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.
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: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.