The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
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.
The paper introduces a benchmark for evaluating large language models on trustworthy analysis of earnings call transcripts. It proposes a numeric evidence evaluation method that assesses groundedness without expert annotation, and presents an automated pipeline that builds the ECTs-100 dataset from the top 100 S&P 500 constituents. The study also explores the failure mode of conscious incompetence, where models must recognize insufficient evidence and avoid hallucinations, finding that while groundedness is strong, correctness remains a challenge.
CITECHOICE is a causal audit that examines how the presentation of documents in an agentic search engine redistributes citation credit. Using 129 everyday‑query transcripts, the study compares structured versus prose renderings of the same source while keeping all other transcript elements fixed. The results show that structured rendering increases the target’s citation count by about half a citation per answer without adding total citations or diminishing competitors’ credit, while also revealing that rank position has a larger effect on citation rates than presentation order alone.
FinRiskAtlas is a Chinese-language benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) for financial risk review by focusing on decision‑aligned tasks rather than generic financial knowledge. It contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 domain‑knowledge families and 11 downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. The extended FinRisk‑Ask framework replays 680 pre‑action states from 104 professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference to assess evidence‑state control and request targeting. Results across 33 model configurations show that operation‑level evaluation yields distinct rankings and that knowledge‑based shortlisting can incur significant regret, while frequent use of the Ask branch does not necessarily improve evidence acquisition, highlighting gaps in broad financial capability scores.
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.
arXiv:2607. 00738v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record.