Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used in trading systems, where model reasoning, tool use, and continual decisions incur costs that are expected to produce trading value. Existing evaluations typically report performance metrics, but rarely examine agentic viability: whether dynamic LLM-mediated decisions convert their induced costs into measurable incremental profit. To apply this criterion, we introduce TradeLens, a trace-grounded diagnostic toolkit for evaluating agentic trading systems from their trading records, runtime traces, and deployment configurations. It reconstructs trading trajectories, attributes profit and cost to interpretable evidence, and diagnoses whether and why an agent pays for its own intelligence. We conduct extensive analysis across backbone models, capital scales, trading frequencies, and system architectures, together with deployment discussion. Our results show that viability hinges on intelligence-to-profit conversion: models exhibit different failure patterns, such as poor asset selection in DeepSeek-V3.2 and negative timing in GLM-4.7, while capital scale, trading frequency, and architecture matter primarily in these runs, especially through their effects on decision-attributed timing value. These findings reframe the evaluation of LLM-based trading agents from capability-centric performance ranking to trace-grounded diagnosis of intelligence-to-profit conversion. Our code is available at https://github.com/ParadooxAI/TradeLens.

When multiple normative frameworks yield equally valid answers, which framework should a language model select, and can it answer correctly within it? We formalize this as normative pluralism and study it in Islamic finance with a four-choice taxonomy that decomposes framework selection from within-framework correctness. The decomposition exposes a failure mode invisible to two-choice instruments, the stereotype trap: a model leans toward the culturally appropriate framework but produces factually wrong answers within it. Across twelve models, two languages, and fifty demographic signals, cultural cues redirect framework selection at severe cost: redirection and correctness are inversely coupled (r=−0.89 Arabic, r=−0.81 English). Under the strongest signal, large open-weight models reach 97% Islamic-frame selection, a result two-choice instruments would report as near-perfect alignment, yet 57-66% of those responses misquote the Islamic rule. We argue that cultural default bias is competence-conditioned routing: models default to the framework where they are most accurate, and the cues prescribed as mitigation expose the competence gap they were meant to correct.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to explain numerical time series, but fluent explanations can misstate when a change occurs, overstate a trend, or introduce unsupported patterns. Existing evaluations often score forecasts, answers, or whole explanations, leaving claim-level temporal grounding undermeasured. We introduce TimeClaimBench, a benchmark that parses explanations into atomic temporal claims and verifies them against a deterministic extracted event graph. Across five LLMs on controlled synthetic series, event-grounded prompting raises the strict graph-supported rate by 18.3 points and reduces graph-unsupported claims by 27.9 points under this fixed operational criterion. Calibration analyses show the boundary of that result. The extractor recovers the designed primary event in 394 of 400 series, but this does not estimate the precision of additional extracted events. A blinded two-annotator comparison on one model and 40 series reverses the automatic ordering: holistic ratings favor Direct and chain-of-thought outputs over event-grounded outputs. therefore distinguishes four axes that should not be conflated: designed-event recovery, the unresolved precision of additional events, claim-to-graph consistency, and whole-explanation human judgment. Code: https://github.com/lunaaa95/TimeClaimBench

Financial question answering (QA) over long corporate filings requires evidence to satisfy strict constraints on entities, financial metrics, fiscal periods, and numeric values. However, existing LLM-based rerankers primarily optimize semantic relevance, leading to unstable rankings and opaque decisions on long documents. We propose FINCARDS, a structured reranking framework that reframes financial evidence selection as constraint satisfaction under a finance-aware schema. FINCARDS represents filing chunks and questions using aligned schema fields (entities, metrics, periods, and numeric spans), enabling deterministic field-level matching. Evidence is selected via a multi-stage tournament reranking with stability-aware aggregation, producing auditable decision traces. Across two corporate filing QA benchmarks, FINCARDS substantially improves early-rank retrieval over both lexical and LLM-based reranking baselines, while reducing ranking variance, without requiring model fine-tuning or unpredictable inference budgets. Our code is available at https://github.com/XanderZhou2022/FINCARDS.

In Text-to-SQL tasks, large language models can generate structurally different SQL queries that return correct answers for the same intent. We call this phenomenon execution-correct structural divergence (ECSD). We introduce SQLStructEval, a framework that analyzes this behavior through canonical abstract syntax tree representations. We quantify structural diversity and agreement across generations. Experiments with different LLMs on multiple Text-to-SQL datasets, including Spider, document ECSD across models and datasets. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that generated queries are sensitive to question paraphrases and schema presentation. To address ECSD, we adopt a pipeline that first generates structured intermediate representations and then deterministically compiles them into SQL, improving execution accuracy and structural agreement among correct outputs. Structural analysis thus provides an additional diagnostic perspective that complements execution-based evaluation. Code is available at https://xanderzhou2022.github.io/AACL2026-SQLSTRUCTEVAL/.

Multi-step symbolic reasoning is essential for robust financial analysis; yet, current benchmarks largely overlook this capability. Existing datasets such as FinQA and ConvFinQA emphasize final numerical answers while neglecting the intermediate reasoning steps required for transparency and verification. To address this gap, we introduce FinChain, the first benchmark specifically designed for verifiable Chain-of-Thought evaluation in finance. FinChain spans 58 topics across 12 financial domains, each represented by parameterized symbolic templates with executable Python code that enable fully machine-verifiable reasoning and scalable, contamination-free data generation.To assess reasoning capacity, we propose ChainEval, a dynamic alignment measure that jointly evaluates both the final-answer correctness and the step-level reasoning consistency. Our evaluation of 26 leading LLMs reveals that even frontier LLMs exhibit clear limitations in symbolic financial reasoning, while domain-adapted and math-enhanced fine-tuned models can substantially narrow this gap.Overall, FinChain exposes persistent weaknesses in multi-step financial reasoning and provides a foundation for developing trustworthy, interpretable, and verifiable financial AI. This project is available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/finchain.git.