arXiv AI By Radha Yadav, Prasanna Devadiga, Peeyush Mishra, Apoorv Singh

Right Numbers, Wrong Questions: Evaluating LLMs on Underspecified Financial Queries

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can produce incorrect answers to financial queries that are underspecified, a phenomenon termed "frame collapse." By testing models on Indian mutual fund data—where product variants and tax rules are formally defined—the authors show that LLMs often rely on ambiguous labels, default assumptions, or outdated rules, leading to answers that match the data but answer a different question. The study demonstrates that even a judge that checks for mislabelled figures can miss these errors if the model silently chooses an alternate interpretation.

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 arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 17

CLAIR-Fin: An Adversarial Multi-Agent Framework for Claim-Level Verification and Adaptive Debate in Cross-Modal Financial QA

arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.

By Fatema Tuj Johora Faria, Mukaffi Bin Moin, Jubayer Al Mahmud, M. F. Mridha, Md. Alam Hossain
arXiv AI
2d ago

AgenticFinBench: Benchmarking Financial Agents on Diverse Tasks from Real-World Requests

AgenticFinBench is a new benchmark comprising 230 real‑world financial tasks across eight categories, two languages, and four complexity levels, designed to capture the breadth and open‑ended nature of financial AI work. It introduces a reference‑free evaluation framework that uses question‑specific rubrics and a two‑stage claim audit to detect hallucinations, aligning assessment more closely with real‑world financial practice. Experiments on 18 agent configurations show that ignoring hallucinations inflates performance, that harness differences drive evidence grounding more than model differences, and that task complexity reduces quality scores, highlighting challenges in explaining financial impacts and comparing data consistently.

By Shu Zhou, Ziyang He, Yuxin Rao, Yudong Fang, Jiali Qian, Dongyuan Chen, Juntao Zhang, Yong Hu