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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11232 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11232/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)
- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Self-evolving LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/synth/self-evolving-llm-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17564/) (2023)
- [PIXIU: A Large Language Model, Instruction Data and Evaluation Benchmark for Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05443/) (2023)
- [TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.20138/) (2024)
- [FinBen: A Holistic Financial Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12659/) (2024)
- [A Multimodal Foundation Agent for Financial Trading: Tool-Augmented, Diversified, and Generalist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18485/) (2024)
- [FinCon: A Synthesized LLM Multi-Agent System with Conceptual Verbal Reinforcement for Enhanced Financial Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06567/) (2024)
- [FinRL: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Library for Automated Stock Trading in Quantitative Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.09607/) (2020)
- [INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18174/) (2024)
- [Advancing Financial Engineering with Foundation Models: Progress, Applications, and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18577/) (2025)
- [QuantCode-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Executable Algorithmic Trading Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15151/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.