Structured Debate Improves Corporate Credit Reasoning in Financial AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17108v2
• Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 19:42:03 GMT
• Title: Structured Debate Improves Corporate Credit Reasoning in Financial AI
• Authors: Yoonjin Lee, Munhee Kim, Hanbi Choi, Juhyeon Park, Seungho Lyoo, Woojin Park,
• Abstract summary: This study develops and evaluates two operational large language model (LLM)-based systems to generate structured reasoning from non-financial evidence.<n>The first is a non-adrial single-agent system (NAS) that produces bidirectional analysis through a single-pass reasoning pipeline.<n>The second is a debate-based multi-agent system (KPD-MADS) that operationalizes adversarial verification through a ten-step structured interaction protocol.
• Score: 6.013710554725173
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite advances in financial AI, the automation of evidence-based reasoning remains unresolved in corporate credit assessment, where qualitative non-financial indicators exert decisive influence on loan repayment outcomes yet resist formalization. Existing approaches focus predominantly on numerical prediction and provide limited support for the interpretive judgments required in professional loan evaluation. This study develops and evaluates two operational large language model (LLM)-based systems designed to generate structured reasoning from non-financial evidence. The first is a non-adversarial single-agent system (NAS) that produces bidirectional analysis through a single-pass reasoning pipeline. The second is a debate-based multi-agent system (KPD-MADS) that operationalizes adversarial verification through a ten-step structured interaction protocol grounded in Karl Popper's critical dialogue framework. Both systems were applied to three real corporate cases and evaluated by experienced credit risk professionals. Compared to manual expert reporting, both systems achieved substantial productivity gains (NAS: 11.55 s per case; KPD-MADS: 91.97 s; human baseline: 1920 s). The KPD-MADS demonstrated superior reasoning quality, receiving higher median ratings in explanatory adequacy (4.0 vs. 3.0), practical applicability (4.0 vs. 3.0), and usability (62.5 vs. 52.5). These findings show that structured multi-agent interaction can enhance reasoning rigor and interpretability in financial AI, advancing scalable and defensible automation in corporate credit assessment.

Related papers

• Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification [49.506412445511934]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking.<n>We introduce a formal logic verification-guided framework that dynamically interleaves formal symbolic verification with the natural language generation process.<n>We operationalize this framework via a novel two-stage training pipeline that synergizes formal logic verification-guided supervised fine-tuning and policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:01:25Z)
• Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique [0.0]
  This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism.<n>Within this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers.<n>The research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T05:51:27Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM Reasoning: From Single-Model to Multi-Agent Paradigms [20.241519889633285]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as reasoning systems, where reasoning paradigms play a critical role.<n>We conduct a comprehensive and unified evaluation of reasoning paradigms, spanning direct single-model generation, CoT-augmented single-model reasoning, and representative MAS.<n>We introduce MIMeBench, a new open-ended benchmark that targets two foundational yet underexplored semantic capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T17:23:45Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• How Good are Foundation Models in Step-by-Step Embodied Reasoning? [79.15268080287505]
  Embodied agents must make decisions that are safe, spatially coherent, and grounded in context.<n>Recent advances in large multimodal models have shown promising capabilities in visual understanding and language generation.<n>Our benchmark includes over 1.1k samples with detailed step-by-step reasoning across 10 tasks and 8 embodiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T17:56:30Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• FinAgentBench: A Benchmark Dataset for Agentic Retrieval in Financial Question Answering [57.18367828883773]
  FinAgentBench is a benchmark for evaluating agentic retrieval with multi-step reasoning in finance.<n>The benchmark consists of 26K expert-annotated examples on S&P-500 listed firms.<n>We evaluate a suite of state-of-the-art models and demonstrate how targeted fine-tuning can significantly improve agentic retrieval performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T22:15:22Z)
• The Architecture of Trust: A Framework for AI-Augmented Real Estate Valuation in the Era of Structured Data [0.0]
  The Uniform Appraisal dataset (UAD) 3.6's mandatory 2026 implementation transforms residential property valuation from narrative reporting to machine-readable formats.<n>This paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of this regulatory shift alongside concurrent AI advances in computer vision, natural language processing, and autonomous systems.<n>We develop a three-layer framework for AI-augmented valuation addressing technical implementation and institutional trust requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T05:24:25Z)
• Trustworthy Reasoning: Evaluating and Enhancing Factual Accuracy in LLM Intermediate Thought Processes [16.451488374845407]
  We present a novel framework addressing a critical vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This phenomenon poses substantial risks in high-stakes domains including healthcare, legal analysis, and scientific research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T10:34:51Z)
• FinAI-BERT: A Transformer-Based Model for Sentence-Level Detection of AI Disclosures in Financial Reports [6.324803752309524]
  This study introduces FinAI-BERT, a domain-adapted transformer-based language model designed to classify AI-related content at the sentence level within financial texts.<n>The model was fine-tuned on a manually curated and balanced dataset of 1,586 sentences drawn from 669 annual reports of U.S. banks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T09:33:29Z)
• 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)
• Harnessing the Reasoning Economy: A Survey of Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models [51.85792055455284]
  Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their ability to perform complex reasoning tasks.<n>System 1 reasoning is computationally efficient but leads to suboptimal performance.<n>System 2 reasoning often incurs substantial computational costs due to its slow thinking nature and inefficient or unnecessary reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T17:58:07Z)
• Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluation [0.0]
  We present Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3), a cost-aware, adversarial multi-agent framework that orchestrates structured debate among role-specialized agents.<n>We develop a probabilistic model of score gaps that characterizes reliability and convergence under iterative debate.<n>We show state-of-the-art agreement with human judgments, reduced positional and verbosity biases via anonymization, and a favorable cost-accuracy frontier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)

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.