Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Distilling Analysis from Generative Models for Investment Decisions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.07225 v1 pith:ALONP53G submitted 2024-10-02 q-fin.ST cs.CLcs.LG

classification q-fin.STcs.CLcs.LG
keywords decisionsprofessionalsanalysisdecision-makingfuturemarketmodelsprocesses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Professionals' decisions are the focus of every field. For example, politicians' decisions will influence the future of the country, and stock analysts' decisions will impact the market. Recognizing the influential role of professionals' perspectives, inclinations, and actions in shaping decision-making processes and future trends across multiple fields, we propose three tasks for modeling these decisions in the financial market. To facilitate this, we introduce a novel dataset, A3, designed to simulate professionals' decision-making processes. While we find current models present challenges in forecasting professionals' behaviors, particularly in making trading decisions, the proposed Chain-of-Decision approach demonstrates promising improvements. It integrates an opinion-generator-in-the-loop to provide subjective analysis based on each news item, further enhancing the proposed tasks' performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    cs.AI 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 201,247-decision benchmark shows LLMs produce plausible investment logic (~4/5) but weak event grounding (0.8-2.8/5), gaps that outcome-only metrics hide.

Pith tools