arXiv subjects

Guojie Lin

Publications and source records attributed to Guojie Lin.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Are the Financial Reasoning from LLMs Credible? A Real World Test over Long-Horizon Statements

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess genuine structural reasoning, or merely rely on surface-level pattern matching? The financial domain, demanding numerical precision and multi-step logic over long contexts, is an ideal testbed. Existing benchmarks fail to capture real-world industrial complexity, predominantly relying on multiple-choice questions or single-hop QA over cropped tables while ignoring intricate cross-statement dynamics and temporal de-cumulation. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinIndices, a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens). Utilizing an automated synthesis pipeline with adversarial traps, FinIndices encompasses Single-Index computation and Table-Index tabulation to test complex domain, temporal, and caliber reasoning. Our evaluation reveals two severe LLM vulnerabilities. First, a "Knowledge Bottleneck": despite memorizing formulas during pre-training, models demonstrate fragile pattern matching. Removing explicit formula hints causes performance to collapse (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro drops from 70.70% to 38.22% on table tasks), exposing fatal flaws in temporal de-cumulation and stock-flow caliber mismatch. Second, a "Structural Bottleneck": the intense cognitive load of generating multi-metric, multi-period tables actively drains reasoning capacity. Under structural pressure, LLMs that flawlessly execute isolated derivations regress to shallow heuristics, such as fetching incorrect adjacent columns or substituting deep accounting adjustments with lazy literal arithmetic. Finally, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) yields substantial zero-hint gains (+8.54% Single, +3.82% Table), validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 668 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,143 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/skylenage/HLE-Verified

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Unmasking Reasoning Processes: A Process-aware Benchmark for Evaluating Structural Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs

Recent large language models (LLMs) achieve near-saturation accuracy on many established mathematical reasoning benchmarks, raising concerns about their ability to diagnose genuine reasoning competence. This saturation largely stems from the dominance of template-based computation and shallow arithmetic decomposition in existing datasets, which underrepresent reasoning skills such as multi-constraint coordination, constructive logical synthesis, and spatial inference. To address this gap, we introduce ReasoningMath-Plus, a benchmark of 150 carefully curated problems explicitly designed to evaluate structural reasoning. Each problem emphasizes reasoning under interacting constraints, constructive solution formation, or non-trivial structural insight, and is annotated with a minimal reasoning skeleton to support fine-grained process-level evaluation. Alongside the dataset, we introduce HCRS (Hazard-aware Chain-based Rule Score), a deterministic step-level scoring function, and train a Process Reward Model (PRM) on the annotated reasoning traces. Empirically, while leading models attain relatively high final-answer accuracy (up to 5.8/10), HCRS-based holistic evaluation yields substantially lower scores (average 4.36/10, best 5.14/10), showing that answer-only metrics can overestimate reasoning robustness.

cs.AI↗