It is demonstrated that GRPO with a finance-grounded reward signal can produce substantially more useful business recommendations than commercial LLMs, and that a judge-independent causal audit is a valuable complement to, rather than a confirmation of, LLM-as-a-judge assessment in financial NLP.
Abstract
Generating actionable financial advice from business records demands that models integrate numerical reasoning, domain knowledge, and sound judgment, while avoiding recommendations that could harm the business. Direct supervision is difficult: historical decisions are not necessarily optimal, and high-quality free-form labels are expensive to obtain. We formulate financial advice generation as a reinforcement learning problem and fine-tune an open-weight language model using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Our reward is an LLM-as-a-judge rubric that scores each recommendation across multiple binary dimensions of advice quality, augmented with a safety gate for harm prevention. Since LLM-based evaluation alone cannot confirm whether improvements reflect genuine business value rather than adaptation to the judge, we complement it with a judge-independent audit based on a standard doubly-robust Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimator. Under this observational off-policy audit, our trained LLM achieves approximately twice the estimated gross-profit lift of the strongest evaluated commercial baseline ($0.0228$ vs.\ $0.0104$), together with the lowest downside rate and the least negative tail risk of any policy evaluated. Notably, the two evaluations do not rank the baselines identically: the untrained base model places last on the judge rubric but second on the causal audit, indicating that the audit captures a signal the judge does not. Our results demonstrate that GRPO with a finance-grounded reward signal can produce substantially more useful business recommendations than commercial LLMs, and that a judge-independent causal audit is a valuable complement to, rather than a confirmation of, LLM-as-a-judge assessment in financial NLP.
Deploying large language models for professional financial review requires more than measuring general financial competence: models must perform the specific review operation required by a workflow and determine whether available evidence is sufficient for a defensible decision. Existing financial benchmarks cover knowledge, reasoning, compliance, and professional tasks, but their evaluation units are often organized around datasets or task formulations rather than the decisions that deployed systems support. We introduce FinRiskAtlas, a Chinese-language benchmark that evaluates financial LLMs along two complementary dimensions: operation execution under fixed evidence states and evidence-state control under evolving review conditions. The static benchmark contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 Domain Knowledge families and eleven downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. FinRisk-Ask extends this framework through offline replay of 680 pre-action states from 104 de-identified professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference and using it only to construct expert-verified evidence targets. Across 33 model configurations, operation-level evaluation yields non-redundant rankings (mean pairwise Spearman correlation 0.42 across downstream operations), and knowledge-based shortlisting can incur up to 18.01 points of regret on individual operations. FinRisk-Ask further shows that entering the Ask branch more frequently does not necessarily improve request targeting or end-to-end evidence acquisition. These results show that broad financial capability scores do not fully capture where models are reliable in professional workflows, motivating evaluation units aligned with the decisions and evidence states that deployed systems must support.
Su-Yang Zhong, Jingzhe Zhu, Qi Xu et al.· 0 citations
Small and medium-sized businesses need timely financial guidance, yet historical accounting logs record self-selected and often co-occurring business changes rather than randomized recommendations. We formulate this setting as observational policy ranking: from pre-decision financial information, a policy selects one of 34 ledger-derived business-change categories for a target financial KPI. Using 85,078 company-month observations from 7,505 firms, we introduce Covariate-Adjusted Residual Policy Learning (CAR-PL), an action-wise R-learner that operates directly on multi-hot logs and regularizes selection by observational support. We compare CAR-PL with an uplift T-Learner, a conservative contextual value model, a zero-shot LLM, and non-personalized references on company-disjoint held-out firms under a shared model-assisted scoring rule. CAR-PL has the highest Gross Profit point estimate (0.084), the T-Learner has the highest Revenue point estimate (0.085), and the contextual value model has the highest Quick Ratio point estimate (0.062). CAR-PL and the T-Learner are not statistically separated on either growth KPI in matched company-clustered comparisons, while CAR-PL selects 33-34 categories and produces less concentrated selections across the catalog. Outcome-model-only scoring retains the same KPI-level point-estimate leader or top pair, and category rankings remain similar when the all-zero treatment reference is replaced by the most common training co-action pattern. These findings support objective-specific ranking of SMB financial guidance from multi-action accounting logs.
Shrutendra Harsola, Vignesh T. Subrahmaniam, Vikas Raturi et al.· 0 citations
Conversational investment advisors influence not only what users know, but also how they make subsequent decisions as market conditions evolve. Existing evaluations primarily assess response quality or observed outcomes, leaving the long-horizon pathway from advisor language to investor behavior difficult to audit. We introduce ShiJianBench, an offline framework for evaluating conversational investment advisors through matched investor trajectories under fixed historical market feedback. At its core is a multi-agent investor simulator with explicit evolving state variables, motive-driven deliberation, long-term memory, and dialogue-grounded updates. The simulator is calibrated against aggregate behavioral patterns from 7,199 real users, and advisor policies are evaluated using separate investor-side, service-side, and content-side metrics under a hard compliance gate. Experiments on Chinese fund-market traces from 2021 to 2026 identify a stable leading group of LLM advisors that combines substantially stronger personalized content with competitive investor-side trajectory outcomes. These results reveal a systematic distinction between producing a high-quality response and delivering an effective long-horizon intervention, motivating trajectory-aware evaluation of conversational advisors.
Jie Gong, Maowei Jiang, Zhiwei Liu et al.· 0 citations
In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.
Financial question answering over hybrid tabular and textual data may require multi-source reasoning and precise numerical computation. While large language models (LLMs) can generate intermediate reasoning steps, natural-language rationales remain prone to arithmetic errors, making them an unreliable supervision source for distillation. Building on programmatic distillation, we develop an approach that transfers reliable numerical reasoning from a large teacher model to a compact student using execution-verified Python programs instead of free-form textual rationales. It leverages gold derivations to guide teacher-side program synthesis and retains only programs that execute correctly and produce the gold answer, ensuring high-quality supervision. We further introduce an iterative recovery stage that revisits teacher-failed examples, enabling the student to recover and incorporate newly verified programs into training. Experiments on TAT-QA show that our framework is highly effective for hybrid financial reasoning. Our best 7B student achieves 87.00 EM / 87.18 F1 on the test set, substantially outperforming the 72B teacher (78.46 EM) as well as traditional and strong LLM-based baselines, including TAGOP and TAT-LLM. These results demonstrate that execution-verified programmatic distillation provides an effective and extensible framework for training smaller models to perform reliable numerical reasoning.
Financial markets are one of the few machine-learning settings where feedback is fast, mistakes are expensive, and deployment is constrained by execution and regulation. Yet most existing tutorials still treat finance either as an NLP benchmark or as a classical forecasting problem. This tutorial takes a different view. We show how recent progress in generative AI becomes genuinely useful in markets when it helps model participant behavior, ground reasoning in live documents and order-flow data, and support research and execution workflows that can survive contact with production. The material therefore moves in three steps: behavioral and market foundations; grounded LLM systems, including RAG, critique models, and agentic workflows; and responsible deployment, including corrected backtesting, execution, risk controls, and governance. Two live demonstrations and three optional Colab notebooks connect the lecture material to implementation.
Z. Iklassov, Hachem Madmoun, J. Duhot et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
