analiza aiqbench
This study investigates whether performance gains in agentic systems for financial document creation stem from improved outputs or shifts in how LLM judges evaluate them. The analysis reveals significant variability in scoring due to judge inconsistency, suggesting that current evaluation metrics may overstate the actual quality improvements of these automated workflows. For practitioners relying on automated assessment, this highlights the critical need for more stable validation methods before deploying agentic harnesses in high-stakes banking environments.
Better Deck or Different Judge? Evaluating Agentic Harness Gains in Corporate and Investment Banking
arXiv:2609.39958v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Corporate and investment banking teams use presentations to support credit decisions and advise clients on financing and transactions. Producing these decks requires reconciling financial data, tracing sources and turning analysis into a recommendation. We retrospectively study the development of an agentic harness combining a 27B language model, financial calculations, narrative templates and validation checks. LLM judges guide engineering changes and assess the resulting decks, raising the question of whether higher scores reflect better documents or changes in grading. In shared-session text-only grading with template markers removed, five judges score the complete system 20.4 to 33.6 points out of 95 above the same model generating directly from a short prompt. Every judge scores the system higher on all seventeen development deliverables. Margins against direct Opus generation from a short prompt range from -4.7 to +0.8 points. Judges agree on broad progress across development rounds but agree less on final-deck rankings than on pooled scores. Repeated grading also shifts scores on unchanged decks, making small improvements difficult to distinguish from judge variability.
Title:Better Deck or Different Judge? Evaluating Agentic Harness Gains in Corporate and Investment Banking
Abstract:Corporate and investment banking teams use presentations to support credit decisions and advise clients on financing and transactions. Producing these decks requires reconciling financial data, tracing sources and turning analysis into a recommendation. We retrospectively study the development of an agentic harness combining a 27B language model, financial calculations, narrative templates and validation checks. LLM judges guide engineering changes and assess the resulting decks, raising the question of whether higher scores reflect better documents or changes in grading. In shared-session text-only grading with template markers removed, five judges score the complete system 20.4 to 33.6 points out of 95 above the same model generating directly from a short prompt. Every judge scores the system higher on all seventeen development deliverables. Margins against direct Opus generation from a short prompt range from -4.7 to +0.8 points. Judges agree on broad progress across development rounds but agree less on final-deck rankings than on pooled scores. Repeated grading also shifts scores on unchanged decks, making small improvements difficult to distinguish from judge variability.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.39958 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.39958v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39958 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 278 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · 21 iul. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026