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: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...
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:2608.29372v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrospective backtests provide a limited test of adaptive trading agents: they cannot rule out historical contamination, expose sensitivity to a singl...
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.
FinalityBench is an executable benchmark that tests how agents decide on shipping, re‑capturing, refunding, or waiting when a merchant’s payment processor, ledger, ERP, and bank feed receive delayed, duplicated, dropped, or reordered messages, causing contradictory beliefs about an order. The benchmark uses a hidden canonical event log and faulted delivery streams to generate system views, scoring each episode by the merchant’s terminal economic position relative to a privileged reference. It contains 321 tasks, including 45 twin pairs where all four views are identical yet the correct disposition differs, and evaluates nine programmatic policies, revealing that a ship‑on‑first‑sign policy performs best by accuracy but worst by paired loss, while a runtime‑gated irreversible‑action policy achieves 85.4% accuracy without losing money.
arXiv:2605. 28850v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments.
FinRiskAtlas is a Chinese-language benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) for financial risk review by focusing on decision‑aligned tasks rather than generic financial knowledge. It contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 domain‑knowledge families and 11 downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. The extended FinRisk‑Ask framework replays 680 pre‑action states from 104 professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference to assess evidence‑state control and request targeting. Results across 33 model configurations show that operation‑level evaluation yields distinct rankings and that knowledge‑based shortlisting can incur significant regret, while frequent use of the Ask branch does not necessarily improve evidence acquisition, highlighting gaps in broad financial capability scores.
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.