Evidence record 17351 · automatically gathered

Evaluating Investment Logic in Large Language Models: A Real-World Benchmark Towards Personalzied Financial Agents

Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries. Yet financial LLMs are evaluated either by static question answering or by terminal profit and loss. The former omits agency; the latter cannot reveal whether a profitable action was grounded, profile-consistent, or merely lucky. We ask whether the community is using the wrong ruler for consequential agents. We int

Record details

Published: 6 August 2026
Source: arXiv cs.AI
Category: Research
Topics: Agents & autonomy · Finance, VC & PE
Retrieved: 7 August 2026

source-onlyevidence status

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (6 August 2026), “Evaluating Investment Logic in Large Language Models: A Real-World Benchmark Towards Personalzied Financial Agents,” evidence record 17351, https://ethics.ai/record/17351 (originally published by arXiv cs.AI).

JSON

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.