Ayesha Gull

Ayesha Gull, Muhammad Usman Safder, Rania Elbadry et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to specialized, high-stakes domains like engineering, which demands rigorous evaluation of their complex reasoning capabilities. While current benchmarks assess language understanding, factual recall, mathematics or code generation, none capture the integrative reasoning central to engineering where scientific principles, quantitative modeling and practical constraints must converge. To address this gap, we introduce EngChain, a benchmark for verifiable multi-step engineering problem-solving. EngChain contains 90 problems spanning three engineering branches, organized into 9 domains and 20 distinct areas. The problems are generated from symbolic templates with a high degree of randomization to ensure diversity and eliminate the risk of contamination. With this benchmark, we move beyond final answer accuracy with a two-stage evaluation: we first quantitatively verify the numerical and semantic validity of each reasoning step and then introduce LLM-As-A-Judge, an automated system to qualitatively categorize the identified reasoning errors.

Xueqing Peng, Zhuohan Xie, Yupeng Cao et al.

As AI agents improve, the central question is no longer whether they can solve isolated well-defined financial tasks, but whether they can reliably carry out financial professional work. Existing financial benchmarks offer only a partial view of this ability, as they primarily evaluate static competencies such as question answering, retrieval, summarization, and classification. We introduce Herculean, the first skilled benchmark for agentic financial intelligence spanning four representative workflows, including Trading, Hedging, Market Insights, and Auditing. Each workflow is instantiated as a standardized MCP-based skill environment with its own tools, interaction dynamics, constraints, and success criteria, enabling consistent end-to-end assessment of heterogeneous agent systems. Across frontier agents, we find agents perform relatively well on Trading and Market Insights, but struggle substantially on Hedging and Auditing, where long-horizon coordination, state consistency, and structured verification are critical. Overall, our results point to a key gap in current agents in turning financial reasoning into dependable workflow execution in high-stakes financial workflows.

Muhammad Usman Safder, Ayesha Gull, Rania Elbadry et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous financial agents initialized with explicit behavioral mandates such as "preserve capital" or "avoid speculative bets" that are meant to govern every decision throughout deployment. In practice, however, as market context accumulates over long horizons, these mandates gradually lose their behavioral influence, a phenomenon we formalize as Mandate Salience Decay (MSD). To measure MSD objectively, we introduce FinPersona-Bench, a simulation benchmark in which a synthetic market decouples observable price from hidden fundamental value, enabling falsifiable evaluation across three failure modes: trading without signal in calm markets, panic-selling during crashes, and ignoring fundamental value during speculative bubbles. Evaluating 18 leading frontier and open-source LLMs, each assigned one of three behavioral profiles ranging from strict capital preservation to aggressive growth, shows that MSD compounds over time and is model-dependent. In crash scenarios, the behavioral gap between static agents and those receiving periodic mandate re-grounding grows 4.4x from the first to the final quarter of the simulation. The effects of mandate re-grounding are not uniformly positive: it consistently helps conservative agents in low-signal markets but actively worsens behavior for aggressive agents in the same setting. These findings suggest that reliable long-horizon deployment requires selective, mandate-aware re-grounding based on agent profile and market regime.