FrontierFinance: A Long-Horizon Computer-Use Benchmark of Real-World Financial Tasks

As concerns surrounding AI-driven labor displacement intensify in knowledge-intensive sectors, existing benchmarks fail to measure performance on tasks that define practical professional expertise. Finance, in particular, has been identified as a domain with high AI exposure risk, yet lacks robust benchmarks to track real-world developments. This gap is compounded by the absence of clear accountability mechanisms in current Large Language Model (LLM) deployments. To address this, we introduce FrontierFinance, a long-horizon benchmark of 25 complex financial modeling tasks across five core finance models, requiring an average of over 18 hours of skilled human labor per task to complete. Developed with financial professionals, the benchmark reflects industry-standard financial modeling workflows and is paired with detailed rubrics for structured evaluation. We engage human experts to define the tasks, create rubrics, grade LLMs, and perform the tasks themselves as human baselines. We demonstrate that our human experts both receive higher scores on average, and are more likely to provide client-ready outputs than current state-of-the-art systems.

Cost-Efficient Estimation of General Abilities Across Benchmarks

Thousands of diverse benchmarks have been developed to measure the quality of large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work has demonstrated that LLM performance is often sufficiently explained by a small set of latent factors, or abilities. This suggests the potential for more efficient and principled benchmarking, but it remains difficult to compare the quality of different methods. Motivated by predictive validity, we argue that the quality of a benchmarking framework should be grounded in how efficiently it enables the prediction of model performance on unseen tasks. To analyze this objective, we collect the "Wide-scale Item Level Dataset" (WILD), a dataset of item-model response pairs, comprising evaluations of 65 models on 109,564 unique items spanning 163 tasks drawn from 27 datasets. This dataset enables the first analysis of how different techniques can predict a model's performance on a large, diverse collection of unseen tasks under different budget constraints. We demonstrate that combining a modified multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model with adaptive item selection driven by optimal experimental design can predict performance on 112 held-out benchmark tasks with a mean absolute error (MAE) of less than 7%, and can do so after observing only 16 items. We further demonstrate that incorporating cost-aware discount factors into our selection criteria can reduce the total tokens needed to reach 7% MAE from 141,000 tokens to only 22,000, an 85% reduction in evaluation cost.

On Finding Inconsistencies in Documents

Professionals in academia, law, and finance audit their documents because inconsistencies can result in monetary, reputational, and scientific costs. Language models (LMs) have the potential to dramatically speed up this auditing process. To understand their abilities, we introduce a benchmark, FIND (Finding INconsistencies in Documents), where each example is a document with an inconsistency inserted manually by a domain expert. Despite the documents being long, technical, and complex, the best-performing model (gpt-5) recovered 64% of the inserted inconsistencies. Surprisingly, gpt-5 also found undiscovered inconsistencies present in the original documents. For example, on 50 arXiv papers, we judged 136 out of 196 of the model's suggestions to be legitimate inconsistencies missed by the original authors. However, despite these findings, even the best models miss almost half of the inconsistencies in FIND, demonstrating that inconsistency detection is still a challenging task.

Complexity Scaling Laws for Neural Models using Combinatorial Optimization

Recent work on neural scaling laws demonstrates that model performance scales predictably with compute budget, model size, and dataset size. In this work, we develop scaling laws based on problem complexity. We analyze two fundamental complexity measures: solution space size and representation space size. Using the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) as a case study, we show that combinatorial optimization promotes smooth cost trends, and therefore meaningful scaling laws can be obtained even in the absence of an interpretable loss. We then show that suboptimality grows predictably for fixed-size models when scaling the number of TSP nodes or spatial dimensions, independent of whether the model was trained with reinforcement learning or supervised fine-tuning on a static dataset. We conclude with an analogy to problem complexity scaling in local search, showing that a much simpler gradient descent of the cost landscape produces similar trends.

BLEUBERI: BLEU is a surprisingly effective reward for instruction following

Reward models are central to aligning LLMs with human preferences, but they are costly to train, requiring large-scale human-labeled preference data and powerful pretrained LLM backbones. Meanwhile, the increasing availability of high-quality synthetic instruction-following datasets raises the question: can simpler, reference-based metrics serve as viable alternatives to reward models during RL-based alignment? In this paper, we show first that BLEU, a basic string-matching metric, surprisingly matches strong reward models in agreement with human preferences on general instruction-following datasets. Based on this insight, we develop BLEUBERI, a method that first identifies challenging instructions and then applies Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using BLEU directly as the reward function. We demonstrate that BLEUBERI-trained models are competitive with models trained via reward model-guided RL across four challenging instruction-following benchmarks and three different base language models. A human evaluation further supports that the quality of BLEUBERI model outputs is on par with those from reward model-aligned models. Moreover, BLEUBERI models generate outputs that are more factually grounded than competing methods. Overall, we show that given access to high-quality reference outputs (easily obtained via existing instruction-following datasets or synthetic data generation), string matching-based metrics are cheap yet effective proxies for reward models during alignment. We release our code and data at https://github.com/lilakk/BLEUBERI.

No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Are Language Model Logits Calibrated?

Some information is factual (e.g., "Paris is in France"), whereas other information is probabilistic (e.g., "the coin flip will be a [Heads/Tails]."). We believe that good Language Models (LMs) should understand and reflect this nuance. Our work investigates this by testing if LMs' output probabilities are calibrated to their textual contexts. We define model "calibration" as the degree to which the output probabilities of candidate tokens are aligned with the relative likelihood that should be inferred from the given context. For example, if the context concerns two equally likely options (e.g., heads or tails for a fair coin), the output probabilities should reflect this. Likewise, context that concerns non-uniformly likely events (e.g., rolling a six with a die) should also be appropriately captured with proportionate output probabilities. We find that even in simple settings the best LMs (1) are poorly calibrated, and (2) have systematic biases (e.g., preferred colors and sensitivities to word orderings). For example, gpt-4o-mini often picks the first of two options presented in the prompt regardless of the options' implied likelihood, whereas Llama-3.1-8B picks the second. Our other consistent finding is mode-collapse: Instruction-tuned models often over-allocate probability mass on a single option. These systematic biases introduce non-intuitive model behavior, making models harder for users to understand.

SEC-QA: A Systematic Evaluation Corpus for Financial QA

The financial domain frequently deals with large numbers of long documents that are essential for daily operations. Significant effort is put towards automating financial data analysis. However, a persistent challenge, not limited to the finance domain, is the scarcity of datasets that accurately reflect real-world tasks for model evaluation. Existing datasets are often constrained by size, context, or relevance to practical applications. Moreover, LLMs are currently trained on trillions of tokens of text, limiting access to novel data or documents that models have not encountered during training for unbiased evaluation. We propose SEC-QA, a continuous dataset generation framework with two key features: 1) the semi-automatic generation of Question-Answer (QA) pairs spanning multiple long context financial documents, which better represent real-world financial scenarios; 2) the ability to continually refresh the dataset using the most recent public document collections, not yet ingested by LLMs. Our experiments show that current retrieval augmented generation methods systematically fail to answer these challenging multi-document questions. In response, we introduce a QA system based on program-of-thought that improves the ability to perform complex information retrieval and quantitative reasoning pipelines, thereby increasing QA accuracy.

An Analysis of Multilingual FActScore

FActScore has gained popularity as a metric to estimate the factuality of long-form texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) in English. However, there has not been any work in studying the behavior of FActScore in other languages. This paper studies the limitations of each component in the four-component pipeline of FActScore in the multilingual setting. We introduce a new dataset for FActScore on texts generated by strong multilingual LLMs. Our evaluation shows that LLMs exhibit distinct behaviors in both fact extraction and fact scoring tasks. No LLM produces consistent and reliable FActScore across languages with varying levels of resources. We also find that the knowledge source plays an important role in the quality of the estimated FActScore. Using Wikipedia as the knowledge source may hinder the true FActScore of long-form text due to its limited coverage in medium- and low-resource languages. We also incorporate three mitigations to our knowledge source that ultimately improve FActScore estimation across all languages.

BizBench: A Quantitative Reasoning Benchmark for Business and Finance

As large language models (LLMs) impact a growing number of complex domains, it is becoming increasingly important to have fair, accurate, and rigorous evaluation benchmarks. Evaluating the reasoning skills required for business and financial NLP stands out as a particularly difficult challenge. We introduce BizBench, a new benchmark for evaluating models' ability to reason about realistic financial problems. BizBench comprises 8 quantitative reasoning tasks. Notably, BizBench targets the complex task of question-answering (QA) for structured and unstructured financial data via program synthesis (i.e., code generation). We introduce three diverse financially-themed code-generation tasks from newly collected and augmented QA data. Additionally, we isolate distinct financial reasoning capabilities required to solve these QA tasks: reading comprehension of financial text and tables, which is required to extract correct intermediate values; and understanding domain knowledge (e.g., financial formulas) needed to calculate complex solutions. Collectively, these tasks evaluate a model's financial background knowledge, ability to extract numeric entities from financial documents, and capacity to solve problems with code. We conduct an in-depth evaluation of open-source and commercial LLMs, illustrating that BizBench is a challenging benchmark for quantitative reasoning in the finance and business domain.