From fcffcd0daf75bb2be21035824fe8889121f1c1b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ethan Jackson Everything so far is a purpose-built forecasting method. What happens
if we hand the same task to a general LLM — no fine-tuning, no
forecasting head, just the raw model? The technique is the LLM-Process (LLMP): serialize the return history
-— and, optionally, the same covariate panel — into a text prompt, and
-ask the model to emit the full quantile grid directly, as numbers. We
-then score those quantiles with CRPS exactly like every other method. No
-special pleading: same origins, same cutoff, same referee. The technique is the LLM-Process (LLMP), introduced by Requeima et al. (2024):
+serialize the return history — and, optionally, the same covariate panel
+— into a text prompt, and ask the model to emit the full quantile grid
+directly, as numbers. We then score those quantiles with CRPS exactly
+like every other method. No special pleading: same origins, same cutoff,
+same referee. The result that matters is that this works at all. A frozen,
general-purpose model, prompted with a column of numbers, emits a
genuine predictive distribution — calibrated enough to compete. In the
@@ -502,6 +504,13 @@ A frozen LLM joins the
The rung that has to read
of the same inputs breaks through it. The next rung has to read. In Part
2, we give the forecaster the news — and then face the harder problem of
how you trust one that does.
Reference
+Requeima, J., Bronskill, J., Choi, D., Turner, R. E., & Duvenaud, +D. (2024). LLM Processes: +Numerical Predictive Distributions Conditioned on Natural Language. +Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, +109609–109671.