FinRCA-Bench is a synthetic benchmark designed to evaluate evidence retrieval and reasoning in financial AI systems, specifically for accounts‑payable‑to‑bank reconciliation. It contains 2,250 cases across 14 operational tables, with 1,500 injected failures in 15 causal categories and 750 hard‑negative cases, and hides root‑cause labels and evidence contracts to isolate retrieval performance. Experiments show that retrieval architecture dramatically affects accuracy, with structured retrieval methods like Typed Provenance Graph Retrieval vastly improving macro‑recall and exact‑class accuracy compared to dense semantic retrieval or classical ML.
arXiv:2605. 05409v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Financial document question answering (QA) demands complex multi-step numerical reasoning over heterogeneous evidence--structured tables, textual narratives, and footnotes--scattered across corporate filings.
By Yang Shu, Yingmin Liu, Zequn Xie
arXiv:2609.25192v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Financial search is a highly demanding task for LLM agents, requiring not only a correct final answer but also temporally valid information retrieval,...
By Wenqing Wang, Haitao Xiang, Xinyi Zhao, Mingming Yin, Ying Zhong, Zhaoxin Huan, Qiheng Zhou, Jin Zhu, Xiaolu Zhang, Shi Chang, Jun Zhou
FinRAG-QA is a new benchmark dataset for financial question answering, featuring 999 practitioner-curated questions on 10 standardised indicators drawn from 209 annual and Pillar 3 reports of 24 major European and U.S. banks between 2019 and 2023. The dataset focuses on cross‑institutional retrieval over documents averaging 198k words, making it longer than any existing financial QA resource. Experiments on a multi‑stage Retrieval‑Augmented Generation pipeline show that contextual chunk enrichment and a retrieval‑optimised embedding model significantly improve NDCG@10, while a reasoning‑optimised generator boosts answer accuracy from 44.6% to 79.0% when the correct document is retrieved.
By Arianna Miola, Bruno Spaccavento, Lorenzo Silotto, Marco Bianchetti, Luca Cagliero
arXiv:2608. 07400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial question answering is typically evaluated by answer correctness, yet in SEC filings a plausible and even numerically correct answer can be grounded in the wrong evidence.
By Sasan Mansouri, Daniel Saad, Mark Wahrenburg, Manu Weissel, Fabian Woebbeking
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.
By Suyang Zhong, Jingzhe Zhu, Qi Xu, Liyao Sun, Yin Wang, Qingqing Sun, Shuai Chen, Tianyi Zhang
arXiv:2602. 07294v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the increasing deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the finance domain, LLMs are increasingly expected to parse complex regulatory disclosures.
By Yidong Jiang, Junrong Chen, Eftychia Makri, Jialin Chen, Peiwen Li, Ali Maatouk, Leandros Tassiulas, Eliot Brenner, Bing Xiang, Rex Ying
Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks.
arXiv:2607. 26368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways.
By Aman Kumar, Lasitha Vidyaratne, Dipanjan D Ghosh, Arnab Chakrabarti, Ahmed K Farahat
The paper introduces a data‑centric pipeline for post‑training language models on financial reasoning tasks. It mines open‑source reasoning traces, distills financial instruction data, and generates knowledge‑graph‑guided question‑answer pairs, then filters examples with lightweight classifiers and applies reinforcement learning with rule‑based verifiers. Experiments on FINESSE‑Bench show that retention‑aware adaptation—self‑distilled fine‑tuning and model merging—outperforms ordinary supervised fine‑tuning, improving accuracy by up to 3.0 points and avoiding regressions.
By Zhirayr Hayrapetyan, Andrei Kalmykov, Denis Kokosinskii, Dmitry Stanishevskii, Dmitry Zmitrovich
arXiv:2604. 19755v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Anti-money laundering (AML) transaction monitoring generates large volumes of alerts that must be rapidly triaged by investigators under strict audit and governance constraints.
By Dorothy Torres, Wei Cheng, Ke Hu
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.
By Yupeng Cao, Haohang Li, Weijin Liu, Wenbo Cao, Anke Xu, Lingfei Qian, Xueqing Peng, Minxue Tang, Zhiyuan Yao, Jimin Huang, K. P. Subbalakshmi, Zining Zhu, Jordan W. Suchow, Yangyang Yu