# TraderBench: How Robust Are AI Agents in Adversarial Capital Markets?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00285 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00285/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 7 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [Personal LLM Agents: Insights and Survey about the Capability, Efficiency and Security](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05459/) (2024)
- [FinBen: A Holistic Financial Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12659/) (2024)
- [Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00828/) (2025)
- [PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11562/) (2025)
- [LiveTradeBench: Seeking Real-World Alpha with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.03628/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [SoK: Security of Autonomous LLM Agents in Agentic Commerce](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15367/) (2026)
- [Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19337/) (2026)
- [KellyBench: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Sequential Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27865/) (2026)
- [The Alpha Illusion: Reported Alpha from LLM Trading Agents Should Not Be Treated as Deployment Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16895/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating AI agents in finance faces two key challenges: static benchmarks require costly expert annotation yet miss the dynamic decision-making central to real-world trading, while LLM-based judges introduce uncontrolled variance on domain-specific tasks. We introduce TraderBench, a benchmark that addresses both issues. It combines expert-verified static tasks (knowledge retrieval, analytical reasoning) with adversarial trading simulations scored purely on realized performance-Sharpe ratio, returns, and drawdown-eliminating judge variance entirely. The framework features two novel tracks: crypto trading with four progressive market-manipulation transforms, and options derivatives scoring across P&L accuracy, Greeks, and risk management. Trading scenarios can be refreshed with new market data to prevent benchmark contamination. Evaluating 13 models (8B open-source to frontier) on ~50 tasks, we find: (1) 8 of 13 models score ~33 on crypto with <1-point variation across adversarial conditions, exposing fixed non-adaptive strategies; (2) extended thinking helps retrieval (+26 points) but has zero impact on trading (+0.3 crypto, -0.1 options). These findings reveal that current agents lack genuine market adaptation, underscoring the need for performance-grounded evaluation in finance.