The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FinanceBench: A New Benchmark for Financial Question Answering
Open accessAbstract
FinanceBench is a first-of-its-kind test suite for evaluating the performance of LLMs on open book financial question answering (QA). It comprises 10,231 questions about publicly traded companies, with corresponding answers and evidence strings. The questions in FinanceBench are ecologically valid and cover a diverse set of scenarios. They are intended to be clear-cut and straightforward to answer to serve as a minimum performance standard. We test 16 state of the art model configurations (including GPT-4-Turbo, Llama2 and Claude2, with vector stores and long context prompts) on a sample of 150 cases from FinanceBench, and manually review their answers (n=2,400). The cases are available open-source. We show that existing LLMs have clear limitations for financial QA. Notably, GPT-4-Turbo used with a retrieval system incorrectly answered or refused to answer 81% of questions. While augmentation techniques such as using longer context window to feed in relevant evidence improve performance, they are unrealistic for enterprise settings due to increased latency and cannot support larger financial documents. We find that all models examined exhibit weaknesses, such as hallucinations, that limit their suitability for use by enterprises.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data
Chen, Z., Chen, W., Smiley, C., Shah, S., Borova, I., Langdon, D., Moussa, R., Beane, M., Huang, T.-H., Routledge, B., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.300 · Cited by 258
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Zhiyu Chen, Shiyang Li, Charese Smiley, Zhiqiang Ma, Sameena Shah, and William Yang Wang. 2022. Con- vFinQA: Exploring the chain of numerical reasoning in conversational finance question answering. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6279- 6292, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023. To- wards reasoning in large language models: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1049-1065, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Shima Imani, Liang Du, and Harsh Shrivastava. 2023. MathPrompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 5: Industry Track), pages 37- 42, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Ehsan Kamalloo, Nouha Dziri, Charles Clarke, and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Evaluating open-domain ques- tion answering in the era of large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5591-5606, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Tomáš Kočiský, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Ed- ward Grefenstette. 2018. The NarrativeQA reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328. · DOI · Paper page
- Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Hein- rich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rock- täschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 34th Inter- national Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems, NIPS'20, Red Hook, NY, USA.
- Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Linqing Liu, Patrick Lewis, Sebastian Riedel, and Pon- tus Stenetorp. 2022. Challenges in generalization in open domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2014-2029, Seattle, United States. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Pan Lu, Liang Qiu, Wenhao Yu, Sean Welleck, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2023. A survey of deep learning for mathematical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 14605- 14631, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
- Macedo Maia, Siegfried Handschuh, André Freitas, Brian Davis, Ross McDermott, Manel Zarrouk, and Alexandra Balahur. 2018. Www'18 open challenge: Financial opinion mining and question answering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, WWW '18, page 1941-1942, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. · DOI
- Yingjie Niu, Linyi Yang, Ruihai Dong, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Learning to generalize for cross-domain QA. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1298-1313, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5368-5393, Toronto, Canada. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable ques- tions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784-789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Anna Rogers, Matt Gardner, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2023. Qa dataset explosion: A taxonomy of nlp resources for question answering and reading com- prehension. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(10). · DOI
- Julio Cesar Salinas Alvarado, Karin Verspoor, and Tim- othy Baldwin. 2015. Domain adaption of named entity recognition to support credit risk assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Tech- nology Association Workshop 2015, pages 84-90, Parramatta, Australia.
- Raj Shah, Kunal Chawla, Dheeraj Eidnani, Agam Shah, Wendi Du, Sudheer Chava, Natraj Raman, Charese Smiley, Jiaao Chen, and Diyi Yang. 2022. When FLUE meets FLANG: Benchmarks and large pre- trained language model for financial domain. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2322- 2335, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2023. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2717-2739, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. HellaSwag: Can a ma- chine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 4791-4800, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat- Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual con- tent in finance. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277-3287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335
Zep: A Temporal Knowledge Graph Architecture for Agent Memory
Rasmussen, P., Paliychuk, P., Beauvais, T., Ryan, J., & Chalef, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13956 · Cited by 9
“While Zep focuses on LLM memory, its traditional RAG capabilities should be evaluated against established benchmarks such as those in [17], [27], and [28].”
“These include long-context data reasoning (FinanceBench [25], QASPER [19]), mathematical reasoning (Tabular Math Word Problems [36], AIME 2024 and 2025 [37]), and multi-step agentic reasoning and tool use (GAIA [38]).”
Cartridges: Lightweight and general-purpose long context representations via self-study
Eyuboglu, S., Ehrlich, R., Arora, S., Guha, N., Zinsley, D., Liu, E., Tennien, W., Rudra, A., Zou, J., Mirhoseini, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06266
Metadata
- Authors
- Islam, P., Kannappan, A., Kiela, D., Qian, R., Scherrer, N., & Vidgen, B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.11944
- OpenAlex
- W4388926382
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- financial question answering, large language models, benchmark, listed companies, evidence retrieval, hallucinations, GPT-4 Turbo, Llama 2, Claude 2, vector store
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