Abstract
People increasingly ask large language models what to do with their money, yet seldom describe their finances in full. This paper asks what a model does with the gap. Holding finances fixed and changing only who the investor is said to be, we grade the financial evidence in the prompt from eight facts to none and measure how far the recommended equity allocation moves. Across 96,600 prompts to Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, built from 100 financial profiles, 138 personas and seven disclosure conditions, the average gap between two personas with identical finances rises from 4.78 percentage points at full disclosure to 10.34 points with no financial facts. A two-way cluster bootstrap counting duplicated prompts once places the ratio at 2.16 (95% interval 1.69 to 2.79), and the rise is already 1.69-fold with a single fact left. Identity explains 5% of within-profile variation in advice at full disclosure and 96% with no disclosure. Household size is the only attribute whose influence grows reliably as evidence is withdrawn. Once standard errors are clustered on the persona, the unit to which identity was assigned, most attribute-specific interactions reported in the conference version lose significance, and gender instead appears as a small standing gap that full disclosure does not close. Stating risk appetite alone brings the swing into the range seen with two to seven generic facts. With no facts, the model's one-line rationale cites incomes, debts and savings it was never told, and these invented finances turn adverse more often for larger households. Inside the network, gender is linearly decodable at every layer, and ablating the gender direction at five layers leaves the aggregate identity swing unchanged. Advisory systems built on such models should be audited at the disclosure levels users actually reach, and judged across the whole identity space rather than one attribute at a time.
Explore similar work
Sep 2, 2026cs.CL
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.
Ahmed Asaad, Amr Mohamed, Yang Zhang +1
Durham University Business School · MBZUAI & Ecole Polytechnique · Ecole Polytechnique +1
Jun 1, 2026q-fin.GN
Large language models now power robo-advisors and trading agents, yet whether they carry built-in biases toward specific assets is largely untested. We ask three questions: do LLMs systematically prefer certain financial instruments; can an internal representation with causal leverage over those preferences be identified; and does that representation affect downstream financial decisions? We develop a three-level audit protocol and apply it to Bitcoin. First, a behavioral audit of nine frontier LLMs shows that Bitcoin's ranking among money-like instruments is frame-dependent: models place it around rank 5 of 8 as "reliable money" but near the top under crisis and autonomous-agent frames, and an attribute-swap experiment shows that rankings track functional properties, not names. Second, we open a model's internals: a search across thousands of sparse-autoencoder features in Gemma 3 identifies a dominant Bitcoin-selective feature. Amplifying it shifts the model toward the asset and suppressing it shifts the model away, even when "Bitcoin" never appears in the prompt. Third, we test financial consequences: amplification raises Bitcoin's portfolio share by 5.2 percentage points while suppression lowers it by 4.6 pp, with amplification reallocating within crypto and suppression cutting total crypto exposure. We characterize this as bounded behavioral leverage (leverage meaning causal influence over outputs, not financial leverage): an identifiable internal feature can be perturbed to move financial choices, but only within measurable limits. The framework links internal representations to external recommendations, validated with random controls and mechanism boundaries. As LLMs become autonomous financial agents, this is a first step toward a behavioral layer for emerging know-your-agent (KYA) standards: knowing what an agent prefers, and how far that preference can be moved.
Wenbin Wu
Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, University of Cambridge
Aug 25, 2026cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as AI analysts to process financial disclosures and support AI-assisted investment decisions. Yet such systems are usually evaluated by what they can retrieve, not whether retrieved information affects their judgments. We identify a retrieval-integration gap in long-context financial analysis. Holding focal-firm information fixed and varying only unrelated context from 2,000 to 128,000 tokens, we find that a risk disclosure's influence on investment judgments falls to the experimental noise floor even as direct retrieval remains accurate. The pattern replicates across model families and judgment tasks and in experiments removing real disclosures from actual 10-K filings. More capable models postpone but do not eliminate the gap. Causal memory interventions show that compressed summaries and source-text lookup jointly transmit disclosures into judgments. Workflow architecture determines whether this transmission succeeds: chunk-and-summarize pipelines evict relevant information, whereas a targeted, structured restatement adjacent to the decision restores its influence. AI analyst performance is therefore jointly determined by model capability and workflow architecture. Retrieval-based evaluations can certify systems whose investment judgments ignore information they demonstrably retrieved.
Miao Liu, Zhizhe Liu