FinIndices is a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens) and yields substantial zero-hint gains, validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.
Abstract
Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess genuine structural reasoning, or merely rely on surface-level pattern matching? The financial domain, demanding numerical precision and multi-step logic over long contexts, is an ideal testbed. Existing benchmarks fail to capture real-world industrial complexity, predominantly relying on multiple-choice questions or single-hop QA over cropped tables while ignoring intricate cross-statement dynamics and temporal de-cumulation. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinIndices, a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens). Utilizing an automated synthesis pipeline with adversarial traps, FinIndices encompasses Single-Index computation and Table-Index tabulation to test complex domain, temporal, and caliber reasoning. Our evaluation reveals two severe LLM vulnerabilities. First, a"Knowledge Bottleneck": despite memorizing formulas during pre-training, models demonstrate fragile pattern matching. Removing explicit formula hints causes performance to collapse (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro drops from 70.70% to 38.22% on table tasks), exposing fatal flaws in temporal de-cumulation and stock-flow caliber mismatch. Second, a"Structural Bottleneck": the intense cognitive load of generating multi-metric, multi-period tables actively drains reasoning capacity. Under structural pressure, LLMs that flawlessly execute isolated derivations regress to shallow heuristics, such as fetching incorrect adjacent columns or substituting deep accounting adjustments with lazy literal arithmetic. Finally, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) yields substantial zero-hint gains (+8.54% Single, +3.82% Table), validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.
While existing benchmarks have made substantial progress in evaluating LLMs across STEM domains, financial reasoning over structured data remains comparatively less explored. We introduce V-FiLLM, a framework that generates financial reasoning benchmarks from executable computation trees grounded in real tables, yielding items whose answers are correct by construction. Trees are evaluated symbolically to obtain ground truth and rendered into natural-language questions, removing any model from the labeling loop, so items can be generated at arbitrary scale without annotation cost and without inheriting a generator's error rate. V-FiLLM exposes four independently controllable axes of difficulty including computation depth, expression breadth, financial concept complexity, and context size. By evaluating on open-source models, we find that accuracy falls up to 51% as reasoning depth increases, and up to 47% points under adversarial numerical perturbations, highlighting remaining challenges in robust financial reasoning over tables. We further show that lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on verified chain-of-thought traces improves accuracy from 81.1% to 85.6% on held-out problems and outperforms the base model by 5% points on FinQA (Chen et al., 2022a), s), suggesting that targeted, low-cost adaptation is a promising direction for compositional reasoning in financial QA.
FinRiskAtlas is introduced, a Chinese-language benchmark that evaluates financial LLMs along two complementary dimensions: operation execution under fixed evidence states and evidence-state control under evolving review conditions, and shows that broad financial capability scores do not fully capture where models are reliable in professional workflows.
Suyang Zhong, Jingzhe Zhu, Qi Xu et al.· 0 citations
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in financial reasoning, but existing benchmarks often evaluate domain knowledge, numerical reasoning, long-context understanding, and tool use in separate settings. This limits their ability to assess realistic professional workflows that require auditable, context-grounded, and tool-executable decisions. We introduce \textbf{INS-ActBench}, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating professional actuarial capability in LLMs. INS-ActBench contains 12,050 Q\&A pairs from public exams and sample questions released by 16 actuarial associations. It covers three subsets: \textbf{INS-Act-Know} for standardized actuarial knowledge, \textbf{INS-Act-Case} for long-context insurance case reasoning, and \textbf{INS-Act-Practice} for spreadsheet and R-code tasks with verifiable numerical outputs. Experiments on nine representative LLMs and human actuarial experts reveal a clear capability boundary: frontier LLMs perform strongly on standardized knowledge, but remain much weaker in case reasoning, tool-based workflows, and jurisdiction-sensitive practice. INS-ActBench provides a reproducible foundation for developing actuarial LLMs toward reliable professional assistance. The code is available at https://github.com/FDU-INS/INS-ActBench.
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as user simulators, but their ability to reproduce evolving individual financial decisions remains unclear. We present a preliminary study in a controlled paper-trading environment with 120 volunteers. Participants used non-redeemable virtual funds under real-time market conditions; no real brokerage accounts, real-money positions, or real transaction records were accessed. Given only information available before a prediction cutoff, a simulator predicts the participant's next-trading-day action, traded security, and transaction quantity. We evaluate temporally aligned rolling predictions and compare settings with and without point-in-time market information. Market context improves action and ticker prediction in the controlled ablation, while transaction sizing remains difficult. We also observe systematic behavioral compression: models overproduce hold actions, underpredict sell decisions, and simplify multi-security transactions. These results provide an initial empirical characterization and motivate larger-scale evaluation of individual, temporal, and portfolio-level behavioral fidelity.
Jia-Jie He, Jiang-Yuan Hong, Dong-Ling Ni et al.· 0 citations
Claim-level falsification is proposed as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiated through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
Sen Xu, Wei Wang, Shixiaoqi Liu et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
