Skip to content

FORESIGHT-9: Prospective and Process-Aware Evaluation of Adaptive Trading Agents

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 27 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work introduces FORESIGHT-9, a prospective and process-aware benchmark built from nine auditable counterfactual stress worldlines branching from a common July 2026 information boundary, and evaluates not only portfolio outcomes, but whether adaptive agent state and execution remain coherent across alternative futures.

Abstract

Retrospective backtests provide a limited test of adaptive trading agents: they cannot rule out historical contamination, expose sensitivity to a single realized market path, or reveal internal degeneration during long-horizon adaptation. We introduce FORESIGHT-9, a prospective and process-aware benchmark built from nine auditable counterfactual stress worldlines branching from a common July 2026 information boundary. Each worldline specifies staged macro-financial events and joint multi-asset anchors; a deterministic generator realizes the trajectories, while observations are disclosed according to in-world time. A common contract standardizes observations and execution while preserving each agent's native adaptation loop. We evaluate two adaptive trading-agent frameworks with two foundation-model backbones across 36 long-horizon runs. Agent rankings vary substantially across worldlines and backbones, and a fixed equal-weight policy outperforms 31 of 36 runs. Process telemetry exposes failures that terminal returns conceal: in one high-return run, the live factor library collapsed while executed holdings converged to the equal-weight fallback, even though decision records continued to report an active factor ensemble. FORESIGHT-9 therefore evaluates not only portfolio outcomes, but whether adaptive agent state and execution remain coherent across alternative futures. We release the worldlines, trajectories, audit traces, and regeneration scripts.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

LiveOption: Evaluating LLM Agents in Structured Option Trading with Nonlinear Payoffs

Large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise in financial decision-making, yet existing evaluations focus on equity trading and primarily assess directional prediction, overlooking the structural complexity of derivative markets. Option trading introduces fundamentally different challen...

Hao-Chen Luo, Yi-Fan Li, Binh Minh An et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

EvolveTrade: Experience-Driven Policy Refinement for Self-Evolving LLM Trading Agents

Experiments show that EvolveTrade often improves Sharpe Ratio and Cumulative Return over fixed-policy LLM baselines, achieving the improved SR and CR in most evaluated settings, and suggest that adapting the reusable procedure governing tool use is a key direction for building more robust LLM trading agents.

Sehee Kim, Yumin Choi, Minki Kang et al. · 1 citation
Review Aug 2026

Agentic AI in Finance: Emerging Risks and the Regulatory Gap

This article compares US, Canadian, and EU regulatory approaches and shows how divergence creates compliance, competitive, and cross-border risks, and proposes four controls: autonomy-proportional governance, security by design, agent stress testing, and fiduciary controls.

Vincent Grégoire · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

GroundTrader: Multi-Agent Transition Supervision for LLM-Based Financial Trading

Large language model (LLM)-based financial agents use market information to generate trading actions together with textual reasoning. However, the resulting executable position transition may conflict with its supporting analysis, while the effect of intervening on that transition becomes observable only after the mark...

Xin-Dai Cui, Yu-Tong Liu, Shu-Lei Zhang · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing: Methodological Foundations

This work evaluates SEADS against five re-implemented baselines on two US equity panels using this standard: no single metric ranks the systems consistently, motivating evaluation on multiple axes at once.

Ying-Jian Pan, Xiao-Wei Ding, Kay Giesecke · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.