Findings identify evidence localization and fine-grained type discrimination as distinct challenges and show that compact supervised encoders are strong baselines for this task.
Abstract
Financial disclosures may contain numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and policy inconsistencies that require different evidence and reasoning to diagnose. We study \emph{fine-grained inconsistency classification}: given a passage known to contain a conflict, the goal is to identify its type among 11 categories. Using a fixed snapshot of the synthetic SBID-FD benchmark, we compare frozen and fine-tuned encoders, evidence-augmented classifiers, prompted large language models, and LoRA-adapted generative models under a shared evaluation protocol. Task-specific adaptation yields large improvements over frozen representations, and a fine-tuned 300M encoder performs competitively with substantially larger prompted and adapted models. We further study whether localizing the conflicting claims improves classification through matched predicted-span, reference-span, and distractor-span conditions. The results show that automatically extracted evidence provides additional signal but recovers only part of the benefit obtained from reference spans. Per-class and confusion analyses further reveal that some inconsistency types are especially sensitive to localization quality, whereas others remain difficult even when the relevant evidence is supplied. These findings identify evidence localization and fine-grained type discrimination as distinct challenges and show that compact supervised encoders are strong baselines for this task.
Treating supervision format as a first-class hyperparameter for multi-task reasoning SFT in large language models—at least in this benchmark-and-model setting—rather than a mere rendering detail is supported.
Nhat Thanh Vu, M. Rashid, Fariza Sabrina· Electronics· 0 citations
U N M ASK is presented, a fully automated pipeline that discovers, causally verifies, and mitigates spurious correlations in text classifiers without additional human annotation, and demonstrates that the discovery and validation stages generalize to reward model preference data.
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.
Findings provide evidence that truthfulness is a structured, linearly separable concept in the latent space of pretrained language models, and point toward interpretability-driven misinformation detection as a practical complement to retrieval-based pipelines.
P. Barcelos, Otávio Parraga, Marcelo M. Mussi 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.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as AI analysts to process financial disclosures and support AI-assisted investment decisions. Yet such systems are usually evaluated by what they can retrieve, not whether retrieved information affects their judgments. We identify a retrieval-integration gap in long-context financial analysis. Holding focal-firm information fixed and varying only unrelated context from 2,000 to 128,000 tokens, we find that a risk disclosure's influence on investment judgments falls to the experimental noise floor even as direct retrieval remains accurate. The pattern replicates across model families and judgment tasks and in experiments removing real disclosures from actual 10-K filings. More capable models postpone but do not eliminate the gap. Causal memory interventions show that compressed summaries and source-text lookup jointly transmit disclosures into judgments. Workflow architecture determines whether this transmission succeeds: chunk-and-summarize pipelines evict relevant information, whereas a targeted, structured restatement adjacent to the decision restores its influence. AI analyst performance is therefore jointly determined by model capability and workflow architecture. Retrieval-based evaluations can certify systems whose investment judgments ignore information they demonstrably retrieved.
Miao Liu, Zhizhe Liu· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
