Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

NextFund: A Unified Performance Tracking Platform for Agentic Portfolio Management

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read NextFund makes LLM trading agents fully inspectable under live markets by logging every step from evidence to trade.

desk verdict Solid demo/systems paper that actually ships the missing piece for agentic finance: live multi-market traces plus an arena that lets you drill from P&L to analyst signals. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11141 v1 pith:NKHVULZQ submitted 2026-07-13 cs.AI

Changlun Li , Peixian Ma , Qiqi Duan , Zhenyu Lin , Peineng Wu This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords agenticportfoliomanagementLLMagentslivemarketevaluationdecisiontracingmulti-agenttradingperformancetrackingArenapoint-in-timedata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Current tests of AI portfolio managers usually stop at final returns or static quizzes, so no one can see why an agent bought, held, or sold. NextFund is a live evaluation platform that feeds the same time-aligned prices and news to multi-agent stacks across Hong Kong, U.S., and China A-share equities, then permanently records every analyst signal, portfolio decision, and execution. An interactive Trading Arena lets users rank models on return, risk, and turnover and drill straight from an equity-curve gap down to the day's justifications. The paper shows that similar specialist signals can still produce very different trading behavior, proving that terminal P&L alone hides the real failure modes. The result is a shared substrate for fairer comparison and for turning opaque agent runs into reusable diagnosis material.

What carries the argument

The write-through provenance graph: every trading day is anchored by a portfolio snapshot that joins observations, specialist signals, manager rationales, and executed trades under a shared clock, which the Trading Arena then surfaces for leaderboard and step-wise inspection.

What would settle it

Run the identical live protocol with the same eight backbones but swap in a substantially larger or randomly refreshed universe (or remove the shared specialist layer) and check whether relative rankings and the claimed signal-vs-action divergence still hold; if they collapse or reverse, the attribution to model backbone fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that agentic portfolio management can be made observable and fairly comparable only when live multi-market data access, coordinated multi-agent analysis, and end-to-end decision traces are coupled under one synchronized protocol; once those traces exist, ranking differences become diagnosable rather than black-box P&L scores.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating a fixed multi-agent roster, seven-name long-only universes, and identical cash and position rules as enough to attribute performance gaps mainly to the language-model backbone rather than to the pipeline or the tiny universe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Leaderboards of financial agents can be required to publish the full decision path, not only terminal return and Sharpe.
  • Developers can isolate whether a loss came from bad evidence, bad synthesis, or bad execution instead of guessing.
  • Retained trajectories become training material for prompt revision and supervised agent improvement.
  • Cross-market evaluation under one clock becomes the default fairness check rather than single-venue backtests.
  • Regulators and risk teams gain an audit trail that links every trade to its contemporaneous news and analyst signals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same provenance design could be reused for any multi-step tool-using agent whose final score currently hides intermediate tool failures.
  • If signal agreement stays high while action agreement stays low, the decision-manager prompt or constraint layer may matter more than the choice of specialist model.
  • Public release of only schemas and traces (not raw feeds) suggests a practical template for open evaluation when data licenses block full market dumps.
  • Extending the arena to adversarial or stress-day windows would test whether the observed conservatism-versus-aggression patterns survive regime shifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces NEXTFUND, a live evaluation platform for LLM-based agentic portfolio management. It couples point-in-time multi-market data (U.S., China A-shares, Hong Kong), a shared multi-agent pipeline of specialist analysts plus a constrained decision manager, and write-through provenance that logs observations, signals, rationales, and trades. An interactive Trading Arena supports leaderboard comparison and drill-down from equity curves to per-day justifications. Empirical results cover eight frontier LLM backbones over 2026 Q1–Q2 under fixed seven-name long-only universes, reporting return, Sharpe, volatility, drawdown, and turnover (Tables 2, 6, 7). A case study (Sec. 4.3) shows high analyst-signal agreement (~92.9%) but low action agreement (~36.4%) between two models, illustrating the diagnostic value of full traces over terminal P&L alone.

Significance. If the platform works as described, it supplies a concrete, reusable substrate for fairer live benchmarking of financial agents—addressing incomplete evaluation, opaque failure modes, and lost traces that currently limit the field. Strengths include synchronized multi-market protocols, persistent decision schemas (Appendix A), multi-metric tables across three venues, a quantified head-to-head case study linking signals to actions, and a public demo. These artifacts make the observability claim falsifiable and actionable rather than purely conceptual. The contribution is infrastructural rather than a new trading algorithm; its value lies in enabling diagnosis and iterative improvement under a shared live protocol.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 4.1 and Appendix B.1: the evaluation uses fixed seven-name universes and a single shared multi-agent scaffold for all eight backbones. While this supports controlled comparison, the manuscript does not quantify how much of the observed ranking variance is attributable to the LLM versus the fixed analyst roster, position limits, or universe composition. A minimal sensitivity check (e.g., one alternate universe or ablated analyst set) would strengthen the claim that differences primarily reflect backbone behavior rather than pipeline artifacts.
  2. Section 4.2 / Tables 2, 6, 7: evaluation windows are only two quarters (2026 Q1–Q2). Regime dependence is already visible (rankings flip between quarters and markets), yet the paper draws comparative conclusions from this short live period. Extending the reported window or adding an explicit statement of statistical uncertainty around short-horizon rankings would make the cross-model claims more robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table 1: the “Partial” entries for QuantAgent and AI-Trader would benefit from a one-sentence footnote clarifying what is missing relative to NEXTFUND’s full Trace/Arena columns.
  2. Section 3.1: news compression into a “unified digest” is central to the shared observation set, yet the compression method (model, prompt, or rule-based) is not specified; a brief description or reference would aid reproducibility.
  3. Figure 1 caption and Section 3.3: the dual PostgreSQL/SQLite storage choice is mentioned but not motivated; a short note on why both are used would improve clarity.
  4. Throughout: model names such as “DeepSeek-V4-Flash,” “GPT-5.4-Mini,” and “Kimi-K2.6” appear with future-dated citations (2026); ensure version identifiers and access dates remain consistent with the arXiv version.
  5. Limitations: the paragraph correctly flags fixed universes and incomplete rationales; adding an explicit note that textual justifications may not fully reflect latent model computation would further align with the Ethical Considerations section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: NextFund is an empirical systems demo whose performance metrics are measured outcomes under a fixed protocol, not predictions forced by fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper claims an evaluation platform that couples time-consistent multi-market data, a shared multi-agent pipeline, and end-to-end decision traces so that agent behavior becomes observable and diagnosable. That claim is infrastructural and is supported by system design (Sec. 3), live outcome tables (Tables 2, 6, 7), a case study of signal-vs-action divergence (Sec. 4.3), and the Arena interface (Sec. 5). Cumulative return, Sharpe, volatility, MDD, and turnover are computed from executed trades under a stated long-only protocol; they are not derived from parameters that already encode the claimed rankings. Self-citations (e.g., DeepFund, InvestorBench) appear only in the related-work comparison table and as prior context; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or hidden premise that forces the present results. There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The fixed analyst roster and seven-name universes are scope limits already noted in Limitations, not circular reductions. Score 0 is therefore the correct finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

As a systems paper the central claim rests on engineering design choices and standard market-data assumptions rather than free mathematical parameters or new physical entities. The free parameters are the evaluation protocol knobs; the axioms are ordinary domain premises about point-in-time data and LLM agent roles; the invented entities are the platform components themselves.

free parameters (3)
  • universe_size_and_composition = 7 names per market (listed in Appendix B.1)
    Each market uses a hand-chosen fixed set of seven large-cap tickers; rankings and turnover numbers depend on this selection.
  • initial_cash_endowment = 100000 USD
    Every run starts with the same $100 000 cash; absolute returns and position sizing scale with this choice.
  • evaluation_windows = 2026-01-01–2026-06-30
    Only 2026 Q1 and Q2 are reported; regime dependence is acknowledged but the windows themselves are fixed design choices.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Point-in-time market data (prices + news digests) can be served under a shared clock so that no agent sees future information.
    Stated in Section 3.1 and used throughout the evaluation protocol; standard in live financial backtesting but still an operational premise.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed roster of specialist analysts plus a constrained decision manager is a fair common scaffold for comparing interchangeable LLM backbones.
    Section 3.2 defines the pipeline; the claim that differences are attributable to the backbone rests on this scaffold being neutral.
  • domain assumption Textual rationales and structured signals produced by the agents are sufficiently faithful to support human diagnosis of failure modes.
    Limitations section notes that rationales may be incomplete or loosely aligned with latent computation; the diagnostic value of the Arena depends on this premise.
invented entities (2)
  • NextFund platform (data layer + multi-agent pipeline + provenance store)
    purpose: Unify live multi-market evaluation with end-to-end decision logging.
    The core artifact introduced by the paper; no independent existence outside this work.
  • Trading Arena interactive interface
    purpose: Allow users to move from leaderboard metrics to per-day analyst signals and trade justifications.
    User-facing component that realizes the inspectability claim; demonstrated only via the authors’ demo URL.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NextFund: A Unified Performance Tracking Platform for Agentic Portfolio Management." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKHVULZQ

@misc{pith2026260711141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NextFund: A Unified Performance Tracking Platform for Agentic Portfolio Management},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKHVULZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11141}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) based agents are beginning to participate in portfolio construction and market analysis, where decisions must be justified under evolving information and risk constraints. Current assessment practice, however, remains poorly aligned with this setting: many studies rely on static examinations or report only terminal portfolio returns, while the intermediate evidence, analyst judgments, and execution steps that produced those returns stay largely invisible. We introduce NextFund, an evaluation platform that makes financial-agent behavior observable under live market conditions. The platform couples time-consistent market access, coordinated multi-agent analysis, and persistent logging of the full decision path from observation to trade. Through an interactive Trading Arena, users can compare models across markets, inspect equity curves, and drill from leaderboard outcomes down to individual justifications. We present NextFund on Hong Kong, U.S., and China A-share equities, illustrating how inspectable decision histories enable fairer benchmarking and more actionable diagnosis. Our demo is available at https://paradoox.cn/nextfund/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11141 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the NEXTFUND framework. The system integrates point-in-time data processing, multi-agent decision making, performance evaluation, and traceable inspection. The database module uses PostgreSQL for persistent backend data storage and SQLite for rapid I/O with the frontend. 3.1 Data Layer NEXTFUND begins with a data pipeline that turns heterogeneous market feeds into a shared, time￾consistent observation se… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The interface of NEXTFUND demo. This interface enables users to select different LLM backbones, evaluation periods and markets. Users can also select a specific model to view detailed information and analyze the decision trajectory. volatility, maximum drawdown, and turnover to￾gether with equity curves, allowing users to identify when and how portfolio trajectories diverge under identical evaluation conditions. Bec… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    SQL-R1: Training Natural Language to SQL Reasoning Model By Reinforcement Learning , url =

    Ma, Peixian and Zhuang, Xialie and Xu, Chengjin and Jiang, Xuhui and Chen, Ran and Guo, Jian , booktitle =. SQL-R1: Training Natural Language to SQL Reasoning Model By Reinforcement Learning , url =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  2. [2]

    Time Travel is Cheating: Going Live with DeepFund for Real-Time Fund Investment Benchmarking , url =

    Li, Changlun and Shi, Yao and Wang, Chen and Duan, Qiqi and Ruan, Runke and Huang, Weijie and Long, Haonan and Huang, Lijun and Tang, Nan and Luo, Yuyu , booktitle =. Time Travel is Cheating: Going Live with DeepFund for Real-Time Fund Investment Benchmarking , url =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    Fan, Tianyu and Yang, Yuhao and Jiang, Yangqin and Zhang, Yifei and Chen, Yuxuan and Huang, Chao , year =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2512.10971 , archiveprefix =

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    Xiao, Yijia and Sun, Edward and Luo, Di and Wang, Wei , year =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2412.20138 , archiveprefix =

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    and Xiong, Guojun and others , booktitle =

    Li, Haohang and Cao, Yupeng and Yu, Yangyang and Javaji, Shashidhar Reddy and Deng, Zhiyang and He, Yueru and Jiang, Yuechen and Zhu, Zining and Subbalakshmi, K. and Xiong, Guojun and others , booktitle =. InvestorBench: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.18174 , journal =

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.18174 2024

  6. [6]

    2023 , publisher =

    Yu, Yangyang and Li, Haohang and Chen, Zhi and Jiang, Yuechen and Li, Yang and Suchow, Jordan W and Zhang, Denghui and Khashanah, Khaldoun , journal =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  7. [7]

    2025 , doi =

    Xiong, Fei and Zhang, Xiang and Feng, Aosong and Sun, Siqi and You, Chenyu , journal =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  8. [8]

    2025 , journal =

    YANG, Yuzhe and Zhang, Yifei and Wu, Minghao and Zhang, Kaidi and Zhang, Yunmiao and Yu, Honghai and Hu, Yan and Wang, Benyou , booktitle =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) , doi =

    Luo, Haochen and Li, Yifan and Ko, Ho Tin and Minh, An Binh and Xu, Junjie and Hin, Tang Pok and Wong, Wang Chak and Yuan, Gao and Lai, Zhengzhao and Zhang, Yuan and others , booktitle =. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (...

    2026

  2. [10]

    and Elbadry, R

    Zhang, Fan and Song, M. and Elbadry, R. and Chen, Yankai and Wang, Shaobo and Zhou, Yixi and Zheng, Xu and He, Yueru and Dai, Yuyang and Georgiev, Georgi N. and others , booktitle =. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volum...

    2026

  3. [11]

    Encyclopedia of Finance , pages =

    2024 Investment Company Fact Book , author =. Encyclopedia of Finance , pages =. 2024 , howpublished =. doi:10.1007/0-387-26336-5_1119 , publisher =

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    The Savvy Investor’s Guide to Pooled Investments , volume =

    Exchange-Traded Funds , author =. The Savvy Investor’s Guide to Pooled Investments , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  5. [13]

    Finanzwirtschaft, Banken und Bankmanagement I Finance, Banks and Bank Management , volume =

    Portfolio Selection , author =. Finanzwirtschaft, Banken und Bankmanagement I Finance, Banks and Bank Management , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  6. [14]

    Journal of Financial Economics , volume =

    Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds , author =. Journal of Financial Economics , volume =. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  7. [15]

    The Journal of Finance , volume =

    On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance , author =. The Journal of Finance , volume =. 1997 , doi =

    1997

  8. [16]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , volume =

    Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead , author =. Nature Machine Intelligence , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  9. [17]

    Artificial Intelligence Review , volume =

    A comprehensive review on financial explainable AI , author =. Artificial Intelligence Review , volume =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  10. [19]

    Social Science Research Network , doi =

    FinGPT: Open-Source Financial Large Language Models , author =. Social Science Research Network , doi =. 2023 , eprint =

    2023

  11. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Big Data , year =

    Finmem: A performance-enhanced llm trading agent with layered memory and character design , author =. IEEE Transactions on Big Data , year =

  12. [21]

    and Liu, Rong and Cui, Zhenyu and Zhang, Denghui and others , title =

    Yu, Yangyang and Yao, Zhiyuan and Li, Haohang and Deng, Zhiyang and Cao, Yupeng and Chen, Zhi and Suchow, Jordan W. and Liu, Rong and Cui, Zhenyu and Zhang, Denghui and others , title =. Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =. 2024 , isbn =

    2024

  13. [22]

    arXiv.org , year =

    Deep portfolio theory , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  14. [23]

    2022 , doi =

    Lee, Jinho and Park, Sungwoo and Ahn, Jungyu and Kwak, Jonghun , journal =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  15. [24]

    BloombergGPT:

    Wu, Shijie and Irsoy, Ozan and Lu, Steven and Dabravolski, Vadim and Dredze, Mark and Gehrmann, Sebastian and Kambadur, Prabhanjan and Rosenberg, David and Mann, Gideon , journal =. BloombergGPT:

  16. [25]

    4th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , year =

    A Survey of Large Language Models in Finance (FinLLMs) , author =. 4th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , year =. doi:10.1145/3604237.3626869 , publisher =

    doi

  17. [26]

    Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =

    Xie, Qianqian and Han, Weiguang and Chen, Zhengyu and Xiang, Ruoyu and Zhang, Xiao and He, Yueru and Xiao, Mengxi and Li, Dong and Dai, Yongfu and Feng, Duanyu and others , title =. Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =. 2024 , isbn =

    2024

  18. [27]

    arXiv.org , year =

    MultiFinBen: A Multilingual, Multimodal, and Difficulty-Aware Benchmark for Financial LLM Evaluation , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  19. [28]

    and Xiong, Guojun and others , editor =

    Li, Haohang and Cao, Yupeng and Yu, Yangyang and Javaji, Shashidhar Reddy and Deng, Zhiyang and He, Yueru and Jiang, Yuechen and Zhu, Zining and Subbalakshmi, K. and Xiong, Guojun and others , editor =. arXiv.org , doi =

  20. [29]

    arXiv.org , volume =

    Zhaolu Kang and Junhao Gong and Wenqing Hu and Shuo Yin and Kehan Jiang and Zhicheng Fang and Yingjie He and Chunlei Meng and Rong Fu and Dongyang Chen and others , title =. arXiv.org , volume =. 2026 , url =. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2601.08689 , eprinttype =. 2601.08689 , timestamp =

    2026 doi

  21. [30]

    2021 , isbn =

    Liu, Xiao-Yang and Yang, Hongyang and Gao, Jiechao and Wang, Christina Dan , title =. 2021 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3490354.3494366 , booktitle =

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =

    Liu, Xiao-Yang and Xia, Ziyi and Rui, Jingyang and Gao, Jiechao and Yang, Hongyang and Zhu, Ming and Wang, Christina Dan and Wang, Zhaoran and Guo, Jian , title =. Neural Information Processing Systems , pages =. 2022 , isbn =

    2022

  23. [32]

    arXiv.org , year =

    CN-Buzz2Portfolio: A Chinese-Market Dataset and Benchmark for LLM-Based Macro and Sector Asset Allocation from Daily Trending Financial News , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  24. [33]

    International Conference on Computational Linguistics , year =

    Liu, Shu and Zhao, Shangqing and Jia, Chenghao and Zhuang, Xinlin and Long, Zhaoguang and Zhou, Jie and Zhou, Aimin and Lan, Man and Chong, Yang , editor =. International Conference on Computational Linguistics , year =

  25. [34]

    Financial services review , volume =

    Financial risk tolerance revisited: the development of a risk assessment instrument , author =. Financial services review , volume =. 1999 , publisher =

    1999

  26. [35]

    Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =

    How personality traits shape llm risk-taking behaviour , author =. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =. 2025 , journal =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.04735 , publisher =

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    2009 , publisher =

    Behavioral finance: investors, corporations, and markets , author =. 2009 , publisher =

    2009

  28. [37]

    Financial Analysts Journal , volume =

    Determinants of portfolio performance , author =. Financial Analysts Journal , volume =. 1986 , publisher =

    1986

  29. [38]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

    Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts , author =. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =. 2023 , address =. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 , pages =

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? , author =. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.759 , publisher =

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    arXiv.org , year =

    Etf portfolio construction via neural network trained on financial statement data , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  32. [41]

    International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining , pages =

    Artificial intelligence for ETF market prediction and portfolio optimization , author =. International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining , pages =. 2019 , journal =. doi:10.1145/3341161.3344822 , publisher =

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    arXiv.org , pages =

    Xie, Qianqian and Han, Weiguang and Zhang, Xiao and Lai, Yanzhao and Peng, Min and Lopez-Lira, Alejandro and Huang, Jimin , title =. arXiv.org , pages =. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  34. [43]

    arXiv.org , year =

    Financebench: A new benchmark for financial question answering , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  35. [44]

    Engineering , publisher =

    Advancing financial engineering with foundation models: progress, applications, and challenges , author =. Engineering , publisher =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  36. [45]

    Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering , volume =

    MENTOR: a multi-agent framework for event and narrative trend prediction with optimized reasoning , author =. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering , volume =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  37. [46]

    Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Hu, Tiansheng and Hu, Tongyan and Bai, Liuyang and Zhao, Yilun and Cohan, Arman and Zhao, Chen , editor =. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.512 , publisher =

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13240 , year =

    Incoherent Beliefs & Inconsistent Actions in Large Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13240 , year =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5927082 , publisher =

    doi

  39. [48]

    arXiv.org , year =

    Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  40. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20534 , year =

    Kimi k2: Open agentic intelligence , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20534 , year =

    arXiv

  41. [50]

    2026 , month =

    Kimi K2: A New Era of Reasoning , author =. 2026 , month =

    2026

  42. [51]

    arXiv.org , year =

    Deepseek-v3 technical report , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  43. [52]

    Qwen3.5-Flash: Production-Grade Hosted Model , year =

  44. [53]

    MiniMax M2.7: Early Echoes of Self-Evolution , year =

  45. [54]

    2026 , month =

    MiniMax M3: Frontier Coding, 1M Context, Native Multimodality — All in One Model , author =. 2026 , month =

    2026

  46. [55]

    Gemini 3 Flash Model Card , year =

  47. [56]

    Gemini 3.5 Flash Model Card , year =

  48. [57]

    Grok-4.1 Model Card , year =

  49. [58]

    Introducing GPT-5.4 , year =

  50. [59]

    2026 , howpublished =

    DeepSeek-AI and Xu, Anyi and Lin, Bang and Xue, Bing and Wang, Bing-Li and Xu, Bin and Wu, Bo and Zhang, Bowei and Lin, Chao and Dong, Chengyao and others , title =. 2026 , howpublished =

    2026

  51. [60]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    AI-Trader: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents in Real-Time Financial Markets , author =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  52. [61]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    LiveTradeBench: Seeking Real-World Alpha with Large Language Models , author =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  53. [62]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    StockBench:Can Llm Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets? , author =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  54. [63]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    Time Travel is Cheating: Going Live with DeepFund for Real-Time Fund Investment Benchmarking , author =. arXiv.org , doi =

  55. [64]

    arXiv.org , doi =

    BizFinBench: A Business-Driven Real-World Financial Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs , author =. arXiv.org , doi =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  56. [65]

    Morningstar Fund Research , year =

    Sabban, Adam , title =. Morningstar Fund Research , year =

  57. [66]

    2016 , publisher =

    The ETF handbook: how to value and trade exchange traded funds , author =. 2016 , publisher =

    2016

  58. [67]

    Journal of Asset Management , volume =

    Factor investing and asset allocation strategies: a comparison of factor versus sector optimization , author =. Journal of Asset Management , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  59. [68]

    SSRN Electronic Journal , volume =

    Value and momentum everywhere , author =. SSRN Electronic Journal , volume =. 2013 , publisher =

    2013

  60. [69]

    The review of Financial studies , volume =

    Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? , author =. The review of Financial studies , volume =. 2009 , publisher =

    2009

  61. [70]

    SSRN Electronic Journal , year =

    Why does an equal-weighted portfolio outperform value-and price-weighted portfolios? , author =. SSRN Electronic Journal , year =. doi:10.2139/SSRN.2724535 , publisher =

    doi

  62. [71]

    Financial Analysts Journal , volume =

    Exchange-traded funds, market structure, and the flash crash , author =. Financial Analysts Journal , volume =. 2012 , publisher =

    2012

  63. [72]

    arXiv.org , year =

    A survey of large language models for financial applications: Progress, prospects and challenges , author =. arXiv.org , year =

  64. [73]

    The Journal of Portfolio Management , volume =

    The benchmark index ETF performance problem , author =. The Journal of Portfolio Management , volume =. 2004 , publisher =

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.