Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

The paper argues that financial NLP benchmarks can leak information through the timing of their prediction targets: when the return window starts relative to when the call's text or audio is actually complete. On 552 earnings calls, the choice of start-time proxy flipped return signs for 9.4% of calls. The authors also show that model rankings can stay stable while error levels shift, so ML researchers should check how labels are timed before trusting benchmark results.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

When Does "Post-Call" Begin? An Availability Contract for Earnings-Call NLP Benchmarks

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.21659v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Corporate financial disclosures often unfold over time, with announcements, prepared remarks, and discussion spanning multiple high-frequency return intervals. Financial NLP benchmarks can therefore suffer from a within-event timing mismatch when the prediction target begins before the textual or audio input used by a model could be complete. Chronological train--test splits do not prevent this mismatch, because it occurs inside individual events rather than across samples. We introduce an Availability Contract, which requires a benchmark to state the input boundary, evidence for input availability, the outcome start, and the claims supported by that evidence. We apply this framework to 552 earnings calls from 24 firms. For each call, we hold the return endpoint fixed and compare the previous close, a documentary call-start proxy, and a completion proxy based on reconstructed audio end plus a stipulated processing allowance. At this baseline, moving from the call-start proxy to the completion proxy flips return signs for 9.4% of calls. Holding completion-clock cutpoints fixed, 28.3% change quintile. In an independent release-session analysis of a public earnings-call volatility benchmark, shifting before-market target windows forward by one trading session raises three-day mean squared error by 18.1-21.4% across four frozen prediction streams, while their point rankings remain unchanged. Together, the results show that labels and losses can depend materially on the declared outcome clock even when model rankings appear stable. The Availability Contract makes this assumption explicit and ties post-input claims to the available timing evidence.

Title:When Does "Post-Call" Begin? An Availability Contract for Earnings-Call NLP Benchmarks

Abstract:Corporate financial disclosures often unfold over time, with announcements, prepared remarks, and discussion spanning multiple high-frequency return intervals. Financial NLP benchmarks can therefore suffer from a within-event timing mismatch when the prediction target begins before the textual or audio input used by a model could be complete. Chronological train--test splits do not prevent this mismatch, because it occurs inside individual events rather than across samples. We introduce an Availability Contract, which requires a benchmark to state the input boundary, evidence for input availability, the outcome start, and the claims supported by that evidence. We apply this framework to 552 earnings calls from 24 firms. For each call, we hold the return endpoint fixed and compare the previous close, a documentary call-start proxy, and a completion proxy based on reconstructed audio end plus a stipulated processing allowance. At this baseline, moving from the call-start proxy to the completion proxy flips return signs for 9.4% of calls. Holding completion-clock cutpoints fixed, 28.3% change quintile. In an independent release-session analysis of a public earnings-call volatility benchmark, shifting before-market target windows forward by one trading session raises three-day mean squared error by 18.1-21.4% across four frozen prediction streams, while their point rankings remain unchanged. Together, the results show that labels and losses can depend materially on the declared outcome clock even when model rankings appear stable. The Availability Contract makes this assumption explicit and ties post-input claims to the available timing evidence.

Computational Finance (q-fin.CP); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.21659 [q-fin.CP]

(or arXiv:2610.21659v1 [q-fin.CP] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21659 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

https://doi.org/10.1145/3858063.3858902 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

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 · 360 words

Related coverage