FIRE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Financial Intelligence and Reasoning Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to financial analysis, reporting, investment decision support, risk management, compliance, and professional training. However, robust evaluation of their domain competence in finance remains incomplete. Widely used open benchmarks such as FinQA, ConvFinQA, and TAT-QA have played an important role in advancing financial question answering and numerical reasoning, but they focus primarily on question answering over financial reports and do not provide an explicit hierarchy of professional difficulty. Broader resources, including FinanceBench, PIXIU, FinBen, and FLaME, expand the coverage of financial tasks, yet the problem of evaluating the transition from foundational knowledge to expert-level financial reasoning remains open. In this work, we present FINESSE-Bench, a suite of eight specialized benchmarks comprising 3,993 questions for hierarchical evaluation of financial competencies in LLMs. FINESSE-Bench combines exam-oriented datasets inspired by professional certifications (CFA-like Levels 1-3, CMT-like Level 2, and CFTe-like Level 1), applied trading task collections, and a Russian-language olympiad benchmark. This design enables evaluation of domain breadth, performance degradation as difficulty increases, the ability to solve computational tasks, and model behavior in specialized financial domains. We also describe a unified evaluation protocol covering multiple-choice questions, numerical answers, and short open-ended responses, together with an automated scoring scheme for freeform answers based on the LLM-as-judge paradigm. FINESSE-Bench is intended both as a complement to existing open financial benchmarks and as a tool for more substantive evaluation of professionally relevant financial competencies in large language models.

While existing benchmarks have made substantial progress in evaluating LLMs across STEM domains, financial reasoning over structured data remains comparatively less explored. We introduce V-FiLLM, a framework that generates financial reasoning benchmarks from executable computation trees grounded in real tables, yielding items whose answers are correct by construction. Trees are evaluated symbolically to obtain ground truth and rendered into natural-language questions, removing any model from the labeling loop, so items can be generated at arbitrary scale without annotation cost and without inheriting a generator's error rate. V-FiLLM exposes four independently controllable axes of difficulty including computation depth, expression breadth, financial concept complexity, and context size. By evaluating on open-source models, we find that accuracy falls up to 51% as reasoning depth increases, and up to 47% points under adversarial numerical perturbations, highlighting remaining challenges in robust financial reasoning over tables. We further show that lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on verified chain-of-thought traces improves accuracy from 81.1% to 85.6% on held-out problems and outperforms the base model by 5% points on FinQA (Chen et al., 2022a), s), suggesting that targeted, low-cost adaptation is a promising direction for compositional reasoning in financial QA.

Deploying large language models for professional financial review requires more than measuring general financial competence: models must perform the specific review operation required by a workflow and determine whether available evidence is sufficient for a defensible decision. Existing financial benchmarks cover knowledge, reasoning, compliance, and professional tasks, but their evaluation units are often organized around datasets or task formulations rather than the decisions that deployed systems support. We introduce FinRiskAtlas, a Chinese-language benchmark that evaluates financial LLMs along two complementary dimensions: operation execution under fixed evidence states and evidence-state control under evolving review conditions. The static benchmark contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 Domain Knowledge families and eleven downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. FinRisk-Ask extends this framework through offline replay of 680 pre-action states from 104 de-identified professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference and using it only to construct expert-verified evidence targets. Across 33 model configurations, operation-level evaluation yields non-redundant rankings (mean pairwise Spearman correlation 0.42 across downstream operations), and knowledge-based shortlisting can incur up to 18.01 points of regret on individual operations. FinRisk-Ask further shows that entering the Ask branch more frequently does not necessarily improve request targeting or end-to-end evidence acquisition. These results show that broad financial capability scores do not fully capture where models are reliable in professional workflows, motivating evaluation units aligned with the decisions and evidence states that deployed systems must support.