arXiv:2607. 20491v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard evaluation benchmarks measure what a tool-using agent decides, not whether it arrives at that decision through the same process each time.
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.
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.
arXiv:2604. 10015v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent studies demonstrate that tool-calling capability enables large language models (LLMs) to interact with external environments for long-horizon financial tasks.
arXiv:2605. 28850v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments.
arXiv:2608. 16055v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing agent benchmarks ask whether the agent finished the task.
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.
arXiv:2608. 16386v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial agents must do more than recall domain knowledge: they must be both reliable, executing precise operations over grounded evidence, and executive, sustaining long-horizon research whose conclusions remain auditable.
arXiv:2607. 03386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems are increasingly used to edit, refine, and repair decision policies, but evaluating these edits is difficult when per-state expert action labels are unavailable.
arXiv:2608. 06144v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most agent benchmarks evaluate tasks independently and cannot measure whether experience from one task helps with later tasks.
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv:2607. 04528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged.
arXiv:2607. 27283v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon benchmarks often show that agents fail more as tasks become longer.