IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.15865.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Position: Standard Benchmarks Fail -- LLM Agents Present Overlooked Risks for Financial Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Zichen Chen
  • Jiaao Chen
  • Jianda Chen
  • Misha Sra

Abstract

Current financial LLM agent benchmarks are inadequate. They prioritize task performance while ignoring fundamental safety risks. Threats like hallucinations, temporal misalignment, and adversarial vulnerabilities pose systemic risks in high-stakes financial environments, yet existing evaluation frameworks fail to capture these risks. We take a firm position: traditional benchmarks are insufficient to ensure the reliability of LLM agents in finance. To address this, we analyze existing financial LLM agent benchmarks, finding safety gaps and introducing ten risk-aware evaluation metrics. Through an empirical evaluation of both API-based and open-weight LLM agents, we reveal hidden vulnerabilities that remain undetected by conventional assessments. To move the field forward, we propose the Safety-Aware Evaluation Agent (SAEA), grounded in a three-level evaluation framework that assesses agents at the model level (intrinsic capabilities), workflow level (multi-step process reliability), and system level (integration robustness). Our findings highlight the urgent need to redefine LLM agent evaluation standards by shifting the focus from raw performance to safety, robustness, and real world resilience.

Suggested Citation

  • Zichen Chen & Jiaao Chen & Jianda Chen & Misha Sra, 2025. "Position: Standard Benchmarks Fail -- LLM Agents Present Overlooked Risks for Financial Applications," Papers 2502.15865, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.15865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.15865
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.15865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.