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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16990v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 01:29:50 GMT
• Title: Conv-FinRe: A Conversational and Longitudinal Benchmark for Utility-Grounded Financial Recommendation
• Abstract summary: We introduce Conv-FinRe, a benchmark for stock recommendation that evaluates LLMs beyond behavior matching.<n>We build the benchmark from real market data and human decision trajectories, instantiate controlled advisory conversations, and evaluate a suite of state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>Results reveal a persistent tension between rational decision quality and behavioral alignment.
• Score: 33.09732020656996
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Most recommendation benchmarks evaluate how well a model imitates user behavior. In financial advisory, however, observed actions can be noisy or short-sighted under market volatility and may conflict with a user's long-term goals. Treating what users chose as the sole ground truth, therefore, conflates behavioral imitation with decision quality. We introduce Conv-FinRe, a conversational and longitudinal benchmark for stock recommendation that evaluates LLMs beyond behavior matching. Given an onboarding interview, step-wise market context, and advisory dialogues, models must generate rankings over a fixed investment horizon. Crucially, Conv-FinRe provides multi-view references that distinguish descriptive behavior from normative utility grounded in investor-specific risk preferences, enabling diagnosis of whether an LLM follows rational analysis, mimics user noise, or is driven by market momentum. We build the benchmark from real market data and human decision trajectories, instantiate controlled advisory conversations, and evaluate a suite of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal a persistent tension between rational decision quality and behavioral alignment: models that perform well on utility-based ranking often fail to match user choices, whereas behaviorally aligned models can overfit short-term noise. The dataset is publicly released on Hugging Face, and the codebase is available on GitHub.

Related papers

• NextFund: A Unified Performance Tracking Platform for Agentic Portfolio Management [0.9906305486517417]
  We introduce NextFund, an evaluation platform that makes financial-agent behavior observable under live market conditions.<n>The platform couples time-consistent market access, coordinated multi-agent analysis, and persistent logging of the full decision path from observation to trade.<n>We present NextFund on Hong Kong, U.S., and China A-share equities, illustrating how inspectable decision histories enable fairer benchmarking and more actionable diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T06:22:21Z)
• BehaviorBench: Modeling Real-World User Decisions from Behavioral Traces [53.55407626944686]
  textscBehaviorBench is a benchmark for evaluating personalized decision modeling from real-world behavioral traces.<n>textscBehaviorBench reconstructs wallet-level decision histories from observed public prediction-market and on-chain records.<n>Across 2,000 evaluation wallets, the benchmark contains 141,445 Belief instances and 1,485,972 Trade instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T19:04:36Z)
• Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering? [23.175180848107093]
  We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize.<n>We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T23:26:35Z)
• GEM: Guided Expectation-Maximization for Behavior-Normalized Candidate Action Selection in Offline RL [7.213487945222728]
  We introduce GEM (Guided Expectation-Maximization), an analytical framework that makes action selection both multimodal and controllable.<n>During inference, GEM performs candidate-based selection using a conservative ensemble lower-confidence bound together with behavior-normalized support.<n> Empirically, GEM is competitive across D4RL benchmarks, and offers a simple inference-time budget knob (candidate count) that trades compute for decision quality without retraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T14:04:43Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Toward Scalable Verifiable Reward: Proxy State-Based Evaluation for Multi-turn Tool-Calling LLM Agents [8.760287445955045]
  Large language model (LLM) agents operating via multi-turn dialogue and multi-step tool calling are increasingly used in production.<n>Prior agentic benchmarks rely on fully deterministic backends, which are costly to build and iterate.<n>We propose Proxy State-Based Evaluation, an LLM-driven simulation framework that preserves final state-based evaluation without a deterministic database.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T07:49:47Z)
• AlphaForgeBench: Benchmarking End-to-End Trading Strategy Design with Large Language Models [23.493646150407116]
  Current evaluations of real-time trading performance overlook a critical failure mode: severe behavioral instability in sequential decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We propose AlphaForgeBench, a principled framework that reframes Large Language Models (LLMs) as quantitative researchers rather than execution agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T14:29:33Z)
• ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoning [2.1461777157838724]
  We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in large language models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability.<n>We further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T18:26:58Z)
• Evaluating from Benign to Dynamic Adversarial: A Squid Game for Large Language Models [57.33350664910483]
  We introduce Squid Game, a dynamic and adversarial evaluation environment with resource-constrained and asymmetric information settings.<n>We evaluate over 50 LLMs on Squid Game, presenting the largest behavioral evaluation study of general LLMs on dynamic adversarial scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T06:06:29Z)
• LiveTradeBench: Seeking Real-World Alpha with Large Language Models [26.976122048323873]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across benchmarks.<n>These tests occur in static settings, lacking real dynamics and uncertainty.<n>We introduce LiveTradeBench, a live trading environment for evaluating LLM agents in realistic and evolving markets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T16:47:26Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets? [44.10622904101254]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities as autonomous agents.<n>We introduce StockBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM agents in realistic, multi-month stock trading environments.<n>Our evaluation shows that while most LLM agents struggle to outperform the simple buy-and-hold baseline, several models demonstrate the potential to deliver higher returns and manage risk more effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T16:54:57Z)
• KnowMT-Bench: Benchmarking Knowledge-Intensive Long-Form Question Answering in Multi-Turn Dialogues [58.305425399644086]
  Multi-Turn Long-Form Question Answering (MT-LFQA) is a key application paradigm of Large Language Models (LLMs) in knowledge-intensive domains.<n>We introduce textbfKnowMT-Bench, the textitfirst-ever benchmark designed to systematically evaluate MT-LFQA for LLMs across knowledge-intensive fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T04:32:29Z)
• 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)
• Deriving Strategic Market Insights with Large Language Models: A Benchmark for Forward Counterfactual Generation [55.2788567621326]
  We introduce a novel benchmark, FIN-FORCE-FINancial FORward Counterfactual Evaluation.<n>By curating financial news headlines, FIN-FORCE supports LLM based forward counterfactual generation.<n>This paves the way for scalable and automated solutions for exploring and anticipating future market developments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T02:41:50Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [71.7892165868749]
  Commercial Large Language Model (LLM) APIs create a fundamental trust problem.<n>Users pay for specific models but have no guarantee that providers deliver them faithfully.<n>We formalize this model substitution problem and evaluate detection methods under realistic adversarial conditions.<n>We propose and evaluate the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as one practical and robust solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Is ChatGPT Fair for Recommendation? Evaluating Fairness in Large Language Model Recommendation [52.62492168507781]
  We propose a novel benchmark called Fairness of Recommendation via LLM (FaiRLLM) This benchmark comprises carefully crafted metrics and a dataset that accounts for eight sensitive attributes. By utilizing our FaiRLLM benchmark, we conducted an evaluation of ChatGPT and discovered that it still exhibits unfairness to some sensitive attributes when generating recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T16:54:36Z)

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.