arXiv AI 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

Can Agentic Trading Systems Pay for Their Own Intelligence?

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 9

Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems

arXiv:2606. 08285v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems are increasingly proposed for financial trading, yet their reported performance remains difficult to compare because studies vary in data provenance, temporal split discipline, execution timing, turnover treatment, and transaction-cost modeling.

By Junyi Yao, Zihao Zheng
arXiv AI
Jun 24

When AI Meets Finance (StockAgent): Large Language Model-based Stock Trading in Simulated Real-world Environments

arXiv:2407. 18957v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Can AI Agents simulate real-world trading environments to investigate the impact of external factors on stock trading activities (e.

By Chong Zhang, Xinyi Liu, Zhongmou Zhang, Mingyu Jin, Lingyao Li, Zhenting Wang, Wenyue Hua, Dong Shu, Suiyuan Zhu, Xiaobo Jin, Sujian Li, Mengnan Du, Yongfeng Zhang
arXiv AI
Sep 10

What LLM Trading Agents Actually Do in Production: A Six-Month, Population-Scale Record from Two Fleets

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