Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems face three open challenges in high-stakes decision support: hallucination control in structured output generation, coupling of semantic reasoning with deterministic numerical simulation, and end-to-end auditability of multi-step agentic workflows. We present MacroRisk-Agent , a multi-agent architecture that addresses these challenges in the domain of financial stress testing—a setting that demands strict output validity, reproducibility, and regulatory traceability. MacroRisk-Agent introduces three technical contributions: (1) a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline with deterministic validation gates that converts natural-language stress intent into executable, schema-constrained parameter objects, achieving 92.6% validity rate versus 78.4% for RAG-augmented baselines ( $$p<0.001$$ ); (2) a constraint-coupled multi-agent simulation that models endogenous amplification through fire-sale, margin, and liquidity feedback loops, producing a 52% higher systemic-loss estimate than the one-pass configuration under the calibrated experimental setting; and (3) a counterfactual re-simulation framework that validates proposed interventions under identical scenario constraints, achieving 68.6% simulation-defined top-1 decision success rate. We evaluate MacroRisk-Agent as a proof-of-concept on public financial datasets (FRED, Yahoo Finance), a library of 150 curated crisis events, and 10 synthetic institutional portfolios; reported improvements are statistically significant across scenario validity, propagation modeling, and intervention quality within this synthetic evaluation environment . We position the framework as a proposed architecture—rather than an empirically validated, deployment-ready system—for building hallucination-controlled, provenance-tracked LLM-agent pipelines that are designed to improve auditability in high-stakes settings; validation on real institutional data is left to future work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: