Parent-order execution is a core problem in algorithmic trading, where the goal is to split a large order into smaller orders while reducing execution costs. Existing approaches either rely on pre-specified market assumptions that may not hold in practice, or require task-specific training that limits adaptability to new settings. To overcome these limitations, we present the first systematic study of large language models (LLMs) for parent-order execution. This extends the use of LLMs in finance from what to trade to how to execute. We propose PACE (Plan-Ahead Controlled Execution), a hierarchical framework that decomposes parent-order execution into long-horizon planning and short-horizon execution, requiring neither explicit market assumptions nor task-specific training. Experiments on Shenzhen Stock Exchange Level-1 data show that PACE outperforms TWAP, Almgren-Chriss, and learning-based baselines, exceeding the strongest baseline by 0.65 bps. Behavioral analysis reveals that LLMs make execution decisions differently from human investors: higher model confidence predicts better performance rather than worse returns, and the model trades earlier rather than procrastinating toward the deadline. These findings suggest that LLMs can complement human traders in execution decisions.
Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems are increasingly proposed for financial trading, yet their reported performance remains difficult to compare because studies vary in data provenance, temporal split discipline, execution timing, turnover treatment, and transaction-cost modeling. This article presents a targeted topical review and reproducibility audit of execution realism in LLM-based trading research. A coded evidence matrix covering 30 trade-relevant primary studies is used to assess point-in-time controls, split transparency, held-out evaluation, cost and turnover treatment, execution semantics, universe definition, and artifact release. Across the audited sample, architecture reporting is generally clearer than the evaluation assumptions needed to judge whether a trading result is economically interpretable or reproducible. A 10-equity worked example is included only as a methodological scaffold to illustrate how explicit friction and timing choices can materially compress active-strategy results. The main conclusion is that the next useful step for LLM trading research is not only better agent design, but also clearer reporting standards for execution realism, reproducibility, and evaluation comparability.
A growing body of work explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be embedded in trading systems as agents that perceive market information, retrieve context, reason about decisions, emit tradable actions, and adapt under market feedback. This paper reframes LLM-based trading agents as expert-system decision pipelines and presents an audit-oriented evidence map of 77 included studies in a protocol-coded snapshot screened through 2026-03-09. A primary empirical subset (n=19) satisfies the minimum boundary of Action Output plus Closed-Loop Evaluation; the remaining 58 included studies are retained as background and design context. The central empirical finding is protocol incomparability: within the primary subset, only 2/19 studies report extractable time-consistent split protocols, 1/19 reports an explicit transaction-cost model, 1/19 documents universe or survivorship handling, 11/19 report execution timing or semantics, 15/19 are coded as R0, and no study reaches R3 reproducibility. We therefore use Architecture-Capability-Adaptation as a working analytical lens rather than a validated taxonomy, and we foreground the evidence ledger, reproducibility audit, and reporting checklist as the main contributions. The resulting survey shows that architectural experimentation is expanding rapidly, while comparable evaluation protocols, execution semantics, and reproducible artifacts remain the field's immediate bottlenecks.
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.