Are Generative AI Agents Effective Personalized Financial Advisors?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05862v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 01:14:43 GMT
• Title: Are Generative AI Agents Effective Personalized Financial Advisors?
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates the effectiveness of large language model-based agents in the finance domain.<n>It focuses on three challenges: (1) eliciting user preferences when users themselves may be unsure of their needs, (2) providing personalized guidance for diverse investment preferences, and (3) leveraging advisor personality to build relationships and foster trust.
• Score: 12.075577560952498
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language model-based agents are becoming increasingly popular as a low-cost mechanism to provide personalized, conversational advice, and have demonstrated impressive capabilities in relatively simple scenarios, such as movie recommendations. But how do these agents perform in complex high-stakes domains, where domain expertise is essential and mistakes carry substantial risk? This paper investigates the effectiveness of LLM-advisors in the finance domain, focusing on three distinct challenges: (1) eliciting user preferences when users themselves may be unsure of their needs, (2) providing personalized guidance for diverse investment preferences, and (3) leveraging advisor personality to build relationships and foster trust. Via a lab-based user study with 64 participants, we show that LLM-advisors often match human advisor performance when eliciting preferences, although they can struggle to resolve conflicting user needs. When providing personalized advice, the LLM was able to positively influence user behavior, but demonstrated clear failure modes. Our results show that accurate preference elicitation is key, otherwise, the LLM-advisor has little impact, or can even direct the investor toward unsuitable assets. More worryingly, users appear insensitive to the quality of advice being given, or worse these can have an inverse relationship. Indeed, users reported a preference for and increased satisfaction as well as emotional trust with LLMs adopting an extroverted persona, even though those agents provided worse advice.

Related papers

• Fund2Persona: A Framework for Building and Refining Financial Advisor Personas from Fund Disclosure Data [92.72860874355746]
  We propose Fund2Persona, a framework that grounds financial-advisor personas in fund disclosures, holdings transitions, market context, and manager commentary.<n>We evaluate the resulting personas on held-out holdings-transition reconstruction and manager-commentary alignment.<n>These results suggest that fund-data-grounded financial-advisor personas can make manager-specific investment expertise portable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T05:14:43Z)
• When Are LLM Inferences Acceptable? User Reactions and Control Preferences for Inferred Personal Information [44.18115610488797]
  We built a visualization tool that surfaces example unstated inferences from users' own ChatGPT histories.<n>Discomfort arose mainly when inferences felt misrepresentative of the user or misaligned with expected use.<n>These findings suggest that the acceptability of LLM inferences is governed not only by its content, but by context-sensitive norms around how they are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T05:39:48Z)
• Ads in AI Chatbots? An Analysis of How Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts of Interest [41.55197752825393]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained to align with user preferences through methods such as reinforcement learning.<n>Yet models are beginning to be deployed not merely to satisfy users, but also to generate revenue for the companies that created them through advertisements.<n>This creates the potential for LLMs to face conflicts of interest, where the most beneficial response to a user may not be aligned with the company's incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T17:57:50Z)
• Towards Realistic Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions [50.70965714314064]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as personal assistants, where users share complex and diverse preferences over extended interactions.<n>This work proposes RealPref, a benchmark for evaluating realistic preference-following in personalized user-LLM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T15:42:43Z)
• Thinking Makes LLM Agents Introverted: How Mandatory Thinking Can Backfire in User-Engaged Agents [23.785816075149484]
  Eliciting reasoning has emerged as a powerful technique for improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks by inducing thinking.<n>We conduct a comprehensive study on the effect of explicit thinking in user-engaged LLM agents.<n>We find that mandatory thinking often backfires on agents in user-engaged settings, causing anomalous performance degradation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T03:23:22Z)
• Tree of Preferences for Diversified Recommendation [54.183647833064136]
  We study diversified recommendation from a data-bias perspective.<n>Inspired by the outstanding performance of large language models (LLMs) in zero-shot inference leveraging world knowledge, we propose a novel approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T04:13:17Z)
• Personalized Reasoning: Just-In-Time Personalization and Why LLMs Fail At It [81.50711040539566]
  Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges.<n>We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks.<n>Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:55:28Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [55.328782443604986]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts due to discrepancies between pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>This paper offers the first quantitative analysis of confirmation bias in LLM-based investment analysis.<n>We observe a consistent preference for large-cap stocks and contrarian strategies across most models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Cash or Comfort? How LLMs Value Your Inconvenience [2.7499311489580065]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as near-autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents capable of making everyday decisions on behalf of humans.<n>Previous studies have assessed their rationality and moral alignment with human decisions.<n>We quantify the prices assigned by multiple LLMs to a series of user discomforts.<n>We uncover several key concerns that strongly question the prospect of using current LLMs as decision-making assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T14:49:20Z)
• Multi-agents based User Values Mining for Recommendation [52.26100802380767]
  We propose a zero-shot multi-LLM collaborative framework for effective and accurate user value extraction.<n>We apply text summarization techniques to condense item content while preserving essential meaning.<n>To mitigate hallucinations, we introduce two specialized agent roles: evaluators and supervisors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T04:01:31Z)
• Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models [50.16340812031201]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) do not update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework.<n>We teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of an optimal Bayesian model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T20:13:04Z)
• InstructAgent: Building User Controllable Recommender via LLM Agent [33.289547118795674]
  We propose a new user-agent-platform paradigm, where agent serves as the protective shield between user and recommender system. To this end, we first construct four recommendation datasets, denoted as $dataset$, along with user instructions for each record.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T15:58:25Z)
• Reason4Rec: Large Language Models for Recommendation with Deliberative User Preference Alignment [69.11529841118671]
  We propose a new Deliberative Recommendation task, which incorporates explicit reasoning about user preferences as an additional alignment goal. We then introduce the Reasoning-powered Recommender framework for deliberative user preference alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T07:17:54Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [55.51468462722138]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• Fool Me, Fool Me: User Attitudes Toward LLM Falsehoods [13.62116438805314]
  This study examines user preferences regarding falsehood responses from Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Surprisingly, 61% of users prefer unmarked falsehood responses over marked ones.<n>These findings suggest that user preferences, which influence LLM training via feedback mechanisms, may inadvertently encourage the generation of falsehoods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T10:10:27Z)
• On Targeted Manipulation and Deception when Optimizing LLMs for User Feedback [7.525470776920495]
  Training to maximize human feedback creates a perverse incentive structure for the AI.<n>We find that extreme forms of "feedback gaming" such as manipulation and deception are learned reliably.<n>We hope our results can highlight the risks of using gameable feedback sources -- such as user feedback -- as a target for RL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T17:31:02Z)
• Agentic Feedback Loop Modeling Improves Recommendation and User Simulation [55.857164472712455]
  We propose a novel framework that emphasizes the feedback loop process to facilitate the collaboration between the recommendation agent and the user agent.<n>This iterative process enhances the ability of both agents to infer user behaviors, enabling more effective item recommendations and more accurate user simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T00:51:39Z)
• Persuasion Games using Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as formidable instruments capable of comprehending and producing human-like text. This paper explores the potential of LLMs, to shape user perspectives and subsequently influence their decisions on particular tasks. This capability finds applications in diverse domains such as Investment, Credit cards and Insurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T15:50:41Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Large Language Models as Conversational Movie Recommenders: A User Study [3.3636849604467]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer strong recommendation explainability but lack overall personalization, diversity, and user trust. LLMs show a greater ability to recommend lesser-known or niche movies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T20:17:06Z)
• Agent-Pro: Learning to Evolve via Policy-Level Reflection and Optimization [53.510942601223626]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit robust problem-solving capabilities for diverse tasks. These task solvers necessitate manually crafted prompts to inform task rules and regulate behaviors. We propose Agent-Pro: an LLM-based Agent with Policy-level Reflection and Optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T15:09:20Z)
• How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation [46.42384207122049]
  We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T16:51:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.