This work introduces CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability.
Abstract
In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.
Payment operations are a critical financial infrastructure, but the value of large language models in this domain remains unclear because payment rules change quickly, evidence is fragmented, and decisions depend on transaction state, participant role, region, and payment rail. Existing benchmarks do not isolate whether failures come from missing payment-rule knowledge, poor use of supplied evidence, or brittleness under imperfect harness inputs. We introduce BENCHCOMPASS, a payment-domain benchmark whose construction pipeline builds scenario-grounded tasks from typed evidence packs, applies LLM-based quality checks, creates task-input attack variants, and reserves final item admission for domain experts. The release contains an expert-reviewed Pro benchmark covering payment knowledge, context-grounded scenario reasoning, and Attacked Open robustness, plus a lower-assurance Normal pool for inspection and future curation. Across 16 model variants, BENCHCOMPASS shows qualitatively different failure modes: missing parametric payment knowledge, incomplete reasoning over supplied rules, and failure to reject plausible but invalid workflows. The benchmark remains unsaturated: the best frontier model reaches 89.6% on Open Context-Grounded Reasoning and 81.7% under attacked inputs, while a representative 32B open-weight model reaches 69.8% and 42.6%. Benchmark data and code are available at https://github.com/ant-intl/BenchCompass.
Si-Jie Dong, Wei-Feng Ren, Xuan-Wei Hu et al.· 0 citations
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
Evaluating FrontierFinance, a fully open benchmark of 220 expert-crafted queries and 11,543 source-attributed rubrics spanning six crucial use cases across the full investor workflow, finds that the tool harness, not the model alone, strongly shapes quality and efficiency.
Yuhao Zhang, O. O. Koyluoglu, Thejas Venkatesh et al.· 0 citations
Professional financial examinations require models to combine domain knowledge, calculation, and judgment, yet no benchmark covers the full CFA and FRM structure under one protocol. We introduce FinExam-10K, to our knowledge the largest reported English benchmark for this setting, with 10,198 expert-reannotated questions spanning CFA Levels I-III and FRM Parts I-II. We release 5,110 questions and sequester 5,088 for a quarterly maintained leaderboard. To separate coverage from local answerability, we report a 10,198-item Full-Coverage Track and a 7,625-item Context-Complete Reasoning Track, which is the primary basis for claims about reasoning from the supplied record. Across 17 models, the best accuracy is 85.29% overall. On the frozen Hard band, the best score is 34.68% on the Full-Coverage Track and 54.57% on the 372 context-complete items. All 17 models share 47 context-complete failures. Function-RAG and FunctionGraph-RAG rescue hundreds of errors but also overturn many correct answers, producing little or negative net gain. A gate trained only on public data decides from the question and initial response when FunctionGraph-RAG should run. On the 5,088 held-out items, the gate invokes FunctionGraph-RAG for 7.9% of questions and improves accuracy from 70.83% to 71.23% (p = .0446).
Yan Lin, Jingyu Sun, Zhong-Liang Guo et al.· 0 citations
It is demonstrated that GRPO with a finance-grounded reward signal can produce substantially more useful business recommendations than commercial LLMs, and that a judge-independent causal audit is a valuable complement to, rather than a confirmation of, LLM-as-a-judge assessment in financial NLP.
Ofir Ben Shoham, Shrutendra Harsola, Vignesh T. Subrahmaniam et al.· 0 citations
Large language models are increasingly used to support financial operations, but their apparent reasoning performance can depend on whether they receive the right evidence. In financial reconciliation, the evidence needed for diagnosis is distributed across invoices, purchase orders, approvals, allocations, payments, ledger entries, and bank activity, linked by transactional relationships rather than textual similarity. End-to-end accuracy can therefore conflate evidence access with reasoning quality. We introduce FinRCA-Bench, a deterministic synthetic benchmark of 2,250 accounts-payable-to-bank reconciliation cases spanning 14 operational tables, including 1,500 injected failures across 15 causal categories and 750 legitimate or hard-negative cases. Root-cause labels and record-level evidence contracts are hidden from the model, allowing retrieval to be evaluated independently of answer correctness. We compare Rules/SQL, classical machine learning, dense semantic retrieval, deterministic relational expansion, and Typed Provenance Graph Retrieval (TPGR), a typed traversal restricted to persisted transaction relationships. Rules/SQL reaches 84.97% held-out exact accuracy and classical ML reaches 95.44%. Holding the reasoning model, prompt, and generation settings fixed while changing only retrieval increases macro required-record recall from 0.83% to 77.70% and exact 16-class accuracy from 2.05% to 72.44%. Structural retrieval failures outnumber reasoning failures with sufficient retrieval by 95 to 15; 254 correct predictions occur despite incomplete retrieval, and strict returned-evidence contract accuracy is only 5.72%. On FinRCA-Bench, retrieval architecture strongly shapes observed AI-system performance, and a correct root-cause label is a weak proxy for an auditable diagnosis.
Prof. S. B. Ghawate· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
