pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.20650 · v5 · pith:A4VW7TLZnew · submitted 2025-05-27 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.CE

FinTagging: Benchmarking LLMs for Extracting and Structuring Financial Information

Yan Wang , Lingfei Qian , Xueqing Peng , Yang Ren , Keyi Wang , Yi Han , Dongji Feng , Fengran Mo
show 13 more authors
Shengyuan Lin Qinchuan Zhang Kaiwen He Chenri Luo Jianxing Chen Junwei Wu Chen Xu Ziyang Xu Jimin Huang Guojun Xiong Xiao-Yang Liu Qianqian Xie Jian-Yun Nie
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 02:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CE
keywords XBRL taggingfinancial information extractionLLM benchmarkingUS GAAP taxonomyconcept linkingnumeric reasoningstructure-aware evaluation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large language models extract numbers from financial reports accurately but cannot reliably map them to the full US GAAP taxonomy.

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

The paper introduces FinTagging, a benchmark that splits XBRL tagging into two parts: first pulling numeric facts and their types from text and tables, then linking those facts to the complete set of US GAAP concepts. It tests many LLMs with no examples and finds they handle the extraction step reasonably but perform poorly on the linking step. This matters because real financial reporting requires both steps done correctly at scale, and earlier tests used small, flat lists that hid these weaknesses. If the results hold, they show that current models lack the structured, domain-specific reasoning needed for accurate regulatory filings.

Core claim

The authors claim that decomposing XBRL tagging into FinNI for identifying entities and types from heterogeneous financial documents and FinCL for mapping those entities onto the full US GAAP taxonomy produces a more realistic evaluation. Under zero-shot conditions, diverse LLMs generalize across extraction tasks yet exhibit clear failures in fine-grained concept linking, which demonstrates limitations in their ability to perform structure-aware reasoning within the financial domain.

What carries the argument

The two-stage decomposition into Financial Numeric Identification (FinNI) and Financial Concept Linking (FinCL) that separates extraction from taxonomy alignment and enables targeted measurement of each capability.

If this is right

  • LLMs can serve as reliable first-pass extractors for financial numbers and types but will still need supplementary methods or human review for correct taxonomy assignment.
  • Existing single-step classification benchmarks underestimate the difficulty of real XBRL work and should be replaced by structure-aware, full-scope tests.
  • Domain-specific structure awareness remains a bottleneck for LLMs in regulated reporting tasks.
  • Zero-shot performance gaps between extraction and linking highlight the need for better integration of hierarchical taxonomy knowledge.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Tools built on these models could reduce manual effort in initial data gathering while still requiring expert validation for concept accuracy.
  • The benchmark setup could be extended to measure how retrieval-augmented or fine-tuned models close the linking gap.
  • Similar two-stage tests might reveal parallel limitations in other regulated domains that use large taxonomies, such as legal or medical coding.

Load-bearing premise

Splitting the tagging process into separate numeric identification and concept-linking stages faithfully reflects how XBRL tagging actually occurs in practice.

What would settle it

A direct test in which the same LLMs achieve high accuracy on full-scope concept linking when run on complete, real-world financial reports that already carry verified XBRL tags.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20650 by Chenri Luo, Chen Xu, Dongji Feng, Fengran Mo, Guojun Xiong, Jianxing Chen, Jian-Yun Nie, Jimin Huang, Junwei Wu, Kaiwen He, Keyi Wang, Lingfei Qian, Qianqian Xie, Qinchuan Zhang, Shengyuan Lin, Xiao-Yang Liu, Xueqing Peng, Yang Ren, Yan Wang, Yi Han, Ziyang Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of Financial Tagging in realistic scenarios, where the blue numbers mark facts to be tagged. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Statistics of numerical entity types. Algorithm 2: Strategic Audit Set Sampling Input: Positive instances P; observed concepts C𝑎𝑙𝑙 ; cap 𝐾 = 10 Output: Strategic subset P ∗ P ∗ ← ∅; C𝑟𝑒𝑚 ← C𝑎𝑙𝑙 ; foreach company 𝑔 do Add up to 𝐾 instances from 𝑔 to P ∗ ; C𝑟𝑒𝑚 ← C𝑟𝑒𝑚 \ Concepts( P∗ ); while C𝑟𝑒𝑚 ≠ ∅ and P \ P∗ ≠ ∅ do 𝑖 ∗ ← arg max𝑖 ∈P\P∗ |Concepts(𝑖) ∩ C𝑟𝑒𝑚 |; if ties then select 𝑖 ∗ with the shortest text… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A unified evaluation framework on FinTagging benchmark. Note: The Input content is drawn from the FinTagging dataset, and the "Shared LLMs" are used for identification in the FinNI task and reranking in the FinCL task. with the LM Evaluation Harness [7] on a 4×H100 cluster and via APIs, using input limits of 24,576 (FinNI) and 8,192 (FinCL) tokens. Total cost is approximately 500 GPU-hours and $1,500 in AP… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of significance analysis across models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Tickers by Industry Sector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of Tickers by Market Cap Size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Tickers by Geography. For this reason, our benchmark adopts the sentence and table sequence as the fundamental input unit rather than entire reports. This design choice is motivated by three considerations: • Locality of Semantic Scope: Financial facts and their US￾GAAP tags are usually expressed within a single sentence or a bounded table region. Modeling at this level aligns the input sco… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example for training set annotation with BIO scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt template used for the FinNI subtask. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt template used for the Reranking stage in the FinCL subtask. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt template used for ablation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate interpretation of numerical data in financial reports is critical for markets and regulators. Although XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) provides a standard for tagging financial figures, mapping thousands of facts to over 10k US GAAP concepts remains costly and error prone. Existing benchmarks oversimplify this task as flat, single step classification over small subsets of concepts, ignoring the hierarchical semantics of the taxonomy and the structured nature of financial documents. Consequently, these benchmarks fail to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) under realistic reporting conditions. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinTagging, the first comprehensive benchmark for structure aware and full scope XBRL tagging. We decompose the complex tagging process into two subtasks: (1) FinNI (Financial Numeric Identification), which extracts entities and types from heterogeneous contexts including text and tables; and (2) FinCL (Financial Concept Linking), which maps extracted entities to the full US GAAP taxonomy. This two stage formulation enables a fair assessment of LLMs' capabilities in numerical reasoning and taxonomy alignment. Evaluating diverse LLMs in zero shot settings reveals that while models generalize well in extraction, they struggle significantly with fine grained concept linking, highlighting critical limitations in domain specific structure aware reasoning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FinTagging, the first comprehensive benchmark for structure-aware XBRL tagging of financial reports. It decomposes the task into FinNI (extracting numeric entities and types from text/tables) and FinCL (mapping to the full US GAAP taxonomy of over 10k concepts), then evaluates diverse LLMs in zero-shot settings. The central finding is that models generalize well on extraction but struggle significantly with fine-grained concept linking, which the authors attribute to critical limitations in domain-specific structure-aware reasoning.

Significance. If the two-stage decomposition faithfully captures real XBRL workflows and the FinCL results reflect genuine reasoning deficits rather than prompt or input constraints, the benchmark would provide a valuable, more realistic testbed than prior flat-classification setups. It could guide development of LLMs better suited to hierarchical taxonomies and regulatory reporting, while highlighting gaps in current models' ability to handle large-scale structured financial data.

major comments (2)
  1. [FinCL task definition] FinCL task definition and prompt construction: the manuscript does not specify how the full US GAAP taxonomy (10k+ concepts) is presented to the models—whether as a flat label list, with explicit parent-child hierarchy, relation encodings, or via retrieval. If the taxonomy is supplied without structural cues or search, the reported low FinCL accuracy may arise from context-window limits or absent navigation mechanisms rather than deficits in structure-aware reasoning, directly weakening the central claim in the abstract and results interpretation.
  2. [Evaluation and results] Evaluation protocol and controls: the reported results lack details on dataset construction, the precise subset or full taxonomy size used in each test, error analysis by concept granularity or hierarchy depth, and statistical significance of the extraction-vs-linking performance gap. These omissions make it hard to confirm that the 'struggle significantly' conclusion is robust and not an artifact of unreported experimental choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: consider briefly stating the number of LLMs tested and the primary metrics (e.g., F1 or accuracy ranges) to give readers an immediate sense of scale.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: ensure consistent use of 'FinNI' and 'FinCL' throughout, and clarify whether 'zero-shot' includes any in-context examples of taxonomy structure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper to improve clarity and completeness where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [FinCL task definition] FinCL task definition and prompt construction: the manuscript does not specify how the full US GAAP taxonomy (10k+ concepts) is presented to the models—whether as a flat label list, with explicit parent-child hierarchy, relation encodings, or via retrieval. If the taxonomy is supplied without structural cues or search, the reported low FinCL accuracy may arise from context-window limits or absent navigation mechanisms rather than deficits in structure-aware reasoning, directly weakening the central claim in the abstract and results interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that the FinCL prompt construction requires explicit description, as the current manuscript does not detail it. In our zero-shot setup, the full 10k+ taxonomy cannot be included in the context window; instead, we retrieve a shortlist of candidate concepts (top-20 by embedding similarity to the extracted entity and its context) and present the LLM with their names, definitions, and immediate parent concepts to supply limited hierarchical cues. We will add a dedicated subsection in the Methods section (and an appendix with exact prompt templates) describing this retrieval-augmented process, the embedding model used, and the absence of full taxonomy traversal. This revision will allow readers to evaluate whether the observed performance gap reflects genuine limitations in structure-aware reasoning or input constraints, while preserving our interpretation that current LLMs lack robust fine-grained taxonomy alignment even under practical retrieval support. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation and results] Evaluation protocol and controls: the reported results lack details on dataset construction, the precise subset or full taxonomy size used in each test, error analysis by concept granularity or hierarchy depth, and statistical significance of the extraction-vs-linking performance gap. These omissions make it hard to confirm that the 'struggle significantly' conclusion is robust and not an artifact of unreported experimental choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge these omissions in the current draft. The dataset comprises numeric entities extracted from a curated set of 10-K filings drawn from the SEC EDGAR database, with ground-truth XBRL tags obtained from official filings; FinCL evaluation uses the full US GAAP taxonomy (~10,500 concepts) but reports performance only on the subset of concepts that appear in the test instances (approximately 800 unique concepts across the evaluation set). We will expand the Experiments section to include: exact dataset construction and split statistics, the precise taxonomy size and per-report concept coverage, a breakdown of errors by hierarchy depth (leaf vs. intermediate vs. root concepts), and statistical significance testing (e.g., McNemar’s test or bootstrap confidence intervals) for the FinNI vs. FinCL performance difference. These additions will be incorporated in the revision to substantiate the robustness of our conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in benchmark definition or evaluation results

full rationale

The paper defines a new benchmark by decomposing XBRL tagging into FinNI extraction and FinCL linking subtasks, then reports zero-shot LLM performance on these tasks. No equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles derivations are present; the central claims rest on direct empirical evaluation rather than any reduction to self-defined inputs or self-citation chains. The two-stage formulation is presented as an explicit design choice to enable realistic assessment, not as a result derived from prior self-referential assumptions. This is a standard benchmark paper whose findings are independent of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the contribution is an empirical benchmark definition rather than a theoretical derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5824 in / 1096 out tokens · 41026 ms · 2026-05-22T02:20:43.256628+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Conv-FinRe: A Conversational and Longitudinal Benchmark for Utility-Grounded Financial Recommendation

    cs.AI 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Conv-FinRe is a new benchmark built from real market data and human trajectories that tests LLMs on generating utility-grounded stock rankings over fixed horizons while distinguishing rational analysis from behavioral...

  2. FinAuditing: A Financial Taxonomy-Structured Multi-Document Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FinAuditing is a taxonomy-structured multi-document benchmark with 1,102 instances averaging over 33k tokens from XBRL filings, defining three tasks to evaluate LLMs on financial auditing capabilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dogu Araci. 2019. Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063(2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Jeya Balaji Balasubramanian, Daniel Adams, Ioannis Roxanis, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Penny Coulson, Jonas S Almeida, and Montserrat García-Closas

    work page

  3. [3]

    Leveraging large language models for structured information extraction from pathology reports.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12183(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan Routledge, et al

    work page

  5. [5]

    Finqa: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00122(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Zhiyu Chen, Shiyang Li, Charese Smiley, Zhiqiang Ma, Sameena Shah, and William Yang Wang. 2022. Convfinqa: Exploring the chain of numerical reasoning in conversational finance question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03849 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2501.12948 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501. 12948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. CoRRabs/1810.04805 (2018). arXiv:1810.04805 http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Leo Gao, Jonathan Tow, Baber Abbasi, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Anthony DiPofi, Charles Foster, Laurence Golding, Jeffrey Hsu, Alain Le Noac’h, Haonan Li, Kyle McDonell, Niklas Muennighoff, Chris Ociepa, Jason Phang, Laria Reynolds, Hailey Schoelkopf, Aviya Skowron, Lintang Sutawika, Eric Tang, Anish Thite, Ben Wang, Kevin Wang, and Andy Zou. 2024. A fra...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12608602 2024

  10. [10]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Shijie Han, Haoqiang Kang, Bo Jin, Xiao-Yang Liu, and Steve Yang. 2024. XBRL- Agent: Leveraging Large Language Models for Financial Report Analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance (ICAIF ’24)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Michael Krumdick, Viet Lai, Varshini Reddy, Charles Lovering, and Chris Tanner. 2023. Bizbench: A quantitative reasoning benchmark for business and finance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06602(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.biometrics(1977), 159–174

    work page 1977

  15. [15]

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Cheng- gang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Lefteris Loukas, Manos Fergadiotis, Ilias Chalkidis, Eirini Spyropoulou, Pro- dromos Malakasiotis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Georgios Paliouras. 2022. FiNER: Financial numeric entity recognition for XBRL tagging.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06482(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Minesh Mathew, Dimosthenis Karatzas, and CV Jawahar. 2021. Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. 2200–2209

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    AI Meta. 2025. The llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multi- modal ai innovation.https://ai. meta. com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/, checked on4, 7 (2025), 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Rajdeep Mukherjee, Abhinav Bohra, Akash Banerjee, Soumya Sharma, Manjunath Hegde, Afreen Shaikh, Shivani Shrivastava, Koustuv Dasgupta, Niloy Ganguly, Saptarshi Ghosh, et al. 2022. Ectsum: A new benchmark dataset for bullet point summarization of long earnings call transcripts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12467 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Lingfei Qian, Weipeng Zhou, Yan Wang, Xueqing Peng, Jimin Huang, and Qian- qian Xie. 2025. Fino1: On the Transferability of Reasoning Enhanced LLMs to Finance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08127(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Jim Richards, Barry Smith, and Ali Saeedi. 2006. An introduction to XBRL. A vailable at SSRN 1007570(2006)

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Rachit Saini, Ankit Gupta, and Harshil Singh. 2021. GalaXC: Graph Neural Net- works for Extreme Classification in Financial Text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05709 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Agam Shah, Ruchit Vithani, Abhinav Gullapalli, and Sudheer Chava. 2023. Finer: Financial named entity recognition dataset and weak-supervision model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11157(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Soumya Sharma, Subhendu Khatuya, Manjunath Hegde, Afreen Shaikh, Koustuv Dasgupta, Pawan Goyal, and Niloy Ganguly. 2023. Financial numeric extreme labelling: A dataset and benchmarking. InFindings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: ACL 2023. 3550–3561

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Soumya Sharma, Tapas Nayak, Arusarka Bose, Ajay Kumar Meena, Koustuv Dasgupta, Niloy Ganguly, and Pawan Goyal. 2022. FinRED: A dataset for relation extraction in financial domain. InCompanion Proceedings of the Web Conference

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Marina Sokolova and Guy Lapalme. 2009. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks.Information processing & management45, 4 (2009), 427–437

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Gemma Team. 2024. Gemma. (2024). doi:10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301

    work page doi:10.34740/kaggle/m/3301 2024

  28. [28]

    Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen3 Technical Report. arXiv:2505.09388 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03546(2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Richard Zhe Wang. 2023. Standardizing XBRL financial reporting tags with natural language processing.A vailable at SSRN 4613085(2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Yan Wang, Jian Wang, Huiyi Lu, Bing Xu, Yijia Zhang, Santosh Kumar Banbhrani, Hongfei Lin, et al. 2022. Conditional probability joint extraction of nested biomed- ical events: design of a unified extraction framework based on neural networks. JMIR Medical Informatics10, 6 (2022), e37804

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer

    work page

  33. [33]

    Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03814(2019)

    work page arXiv 1911

  34. [34]

    Qianqian Xie, Weiguang Han, Xiao Zhang, Yanzhao Lai, Min Peng, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, and Jimin Huang. 2023. Pixiu: A large language model, instruction data and evaluation benchmark for finance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05443 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Haohan Yuan, Sukhwa Hong, and Haopeng Zhang. 2025. StrucSum: Graph- Structured Reasoning for Long Document Extractive Summarization with LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22950(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Tat-qa: A question answering benchmark o n a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance

    Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question an- swering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07624(2021). Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yan et al. A Significance analysis To further exami...

    work page arXiv 2021