Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.03128

Trading Strategy Optimization via Textual Gradient

Abstract

Quantitative trading strategy design aims to discover trading programs from historical data that remain effective in future markets, which can be viewed as a black-box program optimization problem. LLM-based textual gradients offer a promising approach by providing explicit optimization directions for iterative strategy refinement. However, directly applying textual gradients faces two challenges: (1) optimization is myopic, underutilizing experience from previous evaluations; and (2) aggregate backtest feedback overlooks temporal robustness, potentially favoring strategies that perform well only in specific market periods. To address these challenges, we propose TradeGrad, an experience-guided textual-gradient framework for robust trading strategy optimization. TradeGrad leverages accumulated optimization experience to estimate textual gradients and employs multi-scale revisions for both strategy exploration and refinement. It further introduces the Cross-Period Robust Objective (CPRO), which emphasizes performance in unfavorable historical periods to promote temporal robustness. Experiments on cross-sectional and time-series strategy design in Chinese A-share and U.S. equity markets show that TradeGrad achieves the best in-sample and out-of-sample performance across all four settings. Notably, its Chinese cross-sectional strategy achieves 27.99% annualized return, 12.19% maximum drawdown, and a Sharpe ratio of 1.63, approximately 68% higher than the CSI 300 benchmark. Further analyses validate the proposed components and show consistent improvements in both in-sample and out-of-sample performance throughout optimization. The code is available at https://github.com/transcend-0/TradeGrad.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chaoqun Yang, Qian Wang, Fengbin Zhu, Xinyu Lin, Bingsheng He, Roger Zimmermann, Tat-Seng Chua. 2026-10-02. Trading Strategy Optimization via Textual Gradient. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03128

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AstroAgentBench: Evaluating Agentic Planning on Space Mission Planning Tasks

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

cs.AI↗

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.

cs.AI↗

On the Tip of the Tongue: Why LLMs Hallucinate Answers They Can Decode

A language model can give the wrong answer even when the correct answer is decodable from its intermediate states. To study this gap between decodability and selection, we distinguish \textit{read} from \textit{write} at the first answer token. Read asks whether the gold token can be decoded from intermediate residual states under same-relation decoy controls. Write asks whether the final readout ranks that token first among content tokens. Under three different readers, with a randomized-label control, a substantial fraction of failures remain readable while another content token is selected. We explain this through the selection margin at the final readout, the difference between the answer logit and the logit of its strongest alternative, which is answer support minus alternative support, and can also be split into a context-averaged baseline linked to token frequency and an item-specific term. Setting the answer support to the level typical of successful generations is sufficient to recover first-token selection for the majority of failures in most of the models we study; the original alternative remains ahead in most remaining failures under this edit, and this outcome follows directly from the readout geometry. Removing the frequency direction alone shifts selection but rarely recovers the answer. Prompt variants of the same fact that succeed supply support that transfers to failing variants through the residual stream and through late MLP outputs, with less consistent effects through late attention. First-token recovery leaves most full answers wrong, which limits the recovery achieved by these edits and separates three things that are easily conflated, decodability, recoverability, and generation.

cs.AI↗