analiza aiqbench
This research provides a rigorous comparative evaluation of five major LLMs for technical market analysis, revealing that while GPT-4 Turbo currently leads in simulated returns and FinGPT offers competitive domain-specific performance, all models suffer from critical failure modes like numerical hallucinations. The study underscores the necessity of robust backtesting protocols and careful task decomposition before deploying generative AI in live trading environments to mitigate risks associated with context limitations and inconsistent regime handling.
AI Trading: Evaluating Large Language Models for Technical Market Analysis
arXiv:2607.15414v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for processing the heterogeneous information environments of modern financial markets. This paper presents a systematic, comparative evaluation of five prominent LLMs: GPT-4 Turbo, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B, and the domain-specialized FinGPT, with respect to their capacity for technical market analysis. The evaluation spans four structured tasks: candlestick pattern recognition from OHLCV data, directional signal generation (BUY/SELL/HOLD), backtesting of signal quality through a simulated execution pipeline, and financial report comprehension. Our experimental framework employs rigorous quantitative metrics, including Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, Sortino ratio, information coefficient, F1-score, and BLEU score. Findings from simulated backtesting indicate that GPT-4 Turbo achieves the highest annualized return and Sharpe ratio among general-purpose models, while FinGPT demonstrates competitive risk-adjusted performance due to domain-specific fine-tuning. Both models outperform a passive S&P 500 benchmark under the tested conditions. The study identifies persistent failure modes across all evaluated models, including numerical hallucination, context-window limitations, and inconsistent performance in sideways market regimes. We conclude that while LLMs hold genuine promise within AI trading systems, robust deployment requires careful task decomposition, rigorous backtesting protocols, and domain-aware fine-tuning strategies.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for processing the heterogeneous information environments of modern financial markets. This paper presents a systematic, comparative evaluation of five prominent LLMs: GPT-4 Turbo, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B, and the domain-specialized FinGPT, with respect to their capacity for technical market analysis. The evaluation spans four structured tasks: candlestick pattern recognition from OHLCV data, directional signal generation (BUY/SELL/HOLD), backtesting of signal quality through a simulated execution pipeline, and financial report comprehension. Our experimental framework employs rigorous quantitative metrics, including Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, Sortino ratio, information coefficient, F1-score, and BLEU score. Findings from simulated backtesting indicate that GPT-4 Turbo achieves the highest annualized return and Sharpe ratio among general-purpose models, while FinGPT demonstrates competitive risk-adjusted performance due to domain-specific fine-tuning. Both models outperform a passive S&P 500 benchmark under the tested conditions. The study identifies persistent failure modes across all evaluated models, including numerical hallucination, context-window limitations, and inconsistent performance in sideways market regimes. We conclude that while LLMs hold genuine promise within AI trading systems, robust deployment requires careful task decomposition, rigorous backtesting protocols, and domain-aware fine-tuning strategies.
Master's research paper, Georgia Institute of Technology. 31 pages, 4 figures
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Finance (q-fin.CP)
arXiv:2607.15414 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2607.15414v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.15414 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 302 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · 5 aug. 2026

Artmarket.com: H1 2026 Financial Report -- One-of-a - Kind AI Systems Intuitive Artmarket and Blind Spot Will Drive the Next Phase of Growth for
australiannews.net · 29 sept. 2026
Artmarket.com: H1 2026 Financial Report -- One-of-a - Kind AI Systems Intuitive Artmarket® and Blind Spot Will Drive the Next Phase of Growth for AI - First Artprice in 2026 - 2030
thailand-business-news.com · 28 sept. 2026