Saad Naja, Nasser Odtallah, Jake Van-Praag, Sarah May
Trading discipline often fails people. Our study tested whether four AI trading agents followed their strategies and risk rules. Offering traders the evidence and an agent evaluation toolkit to separate luck from following the rules, before giving agents meaningful autonomy or capital. Our study analysed 2,627 closed positions from 12 February to 27 August 2026 across the same asset universe and execution conditions. Most positions were simulated against live prices with a 0.09% round-trip fee; 18% involved real Hyperliquid orders. Each position declared a strategy, stop and target, with a limit of five open positions per agent. The fleet finished net positive after fees. Rule adherence was high across all four agents, including the unprofitable one. Profitability tracked how often agents won relative to their break-even win rates. Institutional-style controls ran by default and contained losses through a 29% market drawdown and recovery, with documented exceptions. The discipline held for all four agents. Agents kept 97.5% of gross loss within declared stops, and typical losses closed at declared levels. Declared risk remained stable after losses and broadly stable across calm and volatile months. Twenty-three of 24 runs respected the position limit; logs identify the exception's size and duration. The same live data produced different results across assigned strategies. The trade-log tests can be rerun from the published trade snapshot; regime tests also require the published Bitcoin prices and regime labels. Section 3.5 specifies the stop-breach tolerance. These trade-level results are not account-level returns or proof of a lasting edge. Our study provides an evaluation toolkit to help traders distinguish rule-following from luck before committing capital. For anyone considering allocating capital to agents to trade, discipline should be the entry test, not the only test.
We study coordinated groups of wallets on a bonding-curve launchpad (pump.fun on Solana), using a complete record of 200\,443 token launches, 15\,854\,121 curve trades and 51\,025\,958 SOL transfers over 88.3 hours. A prospective, multi-channel discovery procedure (co-buying, shared funding, joint signing, transfers, consolidation) yields 23\,710 wallet groups. Without ground-truth labels we validate them by out-of-sample link prediction, independent non-trading links and a comparison with naive co-buy clustering at equal numbers of flagged tokens: raw clustering collapses into one giant component, yet it ranks tokens at least as well as the groups, so the value of the structure is descriptive. Group activity is highly concentrated and splits into serial creators and long-lived rings of early buyers. Known members buy earlier than other buyers of the same token and extract more cash than an activity-matched placebo set, while late buyers' net cash flow is negative; tokens with members show a pump-like price path, but the contrast vanishes when controls are restricted to comparable tokens, so we report it as an association. A follower entering at the earliest group signal loses money out of sample in all 32 configurations and does no better than random entry. A few pools of tens to over a hundred fast wallets are associated with a two- to four-fold higher chance of reaching 20 SOL, also within creators, with a smaller excess at 60 SOL and none for graduation; on a final hold-out the team rules keep a precision of about one half to three quarters, yet many signals arrive when the curve already holds 20 SOL, one team supplies most of them, and they add no information beyond early curve state. We also document evaluation errors that turn the same data into apparent profit.
Giorgos Iacovides, Oliver Hannibal, Wuyang Zhou, Danilo Mandic
Recent advances in Generative AI have substantially improved financial sentiment analysis through post-trained financial large language models (LLMs). However, existing approaches remain confined to predicting the sentiment of each article in isolation and operate as black boxes, which limits contextual understanding and hinders deployment in high-stakes financial decision-making. To this end, we introduce FinLLM-KG, a model-agnostic framework that combines causal LLMs with a financial knowledge graph, in order to inject temporally grounded, company-level knowledge from SEC 10-K filings at inference time, without updating model weights. Within FinLLM-KG, context is supplied either as a natural-language company profile or as a small set of relevance-ranked factual triples. This enables sentiment predictions to account for broader firm-level information rather than the article alone, at almost zero computational cost and for any causal LLM. In addition, attributing each article-level sentiment score to individual sentences and to the retrieved knowledge-graph facts makes the evidence behind the prediction inspectable, thereby enhancing explainability and supporting human-in-the-loop review. Simulations demonstrate that FinLLM-KG consistently improves portfolio performance over the state-of-the-art baseline.
Demand on blockchain-based marketplaces arrives in bursts and at a high rate. On these platforms the data are completely visible, which makes it feasible to compare the bursty demand against the usual load. The congestion manifests as an increased demand for gas, the primary resource a blockchain sells. Existing studies consider how to price the gas. The demand itself, and what it is made of during bursts, has not been measured. We measure it on Robinhood Chain, a layer-2 blockchain that quickly became a venue for trading tokenized equities and memecoins. We collected the data from every block of its first three active months and more than 50 million Uniswap swaps that occurred during bursty periods. We find that a burst trades about as many pools as a quiet period, mostly different ones, and trades them harder, on top of elevated demand that accumulated for hours. With the bursts aligned on their peaks, the median peak is 2.5 times the usual load. Both the rise and the fall of the demand are described by the sum of two exponential functions with different timescales, a slow one of hours and a fast one of minutes. Against a matched quiet period, a burst has 1.05 times the pools, 1.40 times the trades, and 1.21 times the senders. We use two models to explain the arrival of bursts: externally triggered cascades and self-excitation. The former fits the data relatively better. Inside a burst, the entry of each trader into a pool is followed for about 24 seconds by more entries than the existing traders predict. Whether this is because of imitation or because of a shared signal is left open.
George Nigmatulin, Valentin Mohl, Sascha Frey, Kang Li, Aramis Marti-Shahandeh, Mihai Cucuringu, Anisoara Calinescu, Jakob Foerster 等 9 位作者
Realistic market impact is essential for generative limit order book (LOB) models to serve as world models for trading agents. If a simulator misprices this mechanism, agents learn policies that are optimal in the simulator but wrong in the real market. Existing metrics assess generated streams purely through distributional comparison with historical data, leaving counterfactual response to an agent's own orders largely unexplored. Here, we show that market impact emerges naturally in neural LOB generators trained solely for next-token prediction. We inject execution-style metaorders into the generated message flow of five autoregressive models across five NASDAQ stocks and measure the response using estimators from the empirical impact literature, validated on baselines whose physics is known in advance. Our benchmark evaluates any message-level generator in three phases: free generation (reading order-flow persistence against price diffusivity); metaorder injection (yielding the impact law's exponent and amplitude); and a post-execution window (measuring relaxation). In addition, comparing each visible injection to a blind, simulator-only control isolates the model's learned response from standard book mechanics. For every model on every stock, we measure how the impact responds as a function of cumulative metaorder participation. Interestingly, we observe emergent impact in generative models of market data, with exponents in the range of 0.63 to 1.21, slightly above the traditional 0.5 of the square-root law of impact. In the family of models tested, we are so far unable to observe impact decay during relaxation. We tentatively attribute this to the still-short context windows of the models. We release the benchmark as open source to validate future generative models for market data.