Cited by 74Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesStock Market Forecasting Methods

When FLUE Meets FLANG: Benchmarks and Large Pretrained Language Model for Financial Domain

Open access
Shah, Raj, Chawla, Kunal, Eidnani, Dheeraj, Shah, Agam, Du, Wendi, Chava, Sudheer, Raman, Natraj, Smiley, Charese +2 more·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Raj Shah, Kunal Chawla, Dheeraj Eidnani, Agam Shah, Wendi Du, Sudheer Chava, Natraj Raman, Charese Smiley, Jiaao Chen, Diyi Yang. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.148

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SciBench involved manual data extraction and complex problem formulations, complicating the installation process.

    “For example, SciBench [46] involved manual data extraction and complex problem formulations, further complicating the installation process.”
  • SciBench involved manual data extraction and complex problem formulations, which significantly extended the evaluation process.

    “For instance, SciBench [46] involved manual data extraction and complex problem formulations, which significantly extended the evaluation process, making it difficult to keep pace with the rapid advancements in LLM development.”
  • The SciBench benchmark demonstrated challenges in evaluating true reasoning capabilities of LLMs due to reliance on technical optimization, as seen when LLMs, prompted with external tools, incorrectly derived equations, highlighting their struggle to understand mathematical relationships beyond mere optimization.

    “SciBench [46]: The study demonstrated challenges in evaluating the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs due to reliance on technical optimization, as seen when LLMs, prompted with external tools, incorrectly derived equations, highlighting their struggle to understand mathematical relationships beyond mere optimization.”
  • The SciBench benchmark demonstrated a tension between helpfulness and harmlessness in LLM benchmarks by emphasizing benchmarks' struggle to quantify a balance between providing helpful information and avoiding harmful outputs, particularly through use of A/B tests and incorporation of human evaluation methods, without a clear criterion for this balance.

    “SciBench [46]: The study demonstrated a tension between helpfulness and harmlessness in LLM benchmarks by emphasizing benchmarks' struggle to quantify a balance between providing helpful information and avoiding harmful outputs, particularly through the use of A/B tests and the incorporation of human evaluation methods, without a clear criterion for this balance.”
  • SciBench demonstrated complexity in implementing and scaling benchmarks, involving intricate processes like manual data extraction from PDFs to LaTeX, complex problem formulations, and use of external tools for evaluation.

    “The study demonstrated complexity in implementing and scaling benchmarks, as it involved intricate processes like manual data extraction from PDFs to LaTeX, complex problem formulations, and the use of external tools for evaluation, which aligned with the stated concerns of installation and scalability challenges.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scib- ert: Pretrained language model for scientific text. In EMNLP.
  2. Sudheer Chava, Wendi Du, and Nikhil Paradkar. 2019. Buzzwords? Available at SSRN 3862645.
  3. Sudheer Chava, Wendi Du, Agam Shah, and Linghang Zeng. 2022. Measuring firm-level inflation expo- sure: A deep learning approach. Available at SSRN 4228332.
  4. Feng Li. 2010. The information content of forward- looking statements in corporate filings-a naïve bayesian machine learning approach. Journal of Ac- counting Research, 48(5):1049-1102.
  5. Guangyuan Piao and John G Breslin. 2018. Financial aspect and sentiment predictions with deep neural networks: an ensemble approach. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, pages 1973-1977.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, R., Chawla, K., Eidnani, D., Shah, A., Du, W., Chava, S., Raman, N., Smiley, C., Chen, J., & Yang, D.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2022
Pages
2322-2335
OpenAlex
W4385572697
Cited by
74
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17
FWCI
8.30
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Georgia Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Stock Market Forecasting Methods
Keywords
pre-trained language models, benchmark dataset, financial domain, flues

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review