algorithmic trading firms

Abstract: Formulaic alpha mining seeks to discover executable expressions that capture predictive market signals in a vast, noisy search space. Recent LLM-based approaches use prompting, iterative search, or seed-factor evolution, leaving direct factor construction through policy learning less explored. To address this, we introduce AlphaRLM, a reinforcement-learning framework that trains LLMs to construct executable symbolic factors from financial literature without input factor expressions. AlphaRLM incorporates Literature-Guided Operator Assembly (LEGO), which conditions factor construction on literature-derived ideas and executable operators, providing semantic priors for exploration. It further aligns the generation policy with market feedback through executable-validity and grouped-return-separation rewards that capture non-monotonic structures across factor quantiles. Extensive experiments on CSI 300, CSI 1000, and S&P 500 show that AlphaRLM outperforms strong factor-mining and LLM-based baselines in annualized excess return. Notably, the 8B model achieves strong cross-market performance, highlighting the promise of literature-conditioned, market-aligned factor generation.

Abstract: Financial LLM agents are often evaluated by comparing their end-to-end returns with those of a baseline and testing the paired difference against zero. This measures whether deploying the agent changes realized performance, but it does not isolate event-selection skill. An agent that frequently changes positions from flat to long can earn a positive paired return from an upward-drifting event pool even when it selects events at random. We propose the Agent Policy-Value Audit, which holds fixed the observed count of each ordered action-change type and randomly reassigns them across eligible events. The average payoff from these reassignments is the composition benchmark; the difference between observed deployment value and this benchmark is selection value. In semi-synthetic benchmarks based on real earnings-event returns, a zero-centered paired test falsely attributes passive exposure to selection skill in $11.6\%$ of no-skill replications, while the transition-matched audit reduces this rate to $5.3\%$. Applied retrospectively to 723 earnings events at 44 U.S. consumer-facing firms, the audit decomposes the agent's gross deployment value of $+15.2$ bps/event into a $+25.8$ composition benchmark and a $-10.6$ selection value. The agent does not detectably outperform matched random assignments. Financial-agent evaluations should report deployment value separately from event-selection value.