Papers for

financial software engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Benchmarking AI models for end-to-end stock trading strategy creation

Quant-Arena: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Quantitative Trading Research

Abstract: Quantitative research is an iterative loop: a researcher proposes a market hypothesis, implements it as an executable signal, tests it on historical data, and decides what to keep. Existing benchmarks score formulas, code, or individual trading decisions, leaving open whether large language models (LLMs) can complete this loop and produce strategies that work beyond the research period. We introduce Quant-Arena, a benchmark and public leaderboard for end-to-end quantitative research on real A-share market data. A model constructs features and stock-scoring code, receives feedback only on 2022--2023, and freezes one strategy for assessment on the sealed year 2024. A cash-account evaluator applies trading constraints and costs, including market impact estimated from a simulated order book. Scores are dominated by realized excess return and complemented by signal quality and the diversity of features used by the strategy. We evaluate nine frontier models, among which GPT-6 Astra scores highest; yet no model beats the equal-weight market in 2024. Quant-Arena is open to submissions from any model or agent harness.

Wed 21 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceComputational Engineering, Finance, and Science
The gist
Building successful stock trading strategies usually requires many steps and testing on past stock data. The authors created Quant-Arena, a system that challenges AI models to do all these steps: from making predictions and writing code to testing strategies on real market data. They tested various advanced AI models and found none yet outperforms a simple equal-weighted market strategy for 2024. This benchmark helps show how well AI can handle the complete process of quantitative trading research.
Open → 2610.30113v1

Deep kernel method improves hedging in low-data financial markets

Deep kernel hedging

Abstract: We introduce a deep kernel hedging framework that combines the flexibility of deep learning with the structural inductive bias of kernel methods. The hedging functional is restricted to a reproducing kernel Hilbert space whose kernel is parameterized through a neural network embedding of the input features. The framework minimizes a regularized empirical risk under convex loss functions and can accommodate path-dependent information through truncated time-augmented signature features. We derive a generalized representer theorem for the joint hedging problem, reducing the empirical optimization to a finite-dimensional problem. To further reduce the computational cost associated with large kernel matrices, we develop a scalable random Fourier feature approximation and establish convergence guarantees. The random Fourier parameters are sampled once and remain fixed throughout training, while the deep kernel adapts to market data through the learned neural representation. We evaluate the performance of the proposed deep kernel approach on both synthetic and real data and compare it with standard kernel methods and classical deep hedging architectures. Numerical results indicate competitive and robust hedging performance, particularly in low-data regimes, which highlights the benefits of combining expressive neural representations with the inductive bias of kernel methods.

Mon 28 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Financial hedging is about protecting investments against unpredictable market changes. The researchers combined deep learning with a special math technique called kernel methods to create a new way to hedge financial risks. Their approach uses neural networks to adapt to market data while keeping useful mathematical properties that help in learning from small data sets. Tests show this method works well, especially when there isn't much data available to train on.
Open → 2609.34474v1

Limits found in evaluating AI financial agents under stress and defects

Measurement Boundaries in LLM Financial Agent Evaluation: Fixed-Tape Execution and Multi-Defect Auditing

Abstract: What controls are needed to interpret execution performance and audit scores in LLM agent evaluations? We study two limits on these interpretations in a financial agent harness. In Study~A, comparing independent runs under idealized and stressed execution on three synthetic settings that share one 24-day upward phase mixes the execution rule with fresh model responses and portfolio feedback: the parsed decision paths agree in only $19.8\%$ of $450$ pairs. Replaying each stored response tape through both execution destinations gives a narrower result. Conditional on those responses, stressed execution changes total return by $-0.0170$ (95\% interval $[-0.0230,-0.0117]$), or $10.4\%$ of the idealized baseline, and ten seed clusters do not resolve the model ranking. Study~B corrects an incomplete answer key and replaces legacy tasks with matched zero-, one-, and two-defect tasks under an explicit multi-label prompt. The drop in target violation recall from one to two defects is positive in five of six combinations of auditor and source (median $0.267$), with three surviving Holm correction. Yet the auditor that includes both target labels most often has micro-precision $0.149$, emits findings on $98/100$ zero-defect tasks, and returns the exact dual-defect set in only $21/100$ cases. Target recall by itself therefore gives a poor account of audit quality on this construction. The studies address different limits: what an execution comparison estimates, and what target recall captures. Together, they show how fixed conditions and diagnostic controls bound the claims a score can support.

Sat 26 SeptMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputational Engineering, Finance, and Science
The gist
Measuring how well AI financial agents perform can be tricky because different testing conditions can change their results. The authors found that running the same AI agent under ideal and stressed conditions often gives very different results, even when replaying the same recorded decisions. They also showed that using recall to check if the AI catches errors isn’t enough because the auditor often falsely flags tasks with no errors. These findings highlight the need for careful controls in testing and auditing AI agents in finance.
Open → 2609.32379v1

AlexandriaX shared task advances dialectal Arabic machine translation

AlexandriaX 2026: The First Shared Task on Dialectal Arabic Machine Translation

Abstract: Dialectal Arabic machine translation (MT) remains challenging despite recent progress in Arabic language technologies, particularly because effective translation requires modeling not only semantic content but also dialectal variation, conversational context, speaker and addressee characteristics, and sociolinguistic appropriateness. Moreover, conventional MT metrics provide limited insight into the linguistic errors produced by dialectal systems. We present the AlexandriaX 2026 Shared Task on Dialectal Arabic MT, which addresses these challenges through three complementary subtasks: (1) context-aware English-to-Dialectal Arabic dialogue translation across 13 Arabic varieties, (2) cross-dialect Arabic translation in the financial domain covering six Arabic dialects, and (3) span-level MT error detection and classification using linguistically motivated error categories across five Arabic varieties. The shared task attracted 38 registrations for Subtask 1, 33 for Subtask 2, and 35 for Subtask 3. Twelve unique teams submitted their system description papers, all of which we accepted for publication. The best system on Subtask 1 achieved 30.42 spBLEU in the constrained track and 33.49 spBLEU in the unconstrained track. On Subtask 2, the top system obtained 28.40 spBLEU. On Subtask 3, the best system achieved an overall score of 49.82, outperforming the 24.29 baseline. Taken together, the results of the leading systems across the three subtasks highlight the benefits of explicit dialect modeling, context-aware generation, retrieval and reranking, and specialized approaches to interpretable MT error analysis. All the resources of AlexandriaX 2026 shared task are publicly available, including data, baselines, and evaluation code on our project page: https://alexandriax.dlnlp.ai.

Sat 19 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Translating dialectal Arabic into other languages is hard because dialects vary a lot and depend on conversation context and speaker traits. The authors organized AlexandriaX 2026, a challenge with three parts focusing on translating English to different Arabic dialects, translating between Arabic dialects in finance, and detecting translation errors. Many teams participated and improved translation quality and error detection compared to baselines. Their work shows benefits from understanding dialect, context, and specific types of translation mistakes.
Open → 2609.22796v1

Hybrid lstm and xgboost improve multi-horizon stock return forecasts

A Hybrid LSTM-XGBoost Framework for Multi-Horizon Stock Return Prediction Across Diversified Equity Portfolios

Abstract: Accurate prediction of equity returns remains a major challenge in computational finance due to the non-stationary, nonlinear, and low signal-to-noise ratio nature of financial time series. This paper proposes a hybrid two-stage architecture that combines a long short-term memory (LSTM) network with an XGBoost gradient-boosted regressor for multi-horizon stock return prediction across a diversified panel of 14 U.S. equities spanning six industry sectors. The LSTM component, comprising two stacked layers with 64 hidden units, processes 60-day sliding windows of five sequential market features to produce 64-dimensional temporal embeddings that encode learned sequential market dynamics. These embeddings are concatenated with 14 hand-crafted technical indicators to form a 78-dimensional hybrid feature vector, which is subsequently passed to an XGBoost regressor tuned via 3-fold cross-validation grid search. The framework is trained on a multi-stock pooled corpus using strict chronological splits and per-stock MinMaxScaling to prevent look-ahead bias, and evaluated across four prediction horizons of 30, 90, 252, and 365 trading days. Experimental results demonstrate that the hybrid model achieves a test RMSE of 0.0949 on the 30-day horizon, roughly one-third that of the standalone LSTM baseline, while marginally matching or surpassing the XGBoost-Only baseline across the majority of stocks. Directional accuracy rises with horizon length, reaching 97.6% at 365 days; we show, however, that this largely tracks the high base rate of positive long-horizon returns in the sample, and we therefore benchmark directional accuracy against a naive always-positive predictor and treat the above-base-rate gap at short horizons as the more informative signal. A composite investment scoring framework derived from multi-horizon predictions is further proposed to support portfolio ranking and decision support.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Predicting stock returns is difficult because financial data is complex and often noisy. The authors combined two types of machine learning models: one that learns patterns over time (LSTM) and one that makes strong predictions from many features (XGBoost). This hybrid approach was tested on 14 different stocks over multiple time frames and showed better accuracy than using either model alone in many cases. They also made a simple scoring system to help rank stocks for investment decisions.
Open → 2609.13125v1

Using code to improve clinical calculator accuracy in language models

Towards a Deterministic Math Solver for Clinical Language Models

Abstract: Large language models are unreliable at arithmetic, which is a problem for clinical calculators where a single numerical error changes the recommendation. The standard response is to hardcode each calculator as a validated function, one at a time. We test an alternative: the model does not calculate. Instead, it writes case-specific Python that a restricted local executor runs as a deterministic solver, and the model's task reduces to deciding how to use it. We evaluate this Program-Solve interface on MedCalc-Bench Verified (1,100 cases, 55 calculators) against direct model arithmetic and a hand-written 22-calculator library, using Qwen2.5-7B and Qwen2.5-32B-AWQ, after auditing the benchmark's formulas against current clinical guidelines and flagging 16 of 55 with version, use or coefficient concerns. With formulas and gold variables supplied and both routes reading the whole note, handing off to the solver is not a reliable advantage at 7B (75.31% against 72.02%, a paired +3.29 points with a 95% calculator-cluster interval of [-3.49, 10.38]) but is one at 32B (90.53% against 83.47%, +7.05 [0.47, 14.60], clear of zero). The hand-written library is exact on its 440 supported cases but abstains elsewhere (40.0% overall). Adding an executor thus helps some open-weight models more than others even under matched formula, variable and note access, and is not a substitute for verified formulas or reliable variable extraction either way.

Wed 9 SeptArtificial IntelligenceSoftware Engineering
The gist
Large language models often make mistakes when doing math, which is risky in healthcare where errors can affect patient care. Instead of making the model calculate directly, the authors tested having the model write small pieces of computer code to solve each case, letting a trusted program run that code exactly. They found this approach helps bigger models improve accuracy noticeably, but it’s not perfect and still depends on correct formulas and input numbers. So, writing code for math tasks can make clinical AI tools more dependable but doesn’t replace careful validation.
Open → 2609.10728v1

Temporal graph transformer improves credit card fraud risk ranking

Temporal Heterogeneous Graph Transformer for Credit Card Fraud Detection

Abstract: Credit card fraud detection typically relies on tabular features, while repeated attributes can also provide useful relational signals. This paper proposes THGT-FD, a Temporal Heterogeneous Graph Transformer for Fraud Detection. Each transaction is represented using one transaction token and six types of relation tokens and incorporates Time2Vec encoding into the transaction representation. A Transformer learns the interactions among these tokens within each individual transaction and then outputs a fraud probability. Experiments were conducted on 150,000 transactions sampled from the IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection dataset and chronologically partitioned according to TransactionDT. On the test set, THGT-FD achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.8536, an average precision of 0.4164, and a Recall@5% of 0.4708. The class-weighted histogram-based gradient-boosting baseline achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.8722. The results indicate that relation tokens provide useful information for fraud-risk ranking, although the current model does not yet incorporate entity-level historical aggregation.

Mon 7 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Credit card fraud detection usually looks at simple facts about each transaction, but repeated details across transactions can also help spot fraud. The authors created a new method using a type of AI called a Transformer that looks at transactions and their relationships over time. This method uses special timing signals to understand when transactions happened. Their tests showed this method can help rank fraud risks well, though it did not outperform some existing techniques. This work points to the usefulness of considering relationships between transactions for better fraud detection.
Open → 2609.07100v1