FinMMEval 2026 Task 2 evaluates short-answer financial question answering over multilingual evidence over multilingual evidence using document retrieval-augmented generation, cross-lingual evidence handling, structured prompting, answer compression, and validation strategies.
Abstract
FinMMEval 2026 Task 2 evaluates short-answer financial question answering over multilingual evidence. Each final-test item pairs an English question with financial statements and news in English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and Greek. Participating systems submit one concise answer per item in JSONL format. The final-test set contains 256 items, split evenly between easy and expert tiers; each tier contains four question templates instantiated over 32 company-report groups. Gold answers were withheld during submission, and systems were ranked by macro-averaged item-level ROUGE-1 F1 against organizer-held reference answers. The final leaderboard includes 12 ranked submissions. The strongest systems are closely clustered, with the top four separated by less than one percentage point in ROUGE-1 F1. The submitted system papers document retrieval-augmented generation, cross-lingual evidence handling, structured prompting, answer compression, and validation strategies.
FinMMEval 2026 Task 1 evaluates multilingual financial multiple-choice question answering in English, Chinese, Arabic, and Hindi. The task tests whether systems can select the correct answer to finance questions involving domain terminology, numerical interpretation, and conceptual financial reasoning across languages and scripts. The final-test set contains 800 questions, with 200 questions per language; gold answers were withheld during submission, and each language was ranked independently by accuracy. The final leaderboards contain 13 English, 11 Chinese, 11 Arabic, and 10 Hindi ranked submissions. Top accuracies range from 92.0% in Hindi to 97.5% in English and Arabic, with the same leading teams appearing near the top across all four languages. The documented systems used retrieval augmentation, direct answer-option scoring, language-specific prompting, selective self-consistency, confidence checks, and LLM-based review stages.
Zhuohan Xie, Yu-Yang Dai, R. Elbadry et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
The results indicate that effective multilingual financial reasoning requires language-aware retrieval, model routing, and deliberate scoring strategy selection, and that effective multilingual financial reasoning requires language-aware retrieval, model routing, and deliberate scoring strategy selection.
DCASE~2026 Task~5 introduces Audio-Dependent Question Answering (ADQA), which tests whether large audio-language models answer from the audio rather than from textual priors. An Audio-Dependency Filtering (ADF) pipeline combines silent-audio probing, per-option perplexity, a large language model (LLM) commonsense check, and human review to remove items solvable from text alone. The 3000 items that pass form the ADQA-Bench evaluation set, spanning music, speech, and environmental audio. The inaugural edition draws 14 teams and 36 submissions across two tracks defined by total parameter count (up to 100B and under 10B). A Chung-Ang University ensemble of MOSS-Audio-8B-Thinking and Qwen3-Omni-30B reaches the top overall accuracy at \pct{58.33}, and a MOSS-only configuration from the same team leads the sub-10B track at \pct{57.30}. Across the 30 submissions with a comparable development score, evaluation accuracy falls by 11.91 percentage points (pp) on average (median 10.91\,pp) on the hidden evaluation split, which is designed to be harder than the development split. The most common building blocks are: the MOSS-Audio-8B-Thinking backbone (13 of 36 submissions), Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning on AudioMCQ-StrongAC, and preference or reinforcement-learning objectives -- Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in five teams, Group reward-Decoupled Normalization Policy Optimization (GDPO) in two. At test time, prompt engineering is near-universal, and majority or choice-permutation voting is common. Every system misses the same set of 233 evaluation items.
Haolin He, Renhe Sun, Zheqi Dai et al.· 1 citation
We describe the PSK submission to the WMT 2026 Multilingual Instruction Shared Task. Our system uses the 3.35B-parameter Tiny Aya Global model with three QLoRA adapters, one for each task. The adapters are trained on multilingual document-summary pairs, passage-based question answering, and filtered standalone question answering. The summarization data also includes scientific papers with their author-written abstracts. On our held-out split, the context and summarization adapters perform better than our multitask adapter, which was trained only on data supplied by the organizers. Results for open QA are mixed and vary with answer length and evaluation method. We therefore submit three systems with the same context and summarization adapters but different open-QA adapters.
Error analysis shows that a non-trivial fraction of failures are placeholder strings caused by API errors rather than incorrect generations, and that surface-level mismatches (verbosity, ortho-graphic variation) account for many of the remaining errors.
By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.
Xuye Liu, Yimu Wang, Peng Shi 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.
