arXiv:2608. 06108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries.
arXiv:2606. 11537v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial and tabular question answering requires more than fluent reasoning: answers must be grounded in the exact facts, formulas, units, signs, and scales that support them.
FinRiskAtlas is a Chinese-language benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) for financial risk review by focusing on decision‑aligned tasks rather than generic financial knowledge. It contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 domain‑knowledge families and 11 downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. The extended FinRisk‑Ask framework replays 680 pre‑action states from 104 professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference to assess evidence‑state control and request targeting. Results across 33 model configurations show that operation‑level evaluation yields distinct rankings and that knowledge‑based shortlisting can incur significant regret, while frequent use of the Ask branch does not necessarily improve evidence acquisition, highlighting gaps in broad financial capability scores.
arXiv:2607. 20491v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard evaluation benchmarks measure what a tool-using agent decides, not whether it arrives at that decision through the same process each time.
The study investigates whether adding inference-time reasoning to large language models (LLMs) improves trading performance. Using a controlled experiment across DeepSeek, GPT, and Gemini models, the authors varied reasoning effort while keeping other variables constant and evaluated over a full year of U.S. equities under three input conditions. Results show that additional reasoning does not reliably increase net portfolio returns and can even lead to nonmonotonic performance and unstable outcomes.
FinSkillBench is an evaluation suite that tests whether language model agents can use financial domain skills to solve investment management tasks across portfolio construction, risk management, and fundamental analysis. The benchmark contains 12 subtasks with 2,603 episodes, each providing point‑in‑time inputs, hidden ground truth, and a verifier. Experiments show that curated skill packages improve performance significantly, while self‑generated skills offer little benefit, indicating that reliable procedural skills are crucial for effective AI agents in this domain.
arXiv:2608. 16386v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial agents must do more than recall domain knowledge: they must be both reliable, executing precise operations over grounded evidence, and executive, sustaining long-horizon research whose conclusions remain auditable.
arXiv:2606. 29771v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly cast as autonomous portfolio managers, and benchmarks have moved from financial question-answering to sequential trading.
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv:2604. 10015v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent studies demonstrate that tool-calling capability enables large language models (LLMs) to interact with external environments for long-horizon financial tasks.
arXiv:2606. 25984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.
arXiv:2608. 08514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models).
FinalityBench is an executable benchmark that tests how agents decide on shipping, re‑capturing, refunding, or waiting when a merchant’s payment processor, ledger, ERP, and bank feed receive delayed, duplicated, dropped, or reordered messages, causing contradictory beliefs about an order. The benchmark uses a hidden canonical event log and faulted delivery streams to generate system views, scoring each episode by the merchant’s terminal economic position relative to a privileged reference. It contains 321 tasks, including 45 twin pairs where all four views are identical yet the correct disposition differs, and evaluates nine programmatic policies, revealing that a ship‑on‑first‑sign policy performs best by accuracy but worst by paired loss, while a runtime‑gated irreversible‑action policy achieves 85.4% accuracy without losing money.