mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

FIDES: A Concordance Protocol for LLM-Generated Trading Strategies

arXiv 2608.23308 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

An LLM asked for a trading strategy returns three artifacts at once: a natural-language rationale, an executable implementation, and once run, a track record. Whether these are the same object is rarely checked. We present FIDES, a measurement protocol that treats them as three views to be reconciled rather than one deliverable to be graded. Through dual delivery, a single model call returns both a natural-language strategy with an explicit claimed edge and a self-contained strategy(df) function. FIDES executes the code in a sandbox against a lag-one out-of-sample backtest and scores three concordance gaps: say to do, do to real, and say to result. On 8 liquid US ETFs across four models plus a two-stage elicitation arm, 40 strategies, 2023 to 2024 out-of-sample, three findings stand out. First, concordance does not predict profit: only 2 of 40 strategies beat buy-and-hold, and a plain sma(50,200) rule outperforms every model's mean Sharpe. Second, self-assessment is badly calibrated: 32 of 40 strategies claim to beat buy-and-hold and exactly one does. Third, swapping the language-code judge for a second model flips say to do on more than half of items. Injecting Close.shift(-1) drops do to real by 0.33 on average, while our runtime future-information probe fired on neither clean nor injected code. We frame FIDES as a protocol for measurement fidelity, not a claim about market performance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.

Builds on

21 of 29 references.

References · 21

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  4. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  6. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  7. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  8. 2023BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Financecited by 939
  9. 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
  10. 2023FinGPT: Open-Source Financial Large Language Modelscited by 253
  11. 2023PIXIU: A Large Language Model, Instruction Data and Evaluation Benchmark for Financecited by 222
  12. 2024TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Frameworkcited by 188
9 more
  1. 2023FinMem: A Performance-Enhanced LLM Trading Agent with Layered Memory and Character Designcited by 164
  2. 2024FinBen: A Holistic Financial Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 141
  3. 2023Can ChatGPT Forecast Stock Price Movements? Return Predictability and Large Language Modelscited by 129
  4. 2026Look-Ahead-Bench: a Standardized Benchmark of Look-ahead Bias in Point-in-Time LLMs for Financecited by 13
  5. 2025Design and Evaluation of Cost-Aware PoQ for Decentralized LLM Inferencecited by 3
  6. 2026Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networkscited by 3
  7. 2026A Multi-Dimensional Quality Scoring Framework for Decentralized LLM Inference with Proof of Qualitycited by 2
  8. 2026PoQ-Judge: A Multi-Architecture Evaluation Framework for Cost-Aware Proof-of-Quality in Decentralized LLM Inferencecited by 1
  9. 2026SFGA: A Statistics-First Gating Architecture with Adjudicative Escalation for Trustworthy SFT Data Procurementcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.