An AI wrote 24 options-pricing programs. None beat the textbook method by more than noise.

A Bermudan option can be exercised on a set of dates before it expires. Deciding when to exercise is an optimal stopping problem, and the standard workhorse for it is least-squares Monte Carlo (LSMC), which fits a regression to estimate the value of waiting. A paper posted to arXiv on October 7, 2026 and listed in the cs.AI feed on October 15, 'Auditing LLM Program Search for Bermudan Stopping with Primal-Dual Certificates', asks whether an AI that writes Python exercise policies can beat that baseline, and whether anyone can tell if it did.

The paper has one author, Yuhua Qian of the Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed.

The setup

'Program search' means a language model proposes code, a trusted evaluator scores it, and the best programs seed the next round. No model weights are updated; the system adapts through prompts and by choosing which earlier program to edit. The author ran two pipelines. One used a planner that reads a structured memory of past attempts and then hands off to a proposer that writes the code. The other generated code directly from a fixed reference program. Each pipeline made 12 attempts across three random seeds, with a matched no-generation control for every attempt. The paper names its model as gpt-5.6-sol, run through a command-line backend.

The key design choice is the evaluator. It owns the simulation and also computes a dual upper bound on the true option value. For any exercise policy, the true value lies between the policy's own lower estimate and that upper bound, so the gap is a ceiling on how much better the policy could possibly get. The author reports both bounds with Monte Carlo sampling error rather than a single score.

What came out

No generated program that the search selected beat Ridge LSMC consistently or by more than Monte Carlo uncertainty. On an independent holdout evaluated after selection was frozen, the gap scores of the selected programs sat within 0.002 of Ridge's.¹ Five of the 24 attempts (two of 12 in one pipeline, three of 12 in the other) timed out, and the paper keeps them in the denominators.

Two details stand out. One generated program looked better during search, then turned out worse on holdout: its score improved only because the Monte Carlo margin shrank, not because its payoff estimate improved. A score that rewards a smaller error bar can be gamed without anyone intending it to be. And if the original Ridge reference is counted as a deployable incumbent, both pipelines finished with Ridge-like results that beat their own best generated programs. In the author's words, the search helped only by not being followed.

Did memory help?

The paper also tested whether the planner does better reading rich structured memory than a bare list of scores. Across six matched pairs and three seed blocks, it did not. Four of the six structured-memory attempts produced valid programs against six of six for score-only, and on holdout the structured-memory run kept Ridge in every seed. The author cautions that two timeouts in six pairs is limited evidence and that prompt length is confounded with memory content.

The twist: the bound may be too loose to judge

On six one-dimensional put options, the author computed a high-precision reference value with a binomial tree. Ridge LSMC came out within Monte Carlo noise of the optimum, and about 99% of the estimated gap between the policy and the upper bound came from looseness in the bound itself.² Put simply, there was almost nothing left for any program to improve, and the certificate can confirm that a result is valid but cannot prove progress at this scale. The early-exercise premium on those puts averaged only 0.0018 in normalized units.

Why finance readers should care

Many AI-for-trading claims come from systems that propose strategies, score them in a backtest, and keep the winners. This paper is a clean example of how to audit that loop: freeze selection before the holdout, count the failures, keep the baseline in the running, and bound the answer from above. It reports a null result honestly, which is rare and useful. It does not show that AI cannot help with derivatives pricing. It shows that on one well-solved problem, one model and one search budget, the extra effort did not move the answer beyond noise.

The practical reading is about reporting rules. Whether the search 'worked' flipped depending on whether the starting reference counted as the incumbent and whether failed attempts were dropped. Any vendor or fund quoting an AI-discovered edge should say which rules it used, and how many attempts it threw away.