IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.02528.html

Auditing Asset-Specific Preferences in Financial Large Language Models: Evidence from Bitcoin Representations and Portfolio Allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Wenbin Wu

Abstract

Large language models now power robo-advisors and trading agents, yet whether they carry built-in biases toward specific assets is largely untested. We ask three questions: do LLMs systematically prefer certain financial instruments; can an internal representation with causal leverage over those preferences be identified; and does that representation affect downstream financial decisions? We develop a three-level audit protocol and apply it to Bitcoin. First, a behavioral audit of nine frontier LLMs shows that Bitcoin's ranking among money-like instruments is frame-dependent: models place it around rank 5 of 8 as "reliable money" but near the top under crisis and autonomous-agent frames, and an attribute-swap experiment shows that rankings track functional properties, not names. Second, we open a model's internals: a search across thousands of sparse-autoencoder features in Gemma 3 identifies a dominant Bitcoin-selective feature. Amplifying it shifts the model toward the asset and suppressing it shifts the model away, even when "Bitcoin" never appears in the prompt. Third, we test financial consequences: amplification raises Bitcoin's portfolio share by 5.2 percentage points while suppression lowers it by 4.6 pp, with amplification reallocating within crypto and suppression cutting total crypto exposure. We characterize this as bounded behavioral leverage (leverage meaning causal influence over outputs, not financial leverage): an identifiable internal feature can be perturbed to move financial choices, but only within measurable limits. The framework links internal representations to external recommendations, validated with random controls and mechanism boundaries. As LLMs become autonomous financial agents, this is a first step toward a behavioral layer for emerging know-your-agent (KYA) standards: knowing what an agent prefers, and how far that preference can be moved.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenbin Wu, 2026. "Auditing Asset-Specific Preferences in Financial Large Language Models: Evidence from Bitcoin Representations and Portfolio Allocation," Papers 2606.02528, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.02528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.02528
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yeonchan Kang & Doojin Ryu & Robert I. Webb, 2025. "How well do machine learning models in finance work?," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, December.
    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:2606.02528. 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: https://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.