SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2609.03654

Enhancing Financial Question Answering: A Novel Benchmark Dataset of Banks' financial statements

Abstract

The comparative analysis of banks' financial statements poses significant challenges for automated question answering systems due to their complexity, substantial length, technical language, and inhomogeneity of both textual and numerical content across different jurisdictions and institutions. We introduce FinRAG-QA, a novel benchmark dataset for financial question answering, which comprises 999 practitioner-curated questions on 10 standardised indicators, grounded in 209 annual and Pillar 3 reports from 24 major European and U.S. banks spanning 2019-2023. Unlike prior financial QA benchmarks, which centre on U.S. filings and single-institution analysis, FinRAG-QA targets cross-institutional retrieval over documents averaging 198k words, longer than any existing financial QA resource. On this benchmark we evaluate a multi-stage RAG pipeline and isolate the contribution of each component. Contextual chunk enrichment combined with a retrieval-optimised embedding model raises NDCG@10 from 0.322 to 0.710; conditional on the ground truth being retrieved, a reasoning-optimised generator raises answer accuracy from 44.6% to 79.0% (+34.4 percentage points), at roughly 20x the generation latency. We further show that cross-encoder reranking degrades retrieval when the first-stage ranking is already strong, and that a single top-ranked chunk outperforms larger contexts at generation time. Experiments were run in late 2024-early 2025 with the models available at that time.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Arianna Miola, Bruno Spaccavento, Lorenzo Silotto, Marco Bianchetti, Luca Cagliero. 2026-09-03. Enhancing Financial Question Answering: A Novel Benchmark Dataset of Banks' financial statements. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03654

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ASDA: Automated Skill Distillation and Adaptation for Financial Reasoning

Adapting large language models (LLMs) to specialized financial reasoning typically requires expensive fine-tuning that produces model-locked expertise. Training-free alternatives have emerged, yet our experiments show that leading methods (GEPA and ACE) achieve only marginal gains on the FAMMA financial reasoning benchmark, exposing the limits of unstructured text optimization for complex, multi-step domain reasoning. We introduce Automated Skill Distillation and Adaptation (ASDA), a framework that automatically generates structured skill artifacts through iterative error-corrective learning without modifying model weights. A teacher model analyzes a student model's failures on financial reasoning tasks, clusters errors by subfield and error type, and synthesizes skill files containing reasoning procedures, code templates, and worked examples, which are dynamically injected during inference. Evaluated on FAMMA, ASDA achieves up to +17.33% improvement on arithmetic reasoning and +5.95% on non-arithmetic reasoning, substantially outperforming all training-free baselines. The resulting skill artifacts are human-readable, version-controlled, and compatible with the Agent Skills open standard, offering any organization with a labeled domain dataset a practical and auditable path to domain adaptation without weight access or retraining.

cs.CL

The Analyst in the Prompt: Role, Retrieval, and Memory Biases in LLM Financial Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.

cs.CL

What Do CAE Simulation Agents Really Need Beyond a Generic Harness?

Computer-aided engineering (CAE) simulation is among the largest and most demanding areas of engineering, where setting up a solver such as OpenFOAM, FEniCS, or COMSOL takes real expertise. Large language model (LLM) agents promise to turn a natural-language request into a working simulation, and recent CAE agents add simulation-specific machinery: multi-agent decomposition, domain retrieval, and scripted reflection. That machinery suited weak base models; modern harnesses already supply multi-turn reasoning, tool use, and execution feedback. We ask what a CAE simulation agent still needs beyond a generic harness. With information access and repair budget held fixed, a single-agent harness matches or beats multi-agent specialized systems (FoamBench 96.4\% vs.\ 88.2\%). Ablations trace this to capabilities the harness already provides: execution-feedback repair lifts FoamBench from 71.8\% with no repair round to 96.4\%, while scripted reflection adds nothing. The one input that still helps is domain knowledge supplied as solver tutorials, our largest measured gain (80.9\% to 96.4\%).

cs.CE