Are Large Language Models Reliable Reviewers? A Benchmark for Error Detection in Financial Documents (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Ying He, Zhouhong Gu, Zhecheng Hu, Yubo Zhou, Hao Shen, Jiaqing Liang, Zhaoqian Dai, Ma Shuguang, Fei Yu, Yanghua Xiao, Zhixu Li
| Challenge: | Existing LLMs struggle to identify errors in financial documents, a study shows . 18% of financial practitioners make errors daily, one-third make errors several times weekly, and 59% make errors multiple times monthly. |
| Approach: | They introduce FinED-Bench, a publicly available Benchmark for financial error detection . it covers nine real-world financial scenarios and includes over 900 documents in 2025 . supervised fine-tuning can significantly improve the performance of weaker LLMs, they show . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark covers nine real-world financial scenarios and includes over 900 documents reported in 2025 that are unseen by existing language models. |
Similar Papers
MultiFinBen: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Multilingual and Multimodal Financial Application (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Xueqing Peng, Lingfei Qian, Yan Wang, Ruoyu Xiang, Yueru He, Yang Ren, Mingyang Jiang, Vincent Jim Zhang, Yuqing Guo, Jeff Zhao, Huan He, Yi Han, Yun Feng, Yuechen Jiang, Yupeng Cao, Haohang Li, Yangyang Yu, Xiaoyu Wang, Penglei Gao, Shengyuan Lin, Keyi Wang, Shanshan Yang, Yilun Zhao, Zhiwei Liu, Peng Lu, Jerry Huang, Suyuchen Wang, Triantafillos Papadopoulos, Polydoros Giannouris, Efstathia Soufleri, Nuo Chen, Zhiyang Deng, Heming Fu, Yijia Zhao, Mingquan Lin, Meikang Qiu, Kaleb E Smith, Arman Cohan, Xiao-Yang Liu, Jimin Huang, Guojun Xiong, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, Xi Chen, Junichi Tsujii, Jian-Yun Nie, Sophia Ananiadou, Qianqian Xie
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of LLMs in finance are text-only, monolingual, and largely saturated by current models. |
| Approach: | They propose a multilingual and multimodal benchmark for evaluating LLMs in real financial contexts. |
| Outcome: | The first expert-annotated multilingual and multimodal benchmark is released . it evaluates 21 leading LLMs and shows they perform better in multilingual settings . |
CFinBench: A Comprehensive Chinese Financial Benchmark for Large Language Models (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Ying Nie, Binwei Yan, Tianyu Guo, Hao Liu, Haoyu Wang, Wei He, Binfan Zheng, Weihao Wang, Qiang Li, Weijian Sun, Yunhe Wang, Dacheng Tao
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on various NLP tasks, yet their potential in more challenging task like finance, has not been fully explored. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to assess the financial knowledge of large language models (LLMs) in China. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark is the most comprehensive evaluation benchmark to date for LLMs in finance. |
Benchmarking Large Language Models on CFLUE - A Chinese Financial Language Understanding Evaluation Dataset (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) there is an urgent need for new benchmarks to keep pace with the development of LLMs. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to assess the capability of large language models (LLMs) they use a dataset to provide both knowledge assessment and application assessment . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark provides datasets tailored for knowledge assessment and application assessment. |
FinDABench: Benchmarking Financial Data Analysis Ability of Large Language Models (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
Shu Liu, Shangqing Zhao, Chenghao Jia, Xinlin Zhuang, Zhaoguang Long, Jie Zhou, Aimin Zhou, Man Lan, Yang Chong
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, but their proficiency and reliability in the specialized domain of financial data analysis remain uncertain. |
| Approach: | FinDABench is a benchmark designed to evaluate the financial data analysis capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) it comprises 15,200 training instances and 8,900 test instances, all meticulously crafted by human experts. |
| Outcome: | FinDABench measures the financial data analysis capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across three dimensions: 1) Core Ability; 2) Analytical Ability; 3) Technical Ability. |
XFinBench: Benchmarking LLMs in Complex Financial Problem Solving and Reasoning (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing large language models (LLMs) lack advanced capabilities such as temporal reasoning, future forecasting, and numerical modeling. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmarking tool to evaluate LLMs' ability to solve complex financial problems across diverse graduate-level finance topics with multi-modal context. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on the o1 model but still lags behind human experts in temporal reasoning and scenario planning capabilities. |
FinEval: A Chinese Financial Domain Knowledge Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Xin Guo, Haotian Xia, Zhaowei Liu, Hanyang Cao, Zhi Yang, Zhiqiang Liu, Sizhe Wang, Jinyi Niu, Chuqi Wang, Yanhui Wang, Xiaolong Liang, Xiaoming Huang, Bing Zhu, Zhongyu Wei, Yun Chen, Weining Shen, Liwen Zhang
| Challenge: | Large language models have demonstrated outstanding performance in various natural language processing tasks, but their security capabilities in the financial domain have not been explored. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a benchmark to evaluate large language models' financial domain knowledge and practical abilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates large language models' financial domain knowledge and practical abilities. |
FinSafetyBench: Evaluating LLM Safety in Real-World Financial Scenarios (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing large language models (LLMs) are prone to misuse and misinformation, posing serious compliance risks. |
| Approach: | They propose a bilingual red-teaming benchmark to test an LLM’s refusal of requests that violate financial compliance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark is based on real-world financial crime cases and ethical violations and includes 14 subcategories covering financial crimes and ethical breaches. |
Is ChatGPT a Financial Expert? Evaluating Language Models on Financial Natural Language Processing (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized general natural language preprocessing tasks, but their performance in financial domains is not evaluated comprehensively. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to evaluate financial language models on financial tasks . they compare performance of auto-encoding language models and ChatGPT . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework compares the performance of auto-encoding language models and the LLM ChatGPT on financial tasks. |
Large Language Models as Financial Data Annotators: A Study on Effectiveness and Efficiency (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
Toyin D. Aguda, Suchetha Siddagangappa, Elena Kochkina, Simerjot Kaur, Dongsheng Wang, Charese Smiley
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in data annotation tasks on general domain datasets, but their effectiveness on domain specific datasets remains under-explored. |
| Approach: | They compare the annotations produced by three LLMs against expert annotators and crowdworkers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models outperform expert crowdworkers and crowd-sourced annotators on domain specific datasets. |
Exposing the Achilles’ Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations focus on final accuracy, neglecting the critical aspect of reasoning capabilities. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate LLMs’ abilities to detect and correct reasoning mistakes by using rule-based methods and smaller language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing models such as GPT-4o and GPT4 in both accuracy and accuracy, but lacks data contamination and memorization concerns. |