Zhuohan Xie

Muhammad Usman Safder, Ayesha Gull, Rania Elbadry et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous financial agents initialized with explicit behavioral mandates such as "preserve capital" or "avoid speculative bets" that are meant to govern every decision throughout deployment. In practice, however, as market context accumulates over long horizons, these mandates gradually lose their behavioral influence, a phenomenon we formalize as Mandate Salience Decay (MSD). To measure MSD objectively, we introduce FinPersona-Bench, a simulation benchmark in which a synthetic market decouples observable price from hidden fundamental value, enabling falsifiable evaluation across three failure modes: trading without signal in calm markets, panic-selling during crashes, and ignoring fundamental value during speculative bubbles. Evaluating 18 leading frontier and open-source LLMs, each assigned one of three behavioral profiles ranging from strict capital preservation to aggressive growth, shows that MSD compounds over time and is model-dependent. In crash scenarios, the behavioral gap between static agents and those receiving periodic mandate re-grounding grows 4.4x from the first to the final quarter of the simulation. The effects of mandate re-grounding are not uniformly positive: it consistently helps conservative agents in low-signal markets but actively worsens behavior for aggressive agents in the same setting. These findings suggest that reliable long-horizon deployment requires selective, mandate-aware re-grounding based on agent profile and market regime.

Ajmal M., Abin Roy, Afthab Salam Kanniyan et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably. A central risk is an evaluation illusion: fluent and well-structured explanations can appear clinically convincing even when the final diagnosis is incorrect. We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking. CLExEval combines 5,600 expert-physician annotations with 200 clinical reasoning traces derived from 40 rare diagnostic cases. Our analysis identifies three recurring failure patterns: (i) verbosity bias, where GPT-4o-mini's diagnostic accuracy drops from 95.0% to 32.5% under information scarcity; (ii) a hidden knowledge paradox, where a specialist model reaches 92.5% maximum diagnostic potential but fails to retrieve that knowledge reliably in verbose contexts; and (iii) a 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch, where correct diagnoses appear in reasoning traces but are not reflected in final answers. We further evaluate the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm on a human-verified failure set (n = 142). GPT-4o-mini approved 47.9% of clinically incorrect outputs, while HuatuoGPT-o1 approved all validly scored failures and showed a positive self-preference bias. These results suggest that standalone automated clinical evaluations can substantially overestimate clinical reliability without expert-grounded validation.