Daily Papers

A numerical claim generated by a financial analyst agent can match a number in a company filing but refer to the wrong entity, concept, period, unit or scope. A check based on reference answers can mark such an answer as wrong but does not explain why it fails. In this paper, we present NumTrace, a new benchmark that audits the provenance of each numerical claim made by financial analyst agents: its source and financial semantics. NumTrace currently has 540 questions over 2,163 SEC EDGAR documents. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first numerical benchmark about who holds a company's shares (Form 13F) and what its executives are owed (Item 402(i)). On a frozen snapshot of these documents, we build the reference answers according to accounting rules. NumTrace then gives each claim three separate verdicts: value, binding and support. By retaining separate value and binding verdicts, NumTrace detects right number, wrong account (RNWA) errors: a claim has an RNWA error when it passes the value check but fails the binding check. The RNWA rate quantifies the gap between value-only and joint value-and-binding pass rates. Finally, we audit three agents, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. RNWA errors make up 67.5-81.8% of each agent's failing claims. In particular, on 13F co-filing group questions, about 91% of claims pass the value check, but fewer than half pass the binding check.

Foundation models (FMs) provide societal benefits but also amplify risks. Governments, companies, and researchers have proposed regulatory frameworks, acceptable use policies, and safety benchmarks in response. However, existing public benchmarks often define safety categories based on previous literature, intuitions, or common sense, leading to disjointed sets of categories for risks specified in recent regulations and policies, which makes it challenging to evaluate and compare FMs across these benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we introduce AIR-Bench 2024, the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies, following the regulation-based safety categories grounded in our AI risks study, AIR 2024. AIR 2024 decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with 314 granular risk categories in the lowest tier. AIR-Bench 2024 contains 5,694 diverse prompts spanning these categories, with manual curation and human auditing to ensure quality. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns. By bridging the gap between public benchmarks and practical AI risks, AIR-Bench 2024 provides a foundation for assessing model safety across jurisdictions, fostering the development of safer and more responsible AI systems.