arXiv AI By Jillian Ross, Eric So, Zoe De Simone, Charles Pozniak, Andrew W. Lo

Why Better Models Can Create Riskier Systems: Evidence from LLM Agents in Financial Markets

Read the original on arXiv AI →

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high‑stakes real‑world systems such as financial markets. This study demonstrates that enhancing individual LLM capability can actually worsen system‑level outcomes by making models behave more similarly, leading to correlated actions that increase risk. Using an agent‑based simulation of LLM traders, the authors show that while higher capability can reduce market risk when reasoning is accurate, it can amplify risk when agents share misinformation, revealing a capability paradox.

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.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 17

SoK: Trading Agents or Market Crashers? Dissecting Robustness and Security Failures in Academic Financial LLM Trading Schemes

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.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

Poisoning Agentic Alpha: Adversarial Vulnerabilities Across Roles and Architectures in Multi-Agent Trading Systems

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 AI
Jul 14

Can Agentic Trading Systems Pay for Their Own Intelligence?

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
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Contagion on the Trading Floor: How Adversarial Signals Spread in Multi-Agent Trading Systems

The paper introduces the Generic Multi-Agent Trading System (GMATS), a framework for studying how large language model (LLM) based trading stacks react to black-box, input-only attacks that inject plausible social‑media content. It defines contagion metrics—belief‑shift scores at analyst and coordinator layers and attack‑clean deltas on backtest metrics—to trace the spread of adversarial signals. Experiments on a safe offline benchmark show that even simple attackers can significantly degrade risk‑return profiles, while certain multi‑agent topologies and coordinator prompts can mitigate these effects.

By Qi Rong Sua, Junhao Dong, Nguyen Duc Thai, Yuqing Wen, Cheston Tan, Yew-Soon Ong