Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies how role prompts and memory profiles in Large Language Models introduce bias into financial analysis by altering the interpretation of identical SEC filing evidence. The study demonstrates that while separating outputs and adjusting user profiles can mitigate these effects, they do not fully eliminate context-dependent spillover across different models. These findings are critical for developing robust AI systems intended for high-stakes decision-making where objective evidence evaluation is paramount.
Sources coveringarXiv, Slack Blog, AWS, SiliconANGLE
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Analyst in the Prompt: Role, Retrieval, and Memory Biases in LLM Financial Analysis

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.03218v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.

Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Portfolio Management (q-fin.PM)

arXiv:2609.03218 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.03218v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.03218 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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 · 256 words

Related coverage