Firm peers from contrastive embeddings
Contrastive learning is one of the largest topics in the AI journals, yet only 6 of 749 recent contrastive-learning papers carry a finance or firm keyword. Finance research still defines peer firms mostly by industry codes. Would firm embeddings learned contrastively from filings, returns and supply chains give better peers for valuation, benchmarking and pay?
What prompted this
Since October 2025, "contrastive learning" appears on 548 papers (538 in AI journals), and 749 papers carry some contrastive-learning keyword; only 6 of them carry a finance, stock, firm, company or industry-classification keyword. "Peer firms" appears on 13 papers and "industry classification" on 4.
Questions
- Do peers from contrastive embeddings explain a firm's returns, valuation multiples and earnings better than SIC or GICS peers, or text-based peers?
- Do they pick up a firm's move into new businesses sooner than industry codes do?
- Would they change results that rely on peers, such as relative performance evaluation in CEO pay?
Data that could help
Business descriptions in 10-K filings, stock returns (CRSP), supply-chain links and industry codes (Compustat).
Next step
Train a contrastive model in which a firm's filing text and its return co-movement in the next year form positive pairs, and compare the resulting peers with GICS peers.