arXiv CS
open access
MintEval: Do LLMs Implement the Trading Strategy You Asked For? A Behavioural-Equivalence Benchmark for Natural-Language-to-Strategy Code
Large language models are moving from producing trading signals to writing the code that executes them. The failure mode of the second role is silent: generated code runs, a backtest plots, yet the risk logic that the trader described is not the logic being executed. Existing code benchmarks test fu
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- MintEval: Do LLMs Implement the Trading Strategy You Asked For? A Behavioural-Equivalence Benchmark for Natural-Language-to-Strategy Code#1187758
- PlayCoder: Making LLM-Generated GUI Code Playable#1131509
- Rethinking Pivot Programming Languages in Code Language Models#1048383
- SolBehave: Evaluating the Behavioural Correctness of LLM-Generated Smart Contracts#1344242
- SolBehave: Evaluating the Behavioural Correctness of LLM-Generated Smart Contracts#1319064
Record · ID 1181703
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive