Large language models (LLMs) can synthesize financial narratives but may express high confidence when evidence is sparse, stale, or contradictory. This failure is especially consequential in forecasting, where filings, news, prices, volume, and technical signals can disagree.
arXiv:2606. 24950v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial decision-making is contextual: forecasting prices, valuing companies, and assessing event exposure weigh price history, accounting fundamentals, macroeconomic regime, and contemporaneous text.
By Patara Trirat, Jin Myung Kwak, Jay Heo, Heejun Lee, Sung Ju Hwang
arXiv:2609.36914v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Post-training has been shown to significantly improve language models' performance on tasks with verifiable outcomes, including mathematical reasoning,...
By Jiacheng Guo, Suozhi Huang, Shuzhen Li, Yunlong Gao, Zerui Cheng, Jason Ge, Shushu Liang, Zihao Li, Hao Lu, Ming Yin, Shilong Liu, Jiashuo Liu, Xu Kuang, Mengdi Wang
arXiv:2607.11414v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite...
By Richard Zhe Wang
The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.
By Yu-Chung Hsiao
arXiv:2607. 16229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as components of agentic systems that observe, plan, and act.
By Rishab Ghosh, Vinay Devarakonda