Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

BizBench: A Quantitative Reasoning Benchmark for Business and Finance

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.06602 v2 pith:NZO2BNT2 submitted 2023-11-11 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords financialreasoningbenchmarkbizbenchbusinessllmsmodelsquantitative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Answering questions within business and finance requires reasoning, precision, and a wide-breadth of technical knowledge. Together, these requirements make this domain difficult for large language models (LLMs). We introduce BizBench, a benchmark for evaluating models' ability to reason about realistic financial problems. BizBench comprises eight quantitative reasoning tasks, focusing on question-answering (QA) over financial data via program synthesis. We include three financially-themed code-generation tasks from newly collected and augmented QA data. Additionally, we isolate the reasoning capabilities required for financial QA: reading comprehension of financial text and tables for extracting intermediate values, and understanding financial concepts and formulas needed to calculate complex solutions. Collectively, these tasks evaluate a model's financial background knowledge, ability to parse financial documents, and capacity to solve problems with code. We conduct an in-depth evaluation of open-source and commercial LLMs, comparing and contrasting the behavior of code-focused and language-focused models. We demonstrate that the current bottleneck in performance is due to LLMs' limited business and financial understanding, highlighting the value of a challenging benchmark for quantitative reasoning within this domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Seeing Is Not Deciding: Can Multimodal LLMs Act as Effective CEOs?

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    C-SUITEBENCH shows that adding visual business evidence improves evidence-centric reasoning in nine multimodal LLMs but degrades constrained resource allocation in all nine, a pattern attributed to signal crowding.

  2. Frontier AI performance across the business disciplines: a case-grounded benchmark of knowledge work and analytical reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    On a new 615-question business-case benchmark graded by AI against instructor rubrics, frontier LLMs score 87-88% partial credit but complete only about half the questions.

  3. MetaGraph: A Large-Scale Meta-Analysis of GenAI in Financial NLP (2022-2025)

    cs.CL 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using LLM extraction on 681 papers, the authors build a public knowledge graph showing financial NLP moved from LLM adoption to limitation-aware, modular system design between 2022 and 2025.

  4. TRIDENT: Benchmarking LLM Safety in Finance, Medicine, and Law

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Trident-Bench provides 2,652 professionally validated harmful prompts across finance, law, and medicine, and shows that domain-specialized LLMs often comply with unethical requests more than generalist models.

Pith tools