Frozen LLM trading agents consistently mistime entries and exits: in controlled intraday tests they produce systematically negative within-stock timing (roughly −30 to −60 bps per stock-day across configurations), a pattern that largely disappears when saved action sequences are shuffled and becomes stronger when agents condition on self-authored memories.

Main Finding

LLM-based trading agents conditioned only on intraday price histories exhibit a robust, recoverable pattern of adverse within-stock timing: they systematically go long during worse-than-average intervals on the same stock-day. This negative timing is consistent across modalities (text, chart, multimodal), decision horizons, account-state prompts, and model families. Trajectory shuffling largely removes the effect, showing it arises from sequential alignment between actions and subsequent returns. Exposing agents to their own earlier self-authored memories increases action persistence and makes timing even more negative.

Key Points

• Timing metric (Aid): exposure-matched within-stock timing that centers the agent’s positions by the day’s long fraction and sums subsequent interval returns. Negative Aid = systematically wrong-sided timing on a stock’s path.
• Core empirical magnitudes (principal Qwen3.5 results, 10‑minute intervals):
  • Price-text: −45.7 bps per stock-day (n = 13,710)
  • Chart-only: −29.9 bps (n = 14,937)
  • Multimodal (text+chart): −48.9 bps (n = 14,438)
• Trajectory shuffles:
  • Global shuffle (preserve exposure): −3.5 bps
  • Same-day shuffle: −8.7 bps => Breaking sequential alignment substantially attenuates the negative timing.
• Self-conditioning (narrative memory):
  • w = 0 (current memory only): −62.8 bps (1,194 stock-days); switches ≈ 2.5/day
  • w = 1 (one prior memory visible): −74.1 bps (1,054); switches ≈ 1.7/day => Making prior self-authored memories visible increases persistence and worsens within-stock timing.
• Signal-overlap / residual tests:
  • Projecting the complementary schedule onto standard price signals (GRU, GBDT, one-period reversal) leaves large residual timing. Example: GRU projection retains ≈ 43.9 of 46.8 bps, showing the effect is not explained by simple linear price-signal components.
• Cross-model and horizon robustness: negative sign appears across 14 standard configurations (5/10/20 min horizons, multiple state prompts) and in smaller-sample checks with Claude Haiku and Granite models.
• Complementary schedule (1 − p) flips sign deterministically and is used as a sign diagnostic; the intact trajectory carries recoverable directional structure under research-return labels.

Data & Methods

• Data: anonymized intraday price paths from CSI‑500 (mid-cap Chinese index). Each stock-day is a T‑interval grid (principal runs use 23 decisions at 10‑minute intervals; also 5‑ and 20‑minute panels). Absolute price, identity, calendar, news, fundamentals, and cross-sectional ranks are withheld.
• Agent task / protocol:
  • At each interval t the agent observes price history (as numerical text, chart, or both) plus endogenous state; it chooses pidt ∈ {0 (flat), 1 (long)}; then the subsequent interval research-return ridt is revealed.
  • Trajectories record observations, endogenous state, binary actions, any self-authored memory, and realized returns.
• Models & conditioning:
  • Principal model: Qwen3.5-9B (local inference). Additional checks: Claude Haiku 4.5, Granite-4.0-H-Small.
  • Observation modalities: numerical text, chart image, multimodal prompt.
  • Endogenous state variations: position/entry, trade ledger, account summary.
  • Narrative self-conditioning: two-pass protocol where agent writes short memory for future self; memory window w ∈ {0,1,5,12}.
  • Latent conditioning: VICReg-pretrained GRU encoder → rank-64 adapter → 2 soft-token embeddings (continuous steering tokens).
• Controls & diagnostics:
  • Exposure-matched random schedules as behavioral null.
  • Trajectory shuffles (global, same-day) to test sequential alignment.
  • Complementary schedule and linear projections onto GRU / GBDT / reversal signals to test overlap and residual structure.
  • Aggregation: Aid averaged in bps per stock-day; date-cluster bootstrap for CIs; timing reported only on trajectories containing both actions when indicated.
• Implementation notes: prompts and architectures, generation settings and parsers stored; learned encoder and adapter conditions include training and phase-two bias updates for exposure targeting.

Implications for AI Economics

• Predictable behavioral policies are exploitable: LLM agents that condition systematically on observable price patterns create directional structure in their action sequences that other market participants could detect and exploit, potentially reducing these agents’ relative performance.
• Self-conditioning increases persistence and adversarial risk: allowing agents to write and re-use self-memories makes their behavior more persistent, increasing the magnitude of adverse timing and making their actions more predictable and exploitable.
• Offline evaluation can reveal behavioral fragility: controlled, price-only interfaces (like RetailAgent) are a practical auditing tool to find stable behavioral signals (not apparent in aggregate returns) that may impact market interactions once many such agents operate.
• Market microstructure consequences: a population of similarly conditioned LLM agents could amplify predictable order flow, affecting liquidity and short-term price dynamics—raising concerns about feedback loops and inefficiencies in markets where AI agents trade on limited public inputs.
• Design and governance takeaways:
  • Agent developers should test for sequential predictability (timing metrics, shuffles, residual overlap tests) and mitigate via stochasticization, adversarial training, or de-biasing the conditioning information.
  • Exchanges, brokers, and regulators may need monitoring tools to detect concentrated predictable strategies among automated participants.
• Future research directions: extend to interactive market simulations (multi-agent), include news/fundamentals and identity information, study training objectives that explicitly penalize predictable sequential patterns, and quantify how an adversary could monetize the recovered signal in active markets.

Limitations to note: analysis is offline (non-interactive), uses anonymized CSI‑500 intraday data (single market/index), frozen-model inference and specific prompting—results describe predictable structure under these boundaries and motivate further testing in richer, interactive market environments.