analiza aiqbench
This paper addresses a critical gap in financial AI agents by introducing FinInteract, a benchmark that exposes the "single-gold illusion" where models guess common interpretations instead of resolving ambiguous queries. The study reveals that while current LLMs achieve high accuracy when ambiguity is explicitly supplied, their ability to proactively seek clarification remains severely limited, highlighting a specific area for improvement in reasoning and intent integration.
FinInteract: Benchmarking Clarification and Intent Integration in Ambiguous Financial Question Answering
arXiv:2609.24002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents increasingly answer financial questions by searching regulatory filings. Such questions are often deceptively under-specified: Meta Platforms' "operating income" is $46.75B consolidated but $62.87B for the Family of Apps segment, and each reading is exactly verifiable against the filing. A capable agent should recognize the ambiguity and ask, rather than commit to a plausible but unintended reading. Existing financial benchmarks cannot measure this, because one gold answer per question cannot separate agents that resolve the ambiguity from those that guess the common reading, a blind spot we call the single-gold illusion. We release FinInteract, a bilingual (English/Chinese) benchmark of 173 instances that pairs each question with a default and an intended interpretation across a five-category ambiguity taxonomy, and grades whether an agent elicits the right clarification and then integrates it. Re-grading identical outputs against the default rather than the intended reading inflates GPT-4o's accuracy by 3.1 times, confirming the illusion. Beyond it, we find that models answer above 90% once the interpretation is supplied but at most 28.9% when they must elicit it themselves, that targeting is uneven across a taxonomy well powered for entity scope and metric definition and exploratory elsewhere, and that conditioning on the ambiguity category improves resolution at both inference and training time.
Abstract:Large language model agents increasingly answer financial questions by searching regulatory filings. Such questions are often deceptively under-specified: Meta Platforms' "operating income" is $46.75B consolidated but $62.87B for the Family of Apps segment, and each reading is exactly verifiable against the filing. A capable agent should recognize the ambiguity and ask, rather than commit to a plausible but unintended reading. Existing financial benchmarks cannot measure this, because one gold answer per question cannot separate agents that resolve the ambiguity from those that guess the common reading, a blind spot we call the single-gold illusion. We release FinInteract, a bilingual (English/Chinese) benchmark of 173 instances that pairs each question with a default and an intended interpretation across a five-category ambiguity taxonomy, and grades whether an agent elicits the right clarification and then integrates it. Re-grading identical outputs against the default rather than the intended reading inflates GPT-4o's accuracy by 3.1 times, confirming the illusion. Beyond it, we find that models answer above 90% once the interpretation is supplied but at most 28.9% when they must elicit it themselves, that targeting is uneven across a taxonomy well powered for entity scope and metric definition and exploratory elsewhere, and that conditioning on the ambiguity category improves resolution at both inference and training time.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.24002 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.24002v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.24002 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 · 304 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Agentic Misalignment Explained: When AI Agents Go Rogue
Analytics Vidhya · 2 aug. 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · 6 aug. 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · 8 iun. 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026