Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

FinanceComplexQA: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning on Industrial-grade Financial Documents

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FinanceComplexQA is a new bilingual benchmark claiming that current AI systems still fail at the core demands of financial document reasoning—long-chain numerical work, cross-layout evidence fusion, and industry-level synthesis.

desk verdict Well-built benchmark with a genuinely new combination of bilingual, cross-layout, open-ended financial QA, but unvalidated LLM-generated reference answers and judge undermine the reported rankings until artifacts and human calibration are provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19238 v1 pith:JJSC3T6Q submitted 2026-07-21 cs.CE

Xianfu Cheng , Shiwei Zhang , Jiyu Zhao , Jian Yang , Xinyuan Wang , Ming Zhou , Weixiao Zhou , Xiangyuan Guan
show 5 more authors
Xiang Li Zhenhe Wu Ziyi Ni Zhoujun Li Bingjing Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords FinanceComplexQAfinancialdocumentagenticreasoningbenchmarkcross-layoutdual-contextRAGevaluationbilingual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces FinanceComplexQA, a bilingual (Chinese/English) benchmark of 2,026 expert-level research tasks grounded in 1,009 industrial financial documents. Its central claim is that existing RAG and agentic systems, despite strong progress, still fall short of professional-level financial analysis: the best scores reach roughly 76 on Chinese scenes and 70 on English scenes, with many task accuracies below 60. The benchmark is designed around dual-context reasoning—combining explicit document evidence with implicit financial domain knowledge—and cross-layout reasoning that forces answers to integrate paragraphs, tables, forms, and captions. If the benchmark measures what it claims, it exposes a real gap between what retrieval-augmented and agentic models can do and what financial research actually demands, motivating layout-preserving retrieval, explicit evidence planning, and cost-aware routing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the benchmark's dual-context reasoning design: every question requires explicit document evidence from parsed units (paragraphs, tables, forms, captions) plus implicit financial domain knowledge such as accounting relations, margin interpretation, or regulatory background. Cross-layout reasoning is enforced by construction, forcing systems to aggregate evidence across heterogeneous elements. The benchmark is built with an agent workflow (Finance-LaTeX SKILL) that synthesizes layout-rich financial documents and verified QA pairs, and evaluation uses an Agent-as-a-Judge protocol with multiple metrics (accuracy, numeric correctness, evidence coverage, faithfulness,

What would settle it

Rescore a random sample of 200 benchmark questions with independent financial analysts who do not see the reference answers, and compare their verdicts with the LLM judge. If expert acceptance of an answer correlates poorly with judge scores, or if experts flag reference answers as incorrect or incomplete, the benchmark's evaluation validity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FinanceComplexQA is designed to test whether an agent can perform the full reasoning loop expected in financial analysis: retrieve evidence, preserve layout context, apply domain knowledge, compute or compare quantities, synthesize, and stay faithful. The paper's central finding is that current systems do not pass this test. The best configuration reaches 76.01 on Chinese scenes and 69.39 on English scenes, task-level accuracies mostly sit below 60, and every system shows distinct weaknesses—retrieval systems miss cross-layout evidence, agentic systems hallucinate or omit mandatory planning points. The paper argues that accuracy, faithfulness, and coverage are independent, and lexical overla

Load-bearing premise

The reference answers and the LLM judge must constitute valid ground truth; the paper's own human evaluation, where two groups scored 0.0 and 2.0, suggests the reference answers need more careful calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the benchmark shows that layout-preserving retrieval—keeping table headers, captions, and page context—is worth substantial performance gains over chunk-based indexing.
  • Agentic systems improve some open-ended and implicit reasoning tasks but at much higher token and latency cost, implying cost-aware routing is needed for production financial assistants.
  • The results imply that no single system handles all financial tasks, so benchmarks must separate retrieval accuracy, reasoning accuracy, groundedness, and completeness rather than reporting one aggregate.
  • The failure taxonomy (numeric drift, evidence omission, layout confusion, over-synthesis, weak planning) provides concrete targets for improving financial AI agents.
  • The synthetic generation pipeline offers a scalable path for expanding the benchmark to new domains and languages.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The benchmark's validity rests on the correctness of LLM-generated reference answers and the LLM judge; the paper's own human evaluation showed two groups scoring near zero, suggesting reference-answer calibration is not yet stable.
  • The dual-context design could transfer to other expert domains—legal, medical, or regulatory—where documents combine narrative, tables, and implicit professional knowledge.
  • A testable extension: ablating layout metadata (removing table headers and captions) should measurably drop performance, directly confirming the paper's claim about cross-layout evidence.
  • The paper's emphasis on stable, verifiable facts limits coverage of live financial reasoning; a forward-looking benchmark would need to incorporate time-sensitive events without sacrificing answer reliability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Finance-LaTeX SKILL, an agent workflow for synthesizing layout-rich financial documents and QA pairs, and FinanceComplexQA, a bilingual benchmark of 2,026 open-ended 'deep research' tasks over 1,009 financial documents. The benchmark is designed to require dual-context reasoning and cross-layout evidence aggregation, and it is evaluated with an Agent-as-a-Judge protocol (GPT-5-mini) using accuracy, ROUGE-style overlap, faithfulness, and coverage metrics. The authors evaluate two RAG/indexing systems and two agentic frameworks across seven LLMs, report that no system exceeds roughly 76 on Chinese or 70 on English scene averages, and provide a failure taxonomy. The paper argues that current agents remain inadequate for long-chain numerical reasoning, cross-layout evidence fusion, and analytical synthesis in finance.

Significance. If the reference answers and judge protocol are valid, FinanceComplexQA would be a valuable resource: it combines bilingual coverage, long documents, complex layouts, and open-ended analytical answers, and its construction pipeline is unusually detailed. The failure taxonomy and the explicit comparison of retrieval, page-indexed, and agentic systems are useful contributions. The paper also states its limitations candidly. However, the central claim of 'relatively stable and permanent reference answers' and the reliability of the reported system rankings are not currently supported: the reference answers are produced by an LLM pipeline that is instructed not to question sub-answer correctness, the judge is an LLM from the same model family as several evaluated systems, and the only human evaluation in the paper reports two participant groups with correctness/completeness scores of 0.0 and 2.0. These issues are load-bearing because they affect every number in Tables 5–7.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 9] The human evaluation is the only external validation of the benchmark's ground truth, and it directly undermines the 'stable and permanent reference answers' claim. Participant 6 scores 0.0 and Participant 2 scores 2.0 on correctness-and-completeness. The paper attributes these to needing 'more careful reference-answer calibration,' but it does not report whether the affected samples were revised, removed, or re-annotated, nor does it report whether the GPT-5-mini judge agrees with the human scores on the same 300 QA pairs. Without judge–human agreement, the low scores may indicate that a substantial fraction of reference answers are wrong or incomplete, in which case the system rankings in Tables 5–7 do not measure financial reasoning.
  2. [Appendix B2/B3] The reference-answer construction is self-referential. B2 merges 2–4 sub-questions into a merged question, B3 solves the merged question from sub-answers and a reasoning trace with the explicit instruction 'do not question the correctness of the sub-question answers,' and Part A then generates the document from the QA triple so that the answer is derivable. This means reference answers inherit any errors in the source benchmark answers and in the LLM expansion process, and the document is written after the answer exists. The paper needs external validation of the references—for example, human re-annotation of a stratified sample with an agreement statistic—before the benchmark can be considered a reliable ground truth.
  3. [§3.7, Agent-as-a-Judge] The judge is GPT-5-mini, an LLM from the same family as several evaluated models (e.g., GPT-5.4/GPT-5.5 in the closed-source rows). The primary metric ACC is defined as whether the 'final conclusion matches the reference answer,' but this judgment is made by the same LLM judge with no reported calibration against expert scores, no inter-judge reliability, and no analysis of judge bias by model family or by output length. Since Tables 5–7 rely entirely on this judge, the paper should report judge–human agreement on the Table 9 subsets, and ideally include a second independent judge or a rubric-based human scoring of a random sample.
  4. [§5.2, Table 9] The human evaluation sample is small and the treatment of low-scoring groups is not described. Six participants each review 50 QA pairs, and for the two groups with scores 0.0 and 2.0 the paper does not say whether those QA pairs were later dropped or corrected, or whether the errors were in the reference answers, the documents, or the participant's annotation process. Without this information, the quality-control claims in §3.8 and the 'relatively stable and permanent reference answers' assertion in the abstract are not verifiable. The authors should either demonstrate that the problematic subsets were fixed and re-evaluated, or report the benchmark with those subsets excluded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] Typo: 'Chinsne' should be 'Chinese.' Also, the caption lists counts joined by '+' but does not clearly explain which side is which in the table body; a short note in the caption would help.
  2. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract says the benchmark has '8 key features' but then lists six. The Introduction also lists 'four core design principles.' This inconsistency should be corrected.
  3. [Table 7 caption] The caption says 'Representative task-level results from the draft experiments.' The word 'draft' appears out of place and should be removed or replaced with 'our experiments.'
  4. [§4.2] The ROUGE-style overlap metric is not formally defined (e.g., tokenization, stemming, aggregation over references). Since ROU is described only as a 'diagnostic,' a brief definition or pointer to the implementation would improve reproducibility.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistent, e.g., 'Revanth Gangi Reddy and 1 others. 2024' omits co-authors, and the Databricks OfficeQA-Pro reference is given as an arXiv URL without a full citation. Please standardize the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: benchmark systems are evaluated independently; LLM-generated references and judge calibration are validity issues, not circularity.

full rationale

FinanceComplexQA is a benchmark-construction and evaluation paper, not a derivation in which an output is recovered from its own input. The closest thing to a closed loop is the data-generation pipeline: Part A prompts instruct the model to write documents from <Question, Answer, Relevant_passage> triples so that 'the corresponding Answer can be obtained from the generated file through in-depth investigation or calculation'; B2 merges 2-4 sub-questions; and B3 solves the merged question from sub-answers with the instruction 'do not question the correctness of the sub-question answers.' This means the reference answers are constructed, not independently discovered. However, the evaluated systems are not given these references or sub-answers; they receive the documents and questions, and their outputs are scored by GPT-5-mini against the references. No reported score is a fitted parameter, and no claim is derived from the same quantity used to define it. The paper explicitly keeps the 6,000 synthetic QA pairs out of the held-out benchmark: 'These synthetic data are not mixed into the held-out benchmark for reporting model performance.' The human-evaluation result in Table 9 (Corr&Comp 0.0 and 2.0) is a serious validity concern about reference-answer quality, and the authors acknowledge the need for 'more careful reference-answer calibration,' but this is an annotation/calibration problem, not circularity. The Limitations section also concedes that the 'Agent-as-a-Judge protocol ... may inherit evaluator bias.' These weaknesses affect whether the benchmark measures what it claims, but they do not reduce the central evaluation to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used; prior work is cited contextually. The core system comparisons are externally run against fixed references, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data in the physics sense, but the benchmark's difficulty, reference answers, and scores depend on hand-chosen construction choices (cluster size, judge weights, sampling triggers) and on the unverified assumption that LLM-generated references and LLM judge judgments are valid. These are the main ledger items; no new physical or formal entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Merged-question cluster size = 2-4
    Appendix B2 instructs 'Select 2-4 financial questions ... merge and rewrite them into one complex new question.' This hand-chosen range sets the hop depth and difficulty of all 2,026 tasks; no calibration or ablation justifies it.
  • Judge metric weights per task = not reported
    Section 3.7: 'For planning and summarization tasks, coverage and faithfulness receive higher weight. For numerical comparison ... exact quantities and units receive higher weight.' The actual weights are unreported yet determine the reported ACC/Cov/FS aggregates.
  • Difficulty-balance sampling trigger = not reported
    Section 3.8: 'If a subset contains too many direct lookup questions, additional multi-hop or cross-layout questions are sampled from the same scenario.' The threshold for 'too many' is unspecified, affecting the composition of the benchmark and hence all system rankings.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Source QA pairs in ConvFinQA, FinanceBench-test, OfficeQA-Pro, and BizFinBench v2 are factually correct and remain correct after LLM expansion into LaTeX documents.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix A derive corpus metadata and document content from these external benchmarks; prompts instruct the model not to contradict Relevant_passage, but no independent fact-check of the benchmark set is reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-merged reference answers (Appendix B2/B3) are correct, stable, and complete enough to serve as ground truth.
    Reference answers combine sub-answers with LLM reasoning traces; Section 5.2/Table 9 shows human auditors scored some groups 0.0/2.0, undercutting this assumption.
  • domain assumption GPT-5-mini Agent-as-a-Judge scores are valid proxies for expert financial judgment.
    Sections 3.7 and 4.2 define the judge dimensions; the Limitations section concedes the judge 'may inherit evaluator bias,' and no human-judge correlation is reported.
  • domain assumption The 1,009 benchmark documents are genuinely industrial-grade real-world documents, with synthetic Finance-LaTeX documents confined to the development pool.
    Sections 2.5 and 3.1 assert this separation, but Appendix A consists entirely of prompts for generating exactly such documents from QA pairs; no external manifest of the 1,009 documents is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FinanceComplexQA: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning on Industrial-grade Financial Documents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJSC3T6Q

@misc{pith2026260719238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FinanceComplexQA: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning on Industrial-grade Financial Documents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJSC3T6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19238}
}
read the original abstract

Agentic Reasoning has become a transformative force in financial analysis due to its ability to integrate large-scale information and generate reliable and accurate content. However, when handling complex real-world problems, different agents still show significant performance variation. In this work, we design Finance-LaTeX SKILL, a skill for synthesizing financial documents with complex layouts based on expert knowledge. Using an agent workflow built on this skill, we generate 2,000 professional financial documents along with 6,000 high-quality question-answer pairs. To evaluate the overall capability of agents, we introduce FinanceComplexQA, a comprehensive open-ended generation benchmark for financial documents that closely resembles real-world scenarios. It contains 2,026 deep research tasks targeting 1009 financial documents. FinanceComplexQA has 8 key features: bilingual support; coverage of six mainstream scenarios and seven tasks; expert-level document reasoning questions; deep research of complex layouts; relatively stable and permanent reference answers; and precise evaluation through an Agent-as-a-Judge with multiple evaluation metrics. Using FinanceComplexQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of leading RAG systems and agentic reasoning tools for financial document QA. Through identifying and analyzing failure cases, we provide an in-depth study of their capabilities in numerical computation, multi-hop reasoning, content summarization, and industry analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the FinanceComplexQA construction pipeline. The workflow collects financial corpora, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Task taxonomy and representative benchmark cases. The figure summarizes the nine Chinese and English [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. FrontierFinance: A Challenging Benchmark for Measuring Frontier Intelligence of Finance Agents

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A financial-agent benchmark with 220 open-ended queries and 11,543 source-attributed rubrics finds that the tool harness shapes performance more than the model alone, and that the authors' in-house system leads at 56%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In Additional_information, I provide SubQuestions obtained by decomposing the Question into key elements. Based on each SubQuestion and the writing theme provided by Relevant_passage, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [FINANCIAL_DOC_TYPE] so that each SubQuestion can be reasonably answered. The generated content must not contradict ...

  2. [2]

    Follow the instructions in the [SKILL_NAME] skill. In the LaTeX [FINANCIAL_DOC_TYPE] you write, focus on complex tables and forms so that complex Questions can be answered by extracting key information from paragraphs, tables, or forms separately, thereby increasing difficulty. When Questions or SubQuestions involve numerical lookup or calculation, you mu...

  3. [3]

    Based on each Related_question, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [ FINANCIAL_DOC_TYPE] so that Related_questions can be reasonably answered

    In Additional_information, I provide several Related_questions associated with the Question. Based on each Related_question, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [ FINANCIAL_DOC_TYPE] so that Related_questions can be reasonably answered. The generated content must not contradict the factual information in Relevant_passage

  4. [4]

    rewrite” rather than “convert

    Multi-stage pre-training enhanced by chatgpt for multi-scenario multi-domain dialogue summa- rization. InFindings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6893–6908. Weixiao Zhou, Gengyao Li, Xianfu Cheng, Junnan Zhu, Feifei Zhai, and Zhoujun Li. 2026. A large- scale multi-dimensional empirical study of llms for conversation s...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    All written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements. ## You must check the generated content to ensure that the Answer cannot be obtained directly or in a single step from the document. 18 ## For each SubQuestion, you must generate a solving hint based on the written document, forming a path-style...

  6. [6]

    merged_question

    Planning: a new question type such as event prediction, investment advice, or development decisions, constructed based on the objectives or answers of sub-questions. ## Name the synthesized new question "merged_question"; place the selected sub-questions from the input in the "sub_questions" list field, and record the corresponding indices of sub- questio...

  7. [8]

    Do not generate explanations or LaTeX formulas for financial terms or quantitative terminology involved in Questions or SubQuestions

  8. [10]

    The generated content must not contradict the factual information in Relevant_passage and must not affect the correctness of the Answer

    Based on the Question and the [reference data] provided in Relevant_passage, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [reference data] into the corporate financial report. The generated content must not contradict the factual information in Relevant_passage and must not affect the correctness of the Answer

Show all 43 references
  1. [11]

    Follow the instructions in the [SKILL_NAME] skill. In the LaTeX corporate financial report you write, focus on the integrated use of rich-text paragraphs, complex tables, and forms to increase the complexity of resolving the Question. Specifically, for multiple [reference data...

  2. [13]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    All written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements. ## Please check the generated content to ensure that the Answer cannot be obtained directly or in a single step from the document. ## For each Question, you must gen...

  3. [14]

    The generated content must not contradict the factual information in Relevant_passage and must not affect the correctness of the Answer

    Based on the Question and the [reference content] provided in Relevant_passage, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [reference content] into this investment strategy report. The generated content must not contradict the factual information in Relevant_pass...

  4. [15]

    Follow the instructions in the [SKILL_NAME] skill. In the LaTeX investment strategy report you write, focus on the integrated use of rich-text paragraphs, complex tables, and forms to increase the complexity of resolving the Question. Specifically, for multiple [reference cont...

  5. [16]

    Do not generate explanations or LaTeX formulas for financial terms or quantitative terminology involved in the Question or Relevant_passage

  6. [17]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    All written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements. ## Please check the generated content to ensure that the Answer cannot be obtained directly or in a single step from the document. ## For each Question, you must gen...

  7. [18]

    Note that you must ensure the generated content does not contradict the factual information in the Relevant_passage and does not affect the correctness of the Answer

    Based on the requirements of the Question and the [reference content] provided in the Relevant_passage, use search engines and your knowledge base to expand the [reference content] as the content of this investment strategy report. Note that you must ensure the generated conte...

  8. [19]

    Specifically, for the multiple [reference content] items input, please randomly rewrite some of them into complex tables and some into rich-text paragraphs/complex forms

    Follow the instructions in the [SKILL_NAME] skill, and focus on the integrated use of rich- text paragraphs, complex tables, and forms in the LaTeX investment strategy report you write, so as to increase the complexity of resolving the Questions. Specifically, for the multiple...

  9. [21]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    The written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements. ## Please check the generated content to ensure that the Answer cannot be directly/instantly obtained from the document. ## For each Question, you must generate a pr...

  10. [22]

    reference content

    Based on the requirements of the Questions and the "reference content" in the Relevant_passage list, use search engines and your knowledge base to rewrite and polish each set of "reference content" into a clearly structured and coherent professional document. Note that you mus...

  11. [23]

    [SKILL_NAME]

    Follow the instructions in the "[SKILL_NAME]" skill, and focus on the integrated use of rich- text paragraphs, complex tables, and forms in the LaTeX financial professional document you write, so as to increase the complexity of resolving the Questions. Specifically, for the i...

  12. [24]

    Do not generate explanations or LaTeX formulas for financial professional terms or quantitative terminology involved in the Questions or Relevant_passages

  13. [25]

    All written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements

  14. [26]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    The types of documents (document_type) you are to write are strictly limited to the following five: [Investment Strategy Report], [Corporate Financial Report], [FinTech Research Report ], [Market Trend Analysis Report], [Market Regulation and Compliance Audit Report]. ## Pleas...

  15. [27]

    Note that you must ensure the generated report does not affect the correctness of the Answer

    Based on the requirements of the Question and the instructions in the [SKILL_NAME] skill, use your knowledge base to organize the Relevant_passage content into a LaTeX government fiscal bulletin. Note that you must ensure the generated report does not affect the correctness of...

  16. [28]

    Do not generate explanations or LaTeX formulas for financial professional terms or quantitative terms involved in the Question or SubQuestion

  17. [29]

    how to obtain XXXX from XXXX paragraph/table/form

    The written content should be publicly accessible; do not add confidentiality clauses or classified statements. ## Please check the generated content to ensure that the Answer cannot be directly/instantly obtained from the document. ## For each Question, you must generate a pr...

  18. [30]

    Retain the main interrogative part of the question, the required calculation units, and the required decimal places

  19. [31]

    Remove query-target guidance before and after the question

  20. [32]

    question

    Remove explanations of financial concepts or financial terms. ## Below are several examples of question rewriting: question 1: How much was Boeing's FY2017 total interest expense (in USD thousands)? Calculate what was asked by utilizing the line items clearly shown in the stat...

  21. [33]

    The new question should preferably be one sentence, with natural and fluent expression, and must not simply list sub-questions

    Select 2-4 financial questions of the same type or similar domain as sub-questions, and merge and rewrite them into one complex new question. The new question should preferably be one sentence, with natural and fluent expression, and must not simply list sub-questions

  22. [34]

    The answer to the new question must be clearly obtainable through reasoning or calculation from the sub-questions and their answers

  23. [35]

    According to the answer type and task type, the new question can be classified as: numerical comparison, explicit reasoning, implicit reasoning, multi-hop judgment, summary, planning, etc.; 24

  24. [36]

    The new question should unify the calculation unit requirements and required decimal places of the sub-questions

  25. [37]

    ## Below are the approaches and categories for rewriting new questions:

    Note: all question data must be processed and generated in English. ## Below are the approaches and categories for rewriting new questions:

  26. [38]

    Numerical comparison: a new question type rewritten by comparing sub-questions and their targets through answers, finding maximum/minimum values, differences, multiples, etc

  27. [39]

    Reasoning: a new question type constructed by combining multiple sub-questions through merging, nesting, summing/averaging answers, etc., requiring multi-step calculation to solve

  28. [40]

    Implicit reasoning: a reasoning-type new question in which sub-questions contain financial concepts or professional financial terms, and solving requires querying relevant knowledge or formulas

  29. [41]

    Multi-hop judgment: a judgment-type new question constructed by conditionally combining multiple sub-questions, requiring multi-step reasoning to solve

  30. [42]

    Summary: a new question type constructed by combining multiple sub-questions of the same kind , requiring extraction of key information and summarization of reference documents to solve

  31. [44]

    Code requirements: concise and clear, directly runnable, meaningful variable names, necessary input data definitions included, code comments and final output included

    For numerical calculation Questions, generate runnable Python code to solve them. Code requirements: concise and clear, directly runnable, meaningful variable names, necessary input data definitions included, code comments and final output included

  32. [45]

    thinking

    For logical reasoning Questions, generate a clear step-by-step thinking process, then generate the answer, and return in the following plain-text JSON format. Do not include any code block markers (such as```json or```): { "thinking": generate thinking process in English, "ans...

  33. [2023]

    InAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal rein- forcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Daixin Shu, Jian Yang, Zhenhe Wu, Xianjie Wu, Xianfu Cheng, Guan Xiangyuan, Yanghai Wang, Pengfei Wu, Tingyang Yang, Hualei Zhu, and 1 others. 2026...

    2026 arXiv

  34. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884

    Corrective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884. An Yang, feng Li, and etc. 2024. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. Jian Yang, Xianglong Liu, Weifeng Lv, Ken Deng, Shawn Guo, Lin Jing, Yizhi Li, Shark Liu, Xianzhen Luo, Yuyu Luo...

    2024 arXiv

  35. [2025]

    Https://pageindex.ai/blog/pageindex-intro

    Pageindex: Next-generation vector- less, reasoning-based rag.PageIndex Blog. Https://pageindex.ai/blog/pageindex-intro. Weixiao Zhou, Gengyao Li, Xianfu Cheng, Xinnian Liang, Junnan Zhu, Feifei Zhai, and Zhoujun Li

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.