Finance Benchmarks

This technical report presents EXAONE Forecast for Finance (EXAONE Finance), a financial time series (TS) foundation model (TSFM) tailored to financial forecasting. Recent TSFMs achieve strong zero-shot performance through large-scale pretraining. However, they are primarily developed for general-domain TS and largely rely on self-attention backbones whose computational cost grows quadratically with sequence length and variate count. Moreover, they assume fully observed inputs and are pretrained on corpora that fail to capture the unique dynamics of financial markets. These limitations hinder their applicability to finance, where long, many-channel, intermittently observed panels are common. To address these challenges, EXAONE Finance adopts an attention-free architecture, replacing self-attention with two simple yet effective linear-time operators: 1) a causal 1D convolution for temporal mixing and 2) a group-aware pooling multi-layer perceptron (MLP) for variate mixing. Furthermore, a masked context augmentation exposes the model to contiguous missing spans during training, improving robustness to the missingness pervasive in financial markets. EXAONE Finance is pretrained on a large-scale financial corpus covering not only equities but also foreign exchange, commodities, crypto-assets, fixed income, and macroeconomic indicators. On FinVerse, a financial forecasting benchmark covering diverse asset classes, EXAONE Finance attains state-of-the-art performance, ranking first across all three evaluation tiers---point-forecast accuracy, cross-sectional asset ranking, and portfolio profitability.

LLM coding agents issue Bash commands through interfaces that may serialize, wrap, and reparse model output. Matched execution scores alone cannot distinguish command-generation errors from failures introduced after generation. QuoteBench measures this boundary with exact final-state validation on 56 one-shot tasks from 14 incident-derived families, crossing the generation contract with the execution transport around one deliberately unescaped added parser. Escaping at the interpolation point reproduces each replayed reply's raw-path outcome, so any recovery under a disclosed boundary must come from the model changing its generation. Across eight same-window configurations, replaying the same reply through the added parser lowers success by 55.4 to 73.2 percentage points; disclosure recovers 30.4 to 60.7 points for six configurations, and zero or slightly negative for the other two. Raw generation is nearly saturated at the frontier; boundary adaptation is what still separates models. GPT-5.6-sol's matched gap of -3.6 points hides -64.3 points of damage and +60.7 points of compensation. The deployment configuration reorders models: one reversal among 26 comparable pairs is unambiguous and four more sit on single-task margins. Evaluations of command-issuing agents should report the model configuration, generation contract, execution path, operating point, and final-state validator rather than treat a matched score as an intrinsic model property.

AI agents are increasingly deployed for professional investment research, yet no benchmark captures the complexity of the full investor workflow. Existing benchmarks mainly target financial data extraction, a narrow slice that current models have largely saturated, while reference-based metrics and generic LLM-as-a-judge scoring fall short on the open-ended, long-form answers that real analyst queries demand. We introduce FrontierFinance, a fully open benchmark of 220 expert-crafted queries and 11,543 source-attributed rubrics spanning six crucial use cases across the full investor workflow. FrontierFinance is both broader and harder than existing public finance benchmarks. Evaluating frontier models and agent systems under a common harness restricted to publicly available data, we find that the tool harness, not the model alone, strongly shapes quality and efficiency; that Samaya's in-house system leads at 56.0%, ahead of the strongest frontier model (Claude Fable 5, 49.2%) at roughly 2.2x lower cost; and that the best open-weight model (Kimi K3, 46.4%) nearly matches the best proprietary model at 4.5x lower cost. Screening & Discovery and Sector, Industry & Macro remain the hardest use cases across all systems, where even the best systems reach only 33% and 39%. We make the dataset and grading code publicly available.

While existing benchmarks have made substantial progress in evaluating LLMs across STEM domains, financial reasoning over structured data remains comparatively less explored. We introduce V-FiLLM, a framework that generates financial reasoning benchmarks from executable computation trees grounded in real tables, yielding items whose answers are correct by construction. Trees are evaluated symbolically to obtain ground truth and rendered into natural-language questions, removing any model from the labeling loop, so items can be generated at arbitrary scale without annotation cost and without inheriting a generator's error rate. V-FiLLM exposes four independently controllable axes of difficulty including computation depth, expression breadth, financial concept complexity, and context size. By evaluating on open-source models, we find that accuracy falls up to 51% as reasoning depth increases, and up to 47% points under adversarial numerical perturbations, highlighting remaining challenges in robust financial reasoning over tables. We further show that lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on verified chain-of-thought traces improves accuracy from 81.1% to 85.6% on held-out problems and outperforms the base model by 5% points on FinQA (Chen et al., 2022a), s), suggesting that targeted, low-cost adaptation is a promising direction for compositional reasoning in financial QA.

Most agent benchmarks evaluate tasks independently and cannot measure whether experience from one task helps with later tasks. Existing self-evolution benchmarks do not jointly cover professional workflows, open-ended deliverables, and multi-aspect evaluation. We introduce FinEvo-Bench, a longitudinal benchmark with 120 real-case-grounded tasks, 20 business scenes across six financial domains. Institution-provided professional procedures define the required operations and constraints. Eligible institution-provided and publicly documented cases supply the task facts. Each scene contains six related but substantively distinct cases that share a professional procedure and a manually reviewed rubric for task quality and financial compliance. We compare four self-evolving agent scaffolds using the same Qwen3.7-Max backbone and three independently shuffled, globally interleaved task streams. Paired non-evolving controls estimate each scaffold's self-evolution gain from retained experience, while an independent Claude Code scoring agent backed by Claude Opus 4.6 evaluates all outputs. Letta achieves the highest evolved score (91.65) and fewest compliance issues (0.09 per task); Codex achieves the largest self-evolution gain (+19.37). Across scaffolds, the evolving condition raises scores by 9.33-19.37 points and reduces compliance issues by 0.12-0.44 per task. Paired score gains at within-scene ranks 4-6 exceed those at ranks 1-3 by 6.10-8.70 points. In Claude Code, skill-only evolution produces higher task quality and fewer compliance issues than memory-only and combined memory-skill evolution. Across all four scaffolds, rubric feedback also yields higher scores and fewer compliance issues than reference-answer feedback. FinEvo-Bench measures both professional performance and self-evolution ability: how effectively an agent turns prior experience into later improvement.

Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work. Existing rubric methods typically derive criteria from task prompts or model outputs, overlooking tacit standards visible only in practitioner deliverables. We introduce FinProBench, a benchmark for professional financial tasks, and Role-Grounded Rubric Construction (RGRC), a reusable pipeline that derives rubrics from deliverables produced by practitioners in the same role. RGRC comprises four stages: Deliverable Collection, Competency Extraction, Rubric Synthesis, and Validation. Its rubrics capture tacit standards, distinguish quality levels, and transfer across tasks within a role. Before analysis, we classified 57 occupations by deliverable genre into 30 prior-rich conventional roles and 27 prior-sparse role-specialized roles. Across all roles, Prompt-only nearly matches RGRC for conventional roles (89.2% vs. 90.7%), but RGRC substantially outperforms it for role-specialized roles (99.1% vs. 78.0%). This split indicates that prompt engineering can approximate rubrics when conventions are well represented in model priors, while professional grounding is essential for standards beyond those priors. FinProBench is built from 1,723 curated deliverables spanning 57 occupations, 8 financial sub-industries, and 161 deliverable types, and releases an initial evaluation set of 20 complete tasks covering 20 roles in 7 sub-industries. With heterogeneous LLM judges and role-level rubrics, human deliverables rank first on average (73.7 vs. 70.3, 70.2, and 69.6 out of 100), while all four systems show overlapping 95% confidence intervals and complementary strengths. Reusing rubrics at the role level reduces estimated per-task construction effort by 6.7 times relative to authoring each rubric from scratch.

As time-series foundation models have emerged, the need for benchmarks that can evaluate their forecasting ability in meaningful ways has become increasingly important. Existing time-series forecasting benchmarks provide useful standardized comparisons, but they often evaluate heterogeneous series with uniform error-based metrics. Strong performance under such metrics does not necessarily imply that a model's forecasts will support the best real-world decisions across domains. For example, in stock forecasting, correctly predicting whether a price will rise or fall can be more directly relevant to realized returns than minimizing point-wise forecast error alone. To this end, we introduce FinVerse, a finance-domain time-series forecasting benchmark that takes a first step toward more realistic evaluation. The released FinVerse data artifact contains 116,897 financial time series with 171.1M observations, of which 60,232 series with 17.4M observations are selected as evaluated targets based on their economic relevance to financial decisions. Unlike generic forecasting benchmarks that primarily emphasize uniform point-forecast or probabilistic accuracy, FinVerse defines 11 metric families comprising 78 evaluation metrics and assigns the most appropriate evaluation metrics to each individual time series based on its underlying economic meaning. Our analysis of 43 public time-series forecasting foundation models shows that strong performance under generic forecasting criteria does not necessarily translate into useful financial forecasts. This finding highlights the need for domain-aware benchmarks that evaluate models under objectives closer to real-world decision making.

Financial indicators are essential tools for transforming raw financial data into interpretable measures for various downstream tasks, such as valuation, risk assessment, and economic analysis. However, existing financial benchmarks largely focus on answer-level accuracy and often assume that relevant data are already provided, leaving the assessment of the intermediate process of indicator construction underexplored. In this work, we propose FinDeepIndicator, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating Deep Research (DR) agents in end-to-end financial indicator construction. Specifically, FinDeepIndicator evaluates DR agents across four stages in indicator construction: formula specification, data collection, indicator calculation, and answer generation, and covers fundamental, technical, and macroeconomic indicators organized into 21 fine-grained sub-categories. It contains 3,350 curated question-answer (QA) pairs derived from both U.S. and Chinese markets, 10 years of historical financial data, and 800 listed companies. Extensive experiments on search-equipped Large Language Models (LLMs) and DR agents show that, while LLMs generally perform well in formula specification, their accuracy drops substantially during data retrieval and numerical execution. DR agents consistently outperform search-equipped LLMs, yet remain unreliable in realistic financial analysis settings. These findings provide insights for developing more capable and trustworthy DR agents in finance.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in financial applications that combine retrieval, proprietary data, tool use, orchestration logic, monitoring, and human escalation. Yet evaluation often remains model-centric: benchmark scores, task accuracy, or one-off qualitative reviews are treated as evidence of readiness. In financial settings, this is insufficient. We take the position that financial LLM systems should not be approved for production based on benchmark performance alone. They require system-level validation evidence across the application stack: data, model design, retrieval and generation performance, agent behavior, governance, and implementation. Drawing on industry experience validating GenAI applications in financial institutions, we outline a multi-layer validation view and explain why hybrid evaluation is necessary. We discuss where LLM-as-a-judge methods are useful and why they require controls such as multiple judges, rubrics, agreement, and auditability checks. We also highlight failure modes poorly captured by static benchmarks, including retrieval failures, unfaithful generation, tool misuse, escalation errors, and operational instability. Our position is that financial LLM validation should be an ongoing system discipline rather than a one-time model scoring exercise. Validation should produce decision-ready evidence, not only scores. We conclude with a research agenda for system-aware benchmarks, agent trace validation, judge alignment protocols, and lifecycle validation standards.

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.

Automated code generation is becoming an important tool in quantitative finance, where large language models can generate option pricing implementations directly from mathematical model specifications. Validating such implementations, however, requires considerably more than conventional software testing: numerical pricing methods must remain mathematically consistent, numerically stable, and reliable across a wide range of model parameters. We introduce RIDGE, an autonomous validation framework in which generated pricing implementations are subjected to structured no-arbitrage tests, stress tests, benchmark comparisons, and consistency checks. Validation evidence is interpreted diagnostically, while the resulting knowledge is accumulated in a repository and reused across models and successive validation iterations. This enables systematic refinement of both the pricing implementation and the validation methodology. The framework is applied to five stochastic volatility models. Across these studies, all detected implementation defects are removed and, in two cases, the validation process reveals methodological limitations and motivates the development of alternative numerical methods. The supplementary material is available in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/ShQiangLiu/ridge.

Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations. While some components can be checked mechanically, forecasts, discount rates, and target prices often admit multiple reasonable answers. Existing benchmarks nevertheless tend to grade such outputs against a single expert reference. Using independently built analyst models for the same companies, we find that across 108 directed pairs covering 65 companies, the median single-reference score is 0.33, 92.6% score below 0.70, and no same-vintage pair agrees on implied price within 10%. Point-tolerance grading can therefore penalize disagreement already present among professionals. We introduce GAUGE, a benchmark for evaluating agent-built valuation models against observed analyst practice rather than a single point answer. GAUGE uses 1,001 vendor-classified analyst workbooks and a 196-task evaluation set, with a three-layer observed-practice envelope, 56 auditable facets, eight validity gates, and deterministic structural checks. We validate the benchmark with a 55-participant known-groups study, company-grouped cross-fitting, and judge-stability audits. On the failure-aware score $φ_0$, senior analysts average 88.3, juniors 66.0, and finance students 43.2. Across 24 agents and 1,011 scored generations, the best agent scores 53.4, above the student mean but below every senior and most juniors. It passes 93% of mechanical facets and 78% of judgment facets, with a fleet-median gap of 26 points. Current agents are substantially stronger at model construction than valuation judgment. We release the methodology, a gated de-identified data tier, a controlled training split, a versioned 48-task evaluation core, and a withheld refresh pool.

We introduce Earnings25, a finance-domain benchmark for evaluating automatic speech recognition (ASR) on English-language earnings calls under realistic conditions. Earnings25 comprises two complementary test sets: (i) testset-full, 498 hours of full English-language S&P 500 earnings calls from Q4 2025, and (ii) testset-segmented, a 46-hour industry-balanced set of 290 segments sampled from English-language U.S. earnings calls in 2025. The benchmark provides aligned transcripts and structured metadata, including speaker roles, industry labels, and call structure, enabling speaker- and industry-aware evaluation beyond aggregate word error rate (WER). We report reproducible baselines for Whisper and Parakeet-TDT using standardized scoring.

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

We introduce Frontier Financial Judgement, a challenging new benchmark developed in collaboration with professional equity analysts to assess agents' ability to replicate expert human judgements. Rapidly identifying new information, evaluating its implications and determining its valuation impact is one of the most time-consuming and challenging aspects of real-world equity coverage. This is becoming ever more difficult and important as AI rapidly increases the quantity of new information to process. The strongest agent we evaluate on Frontier Financial Judgement matches all expert labels in only 52.4% of cases. We also find significant divergence in estimated false-positive rates among frontier agents, ranging from ~1% for GPT-5.6 Sol to ~32% for Claude Sonnet 4.6. To construct the benchmark and make it representative of real-world settings, we combine human-designed and labelled synthetic articles with live news articles and historical documents, creating 656 items for assessment. The resulting task requires agents to distinguish genuinely new, valuation-relevant financial information from stale, immaterial or misleading news under realistic conditions. We find substantial trade-offs among agent accuracy, cost, false positives and reliability that continue to hinder the reliable deployment of news-flow filtering in practice.

Deep research agents are increasingly used to produce long-form financial reports, yet large-scale evaluation remains bottlenecked by the need for human experts to define and execute high-quality rubrics. We address this problem by proposing a scalable pipeline for generating high-quality rubrics without human experts in the final loop. We build a financial deep research benchmark from 104 real-world user queries and automatically synthesize 14,450 query-specific candidate rubrics from model-generated reports. To justify removing human experts from rubric execution, we compare rubric judgments from three human experts with those from a three-LLM judge panel on a sampled subset, and show that LLM-based evaluation is sufficiently consistent with human evaluation to replace it for large-scale rubric screening, including 98.67% label-level agreement on jointly unanimous items. We then derive consensus-derived gold rubrics through two filters: a strict consistency filter, which keeps a rubric only if the three LLM judges unanimously agree on every report under the same query, and a distinguishability filter, which keeps a rubric only if it assigns at least one majority-yes and at least one majority-no label across the evaluated systems. This process retains 3,687 consistency-passed rubrics, of which 2,600 remain distinguishable and form the final set of consensus-derived gold rubrics. Using this final rubric set, we obtain clearly differentiated rankings across 10 deep research systems, with item-level pass rates ranging from 58.58% to 22.23%. More broadly, because the pipeline removes human-expert execution from rubric generation and evaluation, it is naturally scalable for benchmark evaluation, automatic system comparison, and future studies of evaluation-driven system improvement.

Large pretrained time-series models such as TimesFM are attractive for financial forecasting, but raw directional accuracy is a misleading scoreboard in equity markets. An early LoRA adapter in this project appeared to reach roughly 80% directional accuracy; we show this is not evidence of skill. Over a long horizon in a rising market, a trivial "always-up" rule attains comparably high accuracy without using the input at all. To separate genuine skill from this base-rate artifact, we build a reproducible, frozen-data benchmark with expanding walk-forward folds, a stratified held-out-ticker split, honest baselines (zero-shot TimesFM, always-up, random-walk, persistence, AR(1)), and paired significance tests (McNemar, Diebold-Mariano) under Benjamini-Hochberg FDR control. We apply the identical method to two universes -- a tech-heavy NASDAQ-100 and a broad S&P 500 -- reporting excess accuracy over the always-up base rate. Three findings replicate. First, when the historical ~80% condition is recreated, the high number is a base rate of ~0.70 that the fine-tuned model scores below. Second, pooled LoRA shows no directional skill over the base rate at any horizon on either universe (negative at the six-month horizon). Third, per-sector specialization is significantly worse than a single pooled adapter (Diebold-Mariano p<0.001 on held-out stocks at h=128). Fine-tuning's only measurable benefit is a statistically significant reduction in point-forecast error relative to zero-shot TimesFM, which nonetheless does not beat naive baselines and confers no tradeable directional edge. The contribution is methodological: a defensible, fully seeded protocol that prevents the base-rate trap, together with the replicated negative result it produces.

Public LLM leaderboards optimise for global average performance and do not capture the specific cognitive demands of financial-services work: a model that leads on MMLU-Pro may underperform on document-grounded compliance reasoning, and a coding leader may handle multi-turn customer interactions poorly. We present a meta-benchmarking framework that organises 452 publicly reported benchmarks into 41 O*NET Generalized Work Activities and aggregates those into 38 BIAN banking business domains spanning sales, operations, risk, and support work. A multiplicative weighting scheme (discrimination x coverage x recency), computed over a rolling model window, rewards benchmarks that still separate the best models, are widely reported, and remain in active use, suppressing saturated legacy tests automatically. These weights scale the K-factor in a pairwise Elo tournament, producing cross-benchmark-comparable work-activity scores without raw score normalisation; business-domain scores are weighted averages of the constituent work-activity Elos. We demonstrate the framework on a point-in-time public snapshot covering 288 models across 25 organisations as of June 2026, and describe the methodology, full taxonomy, design decisions, and limitations with the aim of making the approach reproducible for institutions facing similar selection and governance challenges.

Venture capital (VC) investment decisions face distinct challenges, such as multi-source heterogeneous data, non-stationary time series, and the demand for explainable predictions in high-stakes, low-data settings. To overcome these issues, we introduce \textbf{FinInvest-GTCN}, a Graph-Temporal-Causal Network that redefines the task from content recommendation to quantitative risk-return assessment. This architecture combines a relational graph encoder to capture the investment ecosystem's topology, a multi-scale temporal fusion module to handle long-term dependencies and non-stationarity, and a causal decision head that generates risk-adjusted predictions with interpretable causal attributions. A core innovation is the Meta-Causal Adaptation (MCA) strategy, which facilitates robust fine-tuning for new, data-scarce sectors by aligning updates with causally-plausible structures derived from meta-pretraining. Comprehensive experiments on proprietary VC datasets show that FinInvest-GTCN delivers state-of-the-art results, markedly lowering the primary Risk-Adjusted Mean Squared Error (RA-MSE) to 2.51 from a baseline of 3.05 and boosting the cumulative return of a simulated portfolio by 18.7%. Ablation studies underscore the essential role of each component, while additional analyses confirm the model's stability, interpretability, and enhanced adaptability. This work pioneers a data-driven, explainable framework for investment decision support.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors. We introduce InvestPhilBench, a multi-layer benchmark spanning eight cognitive tiers, from principle identification (L1) to novel framework extrapolation (L8). The v0.6 release comprises 118 primary-source-verified principle cards, 25 decision-framework cards with explicit topology metadata, and 243 QA questions (197 dev / 46 held-out test). For reproducible scoring at scale we introduce the Benchmark Automated Scoring Pipeline (BASP), five algorithmic metrics, the Failure Mode Detection Protocol (FMDP) covering six failure modes, and Gate Reconstruction Accuracy (GRA), a per-gate metric for questions with gold reasoning programs. This release is primarily a benchmark-and-methodology contribution: its empirical study -- a four-model sanity wave on the 188-question development split (closed-book) -- is deliberately preliminary and stress-tests the metric design rather than ranking models. The wave shows a sharp provider-tier split (BASP 0.906 vs. 0.438), though these mixed-judge numbers are confounded upper bounds. The central methodological finding survives the caveat: the BASP composite saturates at the frontier (Claude L4 = 0.932) while GRA still exposes a procedural deficit (frontier L4 GRA ~0.77, L7 GRA 0.57-0.62) -- composite scoring rewards fluent prose and hides the procedural gap. On a 100-item expert-annotated gold set, the automated BASP composite tracks the human reference at Pearson r = 0.72 (MAE = 0.10). v0.6 also implements a unified judge and true model-in-the-loop retrieval/oracle conditions; the de-confounded multi-model leaderboard and full three-condition run are v1.0 deliverables.

Financial time series forecasting presents structural challenges absent from standard benchmarks. Log-returns are non-stationary, exhibit exceptionally low signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios, and are governed by regime-dependent temporal dependencies. We identify a key limitation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) time series models in financial settings. A fixed context window is mismatched to the time-varying optimal look-back of non-stationary price processes. We propose the Regime-Aware Variable-context Expert Network (RAVEN), a Mixture-of-Experts framework designed to adaptively determine the temporal context for each input sample. Instead of relying on a fixed look-back horizon, RAVEN constructs a hierarchy of nested contiguous windows whose lengths are determined by the data itself. Specifically, RAVEN scores patches by learned importance in reverse chronological order and applies the Cumulative Importance Thresholding (CIT) mechanism to derive nested prefix windows, each routed to a scale-specialized expert. A Global Compressed Representation (GCR) branch runs in parallel over the full context, preserving global temporal coherence that local experts cannot guarantee. Because the nested routing induces structured overlap among expert inputs, we introduce a Correlation-Aware Weighting (CAW) to align variable-length expert outputs and penalize pairwise cosine similarity prior to aggregation. Experiments on cumulative log-return prediction (HS300, S&P500) and fund sales forecasting demonstrate that RAVEN achieves SOTA performances, improves Pearson correlation by 9.2% on HS300 and 20.2% on S&P500, and reduces MSE by 18.2% on fund sales forecasting, while achieving the best results in 14 of 16 metrics on four PEMS traffic benchmarks.

Transformers have shown remarkable success in sequence modeling, yet their direct application to financial time series remains challenging due to noisy signals, short-memory dynamics, and distributional shifts. This paper proposes a modified Transformer architecture for one-step stock index forecasting, combined with advanced learning-rate scheduling and a novel Shifted Data Augmentation (SDA) technique. We evaluate the proposed framework on two benchmark stock index datasets, VN30 and S&P 500. Experimental results demonstrate that cosine annealing with warmup consistently improves forecasting accuracy over the generalized inverse-power scheduler. Furthermore, SDA substantially reduces forecasting errors and run-to-run variability while improving robustness to hyperparameter selection. The combination of cosine annealing scheduling and SDA achieved the best performance on both datasets, indicating that data augmentation can play a more important role than increasing model complexity in Transformer-based financial forecasting. These findings provide a practical and computationally efficient approach for robust stock index forecasting in noisy financial environments.

AI agents can increasingly handle the mechanical tasks of financial analysis: retrieving documents, calculating formulas, updating spreadsheets. The harder, more valuable challenge is reasoning through the open-ended questions that define expert Analyst work. Existing benchmarks do not capture this class of problem, and those that attempt to evaluate open-ended reasoning rely on model-judged outputs that introduce noise and circularity. We present Hedge-Bench 1.0: a benchmark of 102 actual, on-the-job tasks grounded in the explicit reasoning traces of professional hedge fund analysts working with relevant information sources. This approach enables deterministic grading against verified expert steps. Frontier models and agents score below 16% on the benchmark. We publish the dataset and evaluation harness at github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench.

Financial-research answers are decision-relevant only when another analyst can audit how they were produced: which source was chosen, which period and accounting definition were used, which assumptions were made, and how the calculation was performed. Existing finance benchmarks largely evaluate isolated subskills or final answers, leaving the auditable derivation itself under-measured. We introduce BigFinanceBench, a 928-item expert-authored benchmark of open-ended financial-research tasks in which each item pairs a ground-truth reference answer with a point-weighted rubric that decomposes the derivation into independently checkable steps. BigFinanceBench is workflow-grounded in that it evaluates the full derivation rather than only the final output. Across 36,241 rubric points, the benchmark supports partial-credit evaluation and localization of failures across the analyst workflow. Evaluating ten current frontier and open-weight agents, we find substantial headroom: the best system reaches only 58.8% rubric score, final-answer accuracy is a useful but lossy proxy for derivation quality, and model capability varies non-uniformly across financial workflows.

Financial forecasting is difficult due to low signal-to-noise ratios, latent factors, heavy tails, regime shifts, and jumps. Real-world benchmarks offer limited failure attribution: researchers can observe underperformance, but often cannot isolate why because mechanisms are unobservable and entangled. Real financial data reveal only one realized path, making it difficult to assess tail-risk calibration or data efficiency. We introduce FinStressTS, a mechanism-aware synthetic benchmark that links model behavior to controlled structural causes. FinStressTS comprises 30 diagnostic environments around six mechanism families: volatility clustering, multi-scale persistence, heavy-tailed shocks, regime switching, self-exciting jumps, and zero-inflated processes. We evaluate two tasks: point forecasting, using NMAE across five settings, and probabilistic forecasting, using CRPS under known data-generating mechanisms. We benchmark 15 models, from classical methods (HAR, VAR) to Transformer forecasters (PatchTST, iTransformer) and deep probabilistic architectures (DeepAR, TSFlow), and use learning curves to measure sample efficiency. Our evaluation reveals three insights. First, performance is mechanism-dependent: autoregressive and linear models are highly competitive, and often outperform Transformer-based models, in several volatility-, tail-, and jump-driven environments. Second, distributional alignment matters: parametric probabilistic models such as DeepAR calibrate well in stationary settings, while flexible models can help when distributions become multimodal or sparse. Third, neural models often require more data to match simple baselines, with larger gains mainly when learning latent regimes or complex distributions. FinStressTS provides an open framework for diagnosing failure modes and advancing risk-aware forecasting.

Incorporating news into time series forecasting is appealing because news can reveal abrupt exogenous events that historical values alone cannot recover. However, existing LLM-based news-forecasting pipelines face two practical limitations: relevant news articles often exceed the model's context window, and iterative retrieval of supplementary news is typically unguided, leading to redundant updates and slow convergence. We address these issues with a novel framework that combines importance-aware news compression and process-level retrieval supervision. First, we train an importance reward model that estimates the forecasting utility of each article and uses this signal to allocate compression budgets during sequential pairwise fusion, preserving informative content within a fixed context limit. Second, we introduce a process reward model (PRM) that ranks multiple supplementary-news candidates conditioned on the current error profile and the history of previously selected articles, replacing one-shot blind retrieval with quality-controlled selection. Both components are trained offline using historical data with ground truth; inference uses the frozen filtering logic and compression modules without any reflection loop. Experiments on finance, energy, traffic, and bitcoin forecasting benchmarks show that our method improves prediction accuracy over strong baselines, significantly reduces the number of refinement iterations compared to the iterative baseline, and remains effective when relevant articles span thousands of tokens.

Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation improves retrieval by integrating planning, tool use, and iterative reasoning, but existing agentic RAG methods often couple semantic expansion with retrieval decisions in short-horizon inference loops, leading to high inference cost and limited suitability for time-sensitive news retrieval. We propose DynaTree, a two-stage framework for efficient and adaptive news retrieval. In the offline stage, DynaTree uses coordinated agents to construct a reusable retrieval tree that materializes the semantic space of a query topic. In the online stage, DynaTree performs lightweight daily subtree selection over a time-localized evaluation proxy, without further agentic reasoning, tree modification, or retraining. Experiments on a multi-day Syft news benchmark and multiple BEIR datasets show that DynaTree achieves strong recall and ranking performance, consistently outperforming standard RAG and prior agentic baselines. We further deploy DynaTree in the Syft production system and evaluate it through online A/B testing from Jan. 28 to Feb. 6, 2026. The dynamically adapted variant improves survival rate from 0.32-0.53 to 0.59-0.73 over a fixed offline-selected subtree and outperforms existing production recallers on every evaluation day. These results show that persistent, structure-aware semantic expansion can translate offline agentic reasoning into practical improvements in coverage, freshness, and relevance for real-world news retrieval.

Existing approaches for synthetic tabular data generation are based on either purely generative models or LLMs, both of which struggle with data heterogeneity, logical consistency, rare-event coverage, and robustness in low-data regimes. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical hybrid top-down and bottom-up (H-TDBU) framework that decouples semantic structures from stochastic texture. In the top-down path, structure-driven logical constraints and cross-modal alignment rules are constructed, while in the bottom-up path, lightweight tabular generators are used to learn local statistical patterns from real data. The two paths are consolidated in a unified synthesis engine with an iterative feedback loop. We evaluate the framework on weak multimodal financial benchmarks combining tabular and sentiment-text data. Experimental results show that our H-TDBU approach improves train-synthetic-test-real performance over neural baseline methods while preserving semantic consistency. Our results suggest that hierarchical rule-guided synthesis provides an effective mechanism for combining controllability, semantic coherence, and statistical fidelity in synthetic data generation.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance in static financial reasoning and simple dynamic trading tasks. However, existing static financial benchmarks are insufficient to assess the dynamic wealth management and financial decision-making capabilities of LLMs in real-world environments. To bridge this gap, we present FinBoardBench, an evaluation suite based on three classic financial board games: Cashflow, Acquire, and Monopoly. FinBoardBench assesses a comprehensive set of financial skills, including personal cash flow management with debt balancing, corporate investment and acquisition forecasting, and competitive trade negotiations with asset auctions. Our experiments with 9 advanced LLMs reveal that while exhibiting basic long-term planning and investment logic, they fail to effectively leverage complex interactions for profit, and their strong static reasoning performance does not transform into successful dynamic decision-making. Notably, they tend to prioritize immediate asset acquisition over maintaining sufficient liquidity, making them vulnerable to financial crises triggered by random events. We hope that FinBoardBench can provide a valuable reference for more intelligent LLM-based decision-making systems in the future.

End-to-end LLM trading agents have moved quickly from research curiosity to a small ecosystem of named systems, including FinCon, FinMem, TradingAgents, FinAgent, QuantAgent, and FLAG-Trader. Several of these report headline Sharpe ratios that would be material if read at face value on a deployment desk, and associated benchmarks such as FinBen report trading-task Sharpe statistics in the same range. The gap between architecture research and deployment claim has been crossed too freely on both sides of the academia--industry divide. We take a position on that gap: reported alpha from end-to-end LLM trading agents should not be treated as deployment evidence. Before such returns can support claims of deployable trading capability, they must survive structural validity tests for temporal integrity, real-world frictions, counterfactual robustness, predictive calibration, numerical execution, and multi-agent disaggregation. Current public evidence cannot yet distinguish robust predictive ability from temporal contamination, unmodeled frictions, short-window Sharpe uncertainty, narrative fitting, and parametric priors. The problem is not only evaluative but structural. Language confidence is not tradable probability, narrative reasoning is not numerical execution, and model priors may become undisclosed implicit factor exposures. We contribute a minimum reporting protocol suite, P1--P6, with tiered applicability by claim strength, and a conservative modular alternative that uses LLMs as auditable information interfaces upstream of independent calibration, risk, and execution modules. Code and reproduction harness: \url{https://github.com/hj1650782738/Trading}.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to financial analysis, reporting, investment decision support, risk management, compliance, and professional training. However, robust evaluation of their domain competence in finance remains incomplete. Widely used open benchmarks such as FinQA, ConvFinQA, and TAT-QA have played an important role in advancing financial question answering and numerical reasoning, but they focus primarily on question answering over financial reports and do not provide an explicit hierarchy of professional difficulty. Broader resources, including FinanceBench, PIXIU, FinBen, and FLaME, expand the coverage of financial tasks, yet the problem of evaluating the transition from foundational knowledge to expert-level financial reasoning remains open. In this work, we present FINESSE-Bench, a suite of eight specialized benchmarks comprising 3,993 questions for hierarchical evaluation of financial competencies in LLMs. FINESSE-Bench combines exam-oriented datasets inspired by professional certifications (CFA-like Levels 1-3, CMT-like Level 2, and CFTe-like Level 1), applied trading task collections, and a Russian-language olympiad benchmark. This design enables evaluation of domain breadth, performance degradation as difficulty increases, the ability to solve computational tasks, and model behavior in specialized financial domains. We also describe a unified evaluation protocol covering multiple-choice questions, numerical answers, and short open-ended responses, together with an automated scoring scheme for freeform answers based on the LLM-as-judge paradigm. FINESSE-Bench is intended both as a complement to existing open financial benchmarks and as a tool for more substantive evaluation of professionally relevant financial competencies in large language models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial contexts, raising critical concerns about reliability, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior finance-related benchmarks assess LLMs' capabilities in stock trading, they are often restricted to small sample and fail to demonstrate LLM susceptibility to context with potential human bias. We introduce Fin-Bias (financial herding under long and uncertain financial context), a benchmark for evaluating LLM investment decision-making when faced with uncertainty and possible human-biased opinions. Fin-Bias includes 8868 long firm-specific analyst reports, including firm aspects summarized and analyzed by sophisticated analysts with investment ratings (Bullish/Neutral/Bearish) spanning from various industries. We present large language models with firm analyst reports with/without analyst investment ratings and even with 'fake' rating, to get investment ratings generated by LLMs. Our results reveal that LLMs tend to herd the explicit bias in context. We also develop a method to detect potential human opinions, which can encourage LLMs to think independently, some models even exceed human performance in predicting future stock return.

We introduce Deep FinResearch Bench, a practical and comprehensive evaluation framework for deep research (DR) agents in financial investment research. The benchmark assesses three dimensions of report quality: qualitative rigor, quantitative forecasting and valuation accuracy, and claim credibility and verifiability. Particularly, we define corresponding qualitative and quantitative evaluation metrics and implement an automated scoring procedure to enable scalable assessment. Applying the benchmark to financial reports from frontier DR agents and comparing them with reports authored by financial professionals, we find that AI-generated reports still fall short across these dimensions. These findings underscore the need for domain-specialized DR agents tailored to finance, and we hope the work establishes a foundation for standardized benchmarking of DR agents in financial research.

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection; 90.7% overall agreement on a 150-item subset) and a 180-item human inter-annotator agreement study across three annotation rounds (kappa=0.645 on contradiction detection; 77.2% overall agreement; 44.3% benchmark coverage). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 69.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

Synthetic augmentation is increasingly used to mitigate data scarcity in financial machine learning, yet its statistical role remains poorly understood. We formalize synthetic augmentation as a modification of the effective training distribution and show that it induces a structural bias--variance trade-off: while additional samples may reduce estimation error, they may also shift the population objective whenever the synthetic distribution deviates from regions relevant under evaluation. To isolate informational gains from mechanical sample-size effects, we introduce a size-matched null augmentation and a finite-sample, non-parametric block permutation test that remains valid under weak temporal dependence. We evaluate this framework in both controlled Markov-switching environments and real financial datasets, including high-frequency option trade data and a daily equity panel. Across generators spanning bootstrap, copula-based models, variational autoencoders, diffusion models, and TimeGAN, we vary augmentation ratio, model capacity, task type, regime rarity, and signal-to-noise. We show that synthetic augmentation is beneficial only in variance-dominant regimes, such as persistent volatility forecasting-while it deteriorates performance in bias-dominant settings, including near-efficient directional prediction. Rare-regime targeting can improve domain-specific metrics but may conflict with unconditional permutation inference. Our results provide a structural perspective on when synthetic data improves financial learning performance and when it induces persistent distributional distortion.

Adapting large language models (LLMs) to specialized financial reasoning typically requires expensive fine-tuning that produces model-locked expertise. Training-free alternatives have emerged, yet our experiments show that leading methods (GEPA and ACE) achieve only marginal gains on the FAMMA financial reasoning benchmark, exposing the limits of unstructured text optimization for complex, multi-step domain reasoning. We introduce Automated Skill Distillation and Adaptation (ASDA), a framework that automatically generates structured skill artifacts through iterative error-corrective learning without modifying model weights. A teacher model analyzes a student model's failures on financial reasoning tasks, clusters errors by subfield and error type, and synthesizes skill files containing reasoning procedures, code templates, and worked examples, which are dynamically injected during inference. Evaluated on FAMMA, ASDA achieves up to +17.33% improvement on arithmetic reasoning and +5.95% on non-arithmetic reasoning, substantially outperforming all training-free baselines. The resulting skill artifacts are human-readable, version-controlled, and compatible with the Agent Skills open standard, offering any organization with a labeled domain dataset a practical and auditable path to domain adaptation without weight access or retraining.

Large language models are becoming increasingly significant in financial applications. Nevertheless, prevailing benchmarks are largely dependent on simulated or generic data, which leads to a significant gap between reported performance and actual efficacy in real-world scenarios. To tackle this challenge, we present BizFinBench.v2, the first integrated offline and online benchmark built upon authentic user query-response data from both Chinese and U.S. equity markets. It comprises 28,860 questions across eight offline and two online tasks. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves a mere 61.5% accuracy, still failing to meet the practical business requirement (84.8%). Among the evaluated commercial models, DeepSeek-R1 exhibits superior investment efficacy. Error analysis grounded in real financial practice reveals persistent limitations in existing models. By overcoming the constraints of prior benchmarks, BizFinBench.v2 provides a substantiated foundation for advancing LLM deployment in the financial sector. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/HiThink-Research/BizFinBench.v2.

Current navigation benchmarks focus on task success but do not capture the economic constraints essential for commercializing autonomous delivery systems. We introduce CostNav, an Economic Navigation Benchmark that evaluates physical AI agents on a cost-revenue and break-even analysis, pairing Isaac Sim's collision and cargo dynamics with industry-standard data such as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) injury reports. To our knowledge, CostNav is the first physics-grounded economic benchmark to use regulatory and financial data to quantify the gap between navigation metrics and commercial deployment, revealing that high task-success rates alone do not ensure economic viability. Evaluating seven baselines (two rule-based and five imitation-learning methods), we find no method economically viable: all yield negative contribution margins. CANVAS, using only an RGB camera and GPS, attains the highest task success and the least-negative margin among methods with non-zero Service-Level Agreement (SLA) compliance (-$28.40/run), outperforming LiDAR-equipped Nav2 w/ GPS (-$37.34/run). A sim-trained policy evaluated on a real delivery robot yields SLA compliance close to its simulation result, indicating that policy performance in CostNav's simulation transfers to real-world deployment. We challenge the community to achieve economic viability on CostNav, which scores methods by cost-revenue outcomes. All resources are available at https://github.com/worv-ai/CostNav.