Qingyun Wang

Arun Vignesh Malarkkan, Manan Roy Choudhury, Guangwei Zhang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to financial analysis, yet their ability to audit structured financial statements under explicit accounting principles remains poorly explored. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate question answering, numerical reasoning, or anomaly detection on synthetically corrupted data, making it unclear whether models can reliably verify or localize rule compliance on correct financial statements. We introduce FinRule-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating diagnostic completeness in rule-based financial reasoning over real-world financial tables. FinRule-Bench pairs ground-truth financial statements with explicit, human-curated accounting principles and spans four canonical statement types: Balance Sheets, Cash Flow Statements, Income Statements, and Statements of Equity. The benchmark defines three auditing tasks that require progressively stronger reasoning capabilities: (i) rule verification, which tests compliance with a single principle; (ii) rule identification, which requires selecting the violated principle from a provided rule set; and (iii) joint rule diagnosis, which requires detecting and localizing multiple simultaneous violations at the record level. We evaluate LLMs under zero-shot and few-shot prompting, and introduce a causal-counterfactual reasoning protocol that enforces consistency between decisions, explanations, and counterfactual judgments. Across tasks and statement types, we find that while models perform well on isolated rule verification, performance degrades sharply for rule discrimination and multi-violation diagnosis. FinRule-Bench provides a principled and reproducible testbed for studying rule-governed reasoning, diagnostic coverage, and failure modes of LLMs in high-stakes financial analysis.

Yuji Zhang, Qingyun Wang, Cheng Qian et al.

Scientific texts often convey authority due to their technical language and complex data. However, this complexity can sometimes lead to the spread of misinformation. Non-experts are particularly susceptible to misleading claims based on scientific tables due to their high information density and perceived credibility. Existing table claim verification models, including state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), often struggle with precise fine-grained reasoning, resulting in errors and a lack of precision in verifying scientific claims. Inspired by Cognitive Load Theory, we propose that enhancing a model's ability to interpret table-based claims involves reducing cognitive load by developing modular, reusable reasoning components (i.e., atomic skills). We introduce a skill-chaining schema that dynamically composes these skills to facilitate more accurate and generalizable reasoning with a reduced cognitive load. To evaluate this, we create SciAtomicBench, a cross-domain benchmark with fine-grained reasoning annotations. With only 350 fine-tuning examples, our model trained by atomic reasoning outperforms GPT-4o's chain-of-thought method, achieving state-of-the-art results with far less training data.

Junsheng Huang, Zhitao He, Yucheng Huang et al.

The hallucination of non-existent facts by LLMs is an important problem given its widespread adoption across various applications. Previous research addresses this problem by analyzing the internal parameterized knowledge boundaries to estimate confidence. However, these studies focus on the single-problem setting and have not explored the more challenging multi-problem setting, which requires accurately answering multiple questions simultaneously. We introduce a novel method for the multi-problem setting, Multiple Answers and Confidence Stepwise Tuning (MAC-Tuning), that separates the learning of answer prediction and confidence estimation during fine-tuning on instruction data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms baselines by up to 25\% in average precision.