The paper investigates how adversarial signals can infiltrate large‑language‑model (LLM) based multi‑agent trading systems through the agents’ communication channels. By restricting the attacker to realistic inputs—source data and prompts—it studies role‑specific attacks on four functional roles (Analyst, Researcher, Trader, Risk Manager) and evaluates four communication topologies under data‑ and agent‑level attacks. Experiments across multiple assets, backbones, and target directions show that no architecture is inherently robust, highlighting the need for safer designs in agentic trading systems.
By CheolWon Na, Hao Ni, Lukasz Szpruch, Zhangyang Wang, Dhagash Mehta, Saurabh Nagrecha, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, Chanyeol Choi, Yongjae Lee, Jee-Hyong Lee
arXiv:2608. 14825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier LLM agents increasingly transact on behalf of separate principals, often using natural language rather than structured APIs.
By Zeyuan Li (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Lukas Petersson (Andon Labs), Alessandro Acquisti (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Michiel A. Bakker (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
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
arXiv:2606. 00914v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly act after consuming ranked external information streams such as social feeds, search results, retrieval contexts, and email queues, yet safety evaluations almost always test the model or the user prompt in isolation, never the upstream ranker that decides what the agent reads just before it acts.
By Rana Muhammad Usman
Large language models (LLMs) are being tested as simulators of individual financial decision-making. In a controlled paper‑trading experiment with 120 volunteers, the study evaluated whether an LLM could predict a participant’s next‑day trading action, chosen security, and transaction size using only pre‑cutoff information. Results showed that including market context improved predictions of actions and tickers, but sizing remained challenging, and the models tended to over‑predict hold actions, under‑predict sells, and simplify multi‑security trades.
By Jiajie He, Jiangyuan Hong, Dongling Ni, Wenjin Liu, Xintong Chen
The paper introduces FARSIGHT, a framework for evaluating the robustness and security of financial trading agents powered by large language models. It assesses agents on their resilience to market turbulence, such as flash crashes, and their vulnerability to three types of attacks: on information sources, on the agents themselves, and on agents acting as attackers. Applying FARSIGHT to 15 academic trading schemes reveals that 80% fail at least one robustness test and all exhibit security weaknesses, highlighting the risk of market-wide crashes from both accidental misjudgments and deliberate attacks.
By Mengxiao Wang, Nitesh Saxena
The paper "SoK: Trading Agents or Market Crashers? Dissecting Robustness and Security Failures in Academic Financial LLM Trading Schemes" introduces FARSIGHT, a framework that evaluates financial LLM agents on robustness to market turbulence and security against three attack types. Applying FARSIGHT to 15 academic schemes reveals that 80% fail at least one robustness metric and all exhibit security vulnerabilities, highlighting the risk that a single compromised agent can trigger market-wide crashes.
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:2606. 02528v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models now power robo-advisors and trading agents, yet whether they carry built-in biases toward specific assets is largely untested.
By Wenbin Wu
The study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately simulate individual financial users by conducting a longitudinal paper‑trading experiment with 80 participants. Using a rolling next‑day prediction protocol, the researchers compared LLM predictions to a simple recent‑activity persistence baseline across multiple behavioral fidelity levels, from trade occurrence to asset selection and portfolio outcomes. Results show that no LLM consistently outperforms the baseline, with fidelity decreasing at finer behavioral granularity, and that recent trading history largely drives activity predictions while asset selection depends more on available evidence.
By Jiajie He, Jiangyuan Hong, Xintong Chen, Dongling Ni, Wenjin Liu
arXiv:2608. 11344v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight.
By Henry Han
arXiv:2607. 10286v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used in trading systems, where model reasoning, tool use, and continual decisions incur costs that are expected to produce trading value.
By Qiqi Duan, Changlun Li, Chen Wang, Fan Zhang, Mengxiang Wang, Dayi Miao, Peixian Ma, Jiangpeng Yan, Liyuan Chen, Shuoling Liu, Preslav Nakov, Yuyu Luo, Nan Tang