Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines that generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, and is designed to produce a training corpus for reinforcement learning, with the ultimate goal of building a specialized agent for quantitative trading workflows.
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.
SWE Refactor Bench is introduced, a benchmark comprising 20 whole-repository migrations, covering 4 kinds of technical debt, and SWE Refactor Bench is positioned as a rigorous testbed for developing coding agents for reliable whole-repository migrations.
Many evaluations of model outputs rely either on contracts checkable at evaluation time or on feedback that arrives within the operating loop. We study the complementary setting in which ground truth is delayed, censored, or private, so deterministic code cannot check correctness at scoring time and must instead issue a code-owned provisional forecast. RouteCast instantiates this regime for model-generated typed strategic routes: models propose candidate routes and structured factors; point-in-time evidence, reference classes, and deterministic transformations produce a provisional forecast-ranking; later outcomes evaluate the forecast. In a retrospective venture pilot on 21 binary-outcome cases (6 positive, 15 negative), the whole-packet RouteCast score showed preliminary retrospective discrimination (AUC 0.756, 95% CI [0.471,0.980]), while a blind LLM judge reached AUC 0.678 [0.419,0.897] and an identity-exposed LLM judge reached AUC 0.761 [0.515,0.944], consistent with recognition- or outcome-related leakage risk. A preregistered decomposition ablation on the same binary subset found that converting the identical inputs into typed staged routes was indistinguishable from the whole-packet score (Delta AUC = -0.144, 95% CI [-0.471,0.176]) and from a deterministic heuristic (Delta AUC = -0.089, 95% CI [-0.412,0.278]). The pilot establishes an auditable feasibility result and exposes failure modes; it does not establish prospective calibration, causal decision improvement, route-decomposition advantage, or cross-domain validity.
LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed to solve optimization problems, yet existing benchmarks evaluate them on pre-structured mathematical formulations that bypass the most critical challenge: translating complex business requirements into correct models and solve efficiently. We introduce Opti-Agent-Bench, an end-to-end benchmark that evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) across the complete optimization R&D pipeline, from understanding business-language descriptions through mathematical modeling, algorithm selection, and code implementation, to solution report generation. Our design rests on three pillars: (1) businesssemantic authenticity with anti-template traps that defeat pattern matching; (2) modular evaluation with cross-module consistency checking across Problem Understanding, Formal Modeling, Implementation, and Reporting; and (3) the ORAC bi-level validity framework that simultaneously ensures task quality and scoring integrity. Across several industrialscale tasks spanning integer programming, robust optimization, stochastic programming, and non-convex optimization, we expose critical failure modes of current models, including constraint omission, model-code inconsistency, and report-implementation divergence, that remain invisible under conventional single-metric evaluation.
Yongchang Fu, Xin Huang, Chengjun Dai et al.· 0 citations
As AI coding agents take on increasingly complex, long-horizon software engineering tasks, existing benchmarks are rapidly saturating and their evaluation quality has come under serious scrutiny: a recent audit found that nearly 60% of unsolved SWE-bench Verified instances contain flawed tests -- either overly narrow tests that reject correct solutions or overly broad tests that check unstated requirements -- and that frontier models can verbatim reproduce gold patches from training data. Code refactoring, which requires coordinated, behavior-preserving changes across many files, offers a substantially harder and more realistic test of agent capability, yet remains underserved by current benchmarks. We introduce SWE-Bench ProMax, an expert-curated, multilingual code refactoring benchmark of 170 instances drawn from real commits across seven programming languages (Python, Java, TypeScript, Go, C, C++, and Rust). Every instance undergoes rigorous, multi-stage curation that directly addresses the quality problems identified in prior benchmarks: issue descriptions are rewritten from scratch to provide precise, unambiguous specifications, and test suites are manually reviewed to remove overly narrow and overly broad tests. Tasks with insufficient complexity or limited cross-file scope are filtered out, yielding a benchmark of challenging, large-scale refactoring tasks that average 11.4 modified files and 261.6 lines of code per instance, substantially exceeding the scale of existing benchmarks. Experiments with frontier models under two agent scaffolds show that the best model achieves only 41.2% resolve rate, confirming that SWE-Bench ProMax presents a meaningful and unsaturated challenge for current AI coding agents. Our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/swe-bench-promax/SWE-Bench-ProMax.
Tool-augmented LLMs must arbitrate between two fallible sources when a tool return conflicts with their parametric memory, yet existing evaluations measure source preference without establishing source correctness. We introduce MemToC, a controlled benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools. MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions, independently elicited model-specific closed-book answers, and controlled tool returns of known correctness. These components instantiate four source-correctness cases; tool-error and no-tool conditions are separate controls. Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers. The four instruction-tuned models retain a verified-correct answer against an incorrect tool in only 6.5-17.1% of eligible cases, follow a correct tool in 86.0-93.1%, and repeat the tool return in 78.4-86.0% of cases where both sources are wrong. No cross-model ordering remains stable across three instruction-wording variants with the question and episode content held fixed. We compare prompting with SFT and DPO using chain-level cross-fitting over ToolHop, so questions sharing an underlying fact never straddle training and evaluation. We apply an asymmetric success criterion: correct-answer retention must improve without a detected reduction in correct-tool following. SFT and DPO meet this criterion on the same two of four instruction-tuned backbones. Improvements rarely come cleanly: 19 of 20 tested method-model combinations reduce abstention after tool errors or on unanswerable inputs. Transfer beyond MemToC is positive but partial and depends on the model and presentation frame. Correctness-conditioned arbitration can be improved through fine-tuning, but gains must be evaluated jointly with correct tool use, abstention, and robustness to formulation.
Arseniy Varlamov, R. Zinnatullin, Elisei Rykov et al.· 0 citations
E-Bench is introduced, a fully synthetic benchmark with 323 state-changing tasks across three product domains: Honor of Kings, QQ Music, and Tencent Meeting, and it shows that multi-step tool use remains challenging: Pass^3 stays below 60% for the strongest models, and even with code execution in the E-Bench-Code extension, reliability remains below 70%.
Weihuang Zheng, Tianyuan Zou, Eileen Ye et al.· 1 citation