IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2603.09301.html

Constructing a Portfolio Optimization Benchmark Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models

Author

Listed:
  • Hanyong Cho
  • Jang Ho Kim

Abstract

This study introduces a benchmark framework for evaluating the financial decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through portfolio optimization problems with mathematically explicit solutions. Unlike existing financial benchmarks that emphasize language-processing tasks, the proposed framework directly tests optimization-based reasoning in investment contexts. A large set of multiple-choice questions is generated by varying objectives, candidate assets, and investment constraints, with each problem designed to include a unique correct solution and systematically constructed alternatives. Experimental results comparing GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Llama 3.1-70B reveal distinct performance patterns: GPT achieves the highest accuracy in risk-based objectives and remains stable under constraints, Gemini performs well in return-based tasks but struggles under other conditions, and Llama records the lowest overall performance. These findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of LLMs in applying quantitative reasoning to finance, while providing a scalable foundation for developing LLM-based services in portfolio management.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanyong Cho & Jang Ho Kim, 2026. "Constructing a Portfolio Optimization Benchmark Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models," Papers 2603.09301, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2603.09301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.09301
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muhammed Golec & Maha AlabdulJalil, 2025. "Interpretable LLMs for Credit Risk: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy," Papers 2506.04290, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      NEP fields

      This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

      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:2603.09301. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.