solver.press

Applying low-rank approximation to optimizer states in LLMs will reduce memory overhead in multi-agent financial trading simulations.

PhysicsMar 7, 2026Evaluation Score: 61%

Adversarial Debate Score

57% survival rate under critique

Expert panel critique

Independent views, each critiquing the hypothesis on its own — the score rewards genuine disagreement and discounts consensus.

Gemini: The hypothesis is falsifiable and supported by "Taming Momentum," which directly addresses low-rank approximation for optimizer states. However, the connection to multi-agent financial trading simulations is not explicitly supported by the provided papers, weakening the overall claim.
ChatGPT: It’s falsifiable (measure optimizer-state memory with/without low-rank compression in an LLM-driven multi-agent trading sim), and “Taming Momentum”/FlashOptim support the core mechanism that low-rank or memory-efficient optimizer states reduce memory. But the cited excerpts don’t directly connect...
Claude: The hypothesis has partial support from "Taming Momentum" which directly addresses low-rank approximation of optimizer states for LLMs, but the leap to multi-agent financial trading simulations is unsupported by any of the provided papers, and no evidence is presented that this specific applicati...

Supporting Research Papers

Formal Verification

Z3 logical consistency:✅ Consistent

Z3 checks whether the hypothesis is internally consistent, not whether it is empirically true.

Experimental Validation Package

This discovery has a Claude-generated validation package with a full experimental design.

Precise Hypothesis

Applying low-rank approximation (specifically rank-r decomposition where r << d_model) to optimizer states (Adam/AdamW first and second moment estimates) during fine-tuning or continual learning of large language models (≥7B parameters) deployed in multi-agent financial trading simulations will reduce peak optimizer-state memory footprint by ≥40% relative to full-rank Adam baselines, without degrading agent decision quality (Sharpe ratio degradation <5%, trade execution accuracy degradation <3%) or increasing wall-clock training time by more than 15%.

Disproof criteria:
  1. Memory reduction <20% (less than half the claimed 40%) in peak GPU memory for optimizer states across three independent runs with different random seeds — constitutes primary disproof.
  2. Sharpe ratio of low-rank agents degrades >10% versus full-rank baseline over a 252-trading-day backtest on held-out data — constitutes disproof of quality preservation.
  3. Singular value analysis reveals that gradient matrices require rank r > 0.25 × min(d_row, d_col) to capture 80% of Frobenius norm, meaning the low-rank assumption is structurally invalid for this domain.
  4. Wall-clock training time increases >30% due to SVD overhead at each optimizer step, negating practical utility even if memory savings are achieved.
  5. Memory savings do not scale with number of agents (i.e., savings are constant regardless of whether 4 or 16 agents are deployed), indicating the bottleneck is not optimizer state replication but something else (e.g., KV cache, activation memory).
  6. Equivalent memory savings achievable via gradient checkpointing + 8-bit quantization (bitsandbytes) without any quality degradation — would render low-rank approximation redundant rather than novel.
  7. Financial performance metrics (PnL, max drawdown, win rate) show statistically significant degradation (p < 0.05, paired t-test over 10 simulation runs) for low-rank agents versus full-rank baseline.

Experimental Protocol

Minimum Viable Test (MVT) — 3-phase design:

Phase A (Gradient Rank Audit, 2 days): Profile gradient matrices of a 7B-parameter LLM (Llama-3-8B or Mistral-7B) fine-tuned on financial instruction data for 500 steps. Compute SVD of gradient tensors for all attention and MLP weight matrices. Measure cumulative singular value energy to determine empirical rank r* at 80%, 90%, 95% thresholds. This is a go/no-go gate: if r* > 0.25 × min(d) for >50% of layers, abort.

Phase B (Memory Benchmark, 3 days): Implement GaLore-style or FLORA-style low-rank optimizer state projection. Compare peak GPU memory (nvidia-smi dmon at 100ms intervals) for full-rank Adam vs. low-rank Adam at r ∈ {4, 8, 16, 32, 64} across 1,000 fine-tuning steps on FinPile or Bloomberg financial corpus subset. Single agent, single GPU baseline.

Phase C (Multi-Agent Trading Simulation, 5 days): Deploy 4, 8, and 16 concurrent agents in a FinRL or custom OpenAI Gym trading environment (S&P 500 constituents, 2020–2024 minute bars). Each agent runs continual learning updates every 1,000 steps. Compare full-rank vs. low-rank (best r from Phase B) on: peak aggregate GPU memory, Sharpe ratio, max drawdown, trade accuracy, and wall-clock time per update cycle.

Required datasets:
  1. Financial time-series data:

    • Yahoo Finance API or Polygon.io: S&P 500 minute-bar OHLCV, 2018–2024 (~15 GB raw)
    • FinRL benchmark datasets: DJI-30, S&P 500 daily (publicly available, ~500 MB)
    • Alternatively: Alpaca Markets paper-trading API for live simulation validation
    • Bloomberg Terminal data (optional, ~$2,000/month subscription) for tick-level L2 order book
  2. LLM base models:

    • Llama-3-8B (Meta, Apache 2.0, HuggingFace Hub, ~16 GB weights)
    • Mistral-7B-v0.3 (Apache 2.0, ~14 GB weights) — secondary replication model
    • Optional scale-up: Llama-3-70B for boundary condition testing (~140 GB weights)
  3. Financial instruction fine-tuning corpus:

    • FinGPT instruction dataset (GitHub: AI4Finance-Foundation, ~2 GB)
    • FinPile subset (financial news + SEC filings, ~10 GB)
    • Bloomberg financial phrase bank (sentiment labels, ~50 MB)
  4. Compute environment:

    • 4× NVIDIA A100-80GB SXM4 node (or equivalent H100-80GB)
    • CUDA 12.1+, PyTorch 2.3+, HuggingFace Transformers 4.40+
    • bitsandbytes 0.43+ (for 8-bit baseline comparison)
    • GaLore library (github.com/jiaweizzhao/GaLore) as reference implementation
  5. Multi-agent framework:

    • FinRL (github.com/AI4Finance-Foundation/FinRL) or custom Ray RLlib environment
    • Ray 2.9+ for distributed agent orchestration
    • OpenAI Gym / Gymnasium 0.29+ trading environment wrapper
Success:
  1. PRIMARY — Memory reduction: Peak optimizer-state GPU memory reduced by ≥40% (e.g., from ~32 GB to ≤19.2 GB for optimizer states alone in 8B model) at optimal rank r*, confirmed across ≥3 independent runs (p < 0.01, one-sample t-test vs. 40% threshold).
  2. QUALITY PRESERVATION — Sharpe ratio of low-rank agents: within 5% of full-rank baseline (e.g., if full-rank Sharpe = 1.20, low-rank Sharpe ≥ 1.14) over 252-day backtest, confirmed across 10 seeds.
  3. TRAINING STABILITY — Final fine-tuning loss within 3% of full-rank Adam baseline after 1,000 steps; gradient norm variance <20% higher than baseline.
  4. SCALABILITY — Memory savings scale approximately linearly with agent count: 8-agent savings ≥ 1.8× single-agent savings (confirming optimizer state replication is the bottleneck).
  5. COMPUTATIONAL OVERHEAD — Wall-clock time per optimizer step increases <15% versus full-rank Adam (SVD overhead amortized over T=200 steps).
  6. GRADIENT RANK STRUCTURE — ≥70% of weight matrix gradient tensors exhibit r* ≤ 0.15 × min(d_row, d_col) at 90% singular value energy threshold, validating the low-rank assumption.
  7. REPLICATION — Results replicate on Mistral-7B with memory reduction ≥35% (slightly relaxed due to architectural differences).
Failure:
  1. Memory reduction <20% at any tested rank r — primary failure; low-rank approximation provides insufficient savings to be practically useful.
  2. Sharpe ratio degradation >10% (absolute) versus full-rank baseline across majority of seeds — quality preservation failure.
  3. Gradient rank audit (Step 3) shows r* > 0.25 × min(d) for >50% of layers at 90% energy threshold — structural assumption failure; abort at Day 2 checkpoint.
  4. Wall-clock time per step increases >30% — computational overhead renders approach impractical for real-time trading update cycles.
  5. Memory savings do not scale with agent count (savings plateau after 4 agents) — indicates optimizer state is not the binding constraint; hypothesis about multi-agent context is wrong.
  6. Training loss diverges (>10% above baseline) or NaN gradients appear in >2/10 runs — numerical instability failure.
  7. 8-bit quantization baseline (bitsandbytes) achieves equivalent or superior memory reduction with no quality degradation — renders low-rank approach non-novel/non-competitive.
  8. Results fail to replicate on Mistral-7B (memory reduction <15%) — generalizability failure.

100

GPU hours

30d

Time to result

$1,000

Min cost

$10,000

Full cost

ROI Projection

Commercial:
  1. Algorithmic trading infrastructure: Any firm running LLM-based trading systems (Renaissance Technologies, Two Sigma, Citadel, Jane Street, or emerging quant-AI startups) faces the same GPU memory bottleneck. A validated, open-source implementation could be adopted industry-wide, with commercial licensing potential of $50,000–$200,000/year per enterprise customer.
  2. MLOps tooling market: Memory-efficient optimizer libraries (bitsandbytes, GaLore) are increasingly integrated into HuggingFace, PyTorch, and commercial MLOps platforms (Weights & Biases, Determined AI). A validated financial-domain extension could be contributed to these ecosystems, driving adoption and citation impact.
  3. Broader LLM fine-tuning market: The technique is domain-agnostic — proven in financial trading, it applies to any multi-agent LLM system (robotics, drug discovery, autonomous vehicles). Total addressable market for memory-efficient LLM training tooling estimated at $2.1B by 2027 (MarketsandMarkets, 2024).
  4. Academic impact: Expected 50–150 citations within 3 years if published at NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR, establishing priority in the intersection of low-rank optimization and multi-agent financial AI — a currently sparse literature space.
  5. Patent potential: Novel application of low-rank optimizer projection to multi-agent continual learning in non-stationary financial environments may be patentable (USPTO Class 705/36R, G06N 3/08). Estimated patent value: $100,000–$500,000 in licensing or defensive portfolio value.
  6. Regulatory relevance: SEC and FCA are increasingly scrutinizing AI-driven trading systems for explainability and reproducibility. Memory-efficient, auditable optimizer states may facilitate compliance logging — an underappreciated commercial angle worth $20,000–$100,000 in compliance tooling value.

TIME_TO_RESULT_DAYS: 10

Implementation Sketch

# ============================================================
# LOW-RANK OPTIMIZER STATE COMPRESSION FOR MULTI-AGENT LLM TRADING
# Architecture Outline
# ============================================================

import torch
import torch.nn as nn
from torch.optim import AdamW
from typing import Dict, Tuple, Optional
import numpy as np

# --- CORE: Low-Rank Adam Optimizer ---
class LowRankAdam(torch.optim.Optimizer):
    """
    Adam optimizer with low-rank projection of moment states.
    Based on GaLore (Zhao et al., 2024) extended to multi-agent setting.
    
    Memory: O(r * (m + n)) vs O(m * n) for full-rank Adam moments.
    Reduction ratio: 1 - 2r/(m+n) per layer.
    """
    def __init__(
        self,
        params,
        lr: float = 2e-5,
        betas: Tuple[float, float] = (0.9, 0.999),
        eps: float = 1e-8,
        weight_decay: float = 0.01,
        rank: int = 16,                    # r << min(m, n)
        update_proj_gap: int = 200,        # T: steps between SVD updates
        scale: float = 1.0,
    ):
        defaults = dict(
            lr=lr, betas=betas, eps=eps,
            weight_decay=weight_decay,
            rank=rank,
            update_proj_gap=update_proj_gap,
            scale=scale,
        )
        super().__init__(params, defaults)
    
    def _get_low_rank_projection(
        self,
        grad: torch.Tensor,
        rank: int,
        state: Dict,
        step: int,
        update_gap: int,
    ) -> Tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
        """
        Compute or retrieve low-rank projection matrices P, Q.
        G ≈ P @ G_lr @ Q^T  where G_lr ∈ R^{r×r}
        
        SVD cost: O(m*n*min(m,n)) amortized over update_gap steps.
        """
        if step % update_gap == 0 or 'proj_P' not in state:
            # Compute SVD of current gradient
            # grad shape: (m, n)
            U, S, Vh = torch.linalg.svd(
                grad.float(),
                full_matrices=False
            )
            # Keep top-r singular vectors
            state['proj_P'] = U[:, :rank].to(grad.dtype)   # (m, r)
            state['proj_Q'] = Vh[:rank, :].T.to(grad.dtype) # (n, r)
            
            # Log singular value energy for monitoring
            energy_ratio = (S[:rank]**2).sum() / (S**2).sum()
            state['sv_energy_ratio'] = energy_ratio.item()
        
        P = state['proj_P']  # (m, r)
        Q = state['proj_Q']  # (n, r)
        
        # Project gradient to low-rank subspace
        # G_lr = P^T @ G @ Q ∈ R^{r×r}
        G_lr = P.T @ grad @ Q
        
        return G_lr, P, Q
    
    @torch.no_grad()
    def step(self, closure=None):
        loss = None
        if closure is not None:
            with torch.enable_grad():
                loss = closure()
        
        for group in self.param_groups:
            for p in group['params']:
                if p.grad is None:
                    continue
                
                grad = p.grad
                if grad.is_sparse:
                    raise RuntimeError("LowRankAdam: sparse gradients not supported")
                
                state = self.state[p]
                rank = group['rank']
                
                # Initialize state
                if len(state) == 0:
                    state['step'] = 0
                    # Only store moments for low-rank projection
                    # Memory: 2 * r * r vs 2 * m * n
                    state['exp_avg'] = torch.zeros(rank, rank, device=p.device, dtype=p.dtype)
                    state['exp_avg_sq'] = torch.zeros(rank, rank, device=p.device, dtype=p.dtype)
                
                state['step'] += 1
                step = state['step']
                beta1, beta2 = group['betas']
                
                # Handle 2D weight matrices (attention, MLP layers)
                if grad.dim() == 2:
                    G_lr, P, Q = self._get_low_rank_projection(
                        grad, rank, state,
                        step, group['update_proj_gap']
                    )
                    
                    # Adam update in low-rank subspace
                    exp_avg = state['exp_avg']
                    exp_avg_sq = state['exp_avg_sq']
                    
                    exp_avg.mul_(beta1).add_(G_lr, alpha=1 - beta1)
                    exp_avg_sq.mul_(beta2).addcmul_(G_lr, G_lr, value=1 - beta2)
                    
                    bias_correction1 = 1 - beta1 ** step
                    bias_correction2 = 1 - beta2 ** step
                    
                    step_size = group['lr'] / bias_correction1
                    denom = (exp_avg_sq.sqrt() / (bias_correction2 ** 0.5)).add_(group['eps'])
                    
                    # Compute update in low-rank space
                    update_lr = exp_avg / denom  # (r, r)
                    
                    # Project back to full parameter space
                    # update = P @ update_lr @ Q^T ∈ R^{m×n}
                    update_full = P @ update_lr @ Q.T
                    
                    # Apply weight decay + parameter update
                    p.mul_(1 - group['lr'] * group['weight_decay'])
                    p.add_(update_full, alpha=-step_size * group['scale'])
                
                else:
                    # Fallback: standard Adam for 1D params (biases, LayerNorm)
                    # These are small — no memory savings needed
                    if 'exp_avg_full' not in state:
                        state['exp_avg_full'] = torch.zeros_like(p)
                        state['exp_avg_sq_full'] = torch.zeros_like(p)
                    
                    exp_avg = state['exp_avg_full']
                    exp_avg_sq = state['exp_avg_sq_full']
                    exp_avg.mul_(beta1).add_(grad, alpha=1 - beta1)
                    exp_avg_sq.mul_(beta2).addcmul_(grad, grad, value=1 - beta2)
                    
                    bias_correction1 = 1 - beta1 ** step
                    bias_correction2 = 1 - beta2 ** step
                    step_size = group['lr'] / bias_correction1
                    denom = (exp_avg_sq.sqrt() / (bias_correction2 ** 0.5)).add_(group['eps'])
                    
                    p.mul_(1 - group['lr'] * group['weight_decay'])
                    p.addcdiv_(exp_avg, denom, value=-step_size)
        
        return loss


# --- MEMORY PROFILER ---
class OptimizerMemoryProfiler:
    """Track optimizer state memory across training steps."""
    
    def __init__(self, optimizer: torch.optim.Optimizer, model: nn.Module):
        self.optimizer = optimizer
        self.model = model
        self.memory_log = []
    
    def compute_optimizer_state_bytes(self) -> int:
        """Compute exact bytes used by optimizer states."""
        total_bytes = 0
        for group in self.optimizer.param_groups:
            for p in group['params']:
                state = self.optimizer.state[p]
                for key, val in state.items():
                    if isinstance(val, torch.Tensor):
                        total_bytes += val.numel() * val.element_size()
        return total_bytes
    
    def log_step(self, step: int):
        opt_bytes = self.compute_optimizer_state_bytes()
        gpu_bytes = torch.cuda.max_memory_allocated()
        self.memory_log.append({
            'step': step,
            'optimizer_state_mb': opt_bytes / 1e6,
            'peak_gpu_mb': gpu_bytes / 1e6,
        })
    
    def report(self) -> Dict:
        if not self.memory_log:
            return {}
        peak_opt = max(d['optimizer_state_mb'] for d in self.memory_log)
        peak_gpu = max(d['peak_gpu_mb'] for d in self.memory_log)
        return {
            'peak_optimizer_state_mb': peak_opt,
            'peak_gpu_mb': peak_gpu,
            'n_steps_logged': len(self.memory_log),
        }


# --- MULTI-AGENT TRADING ENVIRONMENT WRAPPER ---
class MultiAgentLLMTradingEnv:
    """
    Orchestrates N concurrent LLM-based trading agents.
    Each agent: frozen LLM trunk + trainable LoRA adapters.
    Continual learning via LowRankAdam on adapter parameters.
    
    Memory bottleneck: N × optimizer_state_size (per-agent Adam moments)
    Low-rank compression reduces this by ~40% per agent.
    """
    
    def __init__(
        self,
        n_agents: int,
        model_name: str = "meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-8B",
        rank: int = 16,
        use_low_rank_optimizer: bool = True,
        device_map: str = "auto",
    ):
        self.n_agents = n_agents
        self.rank = rank
        self.use_low_rank = use_low_rank_optimizer
        self.agents = []
        self.optimizers = []
        self.profilers = []
        
        # Initialize agents (shared frozen trunk, separate adapters)
        self._init_agents(model_name, device_map)
    
    def _init_agents(self, model_name: str, device_map: str):
        """
        Load shared LLM backbone once, create per-agent adapter layers.
        Optimizer states only allocated for adapter parameters.
        
        Adapter param count: ~4M for rank-16 LoRA on 8B model
        Full-rank Adam states: 4M × 2 × 4 bytes = 32 MB per agent
        Low-rank Adam states: ~0.4M × 2 × 4 bytes = 3.2 MB per agent
        N=16 agents: 512 MB → 51 MB (90% reduction for adapter states)
        """
        from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM
        from peft import get_peft_model, LoraConfig
        
        # Load shared backbone (frozen)
        backbone = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
            model_name,
            torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
            device_map=device_map,
        )
        backbone.requires_grad_(False)
        
        for agent_id in range(self.n_agents):
            # Per-agent LoRA adapter (trainable)
            lora_config = LoraConfig(
                r=self.rank,
                lora_alpha=32,
                target_modules=["q_proj", "v_proj", "k_proj", "o_proj"],
                lora_dropout=0.05,
                bias="none",
            )
            agent_model = get_peft_model(backbone, lora_config)
            trainable_params = [p for p in agent_model.parameters() if p.requires_grad]
            
            # Select optimizer
            if self.use_low_rank:
                optimizer = LowRankAdam(
                    trainable_params,
                    lr=2e-5,
                    rank=min(self.rank, 8),  # r for optimizer states
                    update_proj_gap=200,
                )
            else:
                optimizer = AdamW(trainable_params, lr=2e-5)
            
            profiler = OptimizerMemoryProfiler(optimizer, agent_model)
            
            self.agents.append(agent_model)
            self.optimizers.append(optimizer)
            self.profilers.append(profiler)
    
    def continual_update(
        self,
        agent_id: int,
        market_observations: torch.Tensor,
        rewards: torch.Tensor,
        step: int,
    ):
        """
        Perform one continual learning update for agent agent_id.
        Called every 1,000 environment steps.
        """
        agent = self.agents[agent_id]
        optimizer = self.optimizers[agent_id]
        profiler = self.profilers[agent_id]
        
        optimizer.zero_grad()
        
        # Forward pass: LLM generates trading action
        outputs = agent(
            input_ids=market_observations,
            labels=market_observations,  # simplified; use RL loss in practice
        )
        loss = outputs.loss
        
        # Backward pass
        loss.backward()
        
        # Gradient clipping
        torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(
            [p for p in agent.parameters() if p.requires_grad],
            max_norm=1.0,
        )
        
        # Optimizer step (low-rank or full-rank)
        optimizer.step()
        
        # Log memory
        profiler.log_step(step)
        
        return loss.item()
    
    def aggregate_memory_report(self) -> Dict:
        """Aggregate memory stats across all agents."""
        reports = [p.report() for p in self.profilers]
        total_opt_mb = sum(r.get('peak_optimizer_state_mb', 0) for r in reports)
        return {
            'n_agents': self.n_agents,
            'total_optimizer_state_mb': total_opt_mb,
            'per_agent_optimizer_state_mb': total_opt_mb / self.n_agents,
            'use_low_rank': self.use_low_rank,
        }


# --- TRADING PERFORMANCE EVALUATOR ---
class TradingPerformanceEvaluator:
    """
    Evaluate agent trading performance on held-out 2024 data.
    Metrics: Sharpe, Sortino, max drawdown, win rate, total return.
    """
    
    def __init__(self, initial_capital: float = 1_000_000.0):
        self.initial_capital = initial_capital
        self.returns_history = []
    
    def compute_sharpe(self, daily_returns: np.ndarray, risk_free_rate: float = 0.05) -> float:
        """Annualized Sharpe ratio."""
        excess = daily_returns - risk_free_rate / 252
        if excess.std() == 0:
            return 0.0
        return np.sqrt(252) * excess.mean() / excess.std()
    
    def compute_max_drawdown(self, cumulative_returns: np.ndarray) -> float:
        """Maximum drawdown as fraction of peak."""
        peak = np.maximum.accumulate(cumulative_returns)
        drawdown = (cumulative_returns - peak) / peak
        return drawdown.min()
    
    def evaluate(self, daily_returns: np.ndarray) -> Dict:
        sharpe = self.compute_sharpe(daily_returns)
        cum_returns = (1 + daily_returns).cumprod()
        max_dd = self.compute_max_drawdown(cum_returns)
        win_rate = (daily_returns > 0).mean()
        total_return = cum_returns[-1] - 1
        
        return {
            'sharpe_ratio': sharpe,
            'max_drawdown': max_dd,
            'win_rate': win_rate,
            'total_return': total_return,
            'annualized_return': (1 + total_return) ** (252 / len(daily_returns)) - 1,
        }


# --- MAIN EXPERIMENT RUNNER ---
def run_experiment(
    n_agents: int = 4,
    rank: int = 16,
    n_seeds: int = 10,
    n_trading_days: int = 252,
):
    """
    Full experiment: compare full-rank vs. low-rank Adam
    in multi-agent LLM trading simulation.
    
    Expected runtime: ~32 GPU-hours per configuration.
    """
    results = {}
    
    for use_low_rank in [False, True]:
        config_name = f"low_rank_r{rank}" if use_low_rank else "full_rank"
        results[config_name] = {
            'memory_reports': [],
            'trading_metrics': [],
        }
        
        for seed in range(n_seeds):
            torch.manual_seed(seed)
            np.random.seed(seed)
            
            # Initialize environment
            env = MultiAgentLLMTradingEnv(
                n_agents=n_agents,
                rank=rank,
                use_low_rank_optimizer=use_low_rank,
            )
            
            evaluator = TradingPerformanceEvaluator()
            
            # Simulate trading + continual learning
            daily_returns = []
            for day in range(n_trading_days):
                # [Simplified: replace with actual FinRL environment step]
                market_obs = torch.randint(0, 32000, (1, 512))  # tokenized market data
                rewards = torch.randn(n_agents)
                
                # Continual learning update every 10 days
                if day % 10 == 0:
                    for agent_id in range(n_agents):
                        env.continual_update(agent_id, market_obs, rewards, step=day)
                
                # [Simplified: replace with actual portfolio return computation]
                daily_return = np.random.normal(0.001, 0.015)  # placeholder
                daily_returns.append(daily_return)
            
            # Collect results
            mem_report = env.aggregate_memory_report()
            trade_metrics = evaluator.evaluate(np.array(daily_returns))
            
            results[config_name]['memory_reports'].append(mem_report)
            results[config_name]['trading_metrics'].append(trade_metrics)
            
            print(f"[{config_name}] Seed {seed}: "
                  f"Optimizer memory = {mem_report['total_optimizer_state_mb']:.1f} MB, "
                  f"Sharpe = {trade_metrics['sharpe_ratio']:.3f}")
    
    # Compute summary statistics
    for config_name, data in results.items():
        mem_values = [r['total_optimizer_state_mb'] for r in data['memory_reports']]
        sharpe_values = [m['sharpe_ratio'] for m in data['trading_metrics']]
        
        print(f"\n=== {config_name} SUMMARY ===")
        print(f"Optimizer Memory: {np.mean(mem_values):.1f} ± {np.std(mem_values):.1f} MB")
        print(f"Sharpe Ratio:     {np.mean(sharpe_values):.3f} ± {np.std(sharpe_values):.3f}")
    
    return results


# --- GRADIENT RANK AUDIT ---
def audit_gradient_rank(
    model: nn.Module,
    dataloader,
    n_steps: int = 500,
    energy_threshold: float = 0.90,
) -> Dict:
    """
    Phase A: Measure effective rank of gradient matrices.
    GO/NO-GO gate: median r* ≤ 0.15 × min(d_row, d_col)
    """
    rank_ratios = []
    
    for step, batch in enumerate(dataloader):
        if step >= n_steps:
            break
        
        outputs = model(**batch)
        outputs.loss.backward()
        
        if step % 100 == 0:
            for name, param in model.named_parameters():
                if param.grad is not None and param.grad.dim() == 2:
                    grad = param.grad.float()
                    m, n = grad.shape
                    
                    # SVD
                    _, S, _ = torch.linalg.svd(grad, full_matrices=False)
                    
                    # Find r* at energy_threshold
                    cumulative_energy = (S**2).cumsum(0) / (S**2).sum()
                    r_star = (cumulative_energy < energy_threshold).sum().item() + 1
                    rank_ratio = r_star / min(m, n)
                    rank_ratios.append(rank_ratio)
        
        model.zero_grad()
    
    median_ratio = np.median(rank_ratios)
    go_decision = median_ratio <= 0.15
    
    return {
        'median_rank_ratio': median_ratio,
        'mean_rank_ratio': np.mean(rank_ratios),
        'p90_rank_ratio': np.percentile(rank_ratios, 90),
        'go_no_go': 'GO' if go_decision else 'NO-GO',
        'n_layers_audited': len(rank_ratios),
        'energy_threshold': energy_threshold,
    }


if __name__ == "__main__":
    # Phase A: Gradient rank audit (abort if NO-GO)
    # audit_result = audit_gradient_rank(model, financial_dataloader)
    # assert audit_result['go_no_go'] == 'GO', f"ABORT: {audit_result}"
    
    # Phase B+C: Full experiment
    results = run_experiment(
        n_agents=4,
        rank=16,
        n_seeds=10,
        n_trading_days=252,
    )
Abort checkpoints:

CHECKPOINT 1 — Day 2, End of Gradient Rank Audit: Abort condition: Median rank ratio r*/min(d) > 0.25 at 90% energy threshold across >50% of audited layers. Action: Terminate experiment. Document that low-rank assumption is invalid for this model/domain combination. Recommend testing with higher-rank approximation (r up to 0.40 × min(d)) or switching to structured pruning approach. Cost saved by aborting: ~$6,500 (avoid Phases B and C).

CHECKPOINT 2 — Day 3, After Single-Agent Memory Benchmark (r=64): Abort condition: Best-case memory reduction (at r=64, highest tested rank) is <15% versus full-rank Adam baseline. Action: Terminate. The approach provides insufficient savings even at near-full-rank approximation. Document as negative result. Investigate whether 8-bit quantization is a superior alternative. Cost saved by aborting: ~$5,000.

CHECKPOINT 3 — Day 4, After 200 Steps of Multi-Agent Training: Abort condition: NaN gradients appear in >2/10 seeds, OR training loss for low-rank agents is >15% above full-rank baseline after 200 steps. Action: Attempt fix (increase epsilon, reduce learning rate by 50%, reduce rank by 50%). If not resolved within 4 hours, terminate. Numerical instability in financial gradient landscapes may require fundamentally different stabilization. Cost saved by aborting: ~$3,500.

CHECKPOINT 4 — Day 6, After 126-Day Midpoint Backtest: Abort condition: Sharpe ratio degradation >15% at midpoint (126 days) across majority of seeds, OR max drawdown increases >20 percentage points versus full-rank baseline. Action: Terminate trading evaluation. Memory savings are real but quality degradation is unacceptable for financial applications. Reframe as "memory-efficient but quality-degraded" negative result. Explore whether quality can be recovered with rank annealing schedule. Cost saved by aborting: ~$1,500.

CHECKPOINT 5 — Day 8, After Replication on Mistral-7B: Abort condition: Memory reduction on Mistral-7B is <10% (vs. ≥35% success criterion), suggesting results are Llama-3-specific and not generalizable. Action: Downgrade claim from "general LLM technique" to "Llama-3-specific optimization." Revise paper scope accordingly. Do not abort full experiment, but adjust conclusions. Cost impact: No cost saving (already in final phase), but prevents overclaiming in publication.

Source

AegisMind Research
Need AI to work rigorously on your problems? AegisMind uses the same multi-model engine for personal and professional use. Get started