arXiv:2610.19240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial disclosures express the underlying relationships of double-entry accounting through unstructured text. While financial LLM benchmarks predomi...
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.
The IGT system tackles PolyFiQA Task 2 of the FinMMEval Lab, a multilingual financial QA challenge involving English SEC filings and news in five languages. It distinguishes two question families: numeric‑structured queries are answered via keyword extraction from filings, while synthesis queries use rule‑based passage selection from news. The approach yields a development ROUGE‑1 of ~0.395, a 60% boost over a generic RAG baseline, and places third among twelve teams on the official test set.
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.
The paper introduces a benchmark for evaluating large language models on trustworthy analysis of earnings call transcripts. It proposes a numeric evidence evaluation method that assesses groundedness without expert annotation, and presents an automated pipeline that builds the ECTs-100 dataset from the top 100 S&P 500 constituents. The study also explores the failure mode of conscious incompetence, where models must recognize insufficient evidence and avoid hallucinations, finding that while groundedness is strong, correctness remains a challenge.
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.
arXiv:2607. 19259v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial statement fraud detection (FSFD) is crucial for market integrity but faces challenges from increasingly sophisticated schemes and under-utilized textual data in financial reports.
arXiv:2607. 22841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present DS@GT's submission to FinMMEval 2026 Task 1, a multilingual financial exam question answering benchmark spanning English, Spanish, Greek, Chinese, and Hindi.
arXiv:2606. 18192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As high-quality public web corpora become increasingly exhausted, clean long-context documents have become a scarce and expensive source of training data for large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2608. 04374v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can produce fluent financial analysis, but fluency alone does not establish whether a report is suitable for institutional delivery.
The paper introduces a large corpus of about 160,000 Brazilian Portuguese financial news articles to support Natural Language Processing research in this domain. It presents initial benchmarks for a weakly supervised multi‑class classification task using semantic similarity, evaluating cosine similarity, K‑Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and FAISS‑based nearest‑neighbor search with multilingual embeddings. Results show that KNN performs best on manually labeled data (47.3% accuracy, 31.9% F1), while LLM‑annotated data yields similar accuracy but much lower F1 scores due to label imbalance and noise.