FilingLoop: Evaluating and Evolving LLM Agents for Corporate Disclosure Review and Revision
Organizations: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China
Abstract
Public disclosure repositories such as SEC EDGAR support informed investment through web access to corporate filings. Supporting their review with language model agents requires discovering unstated deficiencies across related documents, acquiring missing company facts, and verifying that requested revisions satisfy evidence-backed requirements. Existing financial question-answering evaluations provide limited evidence of these interactive capabilities. We introduce FilingLoop, an interactive benchmark and a self-evolving agent framework for corporate disclosure review and revision. Grounded in historical U.S.\ Securities and Exchange Commission correspondence, FilingLoop reconstructs 380 predominantly IPO review tasks from 96 companies under distinct information constraints. An evaluator separate from the acting agents scores final filings and responses against 6,099 eligible requirements and audits unsupported claims and harmful revisions. Our framework couples iterative review and revision within each case with procedural learning across cases, converting requirement-level evaluation feedback into role-specific guidance without updating model weights. Updates affect only subsequent cases, allowing procedural adaptation to be assessed without retrying scored tasks. On the evaluated stream, evolution increases requirement fulfillment from 24.28% to 27.96% and full comment resolution from 16.90% to 20.75%, with a 5.8% increase in total cost over the fixed-policy variant. FilingLoop connects the concerns an agent discovers with the company facts it obtains and the revisions it commits, providing requirement-level feedback for procedures used in later review tasks.
Figures & tables
| Accuracy (%) | Task completion | Total tokens (M) | Cost | Agent time | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Backbone | Requirement Acc. | Comment Acc. | Task Acc. | Company Acc. | (%) | Input | Output | (USD) | Total (h) | Avg. (min/task) |
| Codex | gpt-6.1-sol | 22.13 (1,350/6,099) | 14.84 (447/3,012) | 4.74 (18/380) | 0.00 (0/96) | 99.74 (379/380) | 4,706.25 | 33.07 | 3,498.82 | 673.46 | 106.34 |
| Claude Code | claude-opus-5.5 | 21.18 (1,292/6,099) | 14.21 (428/3,012) | 4.21 (16/380) | 0.00 (0/96) | 99.47 (378/380) | 4,301.81 | 38.14 | 3,713.03 | 696.21 | 109.93 |
| mini-SWE-agent | gpt-6.1-sol | 21.99 (1,341/6,099) | 14.61 (440/3,012) | 4.47 (17/380) | 0.00 (0/96) | 99.74 (379/380) | 3,676.76 | 24.14 | 1,353.33 | 183.61 | 28.99 |
| mini-SWE-agent | claude-opus-5.5 | 23.74 (1,448/6,099) | 16.37 (493/3,012) | 5.26 (20/380) | 0.00 (0/96) | 100.00 (380/380) | 3,382.62 | 28.73 | 2,327.73 | 212.99 | 33.63 |
| mini-SWE-agent | gemini-4-argon | 21.10 (1,287/6,099) | 14.31 (431/3,012) | 4.21 (16/380) | 0.00 (0/96) | 99.47 (378/380) | 3,934.13 | 26.07 | 1,028.53 | 172.59 | 27.25 |
| Cost/task | Requirements met | ||
| Configuration | (USD) | /\uparrow$ | /hour |
| Codex / GPT | 9.21 | 38.6 | 2.00 |
| Claude Code / Opus | 9.77 | 34.8 | 1.86 |
| SWE / GPT | 3.56 | 99.1 | 7.30 |
| SWE / Opus | 6.13 | 62.2 | 6.80 |
| SWE / Gemini | 2.71 | 125.1 | 7.46 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Disposition | Count | Share | Needs facts | Evidence target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure change | 4,668 | 76.5% | 2,093 (44.8%) | Amended filing with the required addition, edit, or removal |
| Explanation to staff | 1,075 | 17.6% | 805 (74.9%) | Formal response with the requested explanation or analysis |
| Supporting material | 173 | 2.8% | 33 (19.1%) | Submission containing the requested document, exhibit, or copy |
| Commitment | 183 | 3.0% | 149 (81.4%) | Formal response with an explicit commitment to future action |
| Total | 6,099 | 100% | 3,080 (50.5%) | Requirement-specific evidence in the designated deliverable |
| Record or artifact | Reviewer | Filer | Trusted host |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permitted filing and earlier history | Read | Read | Selects sources |
| Current draft and committed edits | Read | Propose edits | Validates and commits |
| Generated review comments | Author | Read | Retains and routes |
| Formal issuer responses | Read | Author | Retains and routes |
| Company questions and released answers | Hidden | Private access | Serves scoped facts |
| Current historical letters and amendments | Hidden | Hidden | Reference evidence |
| Reporting scope | Requirements | Comments | Tasks | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System and Reviewer | 6,099 | 3,012 | 380 | 96 |
| Filer (shared Fixed target pool) | 2,162 | 983 | 283 | 95 |
| Setting | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Evaluation population | 380 tasks, 96 companies; 378 registration and 2 annual-report tasks |
| Task order | Seed 0; interleaved companies, chronological rounds within each company |
| Update batches | At most 16 tasks; no repeated company in the same batch |
| Concurrent execution | Up to 16 tasks; policies frozen throughout each update batch |
| Interaction budget | At most 3 exchanges; 100 reference steps per role invocation |
| Reasoning effort | high by default; provider options retained in request records |
| Fixed | Evolving | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resource | Reviewer | Filer | Shared | Reviewer | Filer | Shared |
| Input tokens (M) | 3,041.21 | 2,848.36 | 209.02 | 3,126.36 | 3,076.23 | 229.92 |
| Output tokens (M) | 15.47 | 16.47 | 3.65 | 16.17 | 17.54 | 4.19 |
| Cost (USD) | 1,144.51 | 740.30 | 495.34 | 1,185.71 | 793.60 | 539.92 |
LLM Agent Evaluation
Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 1,217 papers