FinCom: A Financial Multi-Agent Demo with Disagree-or-Commit Deliberation

Conventional algorithmic trading systems are grounded in deterministic heuristics or offline-trained statistical models that cannot adapt to the semantic complexity of rapidly shifting market regimes. This paper introduces AGENTICAITA, an agentic AI framework that replaces the traditional signal then execute paradigm with a fully autonomous deliberative loop in which multiple specialized Large Language Model agents reason, negotiate, and act in concert - without any offline training or human intervention. The framework proposes four architectural contributions: (i) an Adaptive Z-Score Trigger Engine that acts as a cognitive resource allocator, gating LLM inference exclusively on statistically anomalous market conditions; (ii) a Sequential Deliberative Pipeline - the core agentic contribution - in which an Analyst agent, a Risk Manager agent, and an Executor agent form a structured reasoning chain governed by typed JSON contracts and a deterministic hard-gate safety layer; (iii) an Inference Gating Protocol, a mutex-based cognitive resource scheduler that serializes concurrent agent activations and ensures fully reproducible audit trails; and (iv) a Correlation-Break Diversification composite score that operationalizes portfolio-level idiosyncratic signal prioritization within individual agent reasoning. Validated over a five-day autonomous dry-run session under live market conditions, the framework demonstrates operational correctness of the deliberative pipeline, achieving 157 zero-intervention invocations across 76 assets with an 11.5% agentic friction rate that confirms non-trivial inter-agent negotiation. This preliminary proof-of-concept establishes the feasibility of training-free, deterministic safety-constrained multi-agent orchestration in financial decision loops, with statistically robust performance evaluation and execution cost modeling deferred to extended live deployment.

Production LLM-based financial sentiment analysis faces a structural cost trap: most queries are trivially classifiable, yet expensive cloud reasoners process them all, and the bill scales linearly with user count. We present TriAgent, a multi-agent committee stratified by contextual granularity -- a word-level lexicon (VADER), a sentence-level domain transformer (FinBERT), and a cross-sentence reasoner (Qwen2.5, 0.5B-14B-4bit, with Mistral-7B and Phi-3.5-mini cross-family checks). A three-way Semantic Divergence Index (SDI) measures pairwise disagreement across granularities and routes each query accordingly. Our central finding is the critic plateau: when the LLM is re-tasked as a critic over the smaller agents' outputs, F1 plateaus at ~0.87 across 1.5B-7B Qwen (bootstrap 95% CIs overlap), while a same-size 3-persona vote drops to F1=0.66, which is driven by granularity-stratified diversity. Three corollaries follow from the same SDI signal: (i) a Shared Consensus Dictionary on multilingual sentence-BERT answers 95% of Chinese queries from an English cache at F1=0.99 -- cross-border canonicalization at zero marginal cost; (ii) SDI doubles as a post-hoc LLM-hallucination detector at AUC=0.90; (iii) the SDI single-stage strategy attains the best risk-adjusted return (Sharpe=3.50) on a 20-ticker back-test, dominating both always-FinBERT (1.36) and always-LLM (0.11). At 10M-user scale, TriAgent saves $9.3M/year vs. a GPT-4o-mini baseline. Code, lexicons, and the SCD are released.

Given the increased use of LLMs in financial systems today, it becomes important to evaluate the safety and robustness of such systems. One failure mode that LLMs frequently display in general domain settings is that of sycophancy. That is, models prioritize agreement with expressed user beliefs over correctness, leading to decreased accuracy and trust. In this work, we focus on evaluating sycophancy that LLMs display in agentic financial tasks. Our findings are three-fold: first, we find the models show only low to modest drops in performance in the face of user rebuttals or contradictions to the reference answer, which distinguishes sycophancy that models display in financial agentic settings from findings in prior work. Second, we introduce a suite of tasks to test for sycophancy by user preference information that contradicts the reference answer and find that most models fail in the presence of such inputs. Lastly, we benchmark different modes of recovery such as input filtering with a pretrained LLM.