跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2606.03918 · v3

Hedge-Bench: Can Agents Reason Their Way to Better Predictions?

首次提交 2026-06-03 01:11
版本更新 2026-10-28 12:15
雷达观测 2026-10-30 09:53
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP_pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

作者备注:Dataset and evaluation harness available at https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

仅对比实际观测的元数据,不代表 PDF 正文或实验变化。版本可能不连续;带删除线为移除,下划线为新增。

标题变化

Hedge-Bench: BenchmarkingCan Agents on Hard, RealisticReason TasksTheir PertainingWay to FinancialBetter ReasoningPredictions?

摘要变化

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP.pdfGDP_pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v3 · 2026-10-28 12:15 · 最新观测版本

Hedge-Bench: Can Agents Reason Their Way to Better Predictions?

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP_pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗
v2 · 2026-10-27 11:27

Hedge-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks Pertaining to Financial Reasoning

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP.pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗