StakeBench: Evaluating Language Understanding Grounded in Market Commitment

Financial language models can transform unstructured firm-specific news into structured decision signals, but financial AI research lacks an integrated deployment framework for evaluating whether those signals remain useful in financial decision systems. Computer science research has developed strong methods for time-series forecasting, text classification, multimodal stock prediction, graph-based market modeling, and machine-learning operations, yet these streams do not provide a domain-specific protocol that jointly tests financial language-model outputs under event-time observability, probability calibration, execution timing, transaction costs, liquidity constraints, capacity limits, operational diagnostics, and statistical inference. We introduce MFAST, a Market-Friction-Aware Sentiment-to-Trading framework that converts timestamped financial text into auditable, reproducible, and market-feasible trading decisions. The application is news-based trading, where firm-specific text must be linked to securities before portfolio decisions can be evaluated. The framework links Refinitiv News Analytics to Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) equity data, restricts the primary out-of-sample evaluation to post-release news outside disclosed foundation-model data-freshness periods, and adds a public replication arm using open financial text and public price data. Results show that decoder-only language models outperform encoder baselines and dictionary sentiment in classification, calibration, return prediction, and net portfolio performance, while operational diagnostics reveal trade-offs among accuracy, latency, memory, throughput, and inference cost. The paper shows that credible evaluation of financial language models requires an end-to-end engineering approach combining language understanding, temporal discipline, market-friction-aware deployment, and reproducible validation.

Recent deployments of large language models (LLMs) as autonomous trading agents raise questions about whether financial decision-making competence generalizes beyond specific market patterns and how it should be trained and evaluated in noisy markets lacking ground truth. We propose a structured framework for training and evaluating such models. Central to our approach is a curated, multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset derived from classic textbooks and historical markets, verified by an AI committee, enriched with structured reasoning traces, and augmented to reduce shortcut learning. To evaluate whether performance on isolated MCQs generalizes to real-world trading, we introduce a two-stage protocol combining test-set evaluation with an MCQ-based chronological trading simulation. Extensive evaluations across market regimes provide statistically robust evidence that open models trained with our framework exhibit competitive, risk-aware behavior over time, outperform open-source baselines, and approach frontier-model performance at smaller scale. We release the dataset and evaluation framework to support further research.

Prediction markets such as Polymarket aggregate crowd beliefs into real-time probability estimates, and the comments traders post beneath each market contain rich directional stance signals that prices alone cannot capture. This work introduces the first stance detection study applied to prediction market commentary, a domain characterized by extreme brevity, trader- specific vernacular, and severe class imbalance (only 8.7% of comments oppose the market outcome). RoBERTa-base is fine-tuned across a 4 x 3 ablation: four input configurations ({2- class, 3-class} x {with/without market context}) and three augmentation conditions (baseline, 50% synthetic, 100% synthetic). Synthetic minority-class samples are generated via LLM-driven Pro -> Anti counterfactual flips using the Anthropic API. Results show that (1) market context is the single most impactful factor, raising 3-class Anti recall from 0.10 to 0.45; (2) counterfactual augmentation is conditionally effective, improving Anti F1 in weak configurations (0.10 -> 0.24) while degrading strong ones (2-class-ctx macro F1: 0.68 -> 0.50 at full dose); and (3) 50% augmentation is the optimal dose, with 100% consistently hurting performance. Attention-based interpretability analysis provides mechanistic support for all three findings.