Machine learning

Recent interesting research from Cakici and Zaremba, highlights an often-overlooked aspect of machine learning for equity return prediction: the choice of prediction target. Rather than focusing on increasingly sophisticated model architectures or feature engineering, the authors show that how returns are represented during training has a much larger impact on predictive performance. In particular, models trained to predict stock ranks instead of raw return levels generate substantially stronger portfolio performance—roughly doubling both returns and Sharpe ratios in large-cap universes.

Large language models are already capable of summarizing financial research, but are they ready to conduct it? In their latest paper, researchers from Google, Boston College, and Columbia introduce a framework where a large language model doesn’t just fetch data—it acts as an autonomous AI research agent capable of navigating the “hypothesis discovery loop.” By placing an LLM within a human-designed laboratory—complete with a symbolic language of 66 accounting primitives and a standardized backtesting pipeline—the authors tested whether AI can move beyond black-box predictions to generate economically legible and statistically robust signals. This isn’t just about throwing a transformer at a price series; it is a systematic attempt to automate the “propose–test–reflect” cycle that defines empirical finance.

Artificial intelligence is gradually changing the way quantitative researchers interact with financial data. Instead of manually browsing databases, comparing strategies one by one and filtering spreadsheets, modern research workflows increasingly rely on conversational systems capable of retrieving and summarizing structured information automatically.

One practical application is combining the Quantpedia API with an LLM such as ChatGPT, Claude or Cursor AI to create a lightweight quant research assistant. In this setup, Quantpedia API provides structured access to quantitative trading strategies, performance metrics, classifications, equity curves, trading codes, and related research metadata through the official Quantpedia API, while the LLM acts as a conv

One year ago, in our article “Can We Finally Use ChatGPT as a Quantitative Analyst?”, we explored the feasibility of leveraging ChatGPT for quantitative analysis. Since then, a lot has changed: newer models are now available (from OpenAI and also other vendors), and the ecosystem around AI-assisted analysis has evolved significantly. Back then, we encountered numerous challenges, ranging from model hallucinations and faulty code generation to excessive overfitting. In this article, we revisit these issues to assess what has improved and what remains unresolved, with the goal of finally answering whether we can use LLMs to assist with quantitative analysis tasks.

Everyone is excited about the potential of large language models (LLMs) to assist with forecasting, research, and countless day-to-day tasks. However, as their use expands into sensitive areas like financial prediction, serious concerns are emerging—particularly around memory leaks. In the recent paper “The Memorization Problem: Can We Trust LLMs’ Economic Forecasts?”, the authors highlight a key issue: when LLMs are tested on historical data within their training window, their high accuracy may not reflect real forecasting ability, but rather memorization of past outcomes. This undermines the reliability of backtests and creates a false sense of predictive power.

When using machine learning to forecast global equity returns, it’s tempting to focus on the raw prediction—whether some stock market is expected to go up or down. But our research shows that the real value lies elsewhere. What matters most isn’t the level or direction of the machine learning model’s forecast but how much it differs from a simple, price-based benchmark—such as a naive moving average signal. When that gap is wide, it often reveals hidden mispricings. In other words, it’s not about whether the ML model predicts positive or negative returns but whether its view disagrees sharply with what a basic trend-following model would suggest. Those moments of disagreement offer the most compelling opportunities for tactical country allocation.