Look-Ahead-Bench: a Standardized Benchmark of Look-ahead Bias in Point-in-Time LLMs for Finance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13770v1
• Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 09:23:51 GMT
• Title: Look-Ahead-Bench: a Standardized Benchmark of Look-ahead Bias in Point-in-Time LLMs for Finance
• Abstract summary: We introduce Look-Ahead-Bench, a standardized benchmark measuring look-ahead bias in Point-in-Time (PiT) Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We analyze performance decay across temporally distinct market regimes, incorporating several quantitative baselines to establish performance thresholds.<n>Results reveal significant lookahead bias in standard LLMs, as measured with alpha decay, unlike Pitinf models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce Look-Ahead-Bench, a standardized benchmark measuring look-ahead bias in Point-in-Time (PiT) Large Language Models (LLMs) within realistic and practical financial workflows. Unlike most existing approaches that primarily test inner lookahead knowledge via Q\\&A, our benchmark evaluates model behavior in practical scenarios. To distinguish genuine predictive capability from memorization-based performance, we analyze performance decay across temporally distinct market regimes, incorporating several quantitative baselines to establish performance thresholds. We evaluate prominent open-source LLMs -- Llama 3.1 (8B and 70B) and DeepSeek 3.2 -- against a family of Point-in-Time LLMs (Pitinf-Small, Pitinf-Medium, and frontier-level model Pitinf-Large) from PiT-Inference. Results reveal significant lookahead bias in standard LLMs, as measured with alpha decay, unlike Pitinf models, which demonstrate improved generalization and reasoning abilities as they scale in size. This work establishes a foundation for the standardized evaluation of temporal bias in financial LLMs and provides a practical framework for identifying models suitable for real-world deployment. Code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/benstaf/lookaheadbench

Related papers

• On Test-Time Scaling for Vision-Language Models [28.89310866658917]
  We present the first comprehensive study of test-time scaling for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>Our main findings are that small, well-performing models benefit the most from test-time scaling, enabling performance improvements of up to around 30%.<n>Visual information is encoded early in the reasoning chain, after which the chain is dominated by text-only reasoning and the contribution of image tokens drops significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T11:12:42Z)
• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• Contrastive Attribution in the Wild: An Interpretability Analysis of LLM Failures on Realistic Benchmarks [42.92210265283373]
  Interpretability tools are increasingly used to analyze failures of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We study contrastive, LRP-based attribution as a practical tool for analyzing LLM failures in realistic settings.<n>Our results show that this token-level contrastive attribution can yield informative signals in some failure cases, but is not universally applicable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T03:24:11Z)
• FORESTLLM: Large Language Models Make Random Forest Great on Few-shot Tabular Learning [20.27406245916013]
  We propose a novel framework that unifies the structural inductive biases of decision forests with the semantic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method is two-fold. First, we introduce a semantic splitting criterion in which the LLM evaluates candidate partitions based on their coherence over both labeled and unlabeled data, enabling the induction of more robust and generalizable tree structures under few-shot supervision.<n>Second, we propose a one-time in-context inference mechanism for leaf node stabilization, where the LLM distills the decision path and its supporting examples into a concise, deterministic prediction, replacing noisy empirical estimates with semantically informed outputs
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T14:08:51Z)
• Large Language Models as Universal Predictors? An Empirical Study on Small Tabular Datasets [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform predictive tasks over structured inputs without explicit fine-tuning on downstream tasks.<n>We investigate the empirical function approximation capability of LLMs on small-scale structured datasets for classification, regression and clustering tasks.<n>Our findings suggest that LLMs can serve as general-purpose predictive engines for structured data, with clear strengths in classification and significant limitations in regression and clustering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T15:00:51Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [62.388554963415906]
  In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts arising from discrepancies between their pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>These conflicts are especially problematic in real-world investment services, where a model's inherent biases can misalign with institutional objectives.<n>We propose an experimental framework to investigate emergent behaviors in such conflict scenarios, offering a quantitative analysis of bias in investment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• BizFinBench: A Business-Driven Real-World Financial Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs [7.9458352414205295]
  Large language models excel in general tasks, yet assessing their reliability in logic-heavy, precision-critical domains like finance, law, and healthcare remains challenging.<n>We introduce BizFinBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in real-world financial applications.<n> BizFinBench consists of 6,781 well-annotated queries in Chinese, spanning five dimensions: numerical calculation, reasoning, information extraction, prediction recognition, and knowledge-based question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T03:23:02Z)
• Representation Learning of Limit Order Book: A Comprehensive Study and Benchmarking [3.94375691568608]
  Limit Order Book (LOB) provides a fine-grained view of market dynamics.<n>Existing approaches often tightly couple representation learning with specific downstream tasks in an end-to-end manner.<n>We introduce LOBench, a standardized benchmark with real China A-share market data, offering curated datasets, unified preprocessing, consistent evaluation metrics, and strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-04T15:00:00Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• FinTSB: A Comprehensive and Practical Benchmark for Financial Time Series Forecasting [58.70072722290475]
  Financial time series (FinTS) record the behavior of human-brain-augmented decision-making.<n>FinTSB is a comprehensive and practical benchmark for financial time series forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T05:19:16Z)
• Benchmarking Post-Training Quantization in LLMs: Comprehensive Taxonomy, Unified Evaluation, and Comparative Analysis [89.60263788590893]
  Post-training Quantization (PTQ) technique has been extensively adopted for large language models (LLMs) compression.<n>Existing algorithms focus primarily on performance, overlooking the trade-off among model size, performance, and quantization bitwidth.<n>We provide a novel benchmark for LLMs PTQ in this paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:35:35Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Regression-aware Inference with LLMs [52.764328080398805]
  We show that an inference strategy can be sub-optimal for common regression and scoring evaluation metrics. We propose alternate inference strategies that estimate the Bayes-optimal solution for regression and scoring metrics in closed-form from sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T03:24:34Z)

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.