跳到主要內容
AI News HubLIVE
來源內容 · 翻譯待補全2 分鐘閱讀

待翻譯:Backtrader-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Algorithmic Trading with Self-Generated MCQs

文章摘要

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源摘要,待恢復後補全翻譯:arXiv:2608.11232v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution. We present Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines. A deterministic multiple-choice question (MCQ) pipeline generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, with an independent checker that re-derives every answer. A generator-solver filtering pipeline autonomously mines harder questions: a generator writes questions verified by executable code, converts them to MCQs, and discards any that a no-tool solver can answer without co…

來源arXiv Computational Linguistics作者: Ruoxi Zhao, Maziar Raissi
待翻譯:Backtrader-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Algorithmic Trading with Self-Generated MCQs
報告錯誤

更正渠道尚未開通,可先複製下方文章資訊留存。

查看更正說明
直接讀正文

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源正文,待恢復後補全翻譯。

--> [Submitted on 31 Jul 2026] Title:Backtrader-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Algorithmic Trading with Self-Generated MCQs View a PDF of the paper titled Backtrader-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Algorithmic Trading with Self-Generated MCQs, by Ruoxi Zhao and 1 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution. We present Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines. A deterministic multiple-choice question (MCQ) pipeline generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, with an independent checker that re-derives every answer. A generator-solver filtering pipeline autonomously mines harder questions: a generator writes questions verified by executable code, converts them to MCQs, and discards any that a no-tool solver can answer without code execution. We evaluate 11 models without tools (10 runs each) and four with-tools configurations on a 30-question curated set. Tool-augmented agents reach 90.0% accuracy in a single pass (GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7), outperforming the best no-tools baselines (73.0%, averaged over 10 runs) by 17 percentage points. On 38 separately mined questions, no-tools accuracy drops further, with half the models falling to roughly random-chance level (25%). Beyond evaluation, the scalable MCQ infrastructure is designed to produce a training corpus for reinforcement learning, with the ultimate goal of building a specialized agent for quantitative trading workflows. Comments: Accepted to the FinLLM Workshop at IJCAI 2026. Code and data: this https URL Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.11232 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2608.11232v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.11232 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Ruoxi Zhao [view email] [v1] Fri, 31 Jul 2026 02:37:57 UTC (167 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Backtrader-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Algorithmic Trading with Self-Generated MCQs, by Ruoxi Zhao and 1 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

展開要點與分析

文章情報

工程師進階

要點

  • AI 服務暫時不可用,系統已先保留來源內容與降級元數據。
  • arXiv:2608.11232v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical ba…

技術影響

可能影響 Agent 架構、工具調用、工作流自動化和產品集成。

要點與分析由自動化流程生成,可能有誤,請結合原始來源核實。