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.
Xin Tong, Xuanming Zhang, Tianyi Tang et al.· 0 citations
Large language models that generate step-by-step reasoning traces have achieved strong performance on complex tasks, and extending them to long-context settings has emerged as an important frontier. However, we identify a critical failure mode in this regime: \emph{repetitive copying}, where models extensively copy text from the input into their reasoning traces rather than productively solving the problem. We show that this behavior is pervasive across frontier long-context LLMs and intensifies with context length. By separating each prompt into task-relevant key evidence and irrelevant distractor context, we further show that the root cause is insufficient grounding: models copy from the prompt indiscriminately, and those that fail to focus on key evidence are far more likely to answer incorrectly. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose GEAR (Grounding Evidence-Aware Reward), a reward shaping method that augments the accuracy signal with a grounding reward for overlap with key evidence and a distractor penalty for overlap with irrelevant context. To enable GEAR on natural-language data, we develop an automated pipeline that constructs evidence-annotated training data from arbitrary documents. We validate GEAR across multiple model scales and benchmarks, showing consistent improvements of up to +4.6 average points over standard RL with accuracy-based rewards, with larger gains at longer contexts, while also reducing repetitive copying and thinking length. Our findings suggest that, even as long-context evaluation shifts from simple retrieval toward complex reasoning, accurate grounding in relevant evidence remains an indispensable capability with substantial room for improvement.
Lizhe Fang, Weizhou Shen, Tianyi Tang et al.· 0 citations
