Same Text, Different Numbers: The Divergence of LLM-Based Measures

Large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly used for financial document analysis, including earnings call transcripts (ECTs). Beyond generating standalone claims, users increasingly prefer grounded analyses that pair claims with verifiable citations from source documents to enable independent validation. However, evaluating such analytical claims typically requires extensive expert annotation, which is costly and difficult to scale, and real-world financial analysis commonly involves long context-question-answer triplets, further increasing task complexity. To address these challenges and benchmark the current landscape of grounded analysis by LLMs, we propose a numeric evidence evaluation method that enables groundedness assessment without reliance on expert annotation. We also introduce an automated dataset construction pipeline and construct ECTs-100 from the top 100 constituents of the S&P 500 to support benchmark of both groundedness and correctness. In addition, we examine conscious incompetence, a practical failure mode in financial analysis in which LLMs must detect when available evidence is insufficient and refrain from producing unsupported hallucinations. Empirical results show that LLMs perform well in groundedness but face notable limitations in correctness, with informational insufficiency presenting an additional challenge.

Which inputs drive a language model's financial forecast? We construct synthetic earnings announcements that independently reverse 20-day momentum, non-informational commentary tone, and whether fixed actual EPS beats a manipulated consensus. Six instruction/chat checkpoint conversions from four families (0.49-7.61B base parameters) receive 2,016 prompts each under a direct-answer Q8_0 protocol. The design includes 24 numerical blocks, six commentary pairs, profits and losses, rising and falling annual EPS, and two surprise sizes. Both A/B answer assignments and U/D cover all 384 primary scenarios per conversion. We estimate matched changes in conditional answer-prefix scores, not calibrated market probabilities. Across these checkpoints, the primary EPS contrast ranges from -0.19 to 86.80 percentage points. The magnitude of the primary signed tone contrast exceeds that of EPS in 5 of six models, and momentum exceeds it in 5. Natural-word numerical diagnostic accuracy ranges from 51.0 to 95.8 percent. Answer-encoding, wording, context, and conversion controls qualify these results. The experiment measures observable input reliance and numerical recognition; it establishes neither an internal reasoning mechanism nor realized return predictability. Public benchmark prompts, recorded scores, and an interactive recorded-results explorer accompany the study.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in computational social science to assign scalar scores to social and psychological constructs. However, studies use different rating scales, and whether their scores remain comparable across scale designs is understudied. To address this gap, we define and systematically investigate scale sensitivity, the variation in LLM-generated scores caused by rating scale design. We distinguish numerical sensitivity, changes in normalized scores, from semantic sensitivity, changes in score interpretation. To assess both, our experimental design crosses 2 formats (continuous vs. ordinal), 4 ranges (3, 5, 11, and 21 points), and 2 signs (signed vs. unsigned) across 3 tasks (political leaning, sentiment, and toxicity), 2 prompting strategies (zero-shot and rubric-based), and 5 LLMs. We find that changing one design element shifts normalized scores by about 0.10 on average and changes the category of roughly 20% of texts. Sensitivity is greatest for toxicity, the only unipolar construct examined. Also, rubric-based prompting does not reduce sensitivity compared with zero-shot prompting. We provide practical guidance for designing more reliable LLM-based text scoring and highlight the need for robustness checks across alternative scales.