Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing:
Methodological FoundationsThanks: AI usage disclosure. Generative AI tools were used as an assistant in this project’s process—for part of the supporting code development and for portions of this manuscript’s preparation and editing. The human authors reviewed all AI-assisted artifacts and take full responsibility for the paper’s content (full detail in the AI Acknowledgement, Appendix §M).

Built from the JKP global factor characteristics data [Jensen et al., 2023], restricted to US-listed stocks (excntry = USA). Four size-filtered variants of this panel exist in our data pipeline; the one used for every result in this paper drops rows whose size_grp label (recomputed every month from that month’s NYSE market-cap percentile breakpoints, so the cut itself carries no look-ahead) is micro or nano, retaining small, large, and mega. This yields 1,936,944 stock-months across 21,052 unique stocks, 1925–2025, and $\sim$400 taxonomy-declared characteristics (representative examples: one-year asset growth, book-to-market, operating-cash-flow-to-assets, gross profitability, sales growth, capex intensity, the Piotroski F-score, the Ohlson O-score, the Altman Z-score, 60-month beta, 252-day idiosyncratic volatility, 126-day turnover, and 12-1 momentum). Novelty on Panel A is checked against this same panel, so a candidate must be distinct from the already-curated JKP zoo itself, not merely from a smaller reference. The in-sample window used for every result in this paper is 2010–2019; the out-of-sample window runs through December 2025 ($n\approx 71$ months).

Two further panels support Panel B. The base-features panel is built directly from CRSP and Compustat as 87 comparatively primitive accounting and market variables, organized into 13 categories (trading frictions, market price, size, operating assets, liquid assets, intangibles, leverage, equity structure, revenue and costs, cash flow, earnings, dividends, and capital actions; category sizes range from 3 to 13 variables): 1,213,574 stock-months, 5,907 unique stocks, 1975–2024. These are deliberately not pre-curated characteristics—ratios and transforms an existing factor library would already apply are left for the discovery system itself to construct.

The reference panel for novelty on Panel B is the 45-characteristic panel of Bryzgalova et al. [2025] (“Missing Financial Data”), built by that paper’s own local cross-sectional/backward-cross-sectional imputation method without look-ahead, restricted to the top 80% of stocks by the previous month’s market equity: 2,402,623 stock-months, 22,336 unique stocks, 1977–2024, spanning six categories (value, profitability, investment, trading frictions, past returns, and a single size/intangibles variable; category sizes 1–13). We check Panel B’s discovered factors against this established reference rather than against Panel B’s own 87 raw inputs, since the latter would reward literal repackaging of a single input as “novel.” The in-sample window matches Panel A (2010–2019); the out-of-sample window runs through this panel’s own data availability, November 2024 ($n\approx 59$ months)—shorter than Panel A’s, correspondingly lowering this panel’s statistical power (§6).

Every feature source in our data layer is contractually required to store its return column as a lead-1-month return—$\mathrm{ret}(t)$ realized over $(t,t{+}1]$—documented in each source’s taxonomy entry rather than left to each track’s own convention. This is a real invariant, not a formality: a per-track lag parameter was tried and removed in favor of the uniform contract, since a single wrong return-column convention on any one panel silently corrupts every factor built on top of it.

Within one run, shared mutable state (the control panel, the trial counter, the name registry) is mutated strictly sequentially or under a lock, so concurrent candidate dispatch cannot corrupt an admission decision; a name collision bumps an existing version suffix rather than stacking a new one.

A candidate is mutated only if its rank-IC $t$-statistic cleared a minimum progress floor of 2.0 or it failed specifically at the rank-IC or partial-IC stage; one failing far short of any bar is discarded rather than mutated. A progress-weighted score ranks a mutation strictly by the latest gate stage it reached (rank-IC $<$ regime-consistency $<$ novelty $<$ partial-IC $<$ Fama–MacBeth, each a full tier above the last), with magnitude breaking ties only within a tier, so that reaching further into the gate always outranks a larger margin earlier in it. Its mutations are correlated draws from the same parent candidate rather than fresh independent trials; whether the rank-IC gate’s live Bonferroni correction (Appendix K) should count each mutation separately toward the cumulative candidate count or discount correlated attempts is left for future work.

The Planner sees the full history of past attempts when planning a new round; each seed’s Proposer instance instead sees only prior attempts sharing at least one of that seed’s underlying variables, not the Planner’s full history. This scoping matches each role’s job: the Planner needs breadth across themes and variable families, not formula-construction guidance, since it emits a seed rather than a formula; the Proposer needs depth on a narrow, variable-specific slice of prior attempts, and correspondingly more explicit formula-construction guidance than the Planner requires.

Two deterministic backstops correct observed Planner failure modes: one forces complexity-tier rebalancing when the Planner’s own “aim for a mix” instruction alone leaves it over-concentrated on a single tier (simple, moderate, or rich); the other substitutes fresh variables into an explore seed whose variable pair was already tried repeatedly, since the Planner otherwise kept re-selecting the same pair despite full visibility into past attempts. A deterministic structural pre-check separately rejects malformed specs before any code executes: naming convention, minimum rationale length, a non-empty formula, and a valid category.

Of SEADS’s six LLM-prompted roles (Table 9), four—Planner, Proposer, Self-Evolve, Alignment Checker—share one structural convention: a GENERAL INFO block states the role’s job and previews the prompt’s own section order (e.g. the Planner’s own preamble: “RULES you must follow, then three memory tiers…then FINAL DIRECTION with the exact output format”), so a long, many-section prompt is self-documenting before the model reads past the first paragraph. RULES follow next; the Proposer and Self-Evolve additionally interleave PANEL STRUCTURE & LOOK-AHEAD RULES and FACTOR QUALITY GUIDANCE here, since panel conventions and what makes a formula worth proposing are each several distinct points, not one rule among others—the Planner has neither, since it emits a seed rather than a formula. The three memory tiers—Building Blocks ($T_{1}$), Past Attempts ($T_{2}$), Lessons Learned ($T_{3}$) in Algorithm 1’s notation—come after; the Alignment Checker has none, since it judges one already-written formula in isolation rather than proposing a new one. A mandatory pre-submission self-check and the output template both sit last, immediately before generation, on the same closest-instruction-wins logic. Implementation Agent and the reflector use simpler, single-shot prompts scoped to their narrower tasks (fixing a formula; summarizing a round into a lesson), not this multi-section structure.

The Alignment Checker’s prompt requires a formula_trace—a mechanical, line-by-line restatement of what each step computes, filled in before the aligned/not-aligned verdict—for two purposes. First, grounding: the checker once rejected a formula by citing a .shift(1) call that did not appear anywhere in the actual code, a fabrication that cost a pipeline slot on a formula with no real defect, so every look-ahead rejection now must quote an exact substring present in that item’s own formula. Second, algebraic cancellation, motivated by a second real incident: a formula computing (shrout*cfacshr)/shrout was live and admitted before this check existed, algebraically just cfacshr—shrout cancels exactly—even though its rationale described a genuine two-variable interaction between share count and an adjustment factor; the trace must now catch a formula that reduces to fewer effective variables than variables_used claims, since that misdescribes what the formula actually computes regardless of how genuine the stated interaction sounds. Rank direction and sign convention are explicitly out of scope for this judge for a separate, sign-specific reason: it had repeatedly rejected correctly-signed formulas for “not inverting the rank” when the rationale had already established the raw variable as higher-is-better, so sign checking was moved out of the LLM judge entirely and made a deterministic post-hoc comparison against the realized Fama–MacBeth coefficient instead (§3.3.3, check 7).

We use a Ridge regression ($\alpha=1$) fit on the admitted library’s rank-normalized values alone, an ex-ante default chosen independently of any comparative performance check. A more expressive learner—XGBoost or LightGBM, say—could also convert the admitted library into scores; we use linear/Ridge instead because it keeps the combinator stable, comparable across systems and panels, and exactly reproducible, properties this evaluation needs more than whatever incremental predictive power a more flexible fit might add. This is not merely a stability preference: every admitted factor already cleared the gate’s Rank-IC and partial-IC checks (§3.3.3), both rank/linear-correlation measures, so the library a combinator scores is pre-selected for linear predictive power—a nonlinear combinator has comparatively little nonlinearity left to exploit, and would mainly add tuning variance the evaluation does not need. This deployed Ridge combinator, Figure 3’s single-OLS illustration, and the rolling comparison’s raw-panel joint regression (Figure 2) are three distinct procedures answering three different questions about the same admitted library. Figure 3 and Figure 4 give two further empirical patterns behind §6’s claims, and Table 7 maps every mechanism named above to the module that implements it.

proposes a market hypothesis and a factor expression together, constrained at generation time by a complexity cap on the formula’s size, then admitted on two independent criteria (largest-common-subtree novelty against the admitted zoo, and an LLM-judged hypothesis-formula consistency score) with no separate backtest-significance gate, matching the paper’s stated objective; its continuous regularization weights are never disclosed in the paper, so our port uses documented, reasonable substitutes rather than a literal reconstruction.

is verified against the authors’ own released repository; its generative-predictive mining stage (a generator trained against a frozen predictor, not an adversarial/GAN setup) is replaced with random search over the same, math-verified operator grammar (consistent with the paper’s own random-initialization bootstrap, Algorithm 1), while its dynamic-combination stage keeps the paper’s real filter-then-regress structure: a rolling-window rank-IC $>$0.02 and rank-ICIR $>$0.2 threshold, falling back to the single best factor if none clears it, before the regression step. It makes zero LLM calls.

is verified against the actual installed official package; its evaluator has no temporal-leakage check of its own, only execution success and near-duplicate detection, so our port runs our look-ahead firewall as a post-hoc audit rather than a pre-execution gate, to avoid misrepresenting what the original system actually checks, and reports native, firewall-audited, and firewall-clean views separately: in one matched-budget (300-candidate) run, its native evaluator admitted 57 candidates, of which the firewall subsequently flagged 18 (31.6%) for temporal look-ahead or cross-stock rank pooling, leaving 39 firewall-clean—the view Table 1 reports.

is verified against its real released repository; its complexity/redundancy thresholds are taken directly from its source, a higher-fidelity tier than AlphaAgent’s necessarily-substituted ones, though its paper’s stated pool-admission rule is verified to not match what its own released code implements—we port the paper’s stated rule rather than the code’s weaker one, so QuantaAlpha remains a distinct comparison point in our results.

is a close reconstruction from its paper’s Algorithm 1, since the paper releases no official code; its gate thresholds, including the Harvey–Liu–Zhu $t{>}3.0$ hurdle it imports [Harvey et al., 2016], are kept as published even where they differ from our own gate’s conventions, to stay faithful to what the paper actually specifies rather than to our own house style.

SEADS examples below are real admitted factors, reduced to their underlying expression (stripping the groupby(’date’)...rank(pct=True) scaffolding each is actually stored and executed as, per the tracing procedure above); RD-Agent(Q) and Beyond Prompting store formulas natively as expressions, so theirs are shown as-is.

• •

  SEADS (cheapness conditioned on low accruals): rank(sale_bev)*(1-rank(taccruals_at))

• •

  SEADS (long momentum conditioned on stable turnover): rank(ret_48_12)*(1-rank(turnover_var_126d))

• •

  SEADS (three-variable example): rank(sale_bev)*(1-rank(spi_at))*(1-rank(ret_1_0))

• •

  RD-Agent(Q): rank(cash_at) - rank(debt_at); gp_gr1a - gp_gr3a (unranked).

• •

  Beyond Prompting: rank(gp_at) - rank(at_gr1); rank(fcf_me) - rank(capx_at).

Every SEADS example is a product of ranked legs that must each score well simultaneously; every baseline example assumes its two ingredients contribute independently and linearly.

A flat difference of two raw characteristics is, for a linear downstream model, exactly spanned by including both characteristics separately — discovering it as its own factor adds nothing a linear combinator would not already learn on its own. SEADS’s TRIVIALITY_RULE—a deterministic check applied at every complexity tier the Planner assigns a seed (§3.3.1)—is built on this reasoning and rejects plain sums/averages for the same reason; the Proposer’s rationale requirement additionally asks the model to state why combining these variables is stronger than either alone, which a flat spread does not naturally answer. We are optimizing for a different, arguably harder target than standalone statistical significance: incremental value to a portfolio that already holds the full raw characteristic panel, which is exactly what the novelty gate (§3.3.3) exists to protect.

Beyond Prompting’s admits illustrate the failure mode this guards against concretely: many hold one ingredient (a cash-flow-yield characteristic) fixed and vary the second across a long list of unrelated characteristics (fcf_yield_minus_capex_intensity, fcf_yield_minus_asset_growth, fcf_yield_minus_interest_burden, …), producing a set with high within-admission correlation (mean pairwise $|\rho|{=}0.281$, effective independent count $3.46$ of 94 nominal admits by a standard $n/(1+(n-1)\bar{\rho})$ diversification measure) and correlation with the raw reference panel itself, not because each is individually invalid but because the family is one idea restated many times. SEADS’s admitted sets have lower within-admission correlation across its 5 Panel A flagship replicates (mean pairwise $|\rho|{=}0.167$–$0.229$, effective count $3.51$–$4.49$ of 10–18 nominal admits).

Beyond the five re-implemented systems, earlier and adjacent factor-discovery work includes human–AI interactive mining [Wang et al., 2023], reinforcement-learning formula search [Yu et al., 2023], pre-LLM evolutionary mining [Cui et al., 2021], prompted factor conceptualization [Cheng and Tang, 2024], and semi-automated feature engineering [Wang et al., 2024c].

A larger population of LLM-based miners each contributes one specific search or optimization mechanism: chain-based generation [Cao et al., 2025] (removed by arXiv administrators for a licensing-rights issue; we note its design but do not treat any of its reported numbers as verifiable), an MCTS miner with frequent-subtree avoidance to resist formulaic homogenization [Shi et al., 2026b], GFlowNet-based search [Chen et al., 2026a], on-graph evolution [Guo et al., 2026], RL screening [Jiang et al., 2025], evolutionary sparse portfolios [Luo et al., 2025], and reinforcement fine-tuning [Zhang et al., 2026]. A second group contributes an agentic or strategic mechanism instead: multi-agent debate [Duan et al., 2025], strategy-finding agents [Kou et al., 2025], a sandboxed execution framework [Shi et al., 2026a], market-logic generation [Weng et al., 2026], and agentic finance research more broadly [Lim et al., 2026].

Skills-and-experience memory with failure constraints [Wang et al., 2026] and memory-driven hypothesis-to-code discovery [Liu et al., 2026a] are the closest precedents to our own memory tiers; §3.3.5 differentiates on the granularity and pipeline-stage specificity of what feeds back, not on the presence of memory itself.

Some systems use price data with text as an idea seed only [Lin et al., 2026, Liu et al., 2026a], use news text directly [Wang et al., 2024b], use disclosures to predict firm-level returns rather than register a reusable, named characteristic [Choi et al., 2025], or use multi-agent debate for discretionary portfolio construction [Zhao et al., 2025]—distinct from our own two panels, both structured numerical data rather than text.

Evaluation infrastructure exists for formulaic alphas [Ding et al., 2026] and for trading-decision agents more broadly [Li et al., 2025a]; a survey reporting a median test window of only 1.3 years across agent papers surveyed [Ding et al., 2024] motivates the realism argument behind §3.5. Huang et al. [2026], evaluated on cryptocurrency rather than equity markets, is OOS-disciplined on a single static split with one modern backbone—the closest prior instance of §3.4’s standard we are aware of, absent the system-level backtesting of §3.5.

General-purpose AI-scientist engines [Lu et al., 2024, Yamada et al., 2025, Novikov et al., 2025] and the broader LLM-agents-in-finance survey literature [Dong et al., 2025] situate AEAP within the wider landscape of autonomous research agents. Within AEAP but outside factor discovery, Koijen and Levy [2026], Cheng and Chin [2025] pursue agentic structural asset pricing and Xiao et al. [2025], Chen et al. [2026b], Miyazaki et al. [2026], Yu et al. [2024] pursue portfolio strategy, with Qu and Chen [2026] as complementary evaluation infrastructure rather than a portfolio-strategy system itself.

Headline results are drawn only from out-of-sample windows never touched by discovery or selection; the out-of-sample split is excluded from every gate decision in code, and the validation engine is a pure function of a candidate series, the in-sample window, and a threshold dictionary that never reads the out-of-sample split. The firewall, all statistical checks, duplicate/self-collapse fingerprinting, and the sign backstop are deterministic and seed-independent; only the LLM roles are stochastic.

A single current LLM (§6) is used for every agentic role in every reported configuration. The engine separately supports resolving a release-dated backbone per historical decision date for a chronologically-consistent alternative protocol; no result in this paper uses that path, consistent with §6’s scoping decision.

All systems are scored under one shared portfolio-construction and metric implementation so that “Sharpe,” “admission rate,” and “OOS survival” are defined identically for every system; SEADS and ablation numbers are reported as means $\pm$ standard error over independent replicates (Table 1, Table 2), not single runs.

Cost asymmetry motivates gate ordering (rank-IC rejects most candidates in milliseconds; partial-IC and Fama–MacBeth each run a per-month regression loop and are placed after the cheaper novelty lookup); the discovery loop supports resumable, checkpointed runs.

Every role calls GPT-5.2 through the standard chat-completions API; no role has tool use, function calling, or web access exposed to it. Temperature is set per role rather than fixed globally, matching each role’s own need for diversity versus consistency (Table 9).

All source code required to conduct and analyze the experiments in this paper will be made publicly available upon acceptance, under a license permitting free use for research purposes.

Python 3.14, pandas 2.2, numpy 2.4, scikit-learn 1.9, scipy 1.17, on macOS; no GPU is used, since all LLM roles call a hosted API rather than running locally, and local computation is limited to lightweight data processing and statistics.

Per month, the cross-sectional Spearman correlation $\rho_{m}$ between factor and next-month excess return over stocks with $\geq 5$ valid pairs (months with $<12$ valid $\rho_{m}$ are undefined, not zero); $\overline{\rho}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m}\rho_{m}$, $\mathrm{ICIR}=\overline{\rho}/\mathrm{std}(\rho_{m})\cdot\sqrt{12}$, and the rank-IC $t$-statistic $t=\overline{\rho}/(\mathrm{std}(\rho_{m})/\sqrt{M})$. The locked gate thresholds on $t$ alone, floored at 3.0 and rising above that floor via a live Bonferroni bound $t=\Phi^{-1}(1-0.025/N)$ ($\alpha=0.05$, family-wise error rate control) computed from the cumulative candidate count $N$ so far—the only statistic in the gate this correction is applied to, since the Fama–MacBeth bar below is a fixed $t\geq 1.0$ regardless of $N$. Coverage is the fraction of in-sample months with a non-null candidate value ($\geq$Min_Coverage); regime consistency recomputes mean rank-IC on the Regime_Lookback_Years immediately preceding the in-sample window and requires sign agreement with it.

Per month, $r_{i}=a+\sum_{k}b_{k}c_{k,i}+b_{\mathrm{cand}}x_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}$ over the top-5 most-correlated controls plus the candidate (winsorized 1/99%, $\geq\max(30,3\cdot 7)=30$ stocks/month); $t=\mathrm{mean}(b_{\mathrm{cand}})/(\mathrm{std}(b_{\mathrm{cand}})/\sqrt{T})$.

The candidate is residualized each month on its top-5 most-correlated admitted-library columns via per-month OLS; the residual’s monthly-Spearman rank-IC $t$-statistic is gated. This top-5 set is computed once from a single shared correlation matrix and reused for novelty, partial-IC, and Fama–MacBeth.

Novelty gates on mean-monthly Spearman $<0.7$ against a designated reference panel plus the admitted library. Duplicate detection uses an exact fingerprint—(count, mean, std, 10th/90th percentile, a hash of the full rounded value array)—so it catches statistically identical candidates without relying on summary statistics alone, which rank-normalized series can share regardless of the underlying variable. Self-collapse flags a final factor correlating $\geq 0.95$ with a plain rank of one of its own declared inputs.

Monthly decile long-short returns annualized by $\sqrt{12}$; reported gross of costs, with the Lo-(2002) standard error $\mathrm{SE}(\widehat{SR})\approx\sqrt{(1+\widehat{SR}^{2}/2)/n}$ [Lo, 2002] and a 95% interval (Table 10 tabulates this by window length). OOS survival is the fraction of admitted factors with OOS $|t|\geq 1.96$ and the same sign as their IS $t$. As a separate diagnostic, not a headline adjustment, we also compute a cost-adjusted return assuming 50bps per side, round-trip, scaled by each factor’s own realized monthly rank turnover.

Table 6 (Appendix D) gives the gate values used for every result in this paper, alongside each check’s execution order: coverage $\geq 0.5$, Rank-IC $t\geq\max(3.0,\text{Bonferroni-dynamic})$, out-of-decade regime sign-agreement, novelty $<0.7$, partial-IC $t\geq 1.0$, and Fama–MacBeth $t\geq 1.0$.

Table 11 gives the per-entry standard error (SD across 5 replicates, divided by $\sqrt{5}$) for each of Table 1’s four metrics, same systems and panels.