Good Papers

QuantCode Model: Specializing Language Models for Executable Algorithmic Trading Code

QuantCode specializes LLMs for executable trading code via framework pretraining and validated fine-tuning, boosting backtest success to 83.5% while revealing specialization trade-offs in tool use and repair.

Alexey Chernysh, Orkhan Ekhtibarov, Dmitry Zmitrovich

Published Sep 30, 2026▲ 11 on Hugging FacearXiv ↗

89%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel16/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 8/10
strict 3/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said
Panel consensus
<|message_model|><|content_text|>QuantCode shows that framework pretraining and validated SFT raise Backtrader judge pass to 58.2% and agent success to 79.5%.

Abstract

Large language models are strong general-purpose code generators, but executable algorithmic trading remains a demanding specialization target: a model must translate a natural-language strategy specification into correct program logic for a specialized trading framework, execute on historical data, produce trades, and remain semantically faithful to the request. We study two complementary mechanisms for specializing language models for this setting: continued pretraining on algorithmic-trading framework code and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on agent-validated request-to-code pairs. Evaluation is centered on QuantCode-Bench, our 400-task benchmark for Backtrader strategy generation, together with a repository-level SWE-bench-like track. Continued pretraining improves single-turn Judge Pass from 41.5% to 47.5% for Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and from 27.8% to 33.0% for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. SFT applied after continued pretraining yields a larger gain for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, reaching 58.2% Judge Pass and 83.5% successful backtests; in agentic evaluation it raises first-turn success from 22.3% to 58.3% and final success after up to 10 turns from 47.5% to 79.5%. Continued pretraining alone improves first-turn agentic success but lowers final success after repair from 47.5% to 32.5%, consistent with degraded instruction following, whereas SFT improves both. We also identify a capability-retention failure: domain specialization degrades parser-conformant structured tool calling, and targeted recovery SFT restores tool-call formatting but not the base checkpoint's repository-level agent performance. The results show that framework-oriented pretraining, validated SFT, and explicit capability-retention evaluation address distinct failure modes in domain-specific executable code generation.