The Axiomatic Trader: Latent Regularity, Information Budgets, and the Canonical Form of a Quantitative Investment System

Jiayu Li

cs.LGAug 24, 2026

The Axiomatic Trader: Latent Regularity, Information Budgets, and the Canonical Form of a Quantitative Investment System

Authors: Jiayu Li

Abstract

Systematic trading rests on one article of faith: that regularities found in the past persist. This paper does three things. First, it states that faith as five axioms, each a commonplace practitioners already accept: (A1) a decision may use only what was known when it was made; (A2) what looks like the market changing its rules is the market changing its unobserved state, the machinery being the same in every era; (A3) the future may replay stretches of the past, though not in history's proportions; (A4) states persist for a while; (A5) whatever predictability exists is slight, even for a rule that knows the state. What turns these into axioms is quantification, and the quantities are declared rather than estimated: an invariance defect $\varepsilon_0$ , a recurrence bound $Λ$ at a block scale $b$ (one declaration in two parts), coherence times $\ell_i$ , a signal ceiling $ρ$ and an invariance ratio $κ$ . These five declarations are the whole of the premises' empirical content. Second, it proves that the axioms force a five-stage canonical form for a quantitative investment system -- a declared representation, a predictor within a capacity ceiling, contiguous purged block evaluation aggregated by $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1/Λ}$ , a budgeted and deflated search, robust sizing at a fraction of the estimate that the budget bounds -- each stage necessary: a procedure omitting it does strictly worse under a law the axioms admit. Third, it tests the axioms where they are falsifiable, each only at its declared constants, on real market series: no axiom is so far overturned.

Explore similar work

Aug 13, 2026cs.CL

AQuA: Recursively Self-Improving Quantitative Trading Research Agents

We study recursive self-improvement at the level of quantitative-investment research: whether an autonomous system can use evidence from earlier experiments to improve the hypotheses and candidates proposed in later iterations. We present AQuA, which comprises two separate language-model-driven research systems: one for symbolic factor discovery and one for trainable model development. The two systems do not share agents, memories, candidate spaces, or research state. Instead, each independently closes its own research loop by retaining validated evidence and using it to guide subsequent proposals. In this bounded sense, both systems implement recursive self-improvement at the level of the research process. Each system also uses its own sealed sandbox, which fixes the data splits, feature and label definitions, and evaluator while allowing the model to act only through constrained factor expressions or configuration diffs. The factor system, a manager-mediated multi-agent pipeline, discovers and combines factors into a signal that reaches a combined information coefficient of about

0.190

on a crypto universe. The model system, a config-driven loop over a hybrid time-series architecture, reaches a per-stock information coefficient of

+0.0843

on US equities and converts it into a threshold long/short strategy with a held-out Sharpe of up to

+2.50

at a two-leg cost. The strategy is positive in every year from 2021 to 2025.

Jiacheng Guo, Suozhi Huang, Yunlong Gao +4

Autoresearch Recursive Self-Improvement Factor

Ask PDF

May 19, 2026cs.AI

Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets

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.

Yihan Xia, Panpan You, Taotao Wang +4

Large Language Model Agents Evaluation Protocols

Ask PDF

Aug 5, 2026econ.TH

Revealed Rationality: Label-Free Evaluation and Regularization from Representation Theorems

Representation theorems in decision theory establish that behavior satisfies certain axioms if and only if it can be rationalized by a well-defined objective. I argue that this ``if and only if'' structure provides a potentially useful foundation for label-free evaluation and regularization of LLMs and other AI systems. Axiom compliance can be checked from the model's own responses to synthetic choice problems, with no external labels or human feedback, and the penalties are readily computable. Because the axioms are necessary and sufficient, the resulting checks exhaust the implications of the relevant rationality standard for the elicited data: a model that passes cannot be rejected on rationality grounds by any further test of the same data. I discuss three instantiations: probabilistic coherence via a theorem of de Finetti, preference rationality via Afriat's theorem, and subjective expected utility via a theorem of Echenique and Saito (2015), each yielding a continuous penalty that is zero whenever behavior can be rationalized. Since coherence does not restrict which objective rationalizes behavior, these penalties complement rather than replace other evaluation and training signals.

Isaiah Andrews

Rationality Large Language Model Decision-Making Axiom Label-Free Coherence Regularization Techniques+1

Ask PDF