The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Large Language Models in Finance: A Survey
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have opened new possibilities for artificial intelligence applications in finance. In this paper, we provide a practical survey focused on two key aspects of utilizing LLMs for financial tasks: existing solutions and guidance for adoption. First, we review current approaches employing LLMs in finance, including leveraging pretrained models via zero-shot or few-shot learning, fine-tuning on domain-specific data, and training custom LLMs from scratch. We summarize key models and evaluate their performance improvements on financial natural language processing tasks. Second, we propose a decision framework to guide financial professionals in selecting the appropriate LLM solution based on their use case constraints around data, compute, and performance needs. The framework provides a pathway from lightweight experimentation to heavy investment in customized LLMs. Lastly, we discuss limitations and challenges around leveraging LLMs in financial applications. Overall, this survey aims to synthesize the state-of-the-art and provide a roadmap for responsibly applying LLMs to advance financial AI.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“TradingGPT[27] proposed a similar architecture as FinMem[53] with one extra step that agents debate on each other's actions and reflections, thereby improving the robustness of reflections.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“They are extensively utilized by financial trading agents like FinMem [53], TradingGPT [27], and FinAgent [57]. These works incorporate financial reports to enrich the agents' memory and make informed trading decisions.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey
Peng, B., Zhu, Y., Liu, Y., Bo, X., Shi, H., Hong, C., Zhang, Y., & Tang, S. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3777378 · Cited by 206
Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey
Ding, H., Li, Y., Wang, J., Chen, H., Guo, D., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 9th International Conference on Computers in Management and Business · doi:10.1145/3802463.3802475 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, Y., Wang, S., Ding, H., & Chen, H.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 374-382
- arXiv
- 2311.10723
- OpenAlex
- W4388994228
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 89 · 2025: 143 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 52.01
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM International Conference on AI in Finance (ICAIF) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Stock Market Forecasting Methods
- Keywords
- large language models, financial applications, artificial intelligence in finance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review