| --- |
| license: mit |
| task_categories: |
| - question-answering |
| - text-generation |
| language: |
| - en |
| tags: |
| - finance |
| - long-form-qa |
| - attribution |
| - financial-analysis |
| - LLM-evaluation |
| pretty_name: FinLFQA |
| size_categories: |
| - 1K<n<10K |
| --- |
| |
| # FinLFQA |
|
|
| [**📖 Paper**](https://aclanthology.org/anthology-files/anthology-files/pdf/findings/2025.findings-emnlp.908.pdf) | [**💻 GitHub**](https://github.com/yitaoLong/FinLFQA) |
|
|
| The dataset for the paper [FinLFQA: Evaluating Attributed Text Generation of LLMs in Financial Long-Form Question Answering](https://aclanthology.org/anthology-files/anthology-files/pdf/findings/2025.findings-emnlp.908.pdf). |
|
|
| **FinLFQA** is a benchmark for evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate long-form answers with fine-grained attributions in the financial domain. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on short-form or extractive QA, FinLFQA requires models to synthesize information from multiple financial documents, apply professional financial knowledge, perform numerical reasoning, and provide clause-level attribution for every claim in their response. |
|
|
| <p align="center"> |
| <img src="dataset.png" alt="FinLFQA Dataset Overview" width="800"/> |
| </p> |
|
|
| ## Dataset Overview |
|
|
| FinLFQA contains **1,008** expert-annotated examples spanning diverse financial analysis topics. Each example requires the model to reason over financial filings from **two companies**, apply domain-specific knowledge (e.g., profitability ratios, DCF valuation, capital structure optimization), and produce a structured, multi-clause answer with fine-grained attribution. |
|
|
| | Split | # Samples | |
| |-------|-----------| |
| | Development | 302 | |
| | Test | 706 | |
|
|
| ### Key Features |
|
|
| - **Cross-document reasoning**: Each question requires synthesizing information from two companies' financial filings. |
| - **Fine-grained attribution**: Answers are decomposed into clauses, each attributed to specific evidence paragraphs, professional knowledge, and/or computational code. |
| - **Numerical reasoning**: Answers involve quantitative calculations grounded in financial formulas and verifiable through executable Python code. |
| - **Professional knowledge grounding**: Each example includes a list of relevant financial formulas and domain knowledge used in reasoning. |
|
|
| ## Loading the Dataset |
|
|
| ```python |
| from datasets import load_dataset |
| import json |
| |
| dataset = load_dataset("Dragongon/FinLFQA") |
| |
| # Access the development set |
| dev_set = dataset["validation"] |
| print(f"Development set size: {len(dev_set)}") |
| |
| # Access the test set |
| test_set = dataset["test"] |
| print(f"Test set size: {len(test_set)}") |
| |
| # Print the first example |
| example = dev_set[0] |
| # The `context` and `clauses` fields are JSON-encoded strings; parse them as needed: |
| context = json.loads(example["context"]) |
| clauses = json.loads(example["clauses"]) |
| print(example["question"]) |
| print("Companies:", list(context.keys())) |
| print("Number of clauses:", len(clauses)) |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Data Format |
|
|
| Each example in the dataset contains the following fields: |
|
|
| ```json |
| { |
| "id": "[int] Unique identifier for the example", |
| "question": "[string] The financial analysis question", |
| "answer": "[string] Expert-written long-form answer with inline attribution markers", |
| "topic": "[string] The financial analysis topic category", |
| "clauses": "[string] JSON-encoded list of decomposed answer clauses with fine-grained attribution", |
| "context": "[string] JSON-encoded dict of financial document paragraphs keyed by company ticker", |
| "professional knowledge list": "[list] Relevant financial formulas and domain knowledge", |
| "numerical_values": "[list] Key numerical values involved in the answer" |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| ### Clause Structure |
|
|
| Each clause in the `clauses` field contains: |
|
|
| ```json |
| { |
| "cid": "[int] Clause ID", |
| "clause": "[string] The claim text", |
| "inference": "[list] Indices of clauses this clause infers from", |
| "evidence": "[dict] Mapping from company ticker to paragraph indices used as evidence", |
| "professional knowledge": "[string] The financial formula or knowledge applied", |
| "code": "[string] Executable Python code for numerical verification", |
| "code_execution_result": "[string] Result of executing the code" |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| ### Example |
|
|
| ```json |
| { |
| "id": 0, |
| "question": "How does EBC's net interest income sensitivity compare between March 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023, when the interest rate change is +200 basis points?", |
| "answer": "EBC's net interest income sensitivity decreased by 0.2% {code: [0]} (2.9% - 3.1%) from December 31, 2023, to March 31, 2024. {evidence: EBC: [4], W: [], professional knowledge: [0]} ...", |
| "topic": "Cost of Capital Optimization Using Real Options Analysis", |
| "clauses": [ |
| { |
| "cid": 0, |
| "clause": "EBC's net interest income sensitivity decreased by 0.2% (2.9% - 3.1%) from December 31, 2023, to March 31, 2024.", |
| "inference": [], |
| "evidence": {"EBC": [4], "W": []}, |
| "professional knowledge": "Interest Rate Risk Analysis=Net Interest Margin (NIM) = (Interest Income - Interest Expense) / Average Earning Assets", |
| "code": "def calculate_net_interest_income_sensitivity_change(): ...", |
| "code_execution_result": "0.20000000000000018" |
| } |
| ], |
| "context": { |
| "EBC": ["paragraph 1", "paragraph 2", "..."], |
| "W": ["paragraph 1", "paragraph 2", "..."] |
| }, |
| "professional knowledge list": [ |
| "Profitability Ratios=Net Profit Margin = (Net Income / Revenue) * 100", |
| "..." |
| ], |
| "numerical_values": [0.2, 2.9, 3.1] |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Contact |
|
|
| For any issues or questions, kindly email us at: Yitao Long ([yitao.long@nyu.edu](mailto:yitao.long@nyu.edu)). |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| ```bibtex |
| @inproceedings{long-etal-2025-finlfqa, |
| title = "{F}in{LFQA}: Evaluating Attributed Text Generation of {LLM}s in Financial Long-Form Question Answering", |
| author = "Long, Yitao and |
| Hu, Tiansheng and |
| Zhao, Yilun and |
| Cohan, Arman and |
| Zhao, Chen", |
| editor = "Christodoulopoulos, Christos and |
| Chakraborty, Tanmoy and |
| Rose, Carolyn and |
| Peng, Violet", |
| booktitle = "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025", |
| month = nov, |
| year = "2025", |
| address = "Suzhou, China", |
| publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-emnlp.908/", |
| doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.908", |
| pages = "16730--16750", |
| ISBN = "979-8-89176-335-7", |
| abstract = "Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate to long-form questions, producing plausible yet factually incorrect answers. A common mitigation strategy is to provide attribution to LLM outputs. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on simple attribution that retrieves supporting textual evidence as references. We argue that in real-world scenarios such as financial applications, attribution goes beyond reference retrieval.We introduce FinLFQA, a benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LLMs to generate long-form answers to complex financial questions with reliable and nuanced attributions. FinLFQA evaluates three critical aspects of attribution through human annotations: (1) supporting evidence extracted from financial reports, (2) intermediate numerical reasoning steps, and (3) domain-specific financial knowledge that informs the reasoning process.We further provide an automatic evaluation framework covering both answer quality and attribution quality. Through extensive experiments on eight LLMs across multiple attribution-generation paradigms, we find that fine-grained metrics are important to distinguish model capabilities, that end-to-end generation achieves comparable performance to post-hoc approaches, and that iterative refinement only helps when guided by external feedback." |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|