Conv-FinRe: A Conversational and Longitudinal Benchmark for Utility-Grounded Financial Recommendation
Authors: Yan Wang, Yi Han, Lingfei Qian, Yueru He, Xueqing Peng, Dongji Feng, Zhuohan Xie, Vincent Jim Zhang, Rosie Guo, Fengran Mo, Jimin Huang, Yankai Chen, Xue Liu, Jian-Yun Nie
Organizations: The Fin AI, USA · Georgia Institute of Technology, USA · Columbia University, USA · California State University, USA · MBZUAI, UAE · University of Montreal, Canada · The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom · McGill University, Canada
Most recommendation benchmarks evaluate how well a model imitates user behavior. In financial advisory, however, observed actions can be noisy or short-sighted under market volatility and may conflict with a user's long-term goals. Treating what users chose as the sole ground truth, therefore, conflates behavioral imitation with decision quality. We introduce Conv-FinRe, a conversational and longitudinal benchmark for stock recommendation that evaluates LLMs beyond behavior matching. Given an onboarding interview, step-wise market context, and advisory dialogues, models must generate rankings over a fixed investment horizon. Crucially, Conv-FinRe provides multi-view references that distinguish descriptive behavior from normative utility grounded in investor-specific risk preferences, enabling diagnosis of whether an LLM follows rational analysis, mimics user noise, or is driven by market momentum. We build the benchmark from real market data and human decision trajectories, instantiate controlled advisory conversations, and evaluate a suite of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal a persistent tension between rational decision quality and behavioral alignment: models that perform well on utility-based ranking often fail to match user choices, whereas behaviorally aligned models can overfit short-term noise. The dataset is publicly released on Hugging Face, and the codebase is available on GitHub.
Figures & tables
Work
Domain
Dynamic
Utility
Multi-view
Dialogue
REASONER ( Chen et al., 2023 )
Video
✗
✗
✗
✗
FairEval ( Sah et al., 2025 )
Music
✗
✗
✗
✗
PerFairX ( Sah and Lian, 2025 )
Movie&Music
✗
✗
✗
✗
CEREAL ( Lee et al., 2026 )
Movie
✗
✗
✗
✔
LLM-REDIAL ( Liang et al., 2024 )
Movie
✗
✗
✗
✔
RecBench ( Liu et al., 2025 )
General
✗
✗
✗
✗
Table 1. Comparison of representative user-centric recommendation benchmarks. Dynamic indicates time-conditioned signals; Utility refers to relevance grounded in a user-dependent decision utility; Multi-view indicates multiple, potentially conflicting ranking views; Dialogue denotes a conversational interactive setting.
Figure 1. Overview of Conv-FinRe benchmark.
Ticker
Company
GICS Sector
Beta
Market Cap
Low Volatility ( β<1 )
PG
Procter & Gamble
Consumer Staples
0.36
$353B
MRK
Merck & Co., Inc.
Health Care
0.38
$274B
VZ
Verizon Communications Inc.
Communication Services
0.36
$188B
Moderate Volatility ( β≈1 )
LIN
Linde plc
Materials
0.95
$213B
Table 2. Summary of the stock universe used in Conv-FinRe . Stocks are grouped by volatility tier based on market beta to ensure balanced exposure to systematic risk.
Scale
Dialogue
Users
10
Min Turns / Instance
4
Steps / User
23
Max Turns / Instance
26
Total Instances
230
Avg Turns / Instance
15
Turn Accounting
Token Status
Unique Turns
270
Min Tokens / Instance
1,818
Prefix-Expanded Turns
3,450
Max Tokens / Instance
7,252
Table 3. Structural statistics of Conv-FinRe benchmark. Token counts are computed using the cl100k_base tokenizer.
Model
uNDCG ↑
MRR ↑
HR@1 ↑
HR@3 ↑
Random
0.73±0.00
0.29±0.01
0.10±0.01
0.30±0.01
GPT-5.2
0.94±0.03
0.46±0.02
0.29±0.03
0.51±0.03
GPT-4o
0.94±0.00
0.56±0.03
0.42±0.03
0.60±0.03
DeepSeek-V3.2
0.92±0.00
0.51±0.03
0.37±0.03
0.55±0.03
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
0.94±0.00
0.47±0.02
0.30±0.03
0.52±0.03
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
0.92±0.01
0.63±0.03
0.50±0.03
0.69±0.03
Table 4. Overall performance on the longitudinal stock advisory task. The Random baseline is computed by averaging over 1,000 uniform random permutations per instance, serving as a sanity-check lower bound.
Model
τ (Utility) ↑
τ (Momentum) ↑
τ (Risk) ↑
Random
0.00±0.01
0.00±0.01
0.00±0.01
GPT-5.2
0.59±0.02
0.56±0.02
0.28±0.02
GPT-4o
0.60±0.02
0.60±0.02
0.20±0.02
DeepSeek-V3.2
0.51±0.02
0.49±0.02
0.26±0.02
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
0.56±0.02
0.55±0.02
0.26±0.02
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
0.52±0.02
0.49±0.02
0.22±0.02
Table 5. Alignment of model-generated rankings with heterogeneous advisory principles.
Figure 2. Step-wise improvement in utility-based alignment from conversational history.
Figure 3. Average utility alignment with and without conversational history.