The Analyst in the Prompt: Role, Retrieval, and Memory Biases in LLM Financial Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.

DSA: Evidence-Aware LLM-Agent Orchestration for Multi-Market Stock Research

Large language models can summarize financial information, but an operational stock-research system must first assemble heterogeneous evidence, expose unavailable data and model capabilities, and control how generated opinions affect a final report. We present DSA, an evidence-aware orchestration framework for multi-market stock research with large language model (LLM) agents. DSA organizes the workflow into evidence acquisition, structured context construction, model-routed analysis, optional role and Strategy Skill reasoning, and report generation with selected context and diagnostics. A default report profile and an optional agentic profile share evidence and model-routing services but use profile-specific output validation and risk safeguards. In the agentic profile, core role outputs are processed by role-specific parsers, whereas Strategy Skill opinions undergo an additional signal-eligibility partition before synthesis; disagreement is supplied explicitly to the decision agent, followed by a conservative risk override. The reference implementation includes six regional market paths, fifteen bundled Strategy Skills, hosted and local model routes, and multiple execution and delivery surfaces. At a frozen software snapshot, a selected manifest of 1,457 portable offline backend contract tests passed; 596 cases were retrospectively mapped to six contract families central to the reported LLM-agent architecture. This evidence establishes implementation conformance for the tested software contracts, not superior report quality, forecasting accuracy, or investment returns.

Reading Is Not Using: Retrieval, Judgment, and the Design of AI Financial Research Workflows

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as AI analysts to process financial disclosures and support AI-assisted investment decisions. Yet such systems are usually evaluated by what they can retrieve, not whether retrieved information affects their judgments. We identify a retrieval-integration gap in long-context financial analysis. Holding focal-firm information fixed and varying only unrelated context from 2,000 to 128,000 tokens, we find that a risk disclosure's influence on investment judgments falls to the experimental noise floor even as direct retrieval remains accurate. The pattern replicates across model families and judgment tasks and in experiments removing real disclosures from actual 10-K filings. More capable models postpone but do not eliminate the gap. Causal memory interventions show that compressed summaries and source-text lookup jointly transmit disclosures into judgments. Workflow architecture determines whether this transmission succeeds: chunk-and-summarize pipelines evict relevant information, whereas a targeted, structured restatement adjacent to the decision restores its influence. AI analyst performance is therefore jointly determined by model capability and workflow architecture. Retrieval-based evaluations can certify systems whose investment judgments ignore information they demonstrably retrieved.

From Numbers to Judgment: Specialist LLM Agents and Reinforcement Learning for European Listed Real Estate

We study whether the localized numerical operations and integrative judgments of financial analysis benefit from the same form of LLM specialization. Larix maps a 16-lens European listed-real-estate analysis framework to eight lens-aligned specialists; we compare a frontier LLM under monolithic versus specialist-decomposed prompting while holding the model, source evidence, task instructions, output schema, and scoring fixed. Across 19 firms spanning seven regulatory wrappers, decomposition improves the numerical-task aggregate by 15.8 percentage points but does not reliably improve, and can reduce, performance on judgment tasks, a pattern stable across four frozen-template dispatches; a single-agent control given the complete framework does not reproduce the numerical gain. Post-training Qwen3.5-9B with GRPO using task-aligned structured rewards then raises the development-split score by 12.0 points and the judgment aggregate by 14.2 points, with gains on all four sub-ceiling tasks; the gains transfer to unseen firms (+15.2 points overall; +40.4 on covenant stress) and to unseen regulatory wrappers (+4.3), with positive transfer on all three anti-memorization splits. Prompt-level decomposition thus improves modular numerical execution, whereas targeted parameter adaptation improves integrative financial judgment.

AI Trading: Evaluating Large Language Models for Technical Market Analysis

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.

When Summaries Distort Decisions: Information Fidelity in LLM-Compressed Financial Analysis

Financial decision-makers face more information than they can directly inspect, making context compression necessary. Yet when large language models (LLMs) compress financial source material, they can alter the investment judgment supported by the original source. We frame this problem as information fidelity: compression loses fidelity when it changes the decision induced by the source. In agentic systems, such losses may recur across intermediate steps and amplify throughout the decision process. Across financial filings and earnings-call transcripts, we find that LLM-based compression can produce fluent and factually plausible compressed contexts that nevertheless alter downstream decisions. We analyze two diagnostic patterns associated with fidelity loss: decontextualization, where salient evidence is retained but separated from the caveats and contextual qualifiers needed for correct interpretation, and model dependency, where different compressors expose different views of the same source. We then propose Agentic Context Compression, which generates multiple candidate compressions and audits their disagreements against the original source. Our results suggest that financial compression should be evaluated not only by efficiency or factuality, but also by its ability to preserve decision-relevant context.

Multi-Agent Framework for Audit Risk Assessment with Explicit Uncertainty and Evidence Conflict Modeling

Audit risk assessment increasingly benefits from combining heterogeneous evidence sources, yet existing approaches typically produce point predictions without quantifying how well different evidence streams agree. We propose UMAR (Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Agent Risk Assessment), a framework that employs three specialized agents: an MD&A Text Agent, a Financial Ratio Agent, and a CAM Agent, each producing independent risk scores with calibrated uncertainty estimates. An Uncertainty Aggregator based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory fuses these scores while explicitly measuring inter-agent conflict. We evaluate UMAR on a U.S. dataset of 3,200 firm-year observations from SEC 10-K filings (2019-2023), with financial restatement as the target label. Experimental results show that UMAR achieves an AUROC of 0.782 and a PR-AUC of 0.341, outperforming logistic regression, XGBoost, FinBERT, and single-agent and dual-agent LLM baselines. UMAR attains the lowest expected calibration error (ECE = 0.052) among all methods and identifies evidence-conflict patterns that correlate with actual restatement risk, offering auditors potentially actionable and interpretable risk signals.