PreprintCited by 1Stock Market Forecasting MethodsFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesArtificial Intelligence Applications

SHARP: A Self-Evolving Human-Auditable Rubric Policy for Financial Trading Agents

Open access
Chen, Xiwen, Zhu, Wenhui, Zheng, Songzhu, Rasul, Kashif, Deng, Yueyue, Li, Huayu·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous financial trading, a domain requiring continuous adaptation to noisy, non-stationary markets. Existing self-improving agents typically address this through unbounded free-form prompt optimization. However, in low signal-to-noise environments with delayed scalar rewards (P\&L), this unstructured approach exacerbates the fundamental credit assignment problem: optimizers cannot reliably distinguish systematic logic flaws from stochastic market variance, inevitably leading to policy drift. To overcome this bottleneck, we introduce the Self-Evolving Human-Auditable Rubric Policy (SHARP), a neuro-symbolic framework that replaces unconstrained text mutation with structured, symbolic policy optimization. SHARP confines the agent's reasoning to a bounded, human-readable rubric of explicit condition-action rules. When sub-optimal trades occur, an attribution agent employs cross-sample reasoning across multiple samples to isolate specific rule failures. This enables targeted, atomic policy edits that are subsequently regularized through strict walk-forward validation. Evaluated across three diverse equity sectors and four LLM backbones, SHARP consistently transforms generic initial heuristics into highly robust strategies, lifting the empirical performance of compact models by 10 to 20 percentage points on average (e.g., GPT-4o-mini). Ultimately, SHARP demonstrates that LLMs can achieve dynamic and efficient adaptation while significantly enhancing the structural transparency and auditability demanded by institutional finance.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.06822

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 low signal-to-noise environments, unbounded prompt evolution cannot distinguish systematic logic flaws from market variance, whereas a structured rubric can be audited, diffed, and rolled back.

    “arguing that in low signal-to-noise environments unbounded prompt evolution cannot distinguish systematic logic flaws from market variance, whereas a structured rubric can be audited, diffed, and rolled back [79]”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [79]

  • SHARP evolves a human-auditable rubric policy for financial trading agents.

    “SHARP evolves a human-auditable rubric policy for financial trading agents”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [79]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, X., Zhu, W., Zheng, S., Rasul, K., Deng, Y., & Li, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7160835061
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Stock Market Forecasting Methods
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, policy optimization, credit assignment, policy drift, walk-forward validation

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