A Citation-Grounded Benchmark for Trustworthy Earnings Call Transcript Analysis with Large Language Models

We introduce FinVerBench, a benchmark and validity study for financial statement verification: determining whether a set of corporate financial statements is numerically consistent from the information shown to the model. FinVerBench is built from SEC 10-K XBRL filings for 43 S&P 500 companies and defines a four-category error taxonomy covering arithmetic, cross-statement linkage, year-over-year, and magnitude perturbations. We attempt fifteen contemporary LLM evaluations and report fourteen complete runs; a Gemini 2.5 Pro run is excluded from the main comparison because 40/108 gateway calls failed. All binary metrics exclude underdetermined positive instances whose perturbed line item is not rendered, leaving a 105-instance observable diagnostic subset (43 clean, 62 error-injected). Under the original guided-checklist prompt on the unrounded diagnostic subset, nine of fourteen complete LLM runs produce 95-100% false positives on clean statements, while one run achieves 0% observed false positives. Benchmark rendering choices materially affect measured recall: on a realistic rounded variant of the same observable subset, the calibrated model's recall is 79.0% with 0% observed FPR, compared with 100.0% recall on the unrounded diagnostic variant. These results support a construct-validity conclusion rather than a final leaderboard: financial statement verification is not merely arithmetic detection, but calibrated judgment under incomplete observability, prompt-induced assumptions, and realistic numerical rendering. FinVerBench and all code are publicly available.

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess genuine structural reasoning, or merely rely on surface-level pattern matching? The financial domain, demanding numerical precision and multi-step logic over long contexts, is an ideal testbed. Existing benchmarks fail to capture real-world industrial complexity, predominantly relying on multiple-choice questions or single-hop QA over cropped tables while ignoring intricate cross-statement dynamics and temporal de-cumulation. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinIndices, a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens). Utilizing an automated synthesis pipeline with adversarial traps, FinIndices encompasses Single-Index computation and Table-Index tabulation to test complex domain, temporal, and caliber reasoning. Our evaluation reveals two severe LLM vulnerabilities. First, a "Knowledge Bottleneck": despite memorizing formulas during pre-training, models demonstrate fragile pattern matching. Removing explicit formula hints causes performance to collapse (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro drops from 70.70% to 38.22% on table tasks), exposing fatal flaws in temporal de-cumulation and stock-flow caliber mismatch. Second, a "Structural Bottleneck": the intense cognitive load of generating multi-metric, multi-period tables actively drains reasoning capacity. Under structural pressure, LLMs that flawlessly execute isolated derivations regress to shallow heuristics, such as fetching incorrect adjacent columns or substituting deep accounting adjustments with lazy literal arithmetic. Finally, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) yields substantial zero-hint gains (+8.54% Single, +3.82% Table), validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.

Reliable evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is critical as their deployment rapidly expands, particularly in high-stakes domains such as business and finance. The LLM-as-a-Judge framework, which uses prompted LLMs to evaluate response quality, is appealing due to its scalability, low cost, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, it remains unclear how accurately these methods can assess response quality in domains where correctness matters more than style. To address this gap, we introduce the Business and Finance Fundamentals Benchmark (BFF-Bench), a dataset of 160 challenging questions and long-form responses authored by financial professionals. These experts subsequently evaluated the correctness of 1,200 responses generated by a diverse set of LLMs on both BFF-Bench and a challenging subset of MT-Bench. With this expert-annotated dataset of judgments (VERDICTS), we analyze the agreement between a suite of automated grading methods and human experts. While we observe that LLM Judges are more reliable than other grading methods, our findings reveal a clear pattern in LLM Judge performance: when not provided with a correct reference, judges show high agreement with human experts only on questions the judges were able to correctly answer themselves. We demonstrate that providing the judges with expert-written references largely mitigates this issue, highlighting the limits of using LLM-as-a-Judge without any form of human verification.