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: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
arXiv:2608.25325v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Deploying large language models for professional financial review requires more than measuring general financial competence: models must perform the...
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.