MM-FinEval: A Multi-Task Multimodal Benchmark for Real-World Financial Forecasting

The emergence of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) has substantially expanded model capabilities beyond text-only understanding, enabling unified inference across both visual and textual modalities and supporting a broader range of real-world applications. To comprehensively evaluate the perception, understanding, reasoning, and cognition capabilities of LVLMs throughout the entire financial business workflow in Chinese contexts, we introduce CFMME, a novel Chinese financial multimodal evaluation benchmark. CFMME comprises 6,052 instances spanning from fundamental academic knowledge to complex real-world applications, covering eight primary financial image modalities and four core multimodal tasks. On CFMME, we conduct a thorough evaluation of representative LVLMs. The results show that the state-of-the-art model attains an overall accuracy of 66.11% on the question answering task and an average score of 77.18 on the detection, recognition, and information extraction tasks, indicating substantial room for improvement in current LVLMs. In addition, we conduct detailed analyses of error causes, cross-modal capabilities, and multi-orientation settings, yielding valuable insights for future research. We hope that CFMME will spur further progress in LVLMs, especially by improving their performance on multiple multimodal tasks in the financial domain.

Most time series forecasting benchmarks remain numerical-centric and provide limited support for evaluating contextual information that shapes real-world temporal dynamics. Existing multimodal benchmarks also suffer from limited data and context coverage, fragmented evaluation settings, and overreliance on aggregate evaluation. In this paper, we propose \textbf{MUSE-Bench}, a unified benchmark for multimodal time series forecasting with heterogeneous context. It comprises fourteen datasets across eight domains and six types of context: metadata, events, holidays, news, images, and numerical covariates. We evaluate diverse forecasting paradigms, including statistical, data-specific, foundation, multimodal, and general-purpose LLM forecasting methods under shared non-overlapping forecast windows, common target observations, and consistent point and probabilistic metrics. Extensive experiments yield three main findings. First, numerical time series foundation models dominate the overall ranking, while Aurora, the evaluated multimodal foundation model, trails the leading numerical TSFMs but outperforms all evaluated data-specific models. Second, ablations show that external context improves the four evaluated context-aware models, whereas incorrect or temporally misaligned context degrades performance. Third, general-purpose LLMs perform poorly as direct forecasters, and LLM-guided refinement does not yield consistent improvements. MUSE-Bench enables systematic evaluation of how forecasting models utilize context and provides a foundation for future multimodal forecasting research.

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.