Learning to Trade Like an Expert: Cognitive Fine-Tuning for Stable Financial Reasoning in Language Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent deployments of large language models (LLMs) as autonomous trading agents raise questions about whether financial decision-making competence generalizes beyond specific market patterns and how it should be trained and evaluated in noisy markets lacking ground truth. We propose a structured framework for training and evaluating such models. Central to our approach is a curated, multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset derived from classic textbooks and historical markets, verified by an AI committee, enriched with structured reasoning traces, and augmented to reduce shortcut learning. To evaluate whether performance on isolated MCQs generalizes to real-world trading, we introduce a two-stage protocol combining test-set evaluation with an MCQ-based chronological trading simulation. Extensive evaluations across market regimes provide statistically robust evidence that open models trained with our framework exhibit competitive, risk-aware behavior over time, outperform open-source baselines, and approach frontier-model performance at smaller scale. We release the dataset and evaluation framework to support further research.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 18 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2026.
Builds on
18 of 50 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2022ConvFinQA: Exploring the Chain of Numerical Reasoning in Conversational Finance Question Answering7 Oct
Other references · 17
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,588
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,796
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
- 2023BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Financecited by 939
- 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
- 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 811
- 2023Textbooks Are All You Needcited by 569
- 2019FinBERT: Financial Sentiment Analysis with Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 385
- 2024Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speakingcited by 301
- 2024TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Frameworkcited by 188
5 more
- 2022MultiHiertt: Numerical Reasoning over Multi Hierarchical Tabular and Textual Datacited by 121
- 2023DISC-FinLLM: A Chinese Financial Large Language Model based on Multiple Experts Fine-tuningcited by 64
- 2024Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Surveycited by 60
- 2025StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets?cited by 44
- 2024When AI Meets Finance (StockAgent): Large Language Model-based Stock Trading in Simulated Real-world Environmentscited by 26
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Marketscited by 7
- 2026Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets19 May 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Agent Trading Arena: A Study on Numerical Understanding in LLM-Based Agents
- 2025Trading-R1: Financial Trading with LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning
- 2026QuantEval: A Benchmark for Financial Quantitative Tasks in Large Language Models
- 2026Multi-Agent Debate for Explainable Trading: Reasoning, Consensus, and Performance in Simulated Markets
- 2025Language Model Guided Reinforcement Learning in Quantitative Trading
- 2024QuantAgent: Seeking Holy Grail in Trading by Self-Improving Large Language Model
- 2026From Knowing to Doing: A Memory-Controlled Benchmark for LLM Trading Agents on Stock Markets
- 2025StockSim: A Dual-Mode Order-Level Simulator for Evaluating Multi-Agent LLMs in Financial Markets