Evaluating the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for complex, quantitative financial tasks is a critical and unsolved challenge. Standard benchmarks often fail to isolate an agent's core ability to parse queries and orchestrate computations. To address this, we introduce a novel evaluation methodology and benchmark designed to rigorously measure an LLM agent's reasoning for financial time-series analysis. We apply this methodology in a large-scale empirical study using our framework, Time Series Augmented Generation (TSAG), where an LLM agent delegates quantitative tasks to verifiable, external tools. Our benchmark, consisting of 100 financial questions, is used to compare multiple SOTA agents (e.g., GPT-4o, Llama 3, Qwen2) on metrics assessing tool selection accuracy, faithfulness, and hallucination. The results demonstrate that capable agents can achieve near-perfect tool-use accuracy with minimal hallucination, validating the tool-augmented paradigm. Our primary contribution is this evaluation framework and the corresponding empirical insights into agent performance, which we release publicly to foster standardized research on reliable financial AI.
Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess genuine structural reasoning, or merely rely on surface-level pattern matching? The financial domain, demanding numerical precision and multi-step logic over long contexts, is an ideal testbed. Existing benchmarks fail to capture real-world industrial complexity, predominantly relying on multiple-choice questions or single-hop QA over cropped tables while ignoring intricate cross-statement dynamics and temporal de-cumulation. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinIndices, a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens). Utilizing an automated synthesis pipeline with adversarial traps, FinIndices encompasses Single-Index computation and Table-Index tabulation to test complex domain, temporal, and caliber reasoning. Our evaluation reveals two severe LLM vulnerabilities. First, a "Knowledge Bottleneck": despite memorizing formulas during pre-training, models demonstrate fragile pattern matching. Removing explicit formula hints causes performance to collapse (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro drops from 70.70% to 38.22% on table tasks), exposing fatal flaws in temporal de-cumulation and stock-flow caliber mismatch. Second, a "Structural Bottleneck": the intense cognitive load of generating multi-metric, multi-period tables actively drains reasoning capacity. Under structural pressure, LLMs that flawlessly execute isolated derivations regress to shallow heuristics, such as fetching incorrect adjacent columns or substituting deep accounting adjustments with lazy literal arithmetic. Finally, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) yields substantial zero-hint gains (+8.54% Single, +3.82% Table), validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.
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.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for automated decision-making systems in finance, healthcare, or environmental monitoring. Time series data are ubiquitous in these fields, yet hard to process automatically. Can time series be analyzed by LLM agents? We examine three approaches: providing the agent with raw numerical data, using the LLM as a coding agent, or a combination of both. In the coding agent setup, the model iteratively queries the data using Python code. Using two time series understanding benchmarks, we show that agents with code access can outperform models processing raw data by up to 10%. However, even the best performing agent still answers about 22-34% of the questions incorrectly. To get insights into models' strategies and reasoning gaps, we analyze the model outputs with a strong LLM judge. Our analysis reveals that coding agents can select appropriate statistical tests, but often miss important nuances. Meanwhile, models with access to raw data can reach the right conclusions using back-of-the-envelope calculations.