CLQT: A Closed-Loop, Cost-Aware, Strategy-Consistent Benchmark for Diagnostic Evaluation of LLM Portfolio-Management Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM agents are increasingly cast as autonomous portfolio managers, yet the dominant evaluation idiom, a leaderboard of returns over a fixed window, certifies neither the soundness of an agent's process nor the durability of its edge: one period's return is dominated by the market path, and apparent alpha can dissolve once look-ahead bias and trading costs are controlled. We introduce CLQT, a closed-loop benchmark that reframes LLM trading evaluation as diagnosis rather than ranking. CLQT enforces point-in-time data access through a hard TimeGate, models institutional transaction and financing costs, scores strategy consistency across rounds, and seals every gather-analyze-decide-execute-reflect cycle into a recompute-verifiable audit chain; the same model runs as a constrained investment committee or a single autonomous orchestrator, making scaffolding an experimental variable. From the audit trail CLQT computes a five-axis capability scorecard (Coherence, Acuity, Composure, Discipline, Reliability), with coherence scored partly by a held-out LLM judge to curb self-preference bias. We validate CLQT on a contamination-controlled, year-long multi-model backtest campaign with a 13-configuration ablation grid and a four-week live broker paper-trading track on post-cutoff data. The diagnosis-first read shows that the capability leader is not the Sharpe leader; that agents' allocations systematically fail to follow their own stated analysis, a stating-versus-doing gap stable across both tracks (+0.30 backtest, +0.23 live); and that module value registers on the capability and behavioral axes when returns alone cannot separate it. Net of realistic costs, agents clear defensive baselines but do not cleanly beat the index. Credible evaluation of LLM investment agents must therefore diagnose the process rather than rank a period's return, the standard CLQT operationalizes and makes auditable.
Key facts. Cited by 6 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 13 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 20 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Profit Mirage: Revisiting Information Leakage in LLM-based Financial Agents9 Oct
- 2024INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agent24 Dec
Other references · 11
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,389
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2025AI-Trader: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents in Real-Time Financial Marketscited by 25
- 2025LiveTradeBench: Seeking Real-World Alpha with Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2025Will LLMs be Professional at Fund Investment? DeepFund: A Live Arena Perspectivecited by 4
- 2026PortBench: A Correlation-Aware, Full-Pipeline Benchmark for LLM-Driven Portfolio Managementcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026ATLAS: Dual-Horizon Diagnostic Evaluation for Industrial Tool-Use Agentscited by 0
- 2026Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing: Methodological Foundationscited by 0
- 2026Propose, Don't Judge: An Anytime-Valid Referee for LLM Agents That Mine Investment Factorscited by 0
- 2026From Search to Research: Exploring Search Scaling in Autonomous Quantitative Factor Miningcited by 0
- 2026LiveMACE: Process-Aware Evaluation of LLM Agent Capabilities in Evolving Marketscited by 0
- 2026JockeyBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Horse-Racing Decision-Makingcited by 0
- 2026JockeyBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Horse-Racing Decision-Making14 Oct 2026
- 2026LiveMACE: Process-Aware Evaluation of LLM Agent Capabilities in Evolving Markets7 Oct 2026
- 2026From Search to Research: Exploring Search Scaling in Autonomous Quantitative Factor Mining28 Sep 2026
- 2026Propose, Don't Judge: An Anytime-Valid Referee for LLM Agents That Mine Investment Factors22 Sep 2026
- 2026Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing: Methodological Foundations1 Sep 2026
- 2026ATLAS: Dual-Horizon Diagnostic Evaluation for Industrial Tool-Use Agents31 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026OpenPM: Auditable Point-in-Time Evaluation for LLM Portfolio-Management Agents
- 2025Standard Benchmarks Fail -- Auditing LLM Agents in Finance Must Prioritize Risk
- 2026From Knowing to Doing: A Memory-Controlled Benchmark for LLM Trading Agents on Stock Markets
- 2026NextFund: A Unified Performance Tracking Platform for Agentic Portfolio Management
- 2025TradeTrap: Are LLM-based Trading Agents Truly Reliable and Faithful?
- 2026Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems
- 2026Signal or Noise in Multi-Agent LLM-based Stock Recommendations?
- 2026Evaluating Investment Logic in Large Language Models: A Real-World Benchmark Towards Personalzied Financial Agents