixture-of-Experts (PT-MoE) architecture and interleaved global-local attention to handle complex tasks efficiently at scale.Together: The on-device model handles fast, everyday tasks offline; the server model handles heavier reasoning and multimodal tasks, with seamless integration into apps via a Swift-based foundation framework. Both are trained on multilingual and multimodal data, and both are evaluated against strong baselines.Architecture at a glance: on-device vs. serverOn-device model: lean, fast, efficient

Key ideas:

3B parameters: small enough to run locally on Apple silicon, yet capable of useful tasks.KV cache sharing: The model is split into two parts (Block 1 and Block 2). Block 2 shares its key/value caches with Block 1. This clever sharing lowers memory usage and speeds up processing.Efficiency win: By reusing caches and reducing work where possible, the prefill stage (the initial setup before generating the first token) is sped up by about 37.5%.

Takeaway: You get snappy, privacy-friendly responses without needing to reach for the cloud every time.

Server model: scale with structure

Key ideas:

Parallel Track (PT) Transformer: Instead of one long, sequential stack of layers, the server model is organized into multiple smaller “tracks.” Each track processes tokens independently, and synchronization happens mainly at track boundaries. This setup makes it easier to run many parts of the model in parallel.PT-MoE (Mixture-of-Experts): Within some layers, the dense feed-forward network is replaced with Mixture-of-Experts. Each MoE layer routes tokens to a small, specialized group of experts (top-k routing) using efficient grouped GEMM operations. Because experts are local to each track, this scaling uses less cross-track communication and stays efficient.Interleaved global/local attention: Each transformer block alternates between local attention (with a sliding window of 4096 tokens and Rotational Positional Embeddings, RoPE) and a global attention layer. Local attention keeps computation fast for long sequences, while global attention helps the model capture long-range dependencies when needed.Synchronization and efficiency: The PT design reduces synchronization overhead dramatically. If you imagine the model as multiple parallel tracks, the overhead drops from a more burdensome “2L” tensor-parallel synchronization to “L/D” track-parallel synchronization. For example, with a track depth D = 4, synchronization overhead can drop by about 87.5%.

Takeaway: The server model is built for scale without sacrificing speed, using clever parallelism and sparse computation to deliver strong results efficiently.

How the training and data shape the modelMultilingual and multimodal: The models are trained on large-scale multilingual text and image-containing data, gathered through responsible web crawling, licensed corpora, and high-quality synthetic data.Responsible AI and safety: The approach includes content filtering and locale-specific evaluation to align with diverse user needs. Privacy protections are built into the pipeline (e.g., Private Cloud Compute).Fine-tuning and feedback: After initial training, models are refined with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on an asynchronous platform to improve usefulness and reliability.Developer-friendly framework: A new Swift-centric Foundation Models framework exposes guided generation, constrained tool calling, and LoRA adapter fine-tuning. This makes it easier for developers to integrate these capabilities with just a few lines of code.

Takeaway: The models aren’t just powerful—they’re designed with real-world use, safety, and developer ergonomics in mind.

What’s inside: the most interesting design tricksKV Cache Sharing (on-device): By sharing caches between two blocks, the architecture reduces memory load and speeds up the time-to-first-token. It’s a small change with a big impact on responsiveness.Track Parallelism (server): Splitting the model into tracks allows parallel execution with less cross-talk. This reduces idle time and makes training and inference more efficient.Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) layers: Instead of routing every token through a single feed-forward network, the model selectively routes tokens to different experts. This sparsity means you get high capacity without exploding compute.Interleaved attention: Blending local attention (good for short-range patterns) with global attention (good for long-range patterns) enables the model to handle long text and complex multi-modal inputs more effectively.RoPE and long sequences: Rotational positional embeddings help the model reason about position in long sequences without getting confused as context grows.Private Cloud Compute: A core privacy pillar that allows the server model to run in a controlled, private cloud environment, reducing data exposure risks.LoRA adapters and guided generation: Fine-tuning and constrained generation make it easier to tailor the model to specific apps and controls.Public benchmarks, human checks, and practical trustThe paper reports that both the on-device and server models match or surpass comparably sized open baselines in public benchmarks and human evaluations.This suggests you don’t have to choose between “tiny but fast” and “big but expensive” — Apple’s two-model approach aims to give strong performance across different use cases and constraints.Practical takeaways: what this means for developers and usersFor developers:Swift Foundation Models framework: You can access on-device capabilities and integrate tool-calling and guided generation with minimal code, plus LoRA-based fine-tuning to adapt models to your app.On-device first, server when needed: Build apps that can run offline for core tasks while offloading heavier reasoning to a private cloud when necessary, preserving responsiveness and privacy.Safety and localization: Models come with locale-aware evaluation and content filtering, reducing risk in diverse settings.For users:Faster, private experiences: On-device processing means snappier responses, reduced latency, and less dependence on network connectivity for everyday tasks.Safer AI interactions: Privacy protections and content safeguards are baked into the system, with respect to language and locale.For organizations:Scalable private compute: The server model is designed for Private Cloud Compute, offering high accuracy and scalable inference without compromising user privacy.Multilingual, multimodal capabilities: The models handle text and images and support many languages, enabling a wide range of features across apps and services.Conclusion: a balanced AI foundation for everyday and edge use

Apple’s new generation of foundation models embodies a practical philosophy: deliver powerful AI experiences that are fast, private, and developer-friendly. The on-device model brings quick, capable AI right into your pocket, while the server model provides scalable intelligence for complex tasks. Together, they form a versatile toolkit that powers smarter Apple features—without sacrificing your privacy or requiring you to wait for cloud processing.

If you’re building apps or just curious about how cutting-edge AI can feel invisible and seamless, this approach offers a compelling blueprint: lightweight, efficient on-device inference paired with scalable, privacy-conscious server capabilities, all stitched together with a developer framework that makes advanced AI feel accessible in a few lines of code.

The post Apple Intelligence Foundation Models: On-device Smarts Meet Private Cloud Power appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

If you’ve ever wondered why some companies nail AI-powered innovation while others fizzle out, you’re not alone. A recent study looked at 1,800 Chinese startups over nearly a decade to understand how artificial intelligence (AI) can (or cannot) help create better products—and how a lean startup mindset can change the game. The punchline? AI and the Lean Startup Method (LSM) aren’t just compatible; they can reinforce each other. But the key is to treat AI as a heterogeneous toolbox: different kinds of AI require different organizational moves to unlock real value.

Below is a practical, non-technical read on what the research found and how you can use it in your own product journey.

The Big Idea: AI, Lean Startup, and Product ValueAI has strong potential to drive product innovation, but simply investing in AI isn’t enough. Success depends on aligning AI capabilities with the right organizational practices.The Lean Startup Method (LSM) is a framework for building products through rapid testing, learning, and iteration—rather than betting everything on a single big plan.This study asks: when you bring AI into a startup, how should you pair it with LSM to maximize new product releases and improvements? Are some AI kinds better suited to certain kinds of product goals?

Key takeaway: AI helps, but you get the most value when you couple AI with the right Lean Startup practices, and you tailor your approach to the specific kind of AI you’re using.

Two Kinds of AI: Discovery vs. Optimization

Think of AI capabilities as falling into two broad families:

Discovery-oriented AI: This kind helps you uncover new insights, patterns, or market opportunities. It’s about exploring unknowns and generating hypotheses.Optimization-oriented AI: This one focuses on refining and improving existing processes and products. It’s about making things faster, cheaper, or better through iteration.

Why it matters: Different AI kinds don’t just do different tasks; they demand different ways of organizing work and testing ideas.

Lean Startup Methods 101 (In Plain Language)

The Lean Startup Method (LSM) isn’t just jargon. It boils down to two practical modes of work:

Prototyping: Building lightweight versions of a product (minimum viable products or MVPs) to learn quickly from real users.Controlled experimentation: Running rigorous tests (think A/B tests) to compare options and isolate what actually helps users.

LSM helps startups reduce risk by validating ideas with real feedback rather than relying on guesses or long development cycles.

How AI + LSM Complement Each Other

The study finds two complementary paths, each depending on the AI type.

1) Discovery-oriented AI + Prototyping (Expansion of Market Search)How it works: Use discovery AI to surface new market opportunities and hypotheses about what users might want. Then use prototyping to build early versions of products to test those opportunities.Why it helps: AI helps you broaden the “search space” for ideas. Prototyping gives you quick, real-world feedback to prune the ideas that don’t fit.What it looks like in practice: Imagine an AI system that analyzes broad consumer data to identify emerging needs. You’d then create a simple MVP to test whether those needs actually translate into desire and willingness to pay. If the hypothesis holds, you iterate; if not, pivot.2) Optimization-oriented AI + Controlled Experimentation (Faster, smarter refinements)How it works: Use optimization AI to refine features, processes, or user experiences. Pair this with rigorous experiments to test which feature tweaks actually improve outcomes across a range of users.Why it helps: AI accelerates the refinement loop (more iterations in less time) while controlled experiments rigorously tell you which changes move the needle.What it looks like in practice: Imagine A/B testing different input features or UI tweaks guided by AI insights. The AI helps you identify promising changes and automate the refinement process, while experiments tell you which changes reliably improve performance.

In short: discovery AI goes big-picture and exploratory with prototypes, while optimization AI goes into the details and uses testing to confirm what actually works.

Why This Matters for Startups (and even larger tech teams)AI capability is not a single monolith. Different AI tools and capabilities require different organizational supports. Treat AI as a heterogeneous set of capabilities, each with its own playbook.Pairing AI with the right Lean Startup practices can yield more and better products in less time. The study’s data—covering 1,800 startups in China from 2011–2020, and considering government AI-policy shifts—suggests a robust link between AI-enabled capabilities and higher levels of product innovation.The findings apply to both software and hardware development, not just digital products. The same logic—aligning AI type with testing and learning methods—helps across industries.

Real-world color from the study:

Genki Forest, a Chinese beverage company, used AI to mine consumer data and discovered a big market concern (sugar/diabetes/obesity) among young people, leading to a zero-sugar option. That’s discovery AI in action shaping a new product category.Airbnb uses AI to automate processes like turning hand-drawn interface sketches into code, speeding up iterations. That’s an example of AI accelerating existing workflows—relevant to the optimization side.Practical Takeaways: How to Apply This in Your Startup

If you’re building or refining a product, here are concrete steps inspired by the research:

Map your AI capabilitiesIdentify whether your AI tools are primarily discovery-oriented or optimization-oriented.Don’t treat all AI as the same; understand what each tool is best at and what kind of organizational support it needs.Pair AI with the right Lean Startup practiceIf you’re leveraging discovery AI:Use prototyping to test broad market hypotheses quickly.Build lightweight MVPs that let users reveal whether the AI-generated insights translate into real value.If you’re leveraging optimization AI:Use controlled experiments (A/B testing) to compare feature variants.Let AI guide the refinement process, then validate improvements with rigorous tests.Expect complementary benefits, not replacementAI can accelerate learning and product development, but the gains are greatest when it’s combined with disciplined experimentation and rapid prototyping.Relying on AI alone without a Lean Startup process may limit innovation or lead to costly missteps.Consider the broader environmentPolicy landscapes and market maturity can influence AI adoption and the effectiveness of Lean Startup practices. Be aware of regulatory and ecosystem factors that may enable or constrain AI-driven experimentation.Apply across product typesThe approach isn’t limited to software. Hardware and connected devices can also benefit from Discovery AI + Prototyping (to find new needs) and Optimization AI + A/B-style testing (to refine performance and user experience).Conclusion: A Practical Frame for Faster, Higher-Quality Innovation

Innovation with AI isn’t a magic recipe—it’s about choosing the right tools for the right job and pairing them with disciplined experimentation. By recognizing that AI capabilities are heterogeneous and aligning them with Lean Startup methods, startups can expand their opportunities, reduce uncertainty, and bring high-quality products to market faster.

If you’re building the next big thing, start by clarifying what kind of AI you’re using, decide whether your aim is to discover new market opportunities or to optimize existing operations, and then choose prototyping or controlled experimentation accordingly. When done thoughtfully, AI plus Lean Startup isn’t just a buzzword combo—it can be a powerful engine for meaningful, faster product innovation.

The post AI, Lean Startup, and Product Innovation: How to Build Better Products Faster appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

In finance, predicting not just the “average” move but the whole shape of how returns can behave is crucial. Markets don’t just swing up or down by a neat amount—they bloat with big tails, skewness, and shifting volatility. This blog post dives into a recent study that asks: can deep neural networks (a fancy term for powerful pattern-recognizers) forecast the entire probability distribution of financial returns? And if so, how well do they stack up against traditional risk models?

Why talk about distributions, not just points?

Most classic forecasts give you a single number: expected return. But risk management—what really protects portfolios during stress—depends on the full distribution of possible outcomes. Knowing the average is helpful, but you also need to understand:

How likely are extreme moves (tail risk)?Is the distribution symmetric or skewed toward losses or gains?Do volatility patterns change over time?

This study tackles that head-on by predicting entire distribution parameters for different statistical families, not just a single forecast.

The big idea: modeling returns with deep nets and flexible distributions

What they did, in plain termsThey used two common deep learning architectures: 1D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs). These are good at spotting patterns in sequences and time-series data.Instead of predicting a single number, the models estimate the parameters of three probability distributions for returns:Normal distribution (simple, symmetric, light tails)Student’s t distribution (heavier tails)Skewed Student’s t distribution (heavy tails + asymmetry)The key trick: they train the networks by directly optimizing a loss function based on the negative log-likelihood (NLL) of the chosen distribution. In other words, the model learns to make the observed returns as likely as possible under the predicted distribution.The approach was tested on six major stock indices from around the world (S&P 500, BOVESPA, DAX, WIG, Nikkei 225, KOSPI), keeping things robust and diverse.

Why this matters: by letting the model learn time-varying distribution parameters (like changing volatility, tail heaviness, and skewness), you get a richer, more realistic view of risk than a fixed-parameter or point-forecast model.

How the distributions are definedNormal distribution: characterized by a mean (where returns tend to center) and a standard deviation (how wide the moves can be).Student’s t distribution: adds “heaviness” of tails through a degrees-of-freedom parameter. This captures more frequent extreme moves than the normal.Skewed Student’s t distribution: adds a skewness parameter so the distribution can lean left or right (asymmetry). This is important because financial markets often have asymmetrical risk—losses can be bigger or more likely than gains, and not in a perfectly balanced way.

The model doesn’t just decide which distribution to use; it also predicts the distribution’s parameters for each time step. This yields a full probabilistic forecast: what’s the likelihood of different return outcomes tomorrow, given today’s market signals?

The learning engine: loss functions and trainingThey use custom negative log-likelihood (NLL) loss functions tailored to each distribution. In short, the model learns by penalizing it when the predicted distribution makes the observed return unlikely.For each distribution (Normal, Student’s t, skewed Student’s t), there is a specific way to compute the NLL based on the parameters the network outputs.The training framework allows the model to adapt over time, adjusting mean, volatility, tail heaviness, and skewness as new data comes in.How performance was evaluated (and what it means)

To judge whether the probabilistic forecasts are useful, they used three well-known, probability-based evaluation tools:

Log Predictive Score (LPS): Measures how likely the observed returns are under the forecasted distribution. Higher is better (more predictive).Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS): A composite measure of how far the forecast distribution is from what actually happened; lower is better.Probability Integral Transform (PIT): Checks calibration; essentially, it tests whether observed outcomes look like they came from the predicted distribution over time.

These metrics help ensure the model isn’t just sharp (confident) but also well-calibrated and accurate across the whole distribution, not just in the middle.

Key findings: what the results suggest for forecasting and riskDeep neural networks do a solid job predicting distributional properties of returns, not just point values.The LSTM architecture paired with the skewed Student’s t distribution consistently performed best across multiple evaluation criteria. Why this combo? LSTMs are especially good at capturing sequential patterns and time-varying dynamics, and the skewed t distribution handles both heavy tails and asymmetry—two common features of real market returns.The approach was competitive with, and in some respects on par with, traditional econometric models like univariate GARCH when it came to Value-at-Risk (VaR) estimation. VaR is a cornerstone risk metric that relies on understanding tail behavior; getting that right is a strong endorsement for a distributional forecasting approach.The CNNs also showed strong performance, confirming that pattern-recognition networks can extract meaningful signals from financial time series, even when the goal is full distributional forecasting.

In short: deep learning can be a viable, competitive alternative to classic risk models for understanding and managing financial risk, especially when you want a full probabilistic forecast rather than a single best guess.

Why this matters in practiceRisk management gets more realistic: With a forecast of the full distribution, institutions can compute VaR, Expected Shortfall (ES), and other risk metrics directly from the predicted distribution, even in stressed market conditions.Better hedging and capital allocation: Knowing where the tails lie helps in deciding how much to hedge and how capital should be allocated to weather potential extreme moves.Adaptability: Time-varying distribution parameters mean the model can adapt to changing market regimes (calm vs. turbulent periods), potentially improving risk visibility during crises.Practical implications and guidance for practitionersConsider distributional forecasts, not just point estimates: If your risk toolkit relies on assuming a fixed distribution, you might be missing important tail risks and asymmetries.Favor models that capture heavy tails and skewness: The combination of LSTM with skewed Student’s t tended to perform best in this study. This pairing is especially suited for markets that exhibit asymmetric risk and fat tails.Use probabilistic evaluation metrics to validate models: LPS, CRPS, and PIT provide a fuller picture of forecast quality than simple error metrics.Balance accuracy with practicality:DL models can be data-hungry and computationally intensive. Make sure you have enough historical data and processing power.Interpretability can be challenging. Use model outputs (distribution parameters) to inform decisions, but pair with robust risk governance and stress testing.Benchmark against solid baselines: Don’t assume deep learning will automatically beat traditional models like GARCH. Regularly compare to established econometric approaches to ensure you’re gaining real value.Conclusion: A promising path for financial risk modeling

Forecasting the entire distribution of returns is a powerful advance for anyone serious about risk management. By letting deep neural networks learn how distribution shapes evolve over time, analysts can gain sharper, more actionable insights into tail risks and regime changes. The evidence from six major indices suggests that LSTMs, especially when paired with a skewed heavy-tailed distribution, are particularly well-suited to this task. This isn’t just a technical curiosity—it’s a practical step toward more robust, evidence-based decision-making in finance.

If you’re exploring how to modernize risk models, this line of work offers a compelling blueprint: embrace probabilistic forecasts, leverage architectures that excel at sequence modeling, and choose distribution families that capture the real quirks of financial data—heavy tails and asymmetry. Your risk toolbox could be richer, more accurate, and better prepared for the next market surprise.

The post Forecasting the Uncertain Future: Deep Neural Networks for Financial Return Distributions appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

Financial theory loves to promise the best long-run growth with elegant math. The Kelly criterion is a famous example: it tells you how to bet (or invest) so your wealth grows the fastest on a log scale over time. But there’s a catch. That perfection hinges on knowing the right inputs—expected returns, probabilities of outcomes, and payoffs. In the real world, our estimates are noisy. A small miscue can turn a seemingly unbeatable plan into a suboptimal one.

A recent study by Fabrizio Lillo, Piero Mazzarisi, and Ioanna-Yvonni Tsaknaki explores exactly this problem in a simple, transparent setting. They ask: can we make Kelly-style investing more robust when we don’t know the inputs perfectly? Their answer, surprisingly practical: yes—by adding a European option to the mix. In short, stock-plus-option strategies can be more forgiving of estimation errors than stock-only strategies, and a smart blend of the two can be especially resilient over the long run.

In this blog post, I’ll unpack the key ideas in plain terms, highlight the most useful takeaways, and point to how you might think about applying these ideas in a real-world, uncertain world.

A light introduction to the Kelly ideaThe Kelly criterion asks you to maximize the long-run growth rate of your wealth by choosing how much of your wealth to invest in risky assets versus safe ones.In a simple setup, you invest a fraction f of your wealth in a stock (risky asset) and the rest in a bond (risk-free). Your future wealth depends on whether the stock goes up or down. The “best” f is the one that, in the long run, gives you the highest exponential growth of your wealth.The math is clean in the paper’s binomial model: at each step, the stock can go up (by a factor u) or down (by a factor d). The bond grows deterministically at a rate R. The optimal f, usually denoted f*, depends on the probabilities and the up/down factors (roughly: how likely you think the stock will rise and how big the moves might be).The main lure of Kelly is long-run efficiency. The catch is sensitivity: if your estimates of those probabilities and payoffs are off, your actual growth can be far lower than planned. That’s the estimation risk we’re talking about.The simple market used in the study

Imagine a very down-to-earth market with:

A stock S that can move up by a factor u or down by a factor d each period.A bond B that grows at a known rate R.A probability p that the stock goes up (and 1−p that it goes down).No-arbitrage requires d < R < u.

In this world, your wealth can be allocated between stock and bond (the classic Kelly setup). The twist in the study is: what if we also buy European put options on the stock? How does that change the long-run growth, especially when our estimates of p, u, d, and R aren’t perfect?

Kelly with options: how the setup changes

In addition to the stock, you can also purchase put options. The study considers one-period European puts with a strike K0, and you can allocate fractions of wealth among:

f: the fraction in the stock,g: the fraction in put options,1 − f − g: the fraction in the bond.

Two practical points:

The put options act as a hedging tool. Their payoff at the end of the period is (K0 − S1)+, which cushions you if the stock falls.There’s a useful relationship that ties together stock and option positions into a parameter c, which you can think of as a hedging parameter: c = f − (S0 / P0) · g. This links how many options you buy with how much stock you hold.

Intuitively, the option position adds a corrective force: it protects against downside moves that would otherwise drag your log-growth down, especially when your input estimates are not perfect.

Two key takeaways from the paper’s math (without diving into the full formulas):

If you could perfectly estimate the market, adding options does not change the best possible long-run growth rate. The Kelly growth rate remains the same as in the stock-only world.If estimation is uncertain (which is typical in the real world), the two strategies differ in how they perform when your inputs are misspecified.The big findings: robustness to estimation riskWithout estimation risk (perfect knowledge of p, u, d, R), the option is basically a free addition: you can include puts, but the optimal long-run growth rate you could achieve with stock alone can be matched by a stock-plus-options strategy. In other words, no guaranteed extra growth from adding options in the perfect-knowledge world.With estimation risk (the real world), neither the stock-only Kelly strategy nor the stock-plus-options Kelly strategy consistently outperforms the other across all ways your inputs might be wrong. Depending on which inputs are mis-specified, one approach can do better and the other worse.The most practical and striking result: a proper convex combination (a weighted blend) of two Kelly portfolios can be robust to estimation risk in the long run. In plain terms, mixing a stock-only Kelly strategy with a stock-plus-options Kelly strategy tends to be more resilient when your parameter guesses are off.

Think of it as not putting all your eggs in one well-tuned basket. By combining two different growth-optimized strategies, you dampen the risk that misestimates derail your long-run growth.

Practical implications: what this could mean for investorsIf you’re worried about estimation risk (and who isn’t?), consider not just the “best guess” Kelly plan, but a blend of two growth-optimized plans:A stock-only Kelly plan (the classic approach).A stock-plus-options Kelly plan (stock with a hedging layer via puts).The blend doesn’t have to be complicated. A simple weighted average of the two strategies, tuned to how uncertain you feel about the inputs, can yield more robust growth over the long run than either approach on its own.The use of options adds a layer of protection against downside moves when your estimates are uncertain. While you might sacrifice some upside in certain parameter settings, the payoff is a more stable long-run growth path when inputs are noisy.For practitioners who already use fractional Kelly (to limit drawdowns), this work suggests an additional knob: diversify across growth-optimized strategies and mix them. It’s a principled way to hedge estimation risk, grounded in a clear mathematical framework.

A few practical cautions:

The analysis is in a simple, one-period binomial world. Real markets are multi-period, with more complicated dynamics and a broader menu of options. The core intuition, though, carries over: hedging can reduce sensitivity to misestimated inputs.Implementing a mix requires some calibration: what weights to put on the stock-only vs. stock-plus-options strategies? The best mix depends on your degree of estimation risk and risk tolerance, and it’s a good candidate for a robust, age-old approach—backtest and stress-test.Conclusion

The Kelly criterion remains a cornerstone of growth-optimal investing, but its practical application can be fragile in the face of estimation risk. By incorporating European options into a simple binomial framework, Lillo, Mazzarisi, and Tsaknaki show a compelling path to robustness: don’t rely on a single, perfectly estimated plan. Instead, blend two Kelly-like strategies—one stock-only and one stock-plus-options—and you gain resilience in the long run.

As markets continue to surprise us and data remains imperfect, this approach offers a clear, actionable mindset: design diversification not just across assets, but across growth-optimizing strategies themselves. The result is a more stable, patient path to growth—exactly the kind of strategy that appeals to long-term, wealth-building enthusiasts.

The post When Kelly Meets Options: A Robust Growth Strategy for Uncertain Markets appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

Imagine you had a panel of three different AI brains, each good at spotting patterns in stock data in its own unique way. Instead of trusting just one, you let them vote and blend their opinions. And you don’t just pick a fixed vote each day—you let the market’s mood influence how much weight each brain gets. That’s the core idea behind a new approach to stock selection that combines multiple machine learning models and uses smart weighting schemes to decide how much to trust each model’s prediction.

In this post, we’ll unpack the main ideas from a study that builds and tests this approach on the CSI 300 index (a major Chinese stock market benchmark). We’ll keep things light, explain the practical bits, and share what to take away if you’re curious about applying ensemble thinking to stock picking.

The Big Idea: Combining Minds to Beat One Model

Single predictive models can miss important signals, especially in fast-changing markets. The researchers propose a framework that:

Uses three representative machine learning models to forecast stock strategy returns:Ridge Regression (a linear model that handles multicollinearity well)Multilayer Perceptron (MLP; a simple neural network)Random Forest (an ensemble of decision trees)Combines their predictions with carefully chosen weights rather than treating them equally.Tests two broad families of weighting:Static weighting: assign weights based on how well each model performed historically (using standard prediction-error or classification metrics).Dynamic weighting: adjust weights in real time using something called the Information Coefficient (IC), which links predicted signals to real-world outcomes.

The punchline from the study: blending models generally outperforms any single model, and the dynamic IC-based approach adds even more bite, especially when using a particular IC-based variant called IC Mean. Factor screening (pre-filtering stocks with predictive signals) can further boost performance.

The Three Prediction Engines: What each brings to the table

Think of Ridge, MLP, and Random Forest as three different lenses on the data:

Ridge Regression: A sturdy, fast linear model that helps when you have lots of correlated features. It’s good for understanding linear relationships without overreacting to noise.MLP (Multilayer Perceptron): A shallow neural network that can capture nonlinear patterns—useful when relationships aren’t simply straight lines.Random Forest: A collection of many decision trees that vote. It’s robust to outliers and can model complex interactions between features.

Why three? Markets exhibit a mix of linear trends, nonlinear quirks, and intricate interactions. No single lens captures everything, so blending can be sharper than any one view.

Static vs Dynamic Weights: How the committee decides who speaks loudest

Two big ideas govern how to fuse the predictions:

1) Static Weighting (a fixed blend)Start with standard evaluation metrics to judge each model on how well it predicts returns.For regression-style signals (predicting the amount of return), models with smaller errors (lower RMSE or MAPE) get higher weights.For direction signals (will the price go up or down?), models with higher classification accuracy (precision, recall, F1-score) get higher weights.The key point: these weights stay constant over time, based on past performance.

Why this matters: it’s a straightforward, data-driven way to prefer the “more accurate” minds.

2) Dynamic Weighting (adapting on the fly with IC)Information Coefficient (IC) is a measure that links a model’s signal to actual future returns. A higher IC means the model’s signal tends to predict not just direction but also the magnitude of moves.The study explores two real-time dynamic weighting methods:IC-based weighting using Spearman correlation between predicted and realized returns. This captures both direction and how strongly the signal tracks actual moves.IC Mean: a variant that averages IC signals in some way across models to form weights.The big takeaway: dynamic, IC-based weights can adapt to changing market conditions and often outperform fixed, static weights.

In short, dynamic IC weighting lets the ensemble “listen to” the market’s current mood and adjust who speaks up the loudest.

What the backtests on CSI 300 foundEnsemble advantage: The combined machine learning approach (the three-model ensemble) significantly outperformed single-model approaches in backtested returns.IC-based wins: Weighting by information coefficients, especially the IC Mean approach, tended to beat purely evaluation-metric-based weighting in both backtested returns and predictive performance.Factor screening helps: Adding a factor-screening step—essentially filtering stocks to those that align with predictive factors before applying the models—substantially boosted the performance of the combined strategies.

Put simply: you get more bang for your buck by letting multiple models compete and by letting information-theory-based signals steer the weighting, especially when you also pre-select stocks using predictive factors.

Practical takeaways: What this means for enthusiasts and practitionersDon’t rely on a single model. A small “committee” of models can capture a wider set of market signals and reduce blind spots.Weigh smarter, not just more. Static weights are a good start, but dynamic IC-based weighting can help the ensemble stay effective as markets shift.Use IC to guide weights. If you want a practical route, calculate the IC for each model’s signals against realized returns (e.g., via Spearman correlation) and base weights on those ICs. The average IC across models (IC Mean) often performs especially well.Factor screening matters. Before you feed signals to the models, screen stocks using factors that historically correlate with better predictive performance. This can boost the ensemble’s edge.Expect some trade-offs. More complex weighting schemes and the use of multiple models increase computational load and the risk of overfitting. Regularly validate on out-of-sample data and be mindful of regime shifts.

If you’re tinkering with this in practice, here’s a simple starter recipe:

Build three models: Ridge, MLP, and Random Forest to forecast stock strategy returns.Compute two kinds of weights:Static: assign weights based on past RMSE/MAPE for regression signals and F1/precision/recall for direction signals.Dynamic: compute IC for each model’s predicted vs. realized returns (use Spearman correlation). Derive weights from ICs, with IC Mean as a preferred variant.Apply a factor-screening step before prediction, filtering stocks with favorable predictive factors.Backtest across different market regimes and monitor IC trends to adjust strategies if needed.Conclusion: A smarter way to blend AI drives

The study’s message is hopeful for anyone curious about applying machine learning to investing: in stock selection, a chorus of models often outperforms the soloist. Dynamic, information-theory-based weighting helps the chorus stay in sync with a shifting market, and adding a prudent factor-screening step can further improve results.

While the path to real-world trading is never risk-free, these ideas offer a practical blueprint for building more robust, adaptable quantitative strategies. If you enjoy playing with models and data, experimenting with ensemble methods and IC-based weighting could be a fruitful avenue—and a great way to learn how to translate complex research into approachable, real-world tools.

The post Smarter Stock Picks: How Combined Machine Learning Can Boost Your Strategy appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

Imagine you’re leaning on a powerful AI to help pick investments. If the order in which options are presented nudges the model to pick one over another, you’ve got a hidden bias creeping into high-stakes decisions. That’s the core idea explored in this work, which dives into how and where these positional biases arise inside open-source financial AI models.

Introduction: Why a tiny bias matters in finance

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping finance—from screening investments to rebalancing portfolios and assessing risk. A well-known quirk in many LLMs is positional bias: a systematic preference for options based on their order, with primacy bias (favoring early choices) and recency bias (favoring later ones). In everyday chatter, this might seem harmless, but in finance it can distort asset allocation, risk assessments, and compliance checks.

This study takes that familiar idea and asks a tougher question: in financial tasks, do these biases behave differently as models scale up or as prompts are designed in particular ways? And more importantly, where in the model do these biases originate? The researchers tackle these questions with a first-of-its-kind framework that not only detects and measures bias but also peels back the layers to reveal its mechanistic roots.

What the study aims to achieve (in plain language)Create a unified framework and a finance-focused benchmark that tests how LLMs make binary decisions (choose option A vs. option B) when the options are presented in different orders.See how bias changes with model size (from smaller to larger versions) and with different ways of prompting (how you ask the model, what role you assign it, and how you frame the task).Trace bias to specific parts of the model (which layers or attention components light up when bias appears) to understand the “how” behind the bias.Provide actionable insights for safer, more trustworthy use of LLMs in financial settings.The framework at a glance: detection plus interpretationDetection: The team uses a finance-authentic dataset and a suite of binary decision tasks to measure how often the model gravitates toward one option just because of its position in the prompt.Mechanistic interpretability: Instead of only saying “bias exists,” they map it to concrete parts of the model—specific layers and attention heads—so we know where to intervene.Cross-scale and prompt-sensitive analysis: They test multiple Qwen2.5-instruct models ranging from 1.5 billion to 14 billion parameters and vary how prompts are structured to see how bias shifts.What’s special about the dataset

The researchers built a novel, finance-authentic set of prompts that span diverse asset classes and investor risk profiles. The goal is to reflect real-world decision contexts, not toy tasks. This helps ensure that findings are relevant for actual financial workflows.

Key findings: what they discovered about positional bias in financeBias is pervasive: Across the spectrum of Qwen2.5 models and prompt styles, positional bias shows up in financial decision tasks. It’s not a quirk of a single model or a single prompt type.It’s scale-sensitive: The amount and nature of bias change with model size. In other words, bigger isn’t automatically better for fairness here; how bias manifests shifts as you move from smaller to larger models.Prompt design matters: Small changes in how the task is framed—such as role assignment or how constraints are ordered—can noticeably alter outcomes. This echoes a broad finding in LLM research: presentation and framing can shape decision behavior.Primacy and recency effects in finance: Early- and late-presented options don’t just bias general reasoning; in risk-laden investment contexts, primacy and recency effects reveal specific vulnerabilities. For some prompts, the model leans toward early options; for others, it prefers late ones, especially when the quality across options diverges.Mechanistic paths: By peering into the model’s internals, the researchers show where bias originates and how it propagates. They link bias to particular layers and attention heads, offering a concrete map of where intervention could be most effective.What mechanistic interpretability adds to the story

Traditionally, people notice that a model is biased but don’t know why. This work goes a step further by:

Locating bias within the model’s architecture rather than labeling it as a black-box nuisance.Demonstrating that bias can emerge from specific components that handle positional information or decision framing.Providing a pathway to generalizable interventions: if you know which parts light up during biased behavior, you can target those parts for training, prompting, or governance controls.Practical takeaways for developers, users, and organizationsAudit before deployment: Use a finance-focused bias benchmark to test LLMs on order effects in decision tasks before integrating them into live financial workflows.Don’t rely on “bigger is better” for fairness: Model size changes the bias landscape. Larger models may not eliminate positional bias and can even introduce new vulnerabilities in certain prompt contexts.Design prompts thoughtfully: Small changes in how you frame the task (whose role the model plays, how you order options, what constraints you impose) can tilt outcomes. Systematic prompt design and testing are essential.Map and mitigate with interpretability: Use mechanistic interpretability to identify where bias originates in the model and apply targeted mitigations (for example, adjusting training data, fine-tuning, or prompt engineering tuned to reduce reliance on positional cues).Build governance around AI in finance: Combine domain-specific auditing with model interpretability to establish standards for transparency, safety, and reliability in AI-assisted financial decision-making.Prepare for regulatory and risk implications: As AI systems participate in decision-making that affects markets and customers, having a transparent bias-detection and mitigation framework helps meet accountability and governance requirements.Conclusion: a blueprint for trustworthy AI in finance

Positional bias in LLMs isn’t just a curiosity—it’s a real, measurable force that can shape financial decisions. By combining a dedicated benchmark with mechanistic interpretability, this work provides a practical framework for diagnosing where bias comes from and how it spreads through model components. The upshot is clear: to deploy AI responsibly in finance, we need both robust testing that reflects real-world decision contexts and transparent, mechanism-level insights that guide targeted mitigations. With these tools, we can move closer to AI that assists rather than subtly sways our financial choices.

The post Tracing Positional Bias in Financial Decision-Making: Mechanistic Insights from Qwen2.5 appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

What if a smaller, simpler model could teach a much larger one to think faster, safer, and smarter? It sounds like magic, but a new approach called Weak-to-Strong Transfer (WST) makes this idea practical. By using a lightweight “Teacher” to craft prompts and instructions for a much bigger “Student,” researchers are finding big wins in reasoning tasks and safety alignment—without needing to fine-tune or reveal the inner workings of the large model.

In this blog post, we’ll unpack what WST is, why it’s exciting, what the key results look like in plain terms, and what practitioners can take away to apply these ideas in real-world AI projects.

What is Weak-to-Strong Transfer (WST)?

At a glance, WST is a two-model setup with a twist:

The Teacher is small: think a model with as few as a fraction of the parameters of the big model.The Student is large: a powerful model that you’d normally fine-tune or prompt in sophisticated ways.

The Teacher doesn’t answer questions directly. Instead, it writes instructions or prompts that guide the Student on how to tackle a query. The big model then generates its final answer, guided by those instructions.

The catch? The Teacher is intentionally weaker than the Student. Why create a weaker teacher? Because a smaller model that’s carefully trained to give good guidance can avoid introducing misleading or harmful content that a stronger, more capable model might generate if left to improvise. This makes the process safer and more scalable in environments where the big model is proprietary or hard to fine-tune.

How does the Teacher get better at writing instructions? Through reinforcement learning. After the Student produces its answer following the Teacher’s prompts, a reward signal measures how good the result is. The Teacher’s instructions are then updated to improve future outcomes. Over many rounds, the small Teacher learns to craft prompts that consistently lift the Student’s performance.

In short:

Small Teacher writes instructions.Large Student uses those instructions to answer.The quality of instructions is improved via reinforcement learning, based on the Student’s results.

This “weak-to-strong” setup is designed to be efficient and broadly applicable, especially in real-world settings where we can’t modify or access the large model’s internals.

How the WST Loop Works (in plain terms)

Here’s the flow, boiled down:

You give the System a query q (for example, a math problem or a safety alignment request).The Teacher generates a set of instructions m1 to help the Student do better on q.The Student uses those instructions to produce one or more final responses m2.Each response is evaluated with a reward function g, giving a score r.The Teacher’s policy (its instructions) is updated with a reinforcement-learning method (GRPO) based on the reward, so future prompts improve.To get a reliable signal, the Student may generate multiple responses per prompt, and the reward is averaged across those runs. There’s also a baseline that represents how the Student performs without the Teacher’s prompts.

Key idea: the system rewards improvements in the Student’s performance, not just clever or creative prompts. The aim is to have the Teacher consistently lift the Student’s accuracy and alignment, even when the Teacher is much smaller.

Benchmarks used to test WST span two broad areas:

Reasoning: math-heavy tasks (examples include MATH-500 and GSM8K).Alignment/Safety: tasks that measure how well the model follows safe and helpful guidelines (example: HH-RLHF).Why This Matters: The Upsides of a Small Coach for Big ModelsEfficiency and practicality: You don’t need to train or access a huge Teacher model. A compact, weak Teacher can learn to guide a much larger system, which is especially valuable when the large model is closed-source or expensive to retrain.Safety and control: The Teacher is constrained by its smaller capacity, reducing the risk of the Teacher injecting undesirable or misleading prompts. The reinforcement-learning loop continually refines instructions based on real outcomes, not assumptions.Broad applicability: The approach works across different kinds of tasks, from complex reasoning to alignment with safety goals.Performance gains without fine-tuning the big model: Instead of tweaking a giant model’s weights, you update the small Teacher’s prompting strategy. This is a lighter touch that can yield meaningful improvements.

A striking takeaway: stronger or more capable Teachers aren’t necessarily better in this setup. In fact, a bigger or “stronger” Teacher can sometimes hurt performance by steering the Student with prompts that are misleading or off-target. WST deliberately keeps the Teacher in a safer, smaller regime to maximize genuine, reliable gains.

What the Experiments Show: Key FindingsReasoning improvements:MATH-500: roughly 98% improvement, meaning the Student performed nearly twice as well with WST-guided prompts.GSM8K: about 45% improvement. This shows WST’s benefits extend beyond a single dataset or problem type.Alignment (safety and helpfulness) improvements:HH-RLHF: about 134% improvement. In other words, the Student’s responses aligned much better with desired safety/helpfulness criteria when guided by the Teacher’s instructions.Baselines and comparisons:WST-trained prompts were able to outperform strong baselines, including configurations based on large models like Llama-70B and GPT-4o-mini in these settings.A notable insight: without WST, even stronger Teacher models can produce instructions that degrade performance. The WST loop helps avoid that pitfall by continuously evaluating and adjusting the guidance based on actual outcomes.Why this matters in practice:The approach demonstrates that small models can reliably scaffold larger ones, unlocking latent capabilities of the big model without needing direct access or heavy fine-tuning.It also highlights a path to safer, more reliable prompting for alignment tasks, a critical area as AI systems become more capable and widespread.Practical Takeaways for Researchers and PractitionersThink small first, teach big second: If you’re working with a powerful but opaque or expensive model, consider building a lightweight Teacher to craft prompts and instructions. Use reinforcement learning to tune the Teacher based on how well the Student performs.Use robust reward shaping: To stabilize learning, evaluate the Student multiple times per prompt and compare against a baseline of Student performance without Teacher guidance. This reduces variance and helps discern real gains.Expect mixed results across tasks: WST shines in both reasoning and alignment, but the magnitude of gains can vary by dataset and task type. Run multiple benchmarks relevant to your domain.Guard against misleading prompts: Stronger Teacher models can inadvertently steer outcomes poorly. The WST loop helps mitigate this risk by rewarding genuinely improved performance rather than just more sophisticated-looking instructions.Practical settings where WST fits:Scenarios with closed-source or hard-to-fine-tune large models.Use cases requiring safer or more aligned outputs, such as customer-facing assistants, educational tools, or decision-support systems.Conclusion: A Lightweight Guide Can Make Big Models Shine

Weak-to-Strong Transfer shows an elegant, practical way to improve the performance of large language models without touching their weights or architecture. By letting a small, deliberately modest Teacher craft prompts and refine them through reinforcement learning based on the Student’s real outcomes, WST achieves meaningful gains in reasoning and safety alignment. It also highlights a valuable lesson: in complex AI systems, the way you guide the big model can matter as much as the model itself—and sometimes, the best guide comes from a surprisingly small coach.

The post Weak-to-Strong Knowledge Transfer: How a Tiny Coach Can Supercharge Big Language Models appeared first on Jacob Robinson.

Imagine instantly seeing how a company’s revenue, expenses, and risk factors connect to teams, products, or regulatory requirements. That’s the promise behind FinReflectKG: an open, large-scale knowledge graph (KG) built from the 10-K filings of all S&P 100 companies. It’s not just about collecting data—it’s about organizing it in a way that machines can reason with, while staying trustworthy and transparent for humans.

In this post, we’ll unpack what FinReflectKG is, why it matters for enthusiasts and practitioners alike, and what makes its approach both practical and exciting.

Why a knowledge graph for finance?

Financial documents—especially SEC 10-K filings—are a goldmine of structured and semi-structured information. They describe how a company makes money, where risks come from, how different departments relate to each other, and how regulators view the business. But turning those PDFs and tables into something a computer can reason about is tricky:

The data is heterogeneous: text, tables, footnotes, and cross-references.The same idea can appear in many different wordings (synonyms, abbreviations, co-references).Regulatory and business semantics matter: accuracy isn’t just nice to have, it’s essential.

Enter knowledge graphs. A KG represents entities (like a department, product line, or risk factor) as nodes and their relationships as edges. It makes multi-hop questions possible (e.g., “Which products contributed most to revenue while increasing R&D spend in the last year?”) and supports advanced analytics like network insights and predictive modeling.

FinReflectKG isn’t just a one-off dataset. It’s an open-source, scalable framework designed to extract, normalize, and evaluate financial relationships from a complete set of filings, with an eye toward transparency and reproducibility.

What is FinReflectKG, in plain terms?An open, large-scale financial KG dataset built from SEC 10-K filings of all S&P 100 companies for 2024.A robust pipeline that combines:Intelligent document parsing (how to read reports).Table-aware chunking (how to slice tables so the system can understand them).Schema-guided iterative extraction (pulling out entities and relations in a structured way that matches a defined data model).Reflection-driven feedback (an “inner quality check” loop that helps the system refine its own work).A multi-faceted evaluation setup that uses:Rule-based checks (explicit policies the extraction must follow).Statistical validation (consistency and coverage checks).LLM-as-Judge assessments (two big AI strengths: language understanding and self-evaluation).Three extraction modes to balance speed, accuracy, and reliability:Single-pass: quick extraction in one go.Multi-pass: iterative refinement across passes.Reflection-agent-based: the most sophisticated mode, where an AI agent reflects, self-corrects, and re-weights outputs to maximize quality.A clear, practical takeaway: a high-quality, thoroughly evaluated dataset and a generalizable KG construction framework that researchers and practitioners can reuse and extend.

If you’re curious about the dataset, it’s publicly available (the authors provide a link to a readme with details).

The three extraction modes, in simple termsSingle-pass: Do the extraction once. It’s fast, but may miss edge cases, cross-reference issues, or nuanced relationships that require more context.Multi-pass: Run several rounds. Each pass refines entities and relations—fixing gaps and inconsistencies discovered in earlier rounds. This is more reliable than a single pass but takes more time.Reflection-agent-based: The system uses a reflective loop. After an initial pass, it analyzes its own outputs, asks itself guided questions, and re-extracts or re-labels data where needed. This mode balances efficiency with high quality, and according to the study, leads to the best overall results in terms of compliance with rules, precision, coverage, and relevance as judged by AI-driven evaluation.

The core idea is simple: the more the system can think about its own results before finalizing them, the more trustworthy the KG becomes—especially in a domain where precision matters a lot.

How FinReflectKG builds the knowledge graph

Think of it as a carefully choreographed dance between humans and machines:

Intelligent document parsing: The system reads the 10-K filings, not just the text, but also the structure, sections, and embedded tables.Table-aware chunking: Financial statements are table-heavy. The approach slices up tables in a way that preserves relationships (e.g., linking a line item to its narrative discussion).Schema-guided iterative extraction: There’s a predefined schema (think: what kinds of entities and relations we expect), and extraction is guided to fill that schema consistently.Reflection-driven feedback loop: An internal quality check that uses self-reflection to improve extraction quality across iterations.

This combination aims to produce a KG that is both rich in semantic relationships and reliable enough for downstream tasks like searching, multi-hop Q&A, or graph-powered analytics.

How the team evaluates quality

Quality in financial KGs matters a lot. They use a three-pronged evaluation:

Rule-based compliance (CheckRules): A set of explicit policies the extraction should satisfy. The reflection-based mode achieved 64.8% compliance across all rules, indicating solid alignment with the predefined standards.Statistical validation: Checks like coverage (how much of the domain is represented) and diversity (how varied the semantic content is).LLM-as-Judge assessments: Large language models act as a judge to compare outputs across modes (single-pass, multi-pass, reflection) on precision, comprehensiveness, and relevance. In these evaluations, the reflection-based approach tended to win in balance and quality.

In short: while faster methods may be tempting, the reflection-based method consistently delivered the strongest overall performance in both objective rules and AI-based human-like judgments.

Why this matters for finance fans and practitionersOpen, reproducible resource: The dataset and the extraction framework are released to foster transparency and reproducibility in financial AI research. That means you can reproduce results, test your own ideas, or build on top of the dataset.Rich, actionable knowledge: A high-quality KG provides a structured map of financial knowledge across a whole sector, opening doors to advanced search, questions that require chaining multiple facts, and network-level analytics (like spotting how risk factors propagate through a corporate structure).Flexible workflows: The three extraction modes let teams tailor the process to their needs—whether they’re prioritizing speed for a quick experiment or reliability for production-grade insight.Real-world applications: Beyond simple lookups, the KG enables multi-hop Q&A, signals integration from news, and graph-powered predictive models. It’s the kind of foundation that can support smarter dashboards, anomaly detection, and scenario analysis for investors and risk managers.Practical implications and takeawaysIf you’re building financial AI tools, consider a reflection-driven extraction approach. The study suggests that self-reflection loops can meaningfully improve data quality when dealing with complex, regulation-heavy sources.For researchers, the open dataset is a valuable benchmark. It provides a realistic financial domain with rich semantics and a transparent evaluation framework to compare new methods.For practitioners in finance teams, a well-constructed KG can power faster, more reliable insights—like cross-linking a risk narrative in the text with precise numeric tables, or tracing how a policy change could affect multiple product lines.If you’re curious about the nuts and bolts, the pipeline highlights a practical recipe:Start with robust document parsing, especially for table-rich filings.Use a schema-guided approach to keep extraction consistent and easily evaluable.Add a reflection loop to catch edge cases and refine the results before finalizing the KG.Conclusion

Finance thrives on clarity—knowing where money comes from, where it goes, and how different parts of a company connect. FinReflectKG takes a big step toward that clarity by turning sprawling SEC filings into a structured, navigable knowledge graph. With three extraction modes, a reflection-driven feedback loop, and a thoughtful, multi-faceted evaluation regime, it balances speed, accuracy, and reliability in a domain where both humans and machines stand to gain from better information architecture.

If you’re excited about data-driven finance, this work offers both a valuable resource (the dataset) and a practical blueprint (the extraction framework) for building smarter, more trustworthy financial AI tools. Practical takeaways: consider reflective, schema-guided extraction when dealing with complex, document-heavy domains; leverage open benchmarks to validate new ideas; and keep a focus on transparent evaluation to earn trust in AI-powered finance.

The post FinReflectKG: Turning giant SEC filings into a Smart Financial Knowledge Graph appeared first on Jacob Robinson.