docs: Add comprehensive financial extraction improvement plan
This plan addresses all 10 pending todos with detailed implementation steps: Priority 1 (Weeks 1-2): Research & Analysis - Review older commits for historical patterns - Research best practices for financial data extraction Priority 2 (Weeks 3-4): Performance Optimization - Reduce processing time from 178s to <120s - Implement tiered model approach, parallel processing, prompt optimization Priority 3 (Weeks 5-6): Testing & Validation - Add comprehensive unit tests (>80% coverage) - Test invalid value rejection, cross-period validation, period identification Priority 4 (Weeks 7-8): Monitoring & Observability - Track extraction success rates, error patterns - Implement user feedback collection Priority 5 (Weeks 9-11): Code Quality & Documentation - Optimize prompt size (20-30% reduction) - Add financial data visualization UI - Document extraction strategies Priority 6 (Weeks 12-14): Advanced Features - Compare RAG vs Simple extraction approaches - Add confidence scores for extractions Includes detailed tasks, deliverables, success criteria, timeline, and risk mitigation strategies.
This commit is contained in:
admin
320
backend/FINANCIAL_EXTRACTION_IMPROVEMENT_PLAN.md
Normal file
320
backend/FINANCIAL_EXTRACTION_IMPROVEMENT_PLAN.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
|
|||||||
|
# Financial Extraction Improvement Plan
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Overview
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document outlines a comprehensive plan to address all pending todos related to financial extraction improvements. The plan is organized by priority and includes detailed implementation steps, success criteria, and estimated effort.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Current Status
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### ✅ Completed
|
||||||
|
- Test financial extraction with Stax Holding Company CIM - All values correct
|
||||||
|
- Implement deterministic parser fallback - Integrated into simpleDocumentProcessor
|
||||||
|
- Implement few-shot examples - Added comprehensive examples for PRIMARY table identification
|
||||||
|
- Fix primary table identification - Financial extraction now correctly identifies PRIMARY table
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 📊 Current Performance
|
||||||
|
- **Accuracy**: 100% for Stax CIM test case (FY-3: $64M, FY-2: $71M, FY-1: $71M, LTM: $76M)
|
||||||
|
- **Processing Time**: ~178 seconds (3 minutes) for full document
|
||||||
|
- **API Calls**: 2 (1 financial extraction + 1 main extraction)
|
||||||
|
- **Completeness**: 96.9%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 1: Research & Analysis (Weeks 1-2)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 1: Review Older Commits for Historical Patterns
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Objective**: Understand how financial extraction worked in previous versions to identify what was effective.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Tasks**:
|
||||||
|
1. Review commit history (2-3 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Check commit 185c780 (Claude 3.7 implementation)
|
||||||
|
- Check commit 5b3b1bf (Document AI fixes)
|
||||||
|
- Check commit 0ec3d14 (multi-pass extraction)
|
||||||
|
- Document prompt structures, validation logic, and error handling
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. Compare prompt simplicity (2 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Extract prompts from older commits
|
||||||
|
- Compare verbosity, structure, and clarity
|
||||||
|
- Identify what made older prompts effective
|
||||||
|
- Document key differences
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. Analyze deterministic parser usage (2 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Review how financialTableParser.ts was used historically
|
||||||
|
- Check integration patterns with LLM extraction
|
||||||
|
- Identify successful validation strategies
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4. Create comparison document (1 hour)
|
||||||
|
- Document findings in docs/financial-extraction-evolution.md
|
||||||
|
- Include before/after comparisons
|
||||||
|
- Highlight lessons learned
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Analysis document comparing old vs new approaches
|
||||||
|
- List of effective patterns to reintroduce
|
||||||
|
- Recommendations for prompt simplification
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Complete analysis of 3+ historical commits
|
||||||
|
- Documented comparison of prompt structures
|
||||||
|
- Clear recommendations for improvements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 2: Review Best Practices for Financial Data Extraction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Objective**: Research industry best practices and academic approaches to improve extraction accuracy and reliability.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Tasks**:
|
||||||
|
1. Academic research (4-6 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Search for papers on LLM-based tabular data extraction
|
||||||
|
- Review financial document parsing techniques
|
||||||
|
- Study few-shot learning for table extraction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. Industry case studies (3-4 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Research how companies extract financial data
|
||||||
|
- Review open-source projects (Tabula, Camelot)
|
||||||
|
- Study financial data extraction libraries
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. Prompt engineering research (2-3 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Study chain-of-thought prompting for tables
|
||||||
|
- Review few-shot example selection strategies
|
||||||
|
- Research validation techniques for structured outputs
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4. Hybrid approach research (2-3 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Review deterministic + LLM hybrid systems
|
||||||
|
- Study error handling patterns
|
||||||
|
- Research confidence scoring methods
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
5. Create best practices document (2 hours)
|
||||||
|
- Document findings in docs/financial-extraction-best-practices.md
|
||||||
|
- Include citations and references
|
||||||
|
- Create implementation recommendations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Best practices document with citations
|
||||||
|
- List of recommended techniques
|
||||||
|
- Implementation roadmap
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Reviewed 10+ academic papers or industry case studies
|
||||||
|
- Documented 5+ applicable techniques
|
||||||
|
- Clear recommendations for implementation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 2: Performance Optimization (Weeks 3-4)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 3: Reduce Processing Time Without Sacrificing Accuracy
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Objective**: Reduce processing time from ~178 seconds to <120 seconds while maintaining 100% accuracy.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Strategies**:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Strategy 3.1: Model Selection Optimization
|
||||||
|
- Use Claude Haiku 3.5 for initial extraction (faster, cheaper)
|
||||||
|
- Use Claude Sonnet 3.7 for validation/correction (more accurate)
|
||||||
|
- Expected impact: 30-40% time reduction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Strategy 3.2: Parallel Processing
|
||||||
|
- Extract independent sections in parallel
|
||||||
|
- Financial, business description, market analysis, etc.
|
||||||
|
- Expected impact: 40-50% time reduction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Strategy 3.3: Prompt Optimization
|
||||||
|
- Remove redundant instructions
|
||||||
|
- Use more concise examples
|
||||||
|
- Expected impact: 10-15% time reduction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Strategy 3.4: Caching Common Patterns
|
||||||
|
- Cache deterministic parser results
|
||||||
|
- Cache common prompt templates
|
||||||
|
- Expected impact: 5-10% time reduction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Optimized processing pipeline
|
||||||
|
- Performance benchmarks
|
||||||
|
- Documentation of time savings
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Processing time reduced to <120 seconds
|
||||||
|
- Accuracy maintained at 95%+
|
||||||
|
- API calls optimized
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 3: Testing & Validation (Weeks 5-6)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 4: Add Unit Tests for Financial Extraction Validation Logic
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Test Categories**:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. Invalid Value Rejection
|
||||||
|
- Test rejection of values < $10M for revenue
|
||||||
|
- Test rejection of negative EBITDA when should be positive
|
||||||
|
- Test rejection of unrealistic growth rates
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. Cross-Period Validation
|
||||||
|
- Test revenue growth consistency
|
||||||
|
- Test EBITDA margin trends
|
||||||
|
- Test period-to-period validation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. Numeric Extraction
|
||||||
|
- Test extraction of values in millions
|
||||||
|
- Test extraction of values in thousands (with conversion)
|
||||||
|
- Test percentage extraction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4. Period Identification
|
||||||
|
- Test years format (2021-2024)
|
||||||
|
- Test FY-X format (FY-3, FY-2, FY-1, LTM)
|
||||||
|
- Test mixed format with projections
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Comprehensive test suite with 50+ test cases
|
||||||
|
- Test coverage >80% for financial validation logic
|
||||||
|
- CI/CD integration
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- All test cases passing
|
||||||
|
- Test coverage >80%
|
||||||
|
- Tests catch regressions before deployment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 4: Monitoring & Observability (Weeks 7-8)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 5: Monitor Production Financial Extraction Accuracy
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Monitoring Components**:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. Extraction Success Rate Tracking
|
||||||
|
- Track extraction success/failure rates
|
||||||
|
- Log extraction attempts and outcomes
|
||||||
|
- Set up alerts for issues
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. Error Pattern Analysis
|
||||||
|
- Categorize errors by type
|
||||||
|
- Track error trends over time
|
||||||
|
- Identify common error patterns
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. User Feedback Collection
|
||||||
|
- Add UI for users to flag incorrect extractions
|
||||||
|
- Store feedback in database
|
||||||
|
- Use feedback to improve prompts
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Monitoring dashboard
|
||||||
|
- Alert system
|
||||||
|
- Error analysis reports
|
||||||
|
- User feedback system
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Real-time monitoring of extraction accuracy
|
||||||
|
- Alerts trigger for issues
|
||||||
|
- User feedback collected and analyzed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 5: Code Quality & Documentation (Weeks 9-11)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 6: Optimize Prompt Size for Financial Extraction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Current State**: ~28,000 tokens
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Optimization Strategies**:
|
||||||
|
1. Remove redundancy (target: 30% reduction)
|
||||||
|
2. Use more concise examples (target: 40-50% reduction)
|
||||||
|
3. Focus on critical rules only
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Prompt size reduced by 20-30%
|
||||||
|
- Accuracy maintained at 95%+
|
||||||
|
- Processing time improved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 7: Add Financial Data Visualization
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Implementation**:
|
||||||
|
1. Backend API for validation and corrections
|
||||||
|
2. Frontend component for preview and editing
|
||||||
|
3. Confidence score display
|
||||||
|
4. Trend visualization
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Users can preview financial data
|
||||||
|
- Users can correct incorrect values
|
||||||
|
- Corrections are stored and used for improvement
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 8: Document Extraction Strategies
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Documentation Structure**:
|
||||||
|
1. Table Format Catalog (years, FY-X, mixed formats)
|
||||||
|
2. Extraction Patterns (primary table, period mapping)
|
||||||
|
3. Best Practices Guide (prompt engineering, validation)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deliverables**:
|
||||||
|
- Comprehensive documentation in docs/financial-extraction-guide.md
|
||||||
|
- Format catalog with examples
|
||||||
|
- Pattern library
|
||||||
|
- Best practices guide
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Priority 6: Advanced Features (Weeks 12-14)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 9: Compare RAG vs Simple Extraction for Financial Accuracy
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Comparison Study**:
|
||||||
|
1. Test both approaches on 10+ CIM documents
|
||||||
|
2. Analyze results and identify best approach
|
||||||
|
3. Design and implement hybrid if beneficial
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Clear understanding of which approach is better
|
||||||
|
- Hybrid approach implemented if beneficial
|
||||||
|
- Accuracy improved or maintained
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Todo 10: Add Confidence Scores to Financial Extraction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Implementation**:
|
||||||
|
1. Design scoring algorithm (parser agreement, value consistency)
|
||||||
|
2. Implement confidence calculation
|
||||||
|
3. Flag low-confidence extractions for review
|
||||||
|
4. Add review interface
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||||
|
- Confidence scores calculated for all extractions
|
||||||
|
- Low-confidence extractions flagged
|
||||||
|
- Review process implemented
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Implementation Timeline
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 1-2**: Research & Analysis
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 3-4**: Performance Optimization
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 5-6**: Testing & Validation
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 7-8**: Monitoring
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 9-11**: Code Quality & Documentation
|
||||||
|
- **Weeks 12-14**: Advanced Features
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Success Metrics
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Accuracy**: Maintain 95%+ accuracy
|
||||||
|
- **Performance**: <120 seconds processing time
|
||||||
|
- **Reliability**: 99%+ extraction success rate
|
||||||
|
- **Test Coverage**: >80% for financial validation
|
||||||
|
- **User Satisfaction**: <5% manual correction rate
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Next Steps
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. Review and approve this plan
|
||||||
|
2. Prioritize todos based on business needs
|
||||||
|
3. Assign resources
|
||||||
|
4. Begin Week 1 tasks
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user