Applying low-rank approximation to optimizer states in LLMs will reduce memory overhead in multi-agent financial trading simulations.
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.
Supporting Research Papers
- Cheap Thrills: Effective Amortized Optimization Using Inexpensive Labels
To scale the solution of optimization and simulation problems, prior work has explored machine-learning surrogates that inexpensively map problem parameters to corresponding solutions. Commonly used a...
- FlashOptim: Optimizers for Memory Efficient Training
Standard mixed-precision training of neural networks requires many bytes of accelerator memory for each model parameter. These bytes reflect not just the parameter itself, but also its gradient and on...
- Universal Persistent Brownian Motions in Confluent Tissues
Biological tissues are active materials whose non-equilibrium dynamics emerge from distinct cellular force-generating mechanisms. Using a two-dimensional active foam model, we compare the effects of t...
- Toward Expert Investment Teams:A Multi-Agent LLM System with Fine-Grained Trading Tasks
The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has accelerated the development of autonomous financial trading systems. While mainstream approaches deploy multi-agent systems mimicking analyst and ma...
Formal Verification
Z3 checks whether the hypothesis is internally consistent, not whether it is empirically true.
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%.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wall-clock training time increases >30% due to SVD overhead at each optimizer step, negating practical utility even if memory savings are achieved.
- 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).
- Equivalent memory savings achievable via gradient checkpointing + 8-bit quantization (bitsandbytes) without any quality degradation — would render low-rank approximation redundant rather than novel.
- 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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
- 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).
- 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.
- TRAINING STABILITY — Final fine-tuning loss within 3% of full-rank Adam baseline after 1,000 steps; gradient norm variance <20% higher than baseline.
- SCALABILITY — Memory savings scale approximately linearly with agent count: 8-agent savings ≥ 1.8× single-agent savings (confirming optimizer state replication is the bottleneck).
- COMPUTATIONAL OVERHEAD — Wall-clock time per optimizer step increases <15% versus full-rank Adam (SVD overhead amortized over T=200 steps).
- 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.
- REPLICATION — Results replicate on Mistral-7B with memory reduction ≥35% (slightly relaxed due to architectural differences).
- Memory reduction <20% at any tested rank r — primary failure; low-rank approximation provides insufficient savings to be practically useful.
- Sharpe ratio degradation >10% (absolute) versus full-rank baseline across majority of seeds — quality preservation failure.
- 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.
- Wall-clock time per step increases >30% — computational overhead renders approach impractical for real-time trading update cycles.
- 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.
- Training loss diverges (>10% above baseline) or NaN gradients appear in >2/10 runs — numerical instability failure.
- 8-bit quantization baseline (bitsandbytes) achieves equivalent or superior memory reduction with no quality degradation — renders low-rank approach non-novel/non-competitive.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, )
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.