Skip to content

Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing: Methodological Foundations

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 55 references
Computer Science Economics

TL;DR

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.

Abstract

Recent advances in LLM agents enable a new paradigm for asset pricing, which we call Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing (AEAP): systems that autonomously conduct the scientific discovery process itself. We define AEAP and identify its core building blocks. Existing evaluation practices backtest only the outputs (factors or trades), not the autonomous discovery system that produced them. We focus on factor discovery, contributing a reference architecture, a rigorous evaluation standard for discovered factors, and a method for out-of-sample backtesting the discovery system. As a concrete instance of that architecture, we evaluate 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. A separate rolling re-execution then asks the complementary question of whether the discovery process itself, not one static output, is reliable. We also report negative findings and limitations that surface further evaluation pitfalls for future AEAP systems.

View source

Similar papers

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
#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

AQuA: Recursively Self-Improving Quantitative Trading Research Agents

AQuA, which comprises two separate language-model-driven research systems: one for symbolic factor discovery and one for trainable model development, is presented, which comprises two separate language-model-driven research systems that implement recursive self-improvement at the level of the research process.

Jia-Cheng Guo, Suo-Zhi Huang, Yun-Long Gao et al. · 3 citations · ⚡1
#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
Preprint Aug 2026

Mint-Agent: Introducing Finance-Native Agentic Foundation Models

Mint-Agent, a family of finance-native agentic models designed around these two scales of financial intelligence, is presented, establishing a path toward trustworthy financial intelligence in which domain expertise, long-horizon execution, and auditable evidence are jointly engineered as a unified foundation for front...

Mint-Agent Team, Kun Wang, Gavin Zhang et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

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

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 futu...

Xiang-Xin Luo, Cheng-Tian Hong, Hao-Hua Li et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

FaVOR: LLM-Based Agentic Framework for Factor Mining via Empirical Validation

FaVOR (Factor Validation through Observable Reasoning), an agentic framework that restructures factor mining around hypothesis-level evidence rather than return outcomes, shows that hypothesis-grounded factor discovery produces signals that are interpretable by construction, regime-robust, and economically faithful.

Hyeonjin Kim, Minseok Kim, Seunghyeon Jung et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

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