Skip to content
AI Atlas

Are LLMs Good Financial User Simulators? A Preliminary Study

Published 16 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.15727

data quality89

Updated 12 h ago · first seen 15 Sept 2026

paper_01M2JK1966Y1YM1SP0H32PGGE6

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as user simulators, but their ability to reproduce evolving individual financial decisions remains unclear. We present a preliminary study in a controlled paper-trading environment with 120 volunteers. Participants used non-redeemable virtual funds under real-time market conditions; no real brokerage accounts, real-money positions, or real transaction records were accessed. Given only information available before a prediction cutoff, a simulator predicts the participant's next-trading-day action, traded security, and transaction quantity. We evaluate temporally aligned rolling predictions and compare settings with and without point-in-time market information. Market context improves action and ticker prediction in the controlled ablation, while transaction sizing remains difficult. We also observe systematic behavioral compression: models overproduce hold actions, underpredict sell decisions, and simplify multi-security transactions. These results provide an initial empirical characterization and motivate larger-scale evaluation of individual, temporal, and portfolio-level behavioral fidelity.

Authors

Authors 5

Dongling NiJiajie HeJiangyuan HongWenjin LiuXintong Chen

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 2

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 1

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI feedT1· Official7 h ago5

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.