FinReportBench: Measuring and Improving Institution-Grade Financial Report Generation

We argue that financial report generation should operate at the analytical rather than structural level, composing content from data-derived insights rather than high-level topics or sections. To this end, we propose AnalysisBank, which distills expert reports into a reusable library of Analyses, each pairing a data signal, an analytical move, and the expert span it was derived from. At inference time, AnalysisBank matches input signals to library entries and applies the retrieved moves to compose the report. A study of Analyses distilled from 550 expert reports reveals a heavy-tailed distribution of 47-52 signal types spanning 13 move types. On two financial benchmarks across four LLM backbones, AnalysisBank increases the proportion of novel, data-grounded insights by 1.7-3.7x over structural-level baselines. Transfer to scientific writing suggests that the distinction generalizes beyond finance. Code and the distilled Analysis library are available at https://github.com/yajingyang/AnalysisBank.

Financial-research answers are decision-relevant only when another analyst can audit how they were produced: which source was chosen, which period and accounting definition were used, which assumptions were made, and how the calculation was performed. Existing finance benchmarks largely evaluate isolated subskills or final answers, leaving the auditable derivation itself under-measured. We introduce BigFinanceBench, a 928-item expert-authored benchmark of open-ended financial-research tasks in which each item pairs a ground-truth reference answer with a point-weighted rubric that decomposes the derivation into independently checkable steps. BigFinanceBench is workflow-grounded in that it evaluates the full derivation rather than only the final output. Across 36,241 rubric points, the benchmark supports partial-credit evaluation and localization of failures across the analyst workflow. Evaluating ten current frontier and open-weight agents, we find substantial headroom: the best system reaches only 58.8% rubric score, final-answer accuracy is a useful but lossy proxy for derivation quality, and model capability varies non-uniformly across financial workflows.

Deep research agents are increasingly used to produce long-form financial reports, yet large-scale evaluation remains bottlenecked by the need for human experts to define and execute high-quality rubrics. We address this problem by proposing a scalable pipeline for generating high-quality rubrics without human experts in the final loop. We build a financial deep research benchmark from 104 real-world user queries and automatically synthesize 14,450 query-specific candidate rubrics from model-generated reports. To justify removing human experts from rubric execution, we compare rubric judgments from three human experts with those from a three-LLM judge panel on a sampled subset, and show that LLM-based evaluation is sufficiently consistent with human evaluation to replace it for large-scale rubric screening, including 98.67% label-level agreement on jointly unanimous items. We then derive consensus-derived gold rubrics through two filters: a strict consistency filter, which keeps a rubric only if the three LLM judges unanimously agree on every report under the same query, and a distinguishability filter, which keeps a rubric only if it assigns at least one majority-yes and at least one majority-no label across the evaluated systems. This process retains 3,687 consistency-passed rubrics, of which 2,600 remain distinguishable and form the final set of consensus-derived gold rubrics. Using this final rubric set, we obtain clearly differentiated rankings across 10 deep research systems, with item-level pass rates ranging from 58.58% to 22.23%. More broadly, because the pipeline removes human-expert execution from rubric generation and evaluation, it is naturally scalable for benchmark evaluation, automatic system comparison, and future studies of evaluation-driven system improvement.