Language models improve firm revenue forecasts by integrating niche alternative data: in a test of 304 firm-quarters across four commercial data channels, an LLM-based screening-plus-prediction system reduced unexplained variance and outperformed standard statistical models and analyst consensus in most cases, although the evidence is limited by small, proprietary samples and reporting gaps.

Main Finding

A two-agent, tool-augmented in-context LLM framework can flexibly integrate heterogeneous commercial alternative data (card spending, web traffic, foot traffic, and KPI/prediction-market data) with conventional financial information (recent financial history and earnings-call transcripts) to improve firm-level revenue forecasting. Across four alternative-data channels and multiple revenue targets, using alternative data alongside earnings-call text and financial history (H+X+Z) yields consistently lower prediction error (FVU and MAE) than using financial history alone or standard supervised baselines, and beats analyst consensus on a majority of revenue-surprise events.

Key Points

• Problem framed: firm-quarter revenue forecasting using three information types:
  • H: baseline financial history (recent quarterly revenues, analyst anchors)
  • X: structured alternative-data channel (one of card spend, web traffic, foot traffic, KPI markets)
  • Z: textual earnings-call transcripts
• Two-agent framework:
• Screening agent: LLM-based relevance classifier that decides whether a given channel is plausibly informative for a firm (INCLUDED/EXCLUDED) using firm description + channel definition (can use search tools).
• Prediction agent: tool-augmented LLM that reads H, X, Z in context, queries background (company/channel metadata) as needed, and outputs revenue forecasts with rationale.
• In-context learning advantage: avoids task-specific supervised retraining for each channel; leverages LLM capability to learn from examples and instructions provided at prediction time.
• Empirical performance (selected numbers from test set Dec 2025–Jun 2026; 304 samples, 89 firms):
  • Card spending: FVU H = 0.207 → H+X+Z = 0.122 (MAE 3.51 → 2.49)
  • Web traffic: FVU H = 0.122 → H+X+Z = 0.021 (MAE 3.42 → 1.39)
  • Foot traffic: FVU H = 0.261 → H+X+Z = 0.141 (MAE 3.30 → 2.25)
  • KPI markets: FVU H = 0.209 → H+X+Z = 0.087 (MAE 6.74 → 3.91)
  • Combining all sources (H+X+Z) generally outperforms each subset (H, H+X, H+Z).
• Comparison to supervised baselines:
  • Classical models (historical average, OLS, GBT) performed substantially worse than the LLM-based method.
  • An ensembled LLM baseline was competitive, but the two-agent, tool-augmented framework achieved the best or near-best results across channels.
• Notable caveat: alternative data alone (H+X) sometimes helps (e.g., KPI markets), but can worsen performance for some channels/firms (e.g., foot traffic) if used indiscriminately—motivating the screening step.

Data & Methods

• Targets: revenue Year-on-Year (YoY) growth, percent deviation from prior-year quarter, and revenue surprise vs. analyst consensus (early and latest).
• Inputs and setup:
  • Test window: firm-quarters reported Dec 2025–Jun 2026.
  • In-context examples drawn from Feb 2024–Nov 2025.
  • For each test firm-quarter, models see the six preceding quarters of H and X and the prior earnings-call transcript Z.
  • Alternative-data sources: licensed feeds from Carbon Arc (card spending, web traffic, foot traffic) and Kalshi (KPI/prediction-market data).
  • Dataset size: 304 samples across 89 firms (see Table 1 in paper for channel-specific sample counts).
• Evaluation metrics:
  • Primary: Fraction of Variance Unexplained (FVU) — normalized MSE for comparability across targets.
  • Secondary: Mean Absolute Error (MAE).
• Modeling approach:
  • Screening agent uses LLM prompting (with optional search) to label firm–channel relevance; decisions made without access to future outcomes.
  • Prediction agent performs in-context regression via the same LLM; augmented with tools to fetch company/channel context so the model can ground proprietary channel meanings.
  • Baselines: historical average, OLS, gradient-boosted trees (GBT), and an ensembled LLM baseline.
• Reproducibility: authors report code repository and use licensed proprietary feeds (limits public re-run).

Implications for AI Economics

• Methodological implications:
  • Demonstrates LLMs can serve as flexible integrators of heterogeneous, sparse, and proprietary alternative data by using in-context learning + lightweight tooling instead of task-specific supervised retraining.
  • Screening (relevance selection) is crucial: channel informativeness is firm-specific, so prefiltering avoids hurting forecasts when a channel is irrelevant.
  • Tool-augmentation (retrieval/search) meaningfully grounds proprietary signals that the base LLM may not preknow.
• Practical / industry implications:
  • Lowers engineering overhead for incorporating new alternative-data channels: firms can add channels without re-training specialized models for each.
  • Makes operational alternative data more practically useful for asset managers, sell-side analysts, and corporate planners—especially where labeled historical samples are limited.
  • Could reduce reliance on heavy feature engineering and per-channel model maintenance, accelerating deployment of alternative-data informed forecasting.
• Policy, market, and research risks and considerations:
  • Market impact and arms race: better and easier integration of proprietary alternative data could intensify competitive advantages for data-rich actors and raise barriers to entry.
  • Data vendor concentration and opacity: widespread LLM use with proprietary feeds reinforces reliance on commercial vendors; transparency and auditability concerns remain.
  • Robustness, interpretability, and regulation: LLM rationales help but do not fully resolve issues around model explainability, spurious correlations, or systematic biases; regulators and firms should be cautious if models inform trading or reporting.
  • Research directions: evaluate robustness to distribution shifts, adversarial/seasonal changes in proprietary signals, and fairness/market-stability externalities; explore calibration and uncertainty quantification for in-context LLM forecasts.
• Overall: the paper provides evidence that LLM-driven in-context methods can make alternative data practically useful in economic and financial forecasting, particularly in limited-data regimes—but deployment should consider governance, vendor, and market-structure implications.