slm_v1

tradebot-slm-v1

A 1.5B model that reads an Indian corporate filing (NSE/BSE) and emits structured JSON — event type, materiality, extracted amounts, and a prediction of whether and how the stock moves:

{"event_type": "ORDER_WIN", "materiality": "HIGH", "surprise": "MEDIUM",
 "facts": {"amount_inr_cr": 412.0, "amount_basis": "NEW_ORDER",
           "amount_to_mcap": 0.041},
 "direction": "UP", "mover": true, "shape": "IMMEDIATE",
 "price_path":  [3, 8, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 25, 26, 26, 31, 28],
 "volume_path": [9.1, 6.4, 4.8, 3.9, 3.3, 2.9, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2.1, 2.0, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 1.7, 1.4, 1.1]}

price_path is the market-adjusted return in tenths of a percent at t1…t15, t30, t60. volume_path is the multiple of that symbol's pre-news 1-minute volume norm. Vocabularies: event_type ∈ {ORDER_WIN, RESULTS, MA, DIVIDEND, BUYBACK, BOARD_MEETING, MGMT_CHANGE, FUNDRAISE, REGULATORY, PRESS, INVESTOR_MEET, RATING, SHAREHOLDER, TRADING_WINDOW, OTHER}; materiality ∈ {HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, UNKNOWN}; surprise ∈ {HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NONE}; direction ∈ {UP, DOWN, FLAT}; shape ∈ {IMMEDIATE, DELAYED, FADE, FLAT}; amount_basis ∈ {NEW_ORDER, RENEWAL, OTHER, NONE}.

There is deliberately no confidence field — the targets are measured outcomes, and nothing in the corpus supervises a calibrated self-estimate.

Code: github.com/thenameispravardhan/market-proof — corpus construction, frozen baselines, evaluation, a stdlib OpenAI-compatible server (serve_slm.py) and the live trading system this model plugs into. Note that the schema above is not a generic chat format: consuming it in an application needs a mapping layer (app/analyzer/slm_adapter.py is ours).

What makes it unusual: it is supervised by measured market reaction, not by another LLM's sentiment labels. FinBERT, FinGPT and FinMA are all trained on human- or LLM-assigned sentiment. This one's targets are what the price actually did in the 15 minutes after the filing was published, market-adjusted against NIFTY 50.

Results, stated honestly

Head-to-head against DeepSeek on the same 600 filings, neither model having seen them:

Two things are true at once and both belong in the summary:

1. It beats DeepSeek on every metric, and DeepSeek's confidence is anti-predictive (0.4234, below the 0.500 coin flip) — independently reproducing an inversion measured on 17,298 filings in production.
2. Both lose to a constant. They fail the same way: DeepSeek answers HOLD 94.0% of the time, this model answers FLAT 94.2%. Beating a model that is worse than a coin flip proves very little.

As a feature extractor

Mean-pooled hidden states, fed to the same gradient-boosting head, on the frozen chronological test split (n=17,723):

Paired bootstrap, 2,000 resamples:

A $33 fine-tune matched TF-IDF + SVD, which costs ten minutes of laptop CPU. Not beaten, not lost — matched. Text does carry signal beyond market state (both clear the baseline with intervals well clear of zero), but this model is not a better way to extract it than a bag of words.

Why, in hindsight: the training objective is next-token prediction over a JSON schema. That optimises format compliance — eval loss fell 74% — and nothing in it asks the hidden states to encode what makes a filing move.

What is untested

The generative output — event classification, amount extraction, evidence spans — has not been evaluated. That is the part with no cheap substitute, and the honest next measurement.

Do not quote raw accuracy

Direction at ±3% reads 0.9638. That is the base rate. 96.4% of filings do not move 3%; a model that says FLAT every time scores 0.9643. Balanced accuracy is the honest column and it says 0.3333 — chance. Direction is not learnable at ±1/2/3% on this data; mover is the only learnable target.

Training

Steps 1,000 → 2,250 improved eval loss by 0.0018 for ~11 hours and ~$19. If you retrain, budget one epoch and expect the useful learning in the first third.

The corpus was built from 243,533 filings with measured outcomes, extracted from source PDFs at 98.0% coverage (OCR pass included). Near-duplicates were removed per (template, symbol) — 9.3% of Indian filings are near-copies of each other, and training on the same cover letter repeatedly teaches the cover letter.

Usage

The prompt format is part of the weights. All 146,500 training examples used the exact system prompt and user layout below. Improvise on it and the model is off-distribution — you get worse output and the fine-tune is wasted.

from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer

tok = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("pravz/slm_v1")
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained("pravz/slm_v1", dtype="auto")

SYSTEM = (
    "You are a financial analyst specialised in Indian NSE/BSE corporate "
    "filings. Read the filing, extract the material facts, and reason about "
    "the likely market reaction. Return only the requested JSON. Never use "
    "information from after the filing timestamp."
)

user = f"""SYMBOL: {symbol}
FILED: {filed_at}
HEADLINE: {headline}

FILING:
{filing_text}"""

ids = tok.apply_chat_template(
    [{"role": "system", "content": SYSTEM}, {"role": "user", "content": user}],
    return_tensors="pt", add_generation_prompt=True,
)
print(tok.decode(model.generate(ids, max_new_tokens=400)[0][ids.shape[-1]:],
                 skip_special_tokens=True))

Training prompts also carried a MARKET CONTEXT block (last trade before the filing, pre-news volume ratio, market-cap tier, session). It is optional — omit the block entirely rather than filling it with placeholder numbers.

Or serve it behind an OpenAI-compatible endpoint: vllm serve pravz/slm_v1 on Linux+GPU, or the CPU-friendly, stdlib-only serve_slm.py in the repo below, which runs anywhere transformers runs.

Speed: ~4 tok/s on a CPU laptop in bf16 (~36 s for one filing). Use a GPU for anything interactive.

Intended use and limits

Research and education. Not investment advice. It was trained on 2025–2026 Indian filings and will not transfer to other markets, other document types, or other time periods without re-measurement. Do not put it in front of money — the results above say it does not beat a bag of words at the one task it was trained for.

Repository, dataset construction, baselines and evaluation code: https://github.com/thenameispravardhan/market-proof