REVIEW 9 cited by
Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has emerged as a transformative force in financial analysis and the finance industry, though significant questions remain about the full capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in this domain. We present the Finance Agent Benchmark, featuring challenging and diverse real-world finance research problems that require LLMs to perform complex analysis using recent SEC filings. We construct the benchmark using a taxonomy of nine financial task categories, developed in consultation with experts from banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. The dataset includes 537 expert-authored questions covering tasks from information retrieval to complex financial modeling, each validated through a rigorous review process to ensure accuracy and relevance. Moreover, we implement an agentic harness that equips LLMs with tools sufficient to produce accurate responses, including Google Search and EDGAR database access. Overall, the Finance Agent Benchmark provides a comprehensive testbed for measuring the progress of LLM-driven finance agents. Our evaluation reveals significant limitations in current AI capabilities - even the best-performing model (OpenAI o3) achieved only 46.8% accuracy at an average cost of $3.79 per query. This underscores the need for further advancements before reliable deployment in high-stakes finance settings.
Forward citations
Cited by 9 Pith papers
-
FinDeepIndicator: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in End-to-End Financial Indicator Construction
A new benchmark, FinDeepIndicator, measures AI agents on all four stages of computing financial indicators and shows data collection is the main failure point.
-
AgentStream: How Well Do Self-Evolving LLM Agents Perform Under Streaming Tasks?
Self-evolving LLM agents improve under streaming evaluation only when the base model is strong enough; gains are largest in single-domain streams, and no method dominates across models.
-
AgentRadio: Passive Awareness for Long-Horizon Multi-Agent Collaboration
Background mention-waiting lets four Claude Code agents share discoveries mid-execution and reach 62.1% on SWE-Atlas QnA versus 32.3% for one agent.
-
Messier: A High-Resolution Corpus for Cross-Benchmark Agent Evaluation
A unified corpus of 957k trial outcomes shows frontier progress is uneven and strict all-pass aggregation obscures capability and can reorder agents.
-
Frontier Financial Judgement: Can agents tell what might move a stock?
No evaluated AI agent can fully match professional analysts' newness/importance/direction labels on the new 82-case Frontier Financial Judgement benchmark; GPT-5.5 tops out at 52.4%.
-
Are the Financial Reasoning from LLMs Credible? A Real World Test over Long-Horizon Statements
A new benchmark shows LLMs' financial calculation accuracy collapses without explicit formulas and degrades further when they must generate multi-metric tables.
-
FORCE-Bench: A Benchmark, Dataset, and Evaluation Harness for Agentic AI in Enterprise Finance
FORCE-Bench, a 251-question enterprise-finance benchmark with rubric scoring, shows a purpose-built Microsoft finance agent outperforming general-purpose agents on ERP and public-data tasks.
-
FinToolBench: Evaluating LLM Agents for Real-World Financial Tool Use
FinToolBench couples 760 executable financial APIs with 295 tool-required queries and scores agents on execution success plus timeliness, intent, and domain compliance, with a finance-aware retrieval baseline (FATR).
-
AI Trading: Evaluating Large Language Models for Technical Market Analysis
A comparative evaluation claims GPT-4 Turbo and FinGPT outperformed the S&P 500 in a 2023 simulated backtest, but flawed baselines and missing code/data undermine the result.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.