CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AIcs.MA2026-07-11

Can Agentic Trading Systems Pay for Their Own Intelligence?

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

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. Existing evaluations typically report performance metrics, but rarely examine agentic viability: whether dynamic LLM-mediated decisions convert their induced costs into measurable incremental profit. To apply this criterion, we introduce TradeLens, a trace-grounded diagnostic toolkit for evaluating agentic trading systems from their trading records, runtime traces, and deployment configurations. It reconstructs trading trajectories, attributes profit and cost to interpretable evidence, and diagnoses whether and why an agent pays for its own intelligence. We conduct extensive analysis across backbone models, capital scales, trading frequencies, and system architectures, together with deployment discussion. Our results show that viability hinges on intelligence-to-profit conversion: models exhibit different failure patterns, such as poor asset selection in DeepSeek-V3.2 and negative timing in GLM-4.7, while capital scale, trading frequency, and architecture matter only by amplifying or degrading decision-attributed timing value. These findings reframe the evaluation of LLM-based trading agents from capability-centric performance ranking to trace-grounded diagnosis of intelligence-to-profit conversion. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TradeLens.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.MAeess.SY2026-07-20

Engineering Trustworthy Agentic AI for Critical Systems

Omar Al-Refai, Ibrahim Shahbaz, Adam Ali Husseinat, Michael Mandulak, Jaewon Kim, Eman Hammad

Agentic artificial intelligence systems, capable of autonomous perception, planning, tool use, and multi-step action, are increasingly proposed for critical engineering domains where decisions carry physical, operational, or economic consequences. This survey addresses a gap in c…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CRcs.AIcs.MA2026-07-16

Bad Memory: Evaluating Prompt Injection Risks from Memory in Agentic Systems

Soham Gadgil, David Alexander, Sai Sunku, Franziska Roesner

A growing class of agentic systems maintain persistent state across sessions through memory files, behavioral preferences, and knowledge bases. While this makes agents more useful and self-improving, it also creates a new attack surface for prompt injections in which malicious in…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.MAcs.SE2026-07-31

Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

Fabio Orazio Mirto, Luca D'Agati, Giuseppe Tricomi, Stefano Silvestri, Francesco Longo, Antonio Puliafito, et al.

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CRcs.AIcs.IRcs.LGcs.MA2026-07-08

Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

Yufei Xia, Anjun Gao, Yueyang Quan, Zhuqing Liu, Minghong Fang

Large language model (LLM) based multi-agent systems enable complex problem solving through coordinated reasoning and action, but their distributed structure also introduces new challenges in diagnosing system-level failures. When an execution fails, identifying which agent is re…

View free PDFSource page