Organizations: The University of Hong Kong · Grace Investment Machine · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · University of Cambridge · Lanzhou University · Haitun Information Technology
Anticipating financial outcomes requires synthesizing evolving evidence and reasoning under uncertainty, making deep research systems promising tools for forecasting. Yet evaluating forecasting ability is challenging because historical backtests may reward memorized outcomes or information retrieved after the forecast date. Live forecasting avoids direct access to realized outcomes, but feedback arrives only after events resolve. To obtain timely feedback and assess historical scores, we introduce FinForesight, a diagnostic backtesting benchmark for financial deep research systems. Across the Chinese, U.S., and Hong Kong markets, the benchmark evaluates four forecasting tasks: valuation, return ranking, event direction, and future financial fundamentals. Two capability diagnostic tasks assess counterfactual reasoning and financial calculation, scored separately from forecasting performance. Our harness-compatible framework restricts retrieved evidence to information available at the forecast date. We compare pretraining-era, resolved post-cutoff, and live evaluations to test whether controlled backtests approximate future performance. Pretraining-era scores exceed post-cutoff scores in most temporal comparisons, and stronger retrieval controls narrow the gap between post-cutoff backtests and live results. Forecasting attribution and robustness analyses reveal how scores respond to retrieval policy and how predictions respond to prompt rewrites and numerical perturbations. The code and benchmark data are publicly available.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Can controlled T2 backtests approximate T3 forecasting performance? The model knowledge cutoff cm marks the T1/T2 boundary, and the benchmark run date r marks the T2/T3 boundary. T1 contains pretraining-era history, T2 resolved post-cutoff events, and T3 unresolved live events. Evidence used for each forecast must have been public by the prediction time t .
Figure 2: Three-stage workflow of FinForesight. Model-specific instances are constructed across financial tasks, markets, and T1/T2/T3 temporal regimes. The model–harness system generates predictions using only external information available at the forecast date. The evaluator scores predictions against reference labels immediately for resolved outcomes or after resolution for live events. Temporal comparisons assess historical performance advantages and backtest-to-live agreement, and prompt perturbations examine prediction robustness.
Forecasting Performance
Capability Diagnostic Tasks
Harness
Model
VAL ↑
RANK ↑
EVT ↑
FUND ↑
Overall ↑
CF ↑
CALC ↑
FinanceHarness
Gemma-3
0.7971
0.4884
0.6722
0.4061
0.5910
0.8667
0.6199
GPT-4.1-mini
0.8746
0.4687
0.6491
0.6105
0.6507
0.9000
0.5517
Phi-4
0.8857
0.4536
0.6774
0.6493
0.6665
0.9000
0.8005
Claude Sonnet 4.5
0.8706
0.4785
0.6717
0.6979
0.6797
0.9667
0.8519
DeepSeek V4 Flash
0.8576
0.4869
0.6765
0.7337
0.6887
0.9667
1.0000
Table 1: Forecasting performance on T2 instances and capability diagnostic task scores across 22 model–harness configurations. Overall is the unweighted mean of VAL, RANK, EVT, and FUND, excluding CF and CALC. Rows are ordered by increasing Overall within each harness. Bold and underlined Overall scores indicate the highest- and second-highest-scoring configurations within each harness, respectively.
Model
Task
CN
US
HK
GPT-4.1-mini
RANK
+0.0564
+0.0635
+0.0346
EVT
+0.0549
+0.0599
-0.0117
FUND
+0.4469
+0.1045
+0.1602
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
RANK
+0.0906
+0.1709
+0.1555
EVT
+0.1013
+0.0259
-0.0079
FUND
+0.3503
+0.0897
+0.1523
Table 2: T1–T2 score gaps for RANK, EVT, and FUND across CN/US/HK in FinanceHarness. Each cell reports Δ(T1,T2)=ST1−ST2 . Positive values indicate higher T1 scores than T2 scores.
Model
Search Setting
RANK
EVT
FUND
GPT-4.1 mini
Search
+0.0132
+0.0659
+0.1337
+ PIT
+0.0093
+0.0684
+0.0328
+ PIT + Filter
+0.0037
+0.0043
+0.0141
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Search
+0.1286
+0.1077
+0.1465
+ PIT
+0.0748
+0.0161
+0.0473
+ PIT + Filter
+0.0864
+0.0103
+0.0344
Table 3: US T2–T3 score gaps across three retrieval settings in FinanceHarness, using matched one-week evaluation windows. Gaps are computed as T2 scores minus T3 scores, with positive values indicating higher T2 performance. Bold indicates the smallest absolute gap for each model–task pair.
Model
Task
Δ(T1,T2)
Δ(T2,T3)
T3 Score
Input Score Delta
GPT-4.1-mini
EVT
+0.0599
+0.0043
0.5805
-0.003848
FUND
+0.1045
+0.0141
0.7194
-0.001075
Claude Sonnet 4.5
EVT
+0.1108
+0.0080
0.5926
+0.000235
FUND
+0.0859
+0.0267
0.8563
-0.000910
Table 4: Prediction attribution for US EVT and FUND in FinanceHarness. Δ(T1,T2)=ST1−ST2 and Δ(T2,T3)=ST2−ST3 use T2 scores under search, PIT, and LLM filtering. Input Score Delta combines signed score changes under prompt rewrites and numerical perturbations.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Task
Market
T1 Score
T2 Score
T3 Score (reference)
Delta(T1,T2)
GPT-4.1-mini
VAL
CN
0.8153
0.9028
–
-0.0875
VAL
US
0.7827
0.8502
0.8417
-0.0675
VAL
HK
0.6552
0.7107
–
-0.0555
RANK
CN
0.5240
0.4676
–
0.0564
RANK
US
0.5172
0.4538
0.4501
0.0635
RANK
HK
0.5144
0.4798
–
0.0346
Appendix
Table 5: Available FinanceHarness temporal scores. T3 reference scores are available for the 12 US model–task combinations. Dashes (–) mark CN/HK scopes without reported T3 results, not observed forecasting failures. Small differences between listed deltas and subtraction of displayed scores can reflect rounding.
Model
Scope
Search Setting
T2 Score
T3 Score
Delta(T2,T3)
GPT-4.1-mini
RANK + US
search only
0.4633
0.4501
0.0132
search + PIT
0.4594
0.0093
search + PIT + LLM Filter
0.4538
0.0037
EVT + US
search only
0.6464
0.5805
0.0659
search + PIT
0.6489
0.0684
search + PIT + LLM Filter
0.5847
0.0043
Appendix
Table 6: US RANK, EVT, and FUND T2/T3 scores under three search settings in FinanceHarness with matched one-week evaluation windows. Only T2 settings vary against the shared T3 reference within each model–task scope. Scores and gaps are shown to four decimal places. Small differences between a reported gap and subtraction of displayed scores reflect rounding.
Model
CN
US
HK
GPT-4.1-mini
0.6173
0.6536
0.6341
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
0.6772
0.7480
0.6698
Claude Sonnet 4.5
0.6380
0.7262
0.6679
DeepSeek V4 Flash
0.6825
0.7235
0.6613
Phi-4
0.6618
0.6803
0.6246
Gemma-3
0.5628
0.6366
0.5659
Appendix
Table 7: Model-level T2 market scores averaged equally across the three research harnesses within each market.
Model
Harness
CN
US
HK
GPT-4.1-mini
FH
0.6292
0.6556
0.6646
ODR
0.5701
0.6372
0.6480
GPT-R
0.6525
0.6679
0.5898
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
FH
0.6853
0.7387
0.6903
ODR
0.6527
0.7437
0.6736
GPT-R
0.6937
0.7616
0.6454
Appendix
Table 8: Complete market-level T2 results underlying Table 7 . FH denotes FinanceHarness, ODR Open Deep Research, and GPT-R GPT-Researcher. Bold type marks the highest market score within each model–harness row.
Model
Harness
Prompt CR
Perturb CR
Score Delta
GPT-4.1-mini
FH
0.2150
0.0867
-0.002004
GPT-R
0.2367
0.0917
-0.002512
Claude Sonnet 4.5
FH
0.1683
0.0700
-0.001473
GPT-R
0.1883
0.0783
-0.002017
Appendix
Table 9: Mean T2 robustness across EVT/FUND and CN/US/HK. CR denotes Change Rate, FH denotes FinanceHarness, and GPT-R denotes GPT-Researcher.
Model
Harness
Task
Market
Prompt Change Rate
Perturb Change Rate
Score Delta
GPT-4.1-mini
FinanceHarness
EVT
CN
0.17
0.12
-0.00147222
EVT
US
0.18
0.08
-0.00384787
EVT
HK
0.23
0.09
0.0028771
FUND
CN
0.23
0.07
-0.0034291
FUND
US
0.27
0.07
-0.0010748
FUND
HK
0.21
0.09
-0.0050801
Appendix
Table 10: Consolidated T2 robustness results across CN/US/HK. Score Delta is the mean of prompt and numerical score changes.
Model
Task
Search
+ PIT
+ PIT + Filter
T3
Delta (T1,T2)
Delta (T2,T3)
GPT-4.1-mini
EVT
0.6464
0.6489
0.5847
0.5805
+0.0599
+0.0043
FUND
0.8530
0.7522
0.7335
0.7194
+0.1045
+0.0141
Claude Sonnet 4.5
EVT
0.8232
0.7808
0.6006
0.5926
+0.1108
+0.0080
FUND
0.9882
0.9221
0.8829
0.8563
+0.0859
+0.0267
Appendix
Table 11: Task-specific scores underlying prediction attribution in FinanceHarness on US EVT and FUND. Search, + PIT, and + PIT + Filter report T2 scores. Delta(T2,T3) is the filtered T2 score minus the T3 reference score. Scores and gaps are displayed to four decimal places. Small differences between a reported gap and subtraction of displayed scores reflect rounding.
Financial forecasting uses market, company, and economic data to predict prices, returns, volatility, and business outcomes for decisions and risk management.
Powered by advances in LLMs and autonomous agents, deep research has become one of the most widely adopted agentic products. However, most deep research systems write general-purpose reports, which are inadequate for financial deep research. Financial research demands specialized knowledge to analyze historical patterns and forecast upcoming events. Automating financial deep research therefore requires both a layered harness to drive the research agent and a verifiable, point-in-time benchmark that prevents leakage of future information. We present FinanceHarness, a harness that runs finance-oriented tools and practitioner-guided workflows, automating financial deep research end to end: environment and data construction, the agent execution loop, and reward modeling. We further propose FinanceGym, comprising thesis-driven research questions and rubrics that combine pre-cutoff and post-cutoff criteria. Professional expert validation yields an 82% pass rate. With the same open-weight backbone, FinanceHarness improves the overall rubric score from 25.3% to 32.4%, demonstrating the effectiveness of our specialized harness design. However, even pairing FinanceHarness with the most cutting edge LLM (e.g. Opus-5), the FinanceGym score is below 45%, showing that it is a challenging benchmark for financial deep research. Leaderboard is available at: https://financegym.github.io/ and FinanceHarness code is available at: https://github.com/Yijia-Xiao/FinanceHarness.
Yijia Xiao, Rujun Han, Yanfei Chen +8
Google Cloud AI Research · University of California, Los Angeles
Backtesting large language models (LLMs) on historical financial data is unreliable because pre-training cuts off after the events happened. An LLM trained in 2024 already "knows" which way 2018-2020 stocks moved. We name this failure parametric look-ahead bias and propose FinCAD, an inference-time adaptation of Context-Aware Decoding that suppresses an LLM's memory of historical outcomes without retraining. FinCAD pairs an adversarial bias-discovery pipeline that learns a model-specific memory-activating prior prompt with an entity- and date-adaptive rule that scales the CAD strength to per-(entity, date) memorisation, so the penalty fires on memorised in-sample dates and decays to zero out-of-sample. Across five 7-14B LLMs and five mega-cap equities, FinCAD cuts in-sample backtest returns by up to -67.1% on memorised dates while leaving 2025 out-of-sample returns within $8K and Sharpe within 0.10 of baseline, and preserves general-purpose reasoning within 1.7 pts. On an eleven-model leaderboard, it raises the in-sample / out-of-sample Spearman correlation from +0.779 to +0.846, recovering rankings that genuinely predict out-of-sample performance.
Digital agents can now gather and organize information, reason over it, and use tools to complete complex tasks. Forecasting puts all of these abilities to the test: it requires integrating incomplete evidence, inferring causal drivers, and committing to calibrated probabilistic judgments. Existing benchmarks are poorly suited to measuring and improving this ability. Live benchmarks provide feedback only after events resolve, so every evaluation cycle waits on the calendar; fixed-corpus evaluations return results immediately but confine research to pre-collected documents. We introduce FABench, a scalable backtesting environment for Forecasting Agents. An automated pipeline discovers events, generates questions, and resolves outcomes for any past forecast date, so the benchmark can be renewed to stay ahead of model training cutoffs; its first release poses 287 questions across nine domains. Agents research each question freely in an archive environment that combines an offline archive with live web search screened to prevent temporal leakage. Evaluating agents built on eight recent models, we find that retrieval improves the Brier score of all eight in every retrieval setting and lifts the leading agents to the market consensus on the 54 questions linked to Polymarket, with the best three scoring slightly above it. Research traces reveal recurring failures in how agents weigh and apply evidence, leaving ample room for improvement. We release our code, data, and archive environment as a foundation for community research on forecasting agents.