Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchProduse AI

analiza aiqbench

FinTradeBench introduces a novel benchmark evaluating LLMs on financial reasoning by integrating company fundamentals with trading signals, addressing a critical gap in existing datasets that focus solely on balance sheet data. The study reveals that while retrieval augmentation significantly improves performance on textual fundamentals, it offers limited benefits for reasoning over trading signals, highlighting persistent challenges in numerical and time-series analysis for current models. This work provides a rigorous framework for assessing the limitations of LLMs in real-world financial decision-making scenarios involving heterogeneous data sources.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

FinTradeBench: A Financial Reasoning Benchmark for LLMs

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2603.19225v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world financial decision-making is a challenging problem that requires reasoning over heterogeneous signals, including company fundamentals derived from regulatory filings and trading signals computed from price dynamics. Recently, with advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), financial analysts have begun to use them for financial decision-making tasks. However, existing financial question-answering benchmarks for testing these models primarily focus on company balance sheet data and rarely evaluate reasoning about how company stocks trade in the market or their interactions with fundamentals. To leverage the strengths of both approaches, we introduce FinTradeBench, a benchmark for evaluating financial reasoning that integrates company fundamentals and trading signals. FinTradeBench contains 1,400 questions grounded in NASDAQ-100 companies over a ten-year historical window. The benchmark is organized into three reasoning categories: fundamentals-focused, trading-signal-focused, and hybrid questions requiring cross-signal reasoning. To ensure reliability at scale, we adopt a calibration-then-scaling framework that combines expert seed questions, multi-model response generation, intra-model self-filtering, numerical auditing, and human-LLM judge alignment. We evaluate 14 LLMs under zero-shot prompting and retrieval-augmented settings and witness a clear performance gap. Retrieval substantially improves reasoning over textual fundamentals, but provides limited benefit for trading-signal reasoning. These findings highlight fundamental challenges in the numerical and time-series reasoning for current LLMs and motivate future research in financial intelligence.

Abstract:Real-world financial decision-making is a challenging problem that requires reasoning over heterogeneous signals, including company fundamentals derived from regulatory filings and trading signals computed from price dynamics. Recently, with advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), financial analysts have begun to use them for financial decision-making tasks. However, existing financial question-answering benchmarks for testing these models primarily focus on company balance sheet data and rarely evaluate reasoning about how company stocks trade in the market or their interactions with fundamentals. To leverage the strengths of both approaches, we introduce FinTradeBench, a benchmark for evaluating financial reasoning that integrates company fundamentals and trading signals. FinTradeBench contains 1,400 questions grounded in NASDAQ-100 companies over a ten-year historical window. The benchmark is organized into three reasoning categories: fundamentals-focused, trading-signal-focused, and hybrid questions requiring cross-signal reasoning. To ensure reliability at scale, we adopt a calibration-then-scaling framework that combines expert seed questions, multi-model response generation, intra-model self-filtering, numerical auditing, and human-LLM judge alignment. We evaluate 14 LLMs under zero-shot prompting and retrieval-augmented settings and witness a clear performance gap. Retrieval substantially improves reasoning over textual fundamentals, but provides limited benefit for trading-signal reasoning. These findings highlight fundamental challenges in the numerical and time-series reasoning for current LLMs and motivate future research in financial intelligence.

9 pages main text, 31 pages total (including references and appendix). 5 figures, 16 tables. Preprint under review. Code and data will be made available upon publication

Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computational Finance (q-fin.CP)

arXiv:2603.19225 [cs.CE]

(or arXiv:2603.19225v4 [cs.CE] for this version)

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 262 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe