--- 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 FinLFQA Dataset Overview

## 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." } ```