Launch HN: EdotEnv (YC S26) – Quant Trading RL Envs to Teach LLMs Research (edotenv.com)

39 points by Mzzzzz ↗ HN
We are Rui and Michael and we’re building EdotEnv (https://edotenv.com): self-improving RL environments from Quant Trading workflows.

With all the benchmaxxing around, evals saturate and become meaningless for model comparison. Useful benchmarks should increase in difficulty as models advance. Back in our Quant jobs, Michael and I saw that the market has exactly this property: markets became more efficient as people profited from trading inefficiencies, making new profitable strategies harder to find and old ones decay over time.

This makes markets an ideal, continuously evolving benchmark for LLM training. The hard part is to turn professional quant workflows into reliable training envs, as this is a very niche expertise.

In our environments, we give LLMs a quant trading workflow and evaluate their performance on out-of-sample data: build predictive features/ models, design a portfolio, backtest strategies, adapt continuously to market regimes. Each step is a task with different self-built tools. For example, a predictive feature building task gives the agent cleaned market data of time period [0,T] to research ideas, a backtesting tool to test created features at time t on [0, t], an execution tool to trade strategies with the new features on [t+1, T] and a final evaluation. Our reward isolates the agent's feature building skills and yet benefits from market properties.

From running SOTA models in our environments, we see that i) they seem to struggle with iterating deeply on research ideas, preferring broad shallow searches; ii) higher reasoning does not seem to increase performance and iii) agents do not understand trading, e.g. when losing money they stop trading instead of trading smarter. Check out our blogs for more details! https://edotenv.com/?tab=blog

Quant workflows are essentially applied ML research, long-horizon planning and continual learning. Through our envs, we teach these transferable research skills, rather than task specific answers. Our environments are closer to a realistic research workflow: we use real-world data instead of synthetic ones; our envs naturally contain noise and real trade-offs; our rewards are verifiable and immediate, with no need for an additional LLM judge or human expert.

We open sourced a sample task repository: https://github.com/MMcollab-dotcom/feature-engineering. We plan to sell continuously improving envs to AI labs/researchers/enterprises training their own agents, who are interested in ML modelling capabilities, continual learning, long horizon planning or Quant Research in general.

We'd love feedback from anyone trying out their own agents in our envs, for either eval or post training. And of course, we are always happy to discuss the future of trading with LLMs (and no, it should not be asking the LLM to read tea leaves and give you the stock to buy tomorrow). Looking forward to your comments!

13 comments

[ 0.46 ms ] story [ 18.4 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
if the data is not synthetic, how do you ensure that the LLM hasn't learnt about this data for example from training on the Financial Times.
I'm skeptical frontier LLMs can actually do well (e.g. alpha 5%+) without fine-tuning, especially on historical market data. Presumably you support fine-tuned models?
One thing I always think about whenever someone talks about solving investment is "and then what?"

Say there's a crystal ball, wouldn't everyone use such crystal ball? Wouldn't crystal ball become illegal? Wouldn't crystal ball nullify the effects of things?

What am I missing, can someone from this field educate me on how this stuff scales?

>Quant Trading RL Envs to Teach LLMs Research

Oh my Current Thing. This this enough current things?

I'm not fully clear on this. Is this a quant trading benchmark for LLMs or a RL env?
This is very cool, but who is the ideal customer here? I used to work at one of the top tier shops and we had multiple teams whose entire responsibility was building and maintaining our simulation environments.
You guys might want to look at Alphadidatic [0] and it might be worth your time to see if that model published 5 months ago still generalizes. Also, all the prompts are tuned for Claude 4.6 and I needed to throwout or rewrite all my agents, prompts, skills for Claude 5 which fortunately seems like it handles recursive self-improving agents natively.

I can't justify spending $1k - $2k a month for real time options data and compute for what is in my 401k. I guess the question I have is would your tool help me trade these strategies and more important test them on a few hundred a month?

[0] https://github.com/adam-s/alphadidactic

Strong agree that static evals saturate — the decay property of markets is the genuinely useful part: historically, quant alpha decays on the order of 30-50% per year as capital crowds in, so a live market eval is self-difficultating, exactly what model comparison needs once benchmarks plateau. The hard part I'd flag is comparability: market paths are stochastic, so two runs of the same model can land on wildly different difficulty depending on the realized path — without controlling for that, the eval measures luck more than the model. Options that work: fixed-seed regime paths with resampled baselines, or bootstrapped difficulty metrics (percentile of PnL against a distribution of random strategies) instead of raw return. The second hard part is reward shaping for RL: sparse PnL rewards over multi-day horizons give terrible exploration, so you'll likely need shaped intermediate rewards (execution quality, information state) to get gradients flowing at all. Also worth publishing: variance across seeds for each model — that's the number that tells users whether a 2% delta is signal or noise. Are you planning to ship fixed seed regimes, or is path stochasticity part of the point?
We use real historical market data for the environments. There is no parametric modelling involved.

The decay property refers to alpha that we give the agent for trade in the env - they are generated as tools.

Curious as to whether you guys have shown that post-training has actually improved performance of agents in your environments.
We have experiments showing that agents at least can learn from the environment by overfitting on train. But we do not yet have full post train runs, mainly due to time. But follow our blog/X where we’ll regularly update our research