Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in Financial NLP: A Comparative Study on Financial Report Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22936v1
• Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:10:27 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in Financial NLP: A Comparative Study on Financial Report Analysis
• Authors: Md Talha Mohsin,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide variety of Financial Natural Language Processing (FinNLP) tasks.<n>This study conducts a thorough comparative evaluation of five leading LLMs, GPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and DeepSeek, using 10-K filings from the 'Magnificent Seven' technology companies.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide variety of Financial Natural Language Processing (FinNLP) tasks. However, systematic comparisons among widely used LLMs remain underexplored. Given the rapid advancement and growing influence of LLMs in financial analysis, this study conducts a thorough comparative evaluation of five leading LLMs, GPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and DeepSeek, using 10-K filings from the 'Magnificent Seven' technology companies. We create a set of domain-specific prompts and then use three methodologies to evaluate model performance: human annotation, automated lexical-semantic metrics (ROUGE, Cosine Similarity, Jaccard), and model behavior diagnostics (prompt-level variance and across-model similarity). The results show that GPT gives the most coherent, semantically aligned, and contextually relevant answers; followed by Claude and Perplexity. Gemini and DeepSeek, on the other hand, have more variability and less agreement. Also, the similarity and stability of outputs change from company to company and over time, showing that they are sensitive to how prompts are written and what source material is used.

Related papers

• Reasoning or Overthinking: Evaluating Large Language Models on Financial Sentiment Analysis [1.3812010983144802]
  We evaluate how various large language models (LLMs) align with human-labeled sentiment in a financial context.<n>Our findings suggest that reasoning, either through prompting or inherent model design, does not improve performance on this task.<n>Surprisingly, the most accurate and human-aligned combination of model and method was GPT-4o without any Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T02:47:23Z)
• Can AI Read Between The Lines? Benchmarking LLMs On Financial Nuance [0.0]
  This paper presents findings from the Santa Clara Microsoft Practicum Project, led by Professor Charlie Goldenberg.<n>It benchmarks the performance of Microsoft's Copilot, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and traditional machine learning models for sentiment analysis of financial text.<n>Using Microsoft earnings call transcripts, the analysis assesses how well LLM-derived sentiment correlates with market sentiment and stock movements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T00:09:11Z)
• Assessing Consistency and Reproducibility in the Outputs of Large Language Models: Evidence Across Diverse Finance and Accounting Tasks [0.0]
  This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of consistency and accuracy of Large Language Model (LLM) outputs in finance and accounting research.<n>Using three OpenAI models, we generate over 3.4 million outputs from diverse financial source texts and data.<n>LLMs significantly outperform expert human annotators in consistency even where human experts disagree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T09:43:37Z)
• A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models [74.48084001058672]
  The rise of foundation models has transformed machine learning research.<n> multimodal foundation models (MMFMs) pose unique interpretability challenges beyond unimodal frameworks.<n>This survey explores two key aspects: (1) the adaptation of LLM interpretability methods to multimodal models and (2) understanding the mechanistic differences between unimodal language models and crossmodal systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T20:55:26Z)
• CORDIAL: Can Multimodal Large Language Models Effectively Understand Coherence Relationships? [5.246809683975664]
  This study emphasizes the need to move beyond similarity-based metrics and adopt a discourse-driven framework for evaluating MLLMs.<n>Our benchmark, CORDIAL, encompasses a broad spectrum of Coherence Relations across 3 different discourse domains at varying levels of granularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T22:54:44Z)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks.<n>We introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Large Language Model Adaptation for Financial Sentiment Analysis [2.0499240875882]
  Generalist language models tend to fall short in tasks specifically tailored for finance. Two foundation models with less than 1.5B parameters have been adapted using a wide range of strategies. We show that small LLMs have comparable performance to larger scale models, while being more efficient in terms of parameters and data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T11:04:01Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)
• Document-Level Machine Translation with Large Language Models [91.03359121149595]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce coherent, cohesive, relevant, and fluent answers for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of LLMs' ability on discourse modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-05T03:49:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.