FinInteract: Benchmarking Clarification and Intent Integration in Ambiguous Financial Question Answering
Organizations: McGill University · University of California, Los Angeles · University of Toronto
Abstract
Large language model agents increasingly answer financial questions by searching regulatory filings. Such questions are often deceptively under-specified: Meta Platforms' "operating income" is 62.87B for the Family of Apps segment, and each reading is exactly verifiable against the filing. A capable agent should recognize the ambiguity and ask, rather than commit to a plausible but unintended reading. Existing financial benchmarks cannot measure this, because one gold answer per question cannot separate agents that resolve the ambiguity from those that guess the common reading, a blind spot we call the single-gold illusion. We release FinInteract, a bilingual (English/Chinese) benchmark of 173 instances that pairs each question with a default and an intended interpretation across a five-category ambiguity taxonomy, and grades whether an agent elicits the right clarification and then integrates it. Re-grading identical outputs against the default rather than the intended reading inflates GPT-4o's accuracy by 3.1 times, confirming the illusion. Beyond it, we find that models answer above 90% once the interpretation is supplied but at most 28.9% when they must elicit it themselves, that targeting is uneven across a taxonomy well powered for entity scope and metric definition and exploratory elsewhere, and that conditioning on the ambiguity category improves resolution at both inference and training time.
Figures & tables
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| What was Meta Platforms’ operating income? | |
| Total company (consolidated) results under U.S. GAAP for the year ended December 31, 2023. | |
| (intended) | $46.75B [consolidated GAAP] |
| (default) | $62.87B [Family of Apps segment] |
| Ambiguity category | Entity scope |
| 1.58 bits |
| Category | Definition |
|---|---|
| Temporal scope | Ambiguity over which time period is intended: fiscal year ending September vs. calendar year; Q3 results vs. full year; TTM vs. point-in-time. |
| Metric definition | Ambiguity over accounting basis: GAAP net income vs. non-GAAP adjusted income; organic revenue vs. as-reported; operating EBITDA vs. net income. |
| Entity scope | Ambiguity over consolidation level: segment vs. consolidated total; parent-attributable vs. full consolidated; Class A vs. Class B shares; A-shares vs. H-shares. |
| Filing vintage | Ambiguity over filing version: original 10-K vs. amended 10-K/A; as-reported vs. restated; preliminary earnings release vs. final filing. |
| Recognition policy | Ambiguity over accounting policy: revenue recognized point-in-time vs. over time; gross vs. net revenue; capitalized vs. expensed R&D. |
| Mode | Description |
|---|---|
| A | Pure parametric recall |
| A+S | Oracle retrieval augmented |
| A+S+I | Standard full interaction |
| Always-ask | follow-up question |
| Category-oracle | Provide primary category |
| Template-oracle | Fixed human-written question |
| Property | Value | Property | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total instances | 173 | Category : entity | 94 |
| Language : EN | 53 | metric | 63 |
| ZH | 120 | recognition | 9 |
| Source : EDGAR | 50 | temporal | 7 |
| CSRC-CNINFO | 120 | filing | 0 |
| DocFinQA | 3 | # cat. : single | 128 |
| Model | A | A+I | Forced(4) | Oracle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 | 0.6 | 20.2 | 1.5 | 95.4 |
| GPT-4o | 0.6 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 93.1 |
| GPT-5-mini | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 95.4 |
| Qwen3-30B | 1.2 | 11.6 | – | 90.2 |
| Qwen3.5-35B | 0.6 | 28.9 | – | 91.9 |
| Acc (%) | Answer+Search+Interact | ||||||
| Model | A | A+S | A+S | IR | AC@1 | ECE | |
| Proprietary models | |||||||
| GPT-5.6 | 10.0 | 36.0 | 30.0 | – | .98 | – | |
| GPT-5 | 0.6 | 6.4 | 20.2 | 98.8 | .86 | .53 | |
| GPT-4o | 0.6 | 12.1 | 4.6 | 99.4 | .94 | .82 | |
| GPT-5-mini | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.0 | .94 | .00 | |
| Stage | AC@1 | Interaction | Accuracy | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 25.0 | 54.9 | 84.3 | 0.96 |
| + SFT | 68.6 | 100 | 88.2 | 1.28 |
| + KTO | 70.6 | 100 | 84.3 | 1.27 |
| + GRPO | 66.7 | 100 | 88.2 | 1.30 |
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Mode | Intended | Any-valid | Def.-cap | Ask |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gpt 4o-mini | A | 31.5 | 72.5 | 55.0 | 0 |
| A+O | 49.5 | 68.5 | 31.0 | 0 | |
| A+I | 43.5 | 81.0 | 53.0 | 27.0 | |
| gpt 4o | A | 39.0 | 84.0 | 65.5 | 0 |
| A+O | 68.5 | 81.5 | 31.5 | 0 | |
| A+I | 43.0 | 86.0 | 64.0 | 2.5 |
| Category | 4B | 14B | 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_scope | .00 | .00 | .68 |
| metric_definition | .05 | .00 | .17 |
| recognition_policy | .00 | .00 | .00 |
| Type | Description | Improvement direction |
|---|---|---|
| E1 | Ambiguity blindness : no interaction, wrong answer | Ambiguity pre-check; train on detection |
| E2 | Wrong-category clarification : asked wrong dimension | Category classifier; financial taxonomy grounding |
| E3 | Generic clarification : vague ask, no category target | Category-conditioned clarification templates |
| E4 | Retrieval dominance : searched but skipped interaction | Force interpretation check after retrieval |
| E5 | Clarification misuse : right question, wrong answer | State-gated answering; stronger grounding |
| E6 | Evidence grounding : template-oracle correct, agent wrong | Improved source-grounded extraction |
| entity | metric | recognition | |
| abundant | abundant | scarce | |
| Frontier instances generable | 99 | 76 | 36 (ceiling) |
| Targeting, base evolved | |||
| on held-out generated | .40 | .88 | .00 |
| Interaction rate | |||
| De-leaked accuracy |
| Category | Primary | Salience | Slope | Decode | Co-evolve |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| entity_scope | 905 | 0.92 | 0.77 | GO | |
| metric_definition | 498 | 0.48 | 0.77 | GO ∗ | |
| temporal_scope | 150 | 0.15 | sat. | 0.92 | solved |
| filing_vintage | 264 | 0.33 | – | – | untestable |
| recognition_policy | 30 | 0.04 | 0.93 | weak ‡ |
| Quantity | Value |
|---|---|
| Constructor viability (viable / candidate) | |
| Verifier acceptance (accepted / viable) | |
| Overall acceptance (accepted / candidate) | |
| Cost per rejected candidate (constructor only) | $0.020 |
| Cost per viable passage (full pipeline) | $0.155 |
| Blended cost per candidate passage | $0.035 |
| Rule | Description |
|---|---|
| R1 | must not be answerable yes/no |
| R2 | must not contain disambiguating terms or inline dates |
| R3 | taken verbatim from the source candidate value (not invented) |
| R4 | must name the company |
| R5 | must ask about a substantive financial metric |
| R6 | Answer type consistent with question type |
Financial QA
Financial question answering develops systems that answer questions about reports, markets, regulations, and other financial data with reliable evidence and reasoning.
See all 51 papers