Hugging Face Trending Papers

Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv AI
Jun 12

Fin-RATE: A Real-world Financial Analytics and Tracking Evaluation Benchmark for LLMs on SEC Filings

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
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Communicating Credit Risk with Large Language Models: Evaluation of Explanations from Standard and Alternative Data-Based Models

The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations from credit risk models into stakeholder-friendly narratives. Using Freddie Mac loan data, the authors compare standard tabular models (XGBoost + SHAP) with alternative data pipelines (GNN + GNNExplainer and a bimodal mix) and generate explanations with three LLM configurations: a small fine‑tuned Gemma 3 4B, a large fine‑tuned DeepSeek R1 70B, and a zero‑shot Gemini 2.5. Findings show that the quality of explanations is more dependent on the evidence representation than on the LLM, that narratives reliably identify influential factors but are less consistent about the direction of influence, and that credit professionals demand higher evidentiary standards than non‑professionals.

By Sahab Zandi, Noah Kostesku, Christophe Mues, Mar\'ia \'Oskarsd\'ottir, Cristi\'an Bravo
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 19

FinRCA-Bench: Benchmarking Evidence Retrieval and Reasoning for Financial AI Systems

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 AI
Aug 20

FinRCA-Bench: Benchmarking Evidence Retrieval and Reasoning for Financial AI Systems

FinRCA-Bench is a deterministic synthetic benchmark comprising 2,250 accounts‑payable‑to‑bank reconciliation cases that span 14 operational tables and include 1,500 injected failures across 15 causal categories. The benchmark hides root‑cause labels and record‑level evidence contracts from models, enabling independent evaluation of evidence retrieval versus reasoning accuracy. Experiments show that retrieval architecture dramatically influences performance, with retrieval improvements raising macro‑required‑record recall from 0.83% to 77.70% and exact 16‑class accuracy from 2.05% to 72.44%.

By Pratik Ghawate