The Alpha Illusion: Reported Alpha from LLM Trading Agents Should Not Be Treated as Deployment Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16895v1
• Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 09:14:35 GMT
• Title: The Alpha Illusion: Reported Alpha from LLM Trading Agents Should Not Be Treated as Deployment Evidence
• Abstract summary: Report headline Sharpe ratios from end-to-end LLM trading agents should not be treated as deployment evidence.<n>Report robustness is not tradable probability, narrative reasoning is not numerical execution, and model priors may become undisclosed implicit factor exposures.
• Score: 23.772113719172896
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: End-to-end LLM trading agents have moved quickly from research curiosity to a small ecosystem of named systems, including FinCon, FinMem, TradingAgents, FinAgent, QuantAgent, and FLAG-Trader. Several of these report headline Sharpe ratios that would be material if read at face value on a deployment desk, and associated benchmarks such as FinBen report trading-task Sharpe statistics in the same range. The gap between architecture research and deployment claim has been crossed too freely on both sides of the academia--industry divide. We take a position on that gap: reported alpha from end-to-end LLM trading agents should not be treated as deployment evidence. Before such returns can support claims of deployable trading capability, they must survive structural validity tests for temporal integrity, real-world frictions, counterfactual robustness, predictive calibration, numerical execution, and multi-agent disaggregation. Current public evidence cannot yet distinguish robust predictive ability from temporal contamination, unmodeled frictions, short-window Sharpe uncertainty, narrative fitting, and parametric priors. The problem is not only evaluative but structural. Language confidence is not tradable probability, narrative reasoning is not numerical execution, and model priors may become undisclosed implicit factor exposures. We contribute a minimum reporting protocol suite, P1--P6, with tiered applicability by claim strength, and a conservative modular alternative that uses LLMs as auditable information interfaces upstream of independent calibration, risk, and execution modules. Code and reproduction harness: \url{https://github.com/hj1650782738/Trading}.

Related papers

• Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study [5.818268354990671]
  Large language models act as agents that plan, call tools, retrieve evidence, maintain memory, and interact over long horizons.<n>Existing work on quantifying uncertainty for LLMs was built almost entirely for single-turn question answering.<n>This paper argues that errors and uncertainty arise from multi-turn conversations, environments, and tools rather than from a single-turn question answering setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T12:06:49Z)
• LLM-based Agents for Forecasting and Prediction: Methods, Training, Evaluation, and Applications [76.41731220830714]
  Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external tools, and iterative prediction.<n>We examine applications in finance, weather, health, energy, and operations, and we summarize the benchmarks and datasets used for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T10:02:39Z)
• From Sequence to Structure: Relational Uncertainty Propagation for LLM Agents [75.69180947909148]
  We propose a trajectory-level UQ framework for large language model (LLM) agents.<n>RuPA represents an execution history as a directed trajectory graph in which reasoning states, tool interactions, and environment feedback are nodes connected by temporal and semantic dependency edges.<n>We evaluate RUPA on representative agent benchmarks, including $$-2, Terminal-Bench-2, and GAIA, using 6 open-source LLMs spanning multiple model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T01:40:14Z)
• OpenPM: Auditable Point-in-Time Evaluation for LLM Portfolio-Management Agents [39.82139666997448]
  We present OpenPM, an auditable point-in-time evaluation framework for portfolio-management agents.<n>In OpenPM, an agent manages a $1M long-only book over the S&P 500 universe using market data at five-minute intervals.<n>Each run produces audit artifacts, including a contamination certificate, a cost-sensitivity curve, and a constraint-adherence report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T16:04:44Z)
• CLQT: A Closed-Loop, Cost-Aware, Strategy-Consistent Benchmark for Diagnostic Evaluation of LLM Portfolio-Management Agents [0.9924185669370708]
  We introduce CLQT, which reframes closed-loop trading evaluation as diagnosis rather than ranking.<n> CLQT is a fully closed-loop, cost-aware, strategy-consistent, temporally-gated environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T04:26:30Z)
• Representation Signatures and Risk-Feedback Alignment in LLM Trading Agents [0.0635655952373977]
  We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments.<n>We find that planning embeddings drift from normal-state centroids, fused plan-risk representations separate normal from pre-drawdown states, and diagnostics show effective-rank contraction before failures.<n>We also find that structured risk feedback can act as an external alignment signal without fine-tuning, but not as a universal performance enhancer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-16T16:53:34Z)
• When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies [0.30458514384586394]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate continuous numerical features that improve reinforcement learning (RL) trading agents.<n>We build a modular pipeline where a frozen LLM serves as a stateless feature extractor, transforming unstructured daily news and filings into a fixed-dimensional vector consumed by a downstream PPO agent.<n>Our findings highlight a gap between feature-level validity and policy-level robustness that parallels known challenges in transfer learning under distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T04:53:06Z)
• LLM Readiness Harness: Evaluation, Observability, and CI Gates for LLM/RAG Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present a readiness harness for LLM and RAG applications that turns evaluation into a deployment decision workflow.<n>The system combines automated benchmarks, OpenTelemetry observability, and CI quality gates under a minimal API contract.<n>We evaluate the harness on ticket-routing and BEIR tasks with full Azure matrix coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T18:03:32Z)
• Assessing Deanonymization Risks with Stylometry-Assisted LLM Agent [7.598781876494379]
  We introduce an agent designed to evaluate and mitigate deanonymization risks through a structured, interpretable pipeline.<n>Experiments on large-scale news datasets demonstrate that $textitSALA$ achieves high inference accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T15:05:13Z)
• Could Large Language Models work as Post-hoc Explainability Tools in Credit Risk Models? [1.3253687170778101]
  Post-hoc explainability is central to credit risk model governance.<n>This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as post-hoc explainability tools for credit risk predictions through in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T16:35:06Z)
• AlphaForgeBench: Benchmarking End-to-End Trading Strategy Design with Large Language Models [23.493646150407116]
  Current evaluations of real-time trading performance overlook a critical failure mode: severe behavioral instability in sequential decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We propose AlphaForgeBench, a principled framework that reframes Large Language Models (LLMs) as quantitative researchers rather than execution agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T14:29:33Z)
• When Agents Trade: Live Multi-Market Trading Benchmark for LLM Agents [74.55061622246824]
  Agent Market Arena (AMA) is the first lifelong, real-time benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-based trading agents.<n>AMA integrates verified trading data, expert-checked news, and diverse agent architectures within a unified trading framework.<n>It evaluates agents across GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, Claude-3.5-haiku, Claude-sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.0-flash.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T17:54:09Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [71.7892165868749]
  Commercial Large Language Model (LLM) APIs create a fundamental trust problem.<n>Users pay for specific models but have no guarantee that providers deliver them faithfully.<n>We formalize this model substitution problem and evaluate detection methods under realistic adversarial conditions.<n>We propose and evaluate the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as one practical and robust solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models [79.76293901420146]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. Our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T23:41:11Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

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.