aiqbench analysis
This research establishes a rigorous framework for autonomous LLM agents in quantitative finance by separating the proposal phase from a frozen statistical referee to prevent overfitting. The study demonstrates that while language models excel at generating diagnostic probes and outperforming traditional scripts, they require an immutable judging mechanism to ensure false-discovery guarantees hold across arbitrary stopping times. Although this governance structure introduces a time penalty that reduces immediate Sharpe ratios, it provides a necessary safety layer for deploying AI agents in high-stakes financial environments.
Propose, Don't Judge: An Anytime-Valid Referee for LLM Agents That Mine Investment Factors
arXiv:2609.27051v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents now run the whole of quantitative factor research: they propose investment factors, backtest them, select the survivors and retire them. We ask which of those jobs an agent should keep. Our answer is governed self-evolution: the agent may propose, and a frozen statistical referee that the agent cannot touch must judge. The referee scores each candidate only on market outcomes revealed after submission, by betting, so its false-discovery guarantee holds at every stopping time for any proposal policy. We cross three proposers (a script, a bandit and a language model) with this referee and with three deliberately leaky ones, in a synthetic world with planted truth, a probe-authoring environment and a ten-year walk-forward on the CSI 500. Who judges sets the number of false admissions: the frozen referee admits 5-11 times fewer sub-threshold factors than the leaky referees under a scripted proposer, and no proposer closes that gap. Who proposes sets the yield: the language model beats the script, matches the bandit, and adds the one capability a bandit lacks, writing its own diagnostic probes. The certificate's price is time: an admitted true factor waits about 500 trading days, and the certified portfolio's Sharpe ratio therefore trails an ungated one. Judging belongs to the procedure; proposing and instrument-making belong to the agent.
Abstract:Language-model agents now run the whole of quantitative factor research: they propose investment factors, backtest them, select the survivors and retire them. We ask which of those jobs an agent should keep. Our answer is governed self-evolution: the agent may propose, and a frozen statistical referee that the agent cannot touch must judge. The referee scores each candidate only on market outcomes revealed after submission, by betting, so its false-discovery guarantee holds at every stopping time for any proposal policy. We cross three proposers (a script, a bandit and a language model) with this referee and with three deliberately leaky ones, in a synthetic world with planted truth, a probe-authoring environment and a ten-year walk-forward on the CSI 500. Who judges sets the number of false admissions: the frozen referee admits 5-11 times fewer sub-threshold factors than the leaky referees under a scripted proposer, and no proposer closes that gap. Who proposes sets the yield: the language model beats the script, matches the bandit, and adds the one capability a bandit lacks, writing its own diagnostic probes. The certificate's price is time: an admitted true factor waits about 500 trading days, and the certified portfolio's Sharpe ratio therefore trails an ungated one. Judging belongs to the procedure; proposing and instrument-making belong to the agent.
37 pages, 7 figures, 26 tables. JEL: G11, G14, C58
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Portfolio Management (q-fin.PM); Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST)
I.2.11; I.2.6; I.2.1; G.3
arXiv:2609.27051 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.27051v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27051 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 · 328 words
Related coverage

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026