aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that execution assumptions in backtesting—such as fill timing and market impact—can drastically alter the relative ranking of LLM trading agents, particularly during high-volatility periods. The findings underscore that reported performance metrics for AI-driven financial strategies are highly sensitive to these methodological choices rather than reflecting inherent model skill alone. Consequently, researchers must report execution conventions alongside returns to ensure robust benchmarking and fair comparison across different agent architectures.
How Execution Assumptions Change Short-Horizon Sharpe Rankings: Evidence from a Synthetic Trading Benchmark
arXiv:2610.05077v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Backtests of LLM trading agents often assume that every order fills at the closing price. We ask whether this choice changes only reported returns or also the order of the agents. Five prompted LLM signal policies and seven classical baselines trade the same synthetic price paths under six execution settings, from near-ideal fills to latency, spread, participation, and impact stresses. The main experiment contains $2{,}462$ runs with matched decision frequencies and paired market paths. On the compressed two-asset board, agreement between the near-ideal and default-stress rankings falls to Kendall $\tau_b=0.21$ in the high-volatility regime, compared with $0.82$ in the calm regime. The seed-bootstrap intervals, $[0.00,0.52]$ and $[0.48,0.94]$, are wide and overlap. On a fixed 11-policy board, agreement rises from 0.24 with two assets to 0.85 with ten; the two-asset point estimate differs substantially from the wider settings we tested. Rank changes are related to turnover, and comparisons with buy-and-hold also depend on how that anchor is initialized. The experiment does not compare LLM trading skill. It shows that, on a short horizon, an execution convention can become part of the benchmark's headline. Execution assumptions and rank stability should be reported alongside returns.
Abstract:Backtests of LLM trading agents often assume that every order fills at the closing price. We ask whether this choice changes only reported returns or also the order of the agents. Five prompted LLM signal policies and seven classical baselines trade the same synthetic price paths under six execution settings, from near-ideal fills to latency, spread, participation, and impact stresses. The main experiment contains $2{,}462$ runs with matched decision frequencies and paired market paths. On the compressed two-asset board, agreement between the near-ideal and default-stress rankings falls to Kendall $\tau_b=0.21$ in the high-volatility regime, compared with $0.82$ in the calm regime. The seed-bootstrap intervals, $[0.00,0.52]$ and $[0.48,0.94]$, are wide and overlap. On a fixed 11-policy board, agreement rises from 0.24 with two assets to 0.85 with ten; the two-asset point estimate differs substantially from the wider settings we tested. Rank changes are related to turnover, and comparisons with buy-and-hold also depend on how that anchor is initialized. The experiment does not compare LLM trading skill. It shows that, on a short horizon, an execution convention can become part of the benchmark's headline. Execution assumptions and rank stability should be reported alongside returns.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.05077 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.05077v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05077 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 286 words
Related coverage

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · Jul 21, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026