CrashGym is a deterministic, replayable limit‑order‑book simulator that lets language‑model agents decide between a deleveraging intervention and a liquidity backstop before a market crash. Agents can query intervention experiments in a laboratory version of the market, and their choices are scored by simulating every feasible intervention on an independently seeded target realization, allowing direct regret calculation. In a study of 24 new worlds, laboratory access reduced mean regret by 57.4% for one deployment, and exploratory results suggest lower regret across all evaluated deployments, while an evolving strategy mix offers no clear advantage over a fixed mix.
By Haocheng Lu, Haoxuan Cheng, Mingyang Chen, Minjun Zhu
arXiv:2606. 31522v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous financial agents initialized with explicit behavioral mandates such as "preserve capital" or "avoid speculative bets" that are meant to govern every decision throughout deployment.
By Muhammad Usman Safder (Steve), Ayesha Gull (Steve), Rania Elbadry (Steve), Fan Zhang (Steve), Yankai Chen (Steve), Xueqing Peng (Steve), Xue (Steve), Liu, Preslav Nakov, Zhuohan Xie
Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable. We show that failure is predictable early from the agent's internal representations: lightweight per-round probes on hidden activations anticipate eventual episode failure as early as the first interaction round, where scorers reading only the agent's observable behavior are barely better than chance.
arXiv:2606. 29771v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly cast as autonomous portfolio managers, and benchmarks have moved from financial question-answering to sequential trading.
By Bo Qu, Mingguang Chen
arXiv:2608. 06108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries.
By Yuanhong Jiang, Jingjie Zou, Zhenghong Lin, Xusheng Yu, Qiqi Huang, Shuai Jia, Shijie Dai
arXiv:2607. 06503v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable.
By Kai Ruan, Zihe Huang, Ziqi Zhou, Qianshan Wei, Xuan Wang, Hao Sun
arXiv:2609.27051v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language-model agents now run the whole of quantitative factor research: they propose investment factors, backtest them, select the survivors and retir...
By Bo Qu, Mingguang Chen, Licheng Wang
Language-model agents now run the whole of quantitative factor research: they propose investment factors, backtest them, select the survivors and retire them. We ask which of those jobs an agent shoul...
The paper reports a six‑month, population‑scale measurement of autonomous language‑model trading agents operating in two production fleets: DX Terminal Pro, with 3,505 user‑funded vaults trading real ETH in Base memecoin markets, and the DXAP live alpha fleet, with 500–599 user‑created agents trading Hyperliquid perpetuals. Across roughly 7.5 million single‑model invocations and 231,638 multi‑tool turns, the study finds that operating layer design, risk sliders, and leaderboard boundaries drive behavior more than strategy text; agents are volatility‑blind in sizing, capture little upside, and show no directional edge compared to a retail benchmark. The analysis includes regression discontinuity, permutation nulls, and a 17‑rule methodology canon to validate the findings.
By T. J. Barton, Chris Constantakis, Patti Hauseman, Annie Mous, Alaska Hoffman, Brian Bergeron, Hunter Goodreau
arXiv:2601.15322v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Tool-using agents can repeat a final decision while changing their recorded execution. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Ha...
By Raffi Khatchadourian
The paper treats human interventions during LLM agent failures as labels that pinpoint the internal computation that went wrong, rather than merely training data. In a controlled environment, the authors analyze one failure type—over‑asking a clarifying question when the request is already clear—using rule‑based overseer labels validated by blind human judgment. They find that the decision to ask versus act can be causally localized across several models, that over‑asking exhibits distinct mechanistic signatures, and that steering or weight consolidation can mitigate the issue, though outcomes vary by model family.
By Cesare Zavattari, Alessandro Tommasi, Giuseppe Prencipe
arXiv:2607. 02255v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory for a long-horizon LLM agent is a contract about what each future decision is allowed to see.
By Xiangchen Cheng, Yunwei Jiang, Jianwen Sun, Zizhen Li, Chuanhao Li, Xiangcheng Cao, Yihao Liu, Fanrui Zhang, Li Jin, Kaipeng Zhang