Quarter-ahead revenue forecasting requires company-scale numerical accuracy, strict temporal validity, and company-specific interpretation of narrative disclosures. LLMs can distill textual evidence but can produce scale-misaligned forecasts, whereas history-based anchors are stable but miss forecast-time signals such as product transitions, supply constraints, and management guidance. We introduce CAME (Company-Aware Evidence-Memory Experts), a residual-forecasting framework that refines a no-leakage statistical anchor when current semantic evidence and prior error patterns justify an adjustment. On a development-inclusive rolling backtest of 336 company-quarters from 12 large public technology and platform firms, CAME achieves the lowest aggregate point-estimate error among the reported methods, with statistically supported macro-sMAPE gains over the matched Statistical Anchor, and outperforms History + Guidance on all six aggregate metrics. CAME also links adjustments to source-linked evidence cards and guarded memory traces, supporting forecast inspection, provenance, and failure localization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CAME Architecture. CAME integrates company configuration, fiscal quarter, historical revenue, and temporally admissible narrative disclosures into typed, source-grounded Evidence Cards . Starting from a Statistical Anchor , CAME forms a Guidance-Gated Base Anchor . Anchor-relative residual corrections are then composed from three Evidence-Memory Experts : explicit guidance, current evidence, and temporal memory. CAME yields a scale-aligned revenue forecast with a source-linked trace that exposes adjustments and historical analogs for inspection.
Method
N
sMAPE ↓
MAPE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
R2↑
DA ↑
Adapted Text and Retrieval Baselines
Wide-context revenue
336
0.071 ± 0.031
0.072 ± 0.034
3.04B ± 3.87B
4.13B ± 5.41B
0.876 ± 0.136
79.3% ± 14.2%
CARAG-style retrieval
336
0.083 ± 0.036
0.086 ± 0.044
2.98B ± 3.52B
4.03B ± 4.89B
0.837 ± 0.176
81.2% ± 9.3%
Document-Only LLM Baselines
Transcript-only
336
0.107 ± 0.053
0.119 ± 0.072
3.64B ± 3.83B
5.17B ± 5.32B
0.553 ± 0.636
77.8% ± 11.1%
Filing-only
336
0.212 ± 0.072
0.313 ± 0.170
9.12B ± 7.12B
22.49B ± 20.14B
-15.015 ± 29.041
64.8% ± 9.0%
Table 1: Overall Performance on the Development-Inclusive 336-Row Rolling Backtest. Metric rows are company-level mean ± sample standard deviation; N is row coverage. MAE/RMSE use company reporting-currency billions (USD except ASML in EUR), so their cross-company aggregates are descriptive rather than single-currency totals. Lower errors and higher R2 /DA are better. Improvement rows report relative reference-minus-CAME error, absolute ΔR2=RCAME2−Rreference2 , and DA percentage-point changes; positive values favor CAME.
Panel A. Company-equal metrics
Guidance Slice
N
sMAPE
MAPE
R2
Explicit Numeric
165
.0412/.0369(+.0043)
.0408/.0369(+.0039)
.9468/.9655(+.0187)
Non-Explicit
65
.0994/.0981(+.0013)
.0983/.0977(+.0006)
−3.2947/−3.4395(−.1449)
No Guidance
106
.1442/.0857(+.0585)
.1310/.0814(+.0497)
.4180/.7342(+.3162)
Table 2: Guidance Availability on the Development-Inclusive 336-Row Backtest. Cells show Anchor/CAME (delta): Δ=Anchor−CAME for errors and Δ=CAME−Anchor for R2 /DA, so positive favors CAME. MAE/RMSE use company reporting-currency billions (USD except ASML in EUR). sMAPE, MAPE, RMSE, and R2 are company-equal (zero-variance slices omitted for R2 ); MAE and DA are pooled. DA uses the previous same-slice actual and excludes each company’s first slice row.
Variant
Full ↓
Held-out (96) ↓
Explicit ↓
Non-exp. ↓
No-guid. ↓
F.MAE ↓
DA ↑
CAME
0.0593
0.0378
0.0369
0.0981
0.0857
1.81B
84.0%
w/o CurrentEvidence+TemporalMemory
0.0683
0.0519
0.0381
0.0994
0.1276
2.25B
79.9%
w/o CurrentEvidence
0.0671
0.0463
0.0375
0.1011
0.1267
2.16B
79.9%
w/o TemporalMemory
0.0659
0.0458
0.0380
0.0954
0.1246
2.10B
80.6%
w/o AnchorMemory
0.0654
0.0405
0.0370
0.0981
0.1379
1.98B
81.8%
w/o ExplicitGuidance
0.0616
0.0386
0.0408
0.0981
0.0857
2.00B
82.7%
Table 3: Ablation Study. Full and Held-out denote the development-inclusive 336-row and temporal held-out 96-row evaluations. The first five metric columns are company-equal macro sMAPE; F.MAE and DA are 336-row mean company metrics, with F.MAE in company reporting-currency billions. Each removal reruns the reduced path and may recompute dependent proposals and weights, so contrasts are interaction-inclusive end-to-end ablations, not isolated or additive effects. Lower error and higher DA are better.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Evaluation set
Companies
Quarters
Role
Initial development period
AAPL, NVDA, AVGO
FY2019 Q1–FY2023 Q4
initial method development
Initial-firm temporal held-out
AAPL, NVDA, AVGO
FY2024 Q1–FY2025 Q4
temporal held-out evaluation
Company-held-out rolling backtest
nine additional firms
FY2019 Q1–FY2025 Q4
company-held-out robustness evaluation
Company-held-out temporal subset
nine additional firms
FY2024 Q1–FY2025 Q4
joint company/temporal held-out evaluation
Development-inclusive rolling backtest
all 12 firms
FY2019 Q1–FY2025 Q4
development-inclusive aggregate evaluation
Appendix
Table A1: Evaluation sets and their roles.
Surface
Method
N
sMAPE ↓
MAPE ↓
MAE pool ↓
RMSE macro ↓
R2↑
DA ↑
Development-inclusive rolling backtest
TimeGPT-1
336
0.097
0.097
2.94B
3.75B
0.842
71.0%
Chronos-Bolt Base
336
0.096
0.095
2.95B
3.73B
0.843
69.1%
Statistical Anchor
336
0.070
0.067
2.25B
2.96B
0.903
74.4%
History + Guidance
336
0.066
0.063
2.07B
2.75B
0.906
81.2%
CAME
336
0.059
0.058
1.81B
2.39B
0.929
84.0%
Temporal held-out
TimeGPT-1
96
0.096
0.092
3.57B
4.26B
-0.042
76.2%
Appendix
Table A2: Development-inclusive and temporal held-out results.
Model
N
sMAPE ↓
MAPE ↓
MAE pool ↓
RMSE pool ↓
R2↑
DA ↑
Proprietary reference
GPT-4.1-mini
96
0.052072
0.050990
1.741B
2.379B
0.715
84.5%
Open-weight models
Mistral Small 3 (24B)
96
0.050930
0.050471
1.771B
2.547B
0.529
91.7%
Llama 3.1 8B
96
0.063200
0.064114
1.957B
2.874B
0.132
86.9%
Qwen2.5 14B
96
0.061538
0.059264
2.722B
4.735B
0.562
84.5%
Appendix
Table A3: Supplementary History + Guidance results on the 96-row temporal held-out evaluation.
Linear; Ridge; Elastic Net; Random Forest; XGBoost; LightGBM
Time-series with guidance covariate
SARIMAX with guidance
Appendix
Table A4: Fixed candidate family for the matched Statistical Anchor.
Property
Value
Score metric
sMAPE
Lookback window for scoring
most recent 24 prior realized rows for the same company
Minimum prior history
4 prior realized rows before history-based selection is used
Appendix
Table A5: Statistical Anchor selection policy.
Company
Rows
Guidance mix
Statistical Anchor
History + Guidance
CAME
Δ vs anchor
Δ vs LLM
AAPL
28
6 / 14 / 8
0.071 / 5.99B
0.079 / 6.77B
0.057 / 4.97B
+0.014
+0.022
NVDA
28
28 / 0 / 0
0.051 / 0.37B
0.071 / 0.80B
0.051 / 0.35B
+0.001
+0.021
AVGO
28
19 / 0 / 9
0.048 / 0.37B
0.028 / 0.26B
0.033 / 0.27B
+0.016
-0.005
AMZN
28
24 / 1 / 3
0.062 / 6.28B
0.046 / 4.93B
0.043 / 4.13B
+0.019
+0.003
ASML
28
27 / 0 / 1
0.055 / 0.25B
0.058 / 0.28B
0.051 / 0.23B
+0.004
+0.007
GOOGL
28
0 / 10 / 18
0.091 / 5.39B
0.065 / 3.67B
0.082 / 4.81B
+0.009
-0.017
Appendix
Table A6: Per-company sMAPE / MAE heterogeneity on the development-inclusive 336-row rolling backtest. Guidance mix lists CAME’s Explicit / Non-explicit / No-guidance categories.
Figure 2: Comparator trajectories for all 12 firms; shading marks the 96-row temporal held-out window and axes use company-local reporting-currency billions.
Setting
Development-Inclusive (336) sMAPE
Temporal Held-Out (96) sMAPE
No-guidance sMAPE
Anchor–CAME (336)
CAME
0.059253
0.037810
0.085681
+0.010697
MAM=4 or 8
0.059253
0.037810
0.085681
+0.010697
τAM=0.01 or 0.04
0.059253
0.037810
0.085681
+0.010697
Kq=1
0.059320
0.038634
0.085910
+0.010630
Kq=5
0.059557
0.038423
0.085607
+0.010393
Tq=0.20
0.059180
0.037877
0.085624
+0.010770
Appendix
Table A7: One-factor memory and retrieval sensitivity.
Replicate
Strict Full
Broader Full
Full Difference
Strict Held-Out
Broader Held-Out
Held-Out Difference
1
0.059686
0.059129
-0.000557
0.038409
0.038580
+0.000171
2
0.060097
0.059607
-0.000490
0.038368
0.039171
+0.000803
Mean
0.059892
0.059368
-0.000524
0.038389
0.038876
+0.000487
Appendix
Table A8: Evidence-extraction sensitivity.
Stress
Rate
Full Δ
Held-out (96) Δ
Held-out (96) Anchor–CAME
Guidance attenuation
Polarity flip
5%
+0.000105
+0.000341
+0.009019
77.1%
Polarity flip
10%
+0.000202
+0.000500
+0.008860
71.7%
Forward-card omission
5%
-0.000048
+0.000162
+0.009198
69.5%
Forward-card omission
10%
+0.000062
+0.000401
+0.008959
67.2%
False-positive horizon
5%
-0.000007
+0.000351
+0.009009
65.1%
False-positive horizon
10%
+0.000096
+0.000209
+0.009151
66.1%
Appendix
Table A9: Controlled evidence-card error stress.
Dimension
Primary-evaluator exact agreement
Cohen’s κ
Adjudicated result / system agreement
Source grounding
88/120 (73.3%)
0.282
102 full; 18 partial (overstatement, omitted qualification, or scope/subject mismatch)
Target-company revenue validity
81/120 (67.5%)
0.269
96/120 valid
Revenue direction
64/120 (53.3%)
0.356
System polarity vs. consensus: 86/110 exact; 10 strict reversals; 14 mixed/one-sided mismatches; 10 non-evaluable (2 no-direction; 8 unclear)
Target-quarter support
74/120 (61.7%)
0.443
55 strict; 41 partial; 24 unsupported
Derived card validity
–
–
49 strict; 84 partial-inclusive
Appendix
Table A10: Outcome-blind internal evaluation of 120 evidence cards.
Table 16
Surface
N
Companies
Statistical Anchor sMAPE
CAME sMAPE
Δ sMAPE
Macro 95% CI
Development-inclusive rolling backtest
336
12
0.069950
0.059253
+0.010697
[+0.007463, +0.014067]
Temporal held-out
96
12
0.047171
0.037810
+0.009360
[+0.004235, +0.016219]
Company-held-out temporal subset
72
9
0.046687
0.036616
+0.010071
[+0.003458, +0.018824]
Explicit Numeric Guidance
165
8
0.041196
0.036894
+0.004302
[-0.001523, +0.009701]
Non-Explicit Guidance
65
7
0.099437
0.098112
+0.001324
[-0.000721, +0.003305]
No Guidance
106
11
0.144171
0.085681
+0.058490
[+0.023849, +0.111277]
Appendix
Table A13: Paired-bootstrap uncertainty against the Statistical Anchor.
Specialist training beats generalist scale when forecasting financial statements. To our knowledge, no prior work jointly forecasts complete financial statements beyond one year, yet in a discounted-cash-flow valuation most firm value sits past that window. We release ProForma-20Q, a reproducible benchmark for forecasting 78 statement line items 1-20 quarters ahead, for anonymized firms, from past statements and an industry code, scored by change-space R2. On it, Forma, a transformer that reads statements as sets of (account, quarter, value) tuples and maximizes a masked-tuple Gaussian likelihood, beats every competitor we field: classical machine learning, chained gradient boosting, a zero-shot time-series foundation model, and frontier large language models. Its lead widens with horizon, where valuation needs accuracy most, and its Gaussian predictive intervals never under-cover. Forma's forecasts nearly satisfy accounting identities; exact coherence is recoverable at no statistically significant accuracy cost. Its tuple interface supports scenario analysis without retraining, and we show that pinning future revenue paths sharpens the rest of the statement.
Travis L. Johnson, Jiannan Jiang, Soumyabrata Chaudhuri +3
LLM agents are increasingly used for live forecasting, where they retrieve up-to-date information and produce estimates for unresolved future events. However, current agentic forecasting often relies on implicit narrative aggregation: agents collect evidence, discuss it in prose, and often assign a probability without an explicit update path from evidence to forecast. This limits both forecasting accuracy and auditability. We propose AuditForecast, an agentic scaffold for structured probabilistic forecasting. AuditForecast first anchors the forecast with a suitable quantitative baseline model, uses model-guided data retrieval to derive a base probability, and then applies situational factor updates outside the model's scope through mechanical aggregation in odds space. This turns forecasting from a prose-based judgment into a structured process with explicit intermediate objects. Across multiple live forecasting benchmarks, AuditForecast improves forecasting accuracy and calibration relative to strong agentic baselines, surpasses market-implied references in several settings, and outperforms substantially more expensive deep-research agents while remaining Pareto-dominant in the cost--accuracy tradeoff. Beyond performance gains, AuditForecast produces an auditable forecasting report that makes forecast construction explicit and supports systematic post hoc analysis.
Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external tools, and iterative prediction. We investigate LLM-based forecasting agents, meaning systems in which a language model contributes to a scored prediction about a future or currently unobserved target. We organize architectures into three groups. Standalone LLM workflows operate on encoded time series or event context. Tool- and retrieval-augmented agents incorporate external evidence. Hybrid systems pair LLMs with statistical or foundation models. We then review training methods and evaluation protocols. We examine negative as well as positive evidence, including sensitivity to small input perturbations, ablations in which the LLM component does not improve accuracy, and benchmark gains that may reflect contamination instead of temporal reasoning. We cover applications in finance, weather, health, energy, and operations, and we summarize the benchmarks and datasets used for evaluation. The evidence indicates that measurement is a central limitation. Future work requires calibration under distribution shift, contamination-resistant live evaluation, explicit reporting of cost and accuracy together, and methods for handling feedback between deployed forecasts and the outcomes being forecast.
Xiaogang Xu, Jiaqi Tang, Jianmin Chen +12
Zhejiang University, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong · Northwestern Polytechnical University, China +4