aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that while GenAI significantly enriches the volume and breadth of financial analyst reports, it simultaneously exposes human attention as a critical bottleneck that can degrade forecast accuracy under high information-processing loads. The findings suggest that AI tools effectively relax data acquisition constraints but do not automatically enhance decision quality when analysts are overwhelmed by increased informational complexity.
Generative AI for Analysts
arXiv:2512.19705v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We study how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) reshapes financial analysts' information production. Using the 2023 integration of GenAI into FACTSET as a plausibly exogenous change in AI access, we find that FACTSET-associated reports become markedly richer--featuring 26% more distinct information sources, 24% broader topical coverage, and 21% more analytical methods--while also improving timeliness. However, these gains do not uniformly improve decision quality: relative forecast accuracy declines when analysts face greater information-processing demands. Yet, a machine-learning benchmark processing the same observable inputs shows no analogous deterioration, pointing to a human processing constraint rather than poorer underlying information. Placebo tests using other data vendors make a common platform-wide technology trend unlikely. Overall, GenAI relaxes information-acquisition constraints while making human attention a more important bottleneck.
Abstract:We study how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) reshapes financial analysts' information production. Using the 2023 integration of GenAI into FACTSET as a plausibly exogenous change in AI access, we find that FACTSET-associated reports become markedly richer--featuring 26% more distinct information sources, 24% broader topical coverage, and 21% more analytical methods--while also improving timeliness. However, these gains do not uniformly improve decision quality: relative forecast accuracy declines when analysts face greater information-processing demands. Yet, a machine-learning benchmark processing the same observable inputs shows no analogous deterioration, pointing to a human processing constraint rather than poorer underlying information. Placebo tests using other data vendors make a common platform-wide technology trend unlikely. Overall, GenAI relaxes information-acquisition constraints while making human attention a more important bottleneck.
Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); General Economics (econ.GN); General Finance (q-fin.GN)
arXiv:2512.19705 [q-fin.ST]
(or arXiv:2512.19705v2 [q-fin.ST] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.19705 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 223 words
Related coverage

Modernizing and scaling support operations with generative AI on AWS
AWS · Sep 2, 2026
From Vector Search to Agentic RAG: Building an Enterprise Research Analyst with hipVS
AMD · Jul 15, 2026

A shared agentic platform for Wood Mackenzie, on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Sep 17, 2026

Building Trustworthy Snowflake AI Agents with Semantic Governance
Analytics Vidhya · Aug 8, 2026