Hugging Face Trending Papers

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

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

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.

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
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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 29

Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text

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.