Measurement Risk in Supervised Financial NLP: Rubric and Metric Sensitivity on JF-ICR

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27374v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 03:39:14 GMT
• Title: Measurement Risk in Supervised Financial NLP: Rubric and Metric Sensitivity on JF-ICR
• Abstract summary: We study the measurement risk on Japanese Financial Implicit-Commitment Recognition.<n>We find that rubric wording materially changes model-assigned labels.<n>Not every metric remains informative under the JF-ICR class distribution.
• Score: 1.7107991816118835
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As LLMs become credible readers of earnings calls, investor-relations Q\&A, guidance, and disclosure language, supervised financial NLP benchmarks increasingly function as decision evidence for model selection and deployment. A hidden assumption is that gold labels make such evidence objective. This assumption breaks down when the benchmark ruler itself is sensitive to rubric wording, metric choice, or aggregation policy. We study this measurement risk on Japanese Financial Implicit-Commitment Recognition (JF-ICR; a pinned 253-item test split x 4 frontier LLMs x 5 rubrics x 3 temperatures x 5 ordinal metrics). Three findings follow. First, rubric wording materially changes model-assigned labels: R2--R3 agreement ranges from 70.0% to 83.4%, with the dominant movement near the +1 / 0 implicit-commitment boundary. This pattern is consistent with a pragmatic-boundary interpretation, but is not a validated linguistic-causality claim because the present rubric variants confound semantics, examples, and verbosity. Second, not every metric remains informative under the JF-ICR class distribution. Within-one accuracy is too easy because near misses receive credit and the majority class dominates; worst-class accuracy is too noisy because the rarest class has only two examples. Exact accuracy, macro-F1, and weighted \k{appa} are therefore the identifiable metrics under our operational rule. Third, ranking claims become more defensible only after this metric-identifiability audit: Bradley--Terry, Borda, and Ranked Pairs agree on the identifiable metric subset, while the full five-metric sweep produces disagreement on the closest pair. The contribution is not a new leaderboard, but a reporting discipline for supervised financial benchmarks whose gold labels exist and whose evaluation ruler still requires governance.

Related papers

• PRIMUS: Identity, Governance, and Verification for Multi-Agent Federations [0.0]
  Multi-agent federations need governance that answers three questions under adversarial conditions.<n>We present PRIMUS, which couples prime-power identity with BLS aggregate signatures.<n>We ask whether PRIMA's binary artifact-fidelity verdict can be converted into a graded fitness signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T19:21:49Z)
• TTPO: Test-Time Policy Optimization [53.81524570216593]
  Test-Time Policy Optimization (TTPO) is an asymmetric objective that distills agreeing rollouts via OPSD and penalizes disagreeing rollouts with Grouped RL.<n>We show that TTPO matches label-supervised OPSD on five competition-level benchmarks, raises Qwen3-1.7B from 38.0% to 45.2% in TTT, yields +25.2% to +36.4% without thinking, and shows strong cross-task generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T17:58:10Z)
• IndicQE-APE: A Benchmark for Quality Estimation and Automatic Post-Editing for Indic Languages [77.88427845181154]
  We consolidate the WMT 2020--2024 shared-task lineage with an extended English--Malayalam resource into indicqe: $126,754$ instances over nine directional pairs.<n>We benchmark six prompted LLMs and three COMET metrics on segment-level QE, and three systems on APE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T09:50:52Z)
• A Four-Axis Trustworthiness Benchmark for LLM-as-Judge in Principle-Based Regulation [0.0]
  We release Principle-Bench, 168 cryptoasset financial-promotion scenarios mapped to two UK FCA principles.<n>A calibrated, auditable assessor emits exact per-exemplar counterfactual attributions.<n>Across keyword counting, three sentence-transformer embedders, an open-weight LLM-judge, and a calibrated cascade, no method dominates all four axes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T14:20:38Z)
• PerceptionRubrics: Calibrating Multimodal Evaluation to Human Perception [75.70273182182397]
  PerceptionRubrics is a rubric-based evaluation framework.<n>It addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness.<n>It pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-26T17:59:15Z)
• Perception or Prejudice: Can MLLMs Go Beyond First Impressions of Personality? [74.69723255239663]
  Grounded Personality Reasoning requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding.<n> MM-OCEAN is produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs.<n>The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T07:42:47Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• ValueBlindBench: Agreement-Gated Stress Testing of LLM-Judged Investment Rationales Before Returns Are Observable [1.8689252029357564]
  This paper introduces ValueBlindBench, a preregistered agreement-gated stress-test protocol.<n>ValueBlindBench decides when LLM-judged investment-rationale claims are publishable, qualified, or invalid.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T05:04:20Z)
• Criterion-referenceability determines LLM-as-a-judge validity across physics assessment formats [0.01116979912801043]
  We compare GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini Pro 3, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and exemplar-anchored conditions.<n>For $n=771$ blind university exam questions, models achieve fractional mean absolute errors (fMAE) $approx 0.22$ with robust discriminative validity.<n>Across $n=55$ scripts, blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking, with discriminative validity already poor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T02:09:06Z)
• The Judge Who Never Admits: Hidden Shortcuts in LLM-based Evaluation [17.386684382460242]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as reasoning, question answering, and creative writing.<n>We test this ideal via controlled cue perturbations-synthetic metadata labels injected into evaluation prompts for six judge models.<n>We study six cue families: source, temporal, age, gender, ethnicity, and educational status.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T14:45:23Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibration [65.10149293133846]
  Language Models (LMs) have shown promising performance in natural language generation. It is crucial to correctly quantify their uncertainty in responding to given inputs. We develop a novel and practical framework, termed $Rank$-$Calibration$, to assess uncertainty and confidence measures for LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:31:05Z)
• Goodhart's Law Applies to NLP's Explanation Benchmarks [57.26445915212884]
  We critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics. We show that we can inflate a model's comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T03:03:03Z)

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.