Representation Signatures and Risk-Feedback Alignment in LLM Trading Agents
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Representation Signatures and Risk-Feedback Alignment in LLM Trading Agents
Abstract:We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments. Using TradeArena, an auditable trading-agent testbed with risk reports, execution simulation, memory, and replayable trajectories, we analyze how rationales, positions, and interventions evolve under market stress. We find measurable pre-failure signatures: planning embeddings drift from normal-state centroids, fused plan-risk representations separate normal from pre-drawdown states, and manifold diagnostics show effective-rank contraction before failures. To address small-sample and embedding-choice concerns, we use 80 rolling failure anchors across eight LLM trajectories and show that contraction persists across hash, LSA, Transformer, and white-box hidden-state probes. Stress tests with CoT-free target weights, lexical controls, OHLCV noise, and false-audit reports indicate that rationale-level contraction can vanish without rationales, while intent-space contraction may remain; lexical diversity does not collapse; and fused signatures remain informative under noise. We also find that structured risk feedback can act as an external alignment signal without fine-tuning, but not as a universal performance enhancer: true audit feedback improves calibration for some models, return and drawdown for others, and reveals cases where hidden or placebo feedback has higher short-horizon return but weaker alignment diagnostics. Finally, a 51-stock intraday experiment reveals a correlation blind spot: LLM rationales often justify concentrated exposure to coupled assets that the risk layer repeatedly clips, with a rolling Markowitz baseline as a covariance reference. These results support a research claim rather than a profitability claim: auditable risk feedback and representation trajectories reveal when LLM financial reasoning is aligning, drifting, or failing.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computational Finance (q-fin.CP) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.28850 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2605.28850v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.28850
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
One Mask to Rule Them All: On Hidden Facts after Editing and How to Find Them
May 29
-
Mechanistic origins of catastrophic forgetting: why RL preserves circuits better than SFT?
May 29
-
Molecular Lead Optimization via Agentic Tool Planning
May 29
-
Self-Play Reinforcement Learning under Imperfect Information in Big 2
May 29
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.