REVIEW 2 cited by
Exploring LLM Cryptocurrency Trading Through Fact-Subjectivity Aware Reasoning
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
read the original abstract
While many studies show that more advanced LLMs excel in tasks such as mathematics and coding, we observe that in cryptocurrency trading, stronger LLMs sometimes underperform compared to weaker ones. To investigate this counterintuitive phenomenon, we examine how LLMs reason when making trading decisions. Our findings reveal that (1) stronger LLMs show a preference for factual information over subjectivity; (2) separating the reasoning process into factual and subjective components leads to higher profits. Building on these insights, we propose a multi-agent framework, FS-ReasoningAgent, which enables LLMs to recognize and learn from both factual and subjective reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this fine-grained reasoning approach enhances LLM trading performance in cryptocurrency markets, yielding profit improvements of 7\% in BTC, 2\% in ETH, and 10\% in SOL. Additionally, an ablation study reveals that relying on subjective news generates higher returns in bull markets, while focusing on factual information yields better results in bear markets. Code is available at https://github.com/Persdre/FS-ReasoningAgent.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Domain Specific Benchmarks for Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models
A review paper that organizes domain-specific MLLM benchmarks into an eight-discipline taxonomy, with summary tables and performance highlights.
-
Integrating Large Language Models in Financial Investments and Market Analysis: A Survey
A survey that organizes recent LLM-in-finance research into four framework categories and summarizes the reported methods, datasets, and performance of about 30 systems.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.