CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 20, 2026

Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets

arXiv AI Archived May 20, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.19337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A growing body of work explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be embedded in trading systems as agents that perceive market information, retrieve context, reason about decisions, emit tradable actions, and adapt under market feedback. This paper reframes LLM-based trading agents as expert-system decision pipelines and presents an audit-oriented evidence map of 77 included studies in a protocol-coded snapshot screened through 2026-03-09. A pr

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 19 May 2026] Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets Yihan Xia, Panpan You, Taotao Wang, Fang Liu, Han Qi, Xiaoxiao Wu, Shengli Zhang A growing body of work explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be embedded in trading systems as agents that perceive market information, retrieve context, reason about decisions, emit tradable actions, and adapt under market feedback. This paper reframes LLM-based trading agents as expert-system decision pipelines and presents an audit-oriented evidence map of 77 included studies in a protocol-coded snapshot screened through 2026-03-09. A primary empirical subset (n=19) satisfies the minimum boundary of Action Output plus Closed-Loop Evaluation; the remaining 58 included studies are retained as background and design context. The central empirical finding is protocol incomparability: within the primary subset, only 2/19 studies report extractable time-consistent split protocols, 1/19 reports an explicit transaction-cost model, 1/19 documents universe or survivorship handling, 11/19 report execution timing or semantics, 15/19 are coded as R0, and no study reaches R3 reproducibility. We therefore use Architecture-Capability-Adaptation as a working analytical lens rather than a validated taxonomy, and we foreground the evidence ledger, reproducibility audit, and reporting checklist as the main contributions. The resulting survey shows that architectural experimentation is expanding rapidly, while comparable evaluation protocols, execution semantics, and reproducible artifacts remain the field's immediate bottlenecks. Comments: 59 pages, 15 figures, 27 tables Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.19337 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.19337v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.19337 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Wang Taotao [view email] [v1] Tue, 19 May 2026 04:20:07 UTC (12,456 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 20, 2026
    Archived
    May 20, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗