MoCA-Agent: A Market-of-Claims Code Agent for Financial and Numerical Reasoning

Financial document question answering (QA) demands complex multi-step numerical reasoning over heterogeneous evidence--structured tables, textual narratives, and footnotes--scattered across corporate filings. Existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approaches adopt a single-pass retrieve-then-generate paradigm that struggles with the compositional reasoning chains prevalent in financial analysis. We propose FinAgent-RAG, an agentic RAG framework that orchestrates iterative retrieval-reasoning loops with self-verification, specifically engineered for the precision requirements of financial numerical reasoning. The framework integrates three domain-specific innovations: (1) a Contrastive Financial Retriever trained with hard negative mining to distinguish semantically similar but numerically distinct financial passages, (2) a Program-of-Thought reasoning module that generates executable Python code for precise arithmetic rather than relying on error-prone LLM-based mental computation, and (3) an Adaptive Strategy Router that dynamically allocates computational resources based on question complexity, reducing API costs by 41.3% on FinQA while preserving accuracy. Extensive experiments on three benchmark datasets--FinQA, ConvFinQA, and TAT-QA--demonstrate that FinAgent-RAG achieves 76.81%, 78.46%, and 74.96% execution accuracy respectively, outperforming the strongest baseline by 5.62--9.32 percentage points. Ablation studies, cross-backbone evaluation with four LLMs, and deployment cost analysis confirm the framework's robustness and practical viability for financial institutions.

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. To close this gap, we present CLAIR-Fin, a nine-agent framework that decomposes each question into atomic claims maintained in a typed Financial Claim Ledger. Each claim is resolved through Asymmetric Evidence Authority, which conditions evidence trust on claim type rather than treating all modalities as equally reliable; Chain-of-Custody Verification, which checks grounding at the hand-off between drafting and adversarial review rather than only at the pipeline's exit; an Adaptive Rebuttal Cycle, which routes contested claims through adversarial debate whose depth scales with what that debate finds; and a terminal entailment audit paired with a continuous Hallucination Risk Index that distinguishes claims that passed scrutiny from claims never contested. We evaluate CLAIR-Fin on BB-FinQA-X, a 500-question cross-modal financial evaluation set built from Bangladesh Bank Annual Report material, stratified by query type, format, and difficulty. Relative to a single-pass retrieval-augmented generation baseline, it raises faithfulness ($0.780 \rightarrow 0.889$) while abstaining on 5.4% of questions when evidence is insufficient rather than forcing an unsupported response, and it exceeds stronger retrieval-strategy baselines such as HyDE and Graph-RAG on faithfulness ($\leq 0.874$).

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.