Back to #software testing

DSA: Evidence-Aware LLM-Agent Orchestration for Multi-Market Stock Research

Lin-Sen Zhu Yirui Shi
Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 16 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

DSA is presented, an evidence-aware orchestration framework for multi-market stock research with large language model (LLM) agents that establishes implementation conformance for the tested software contracts, not superior report quality, forecasting accuracy, or investment returns.

Abstract

Large language models can summarize financial information, but an operational stock-research system must first assemble heterogeneous evidence, expose unavailable data and model capabilities, and control how generated opinions affect a final report. We present DSA, an evidence-aware orchestration framework for multi-market stock research with large language model (LLM) agents. DSA organizes the workflow into evidence acquisition, structured context construction, model-routed analysis, optional role and Strategy Skill reasoning, and report generation with selected context and diagnostics. A default report profile and an optional agentic profile share evidence and model-routing services but use profile-specific output validation and risk safeguards. In the agentic profile, core role outputs are processed by role-specific parsers, whereas Strategy Skill opinions undergo an additional signal-eligibility partition before synthesis; disagreement is supplied explicitly to the decision agent, followed by a conservative risk override. The reference implementation includes six regional market paths, fifteen bundled Strategy Skills, hosted and local model routes, and multiple execution and delivery surfaces. At a frozen software snapshot, a selected manifest of 1,457 portable offline backend contract tests passed; 596 cases were retrospectively mapped to six contract families central to the reported LLM-agent architecture. This evidence establishes implementation conformance for the tested software contracts, not superior report quality, forecasting accuracy, or investment returns.

View source

Similar papers

#software testing Preprint Aug 2026

Evaluating Inference-Time Defenses Against Package Hallucination in LLM-Generated Code

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation, yet they frequently hallucinate non-existent software packages, creating exploitable entry points into the software supply chain. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we show that prior evaluation methodologies systematically inflate hallucination rates by misclassifying standard-library modules as hallucinations in some languages. For Python, the overestimation reaches 9.4 percentage points. Second, we evaluate seven inference-time defenses for mitigating package hallucinations, including five guided decoding strategies (Greedy, Contrastive, DoLa, Nudging, and Active Layer-Contrastive Decoding), an iterative self-refinement approach (Self-Refine), and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based defense.. Across eight models spanning five families and four programming languages (Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Rust), RAG reduces the package hallucination rate (PHR) in 18 of 32 model--language configurations. Third, we introduce Package Utility (PU) to assess whether defenses preserve valid and task-relevant recommendations. Among strategies evaluated, Greedy decoding provides the strongest average mitigation--utility trade-off. Fourth, we stress-test all strategies under adversarial prompts seeded with fabricated package names and find that PHR surges by up to 45 percentage points relative to standard prompts, with Ruby consistently the most vulnerable language (80.9--95.2\%). Under adversarial conditions, RAG and Self-Refine outperform all decoding-only strategies, indicating that robust defense requires either external grounding or iterative self-verification when prompts are actively hostile. Our results recast package hallucination as both a measurement problem and a decoding-time control problem, and they demonstrate that the choice of defense must be matched to the threat model and recommendation utility.

Albérick Euraste Djiré, Iyiola E. Olatunji, Melissa Tessa et al. · 1 citation
#software testing Review Aug 2026

Model-Based Agentic Software Engineering

MAGE explains how externalized knowledge, bounded action, independent evaluation, and retained human authority can compose into a governed engineering environment, and proposes tests of when that environment turns commodity intelligence into durable engineering progress.

James C. Davis, Kelechi G. Kalu, Huiyun Peng et al. · 1 citation
#software testing Preprint Aug 2026

Mutation Testing for Reproducibility Safeguards in Machine Learning Research Software: An Empirical Study

It is shown that, in this sample, existing validation workflows often did not detect the particular controlled reproducibility-relevant changes introduced by the study, motivating reproducibility-oriented mutation testing as a complementary way to assess whether research-software safeguards constrain experimentally important choices.

Ilya V. Shulepov · 0 citations

Mixed Reality Glasses Image Translocation for Binocular Diplopia.

This prototype MRG image translocation software was helpful to 69% of patients with binocular diplopia, but limited by large angle strabismus because of the limited instrument field of view.

Edsel B Ing, Kevin Sha, Sarosh Dandoti et al. · 0 citations
#software testing Open access Aug 2026

Multi-Disease Prediction Using Machine Learning: A Web-Based Diagnostic Support System for Diabetes, Heart Disease, and Parkinson\'s Disease

A diagnostic support system based on a unified web platform that classifies patients according to the risks of developing three diseases based on regularly collected clinical or audio data using classical supervised learning algorithms is presented.

Vedamurthy D R, Dr. Anup Ritti, A. Bibi et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Aug 17, 2026

Q&A: Rethinking how innovation happens

In his latest book, Professor Eugene Fitzgerald examines the forces that turn breakthroughs into value — and why innovation resists simple formulas.