analiza aiqbench
This research evaluates the limitations of probabilistic evidence verification in financial LLMs, demonstrating that numerical correctness alone is insufficient when models cite incorrect accounting roles. By isolating role-recognition errors from arithmetic accuracy, the study reveals critical tradeoffs between detecting citation mistakes and preserving valid alternative sources. These findings are essential for developing robust AI assistants capable of handling complex, repetitive data structures in regulated domains like finance.
Same-Number Citation Swaps: Stress-Testing Jev as a Financial Evidence Judge
arXiv:2610.08675v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial reports repeat values across periods, metrics and accounting lines, allowing an LLM-generated calculation to be numerically correct while citing the wrong financial role. We evaluate what probabilistic evidence verification adds beyond number matching using Jev as a source-support verifier for GPT-4.1-mini calculation traces. A signed-number-at-pointer baseline explains most recovery over exact quotation checks. To isolate the remaining role-recognition problem, we hold operands and arithmetic fixed, move citations between same-number cells, and retain controls that express equivalent facts. These contrasts reveal both wrong-role citations that pass and valid alternative citations that are withheld. Explicit column labels improve selected wrong-role decisions while also lowering support for some equivalent evidence. A constructed follow-up on 36 new source pages, labeled by a non-author reviewer, extends this evaluation and exposes the same tradeoff between detecting role errors and retaining valid citations. The contribution is a controlled evaluation that identifies what a probabilistic financial verifier distinguishes when numerical matching is held fixed. For LLM-based financial assistants, it makes numerical correctness, cited-role support and acceptance outcomes separately assessable.
Abstract:Financial reports repeat values across periods, metrics and accounting lines, allowing an LLM-generated calculation to be numerically correct while citing the wrong financial role. We evaluate what probabilistic evidence verification adds beyond number matching using Jev as a source-support verifier for GPT-4.1-mini calculation traces. A signed-number-at-pointer baseline explains most recovery over exact quotation checks. To isolate the remaining role-recognition problem, we hold operands and arithmetic fixed, move citations between same-number cells, and retain controls that express equivalent facts. These contrasts reveal both wrong-role citations that pass and valid alternative citations that are withheld. Explicit column labels improve selected wrong-role decisions while also lowering support for some equivalent evidence. A constructed follow-up on 36 new source pages, labeled by a non-author reviewer, extends this evaluation and exposes the same tradeoff between detecting role errors and retaining valid citations. The contribution is a controlled evaluation that identifies what a probabilistic financial verifier distinguishes when numerical matching is held fixed. For LLM-based financial assistants, it makes numerical correctness, cited-role support and acceptance outcomes separately assessable.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.08675 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.08675v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08675 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 · 267 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · 16 sept. 2026

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

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026