---
title: Conflicting History in Foundation Model Return Forecasts
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2610.25822/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-10-23
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2610.25822
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25822
featured: 2026-10-23
citations: unknown
topic: Asset Pricing & Factors
---


# Conflicting History in Foundation Model Return Forecasts

Older observations that conflict with recent data reduce foundation models' probability of beating zero across all tested procedures, distinguishing signal extraction from conflicting-history resistance.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25822
- Identifier: arXiv:2610.25822
- Released: 2026-10-20
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 136 (2026-10-23): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-10-23/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Asset Pricing & Factors
- Authors: Levent Bulut

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

Older observations can help a forecaster learn a predictive relationship while becoming misleading when that relationship changes. We study this tension using paired return histories that differ in older observations but share recent returns and the conditional distribution of the next return. Across five foundation-model forecasting procedures and three simulated processes, each evaluated on 1,024 independent replications, conflicting history reduces the probability of improving on zero in all 30 higher-signal comparisons. This loss of usefulness occurs despite successful signal recovery under stable conditions. A separate exploratory comparison on 56 assets finds that shortening inputs from 256 to 64 returns increases mean absolute error for every model by 1.77-4.58 basis points; neither length improves observed overall error over zero. The evidence distinguishes the ability to extract a signal from the ability to withstand conflicting history, while showing why context sensitivity alone does not justify discarding older data.

## Related

- [Interpretable Machine Learning for Asset Pricing](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4473746/): The paper utilizes deep neural networks to more accurately estimate equity risk premia over time, enhancing the interpretability of machine learning in economics.
- [The Cross-Section of Factor Returns](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/4441376/): Most of the 150 equity factors examined show positive returns but fail to deliver excess returns after accounting for risk, especially in downturns.
- [Are Penalty Shootouts Better Than a Coin Toss? Evidence From International Club Football in Europe](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2510.17641/): Using UEFA penalty shootout data (2000–2025) we find outcomes are essentially random—no measurable advantage from kicking order, venue, momentum, or team strength.
- [Optimal Investment and Consumption in a Stochastic Factor Model](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2509.09452/): The article discusses optimal investment and consumption in an incomplete stochastic factor model, offering a comprehensive characterization of the problem's well-posedness and an efficient numerical algorithm for computing the value function.
- [Model complexity and the performance of global versus regional models](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/5241880/): Complex algorithms in global models outperform regional models in cross-sectional asset pricing, contradicting previous studies favoring regional methods.
- [How Election Shocks Impact Markets: Evidence from Sectoral Stock Prices](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2504.02731/): Research indicates U.S. presidential election cycles impact sectoral stock markets, with candidate preferences influencing asset prices in energy, defense, and clean energy sectors.