Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26368v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:03:53 GMT
• Title: Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text
• Abstract summary: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways.<n>We study this problem as fine-grained inconsistency.<n>A fine-tuned 300M encoder reaches 61.9% accuracy, compared with 61.5% for a LoRA-adapted Qwen3.5-9B model and 61.3% for GPT-adapted generative models.
• Score: 3.2712318205295907
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks. We study this problem as fine-grained inconsistency classification. Using a fixed 5,940-instance snapshot of SBID-FD, a synthetic financial-disclosure benchmark with 11 inconsistency labels and paired reference evidence spans, we compare frozen embedding classifiers, fine-tuned encoders, evidence-augmented classifiers, prompted large language models, and LoRA-adapted generative models under a shared evaluation protocol. A fine-tuned 300M encoder reaches 61.9% accuracy, compared with 61.5% for a LoRA-adapted Qwen3.5-9B model and 61.3% for GPT-5.4. Because these systems differ in architecture, supervision, training objective, and input format, we interpret this as a practical efficiency result for compact supervised encoders rather than a controlled conclusion about model scale. Supplying gold evidence spans improves the fine-tuned encoder to 65.3%, whereas automatically predicted spans recover a meaningful but incomplete share of that gain, indicating that localization quality remains a bottleneck. Class-level analyses show that Referential inconsistencies are especially sensitive to localization quality, while Factual and Logical inconsistencies remain difficult even when the relevant evidence is provided. Together, the oracle, distractor, and per-class analyses separate localization errors from residual type-discrimination errors, indicating that progress requires both stronger evidence extraction and better reasoning over closely related inconsistency categories.

Related papers

• IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications [52.570108663867046]
  A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation.<n>We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions.<n>We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T17:59:04Z)
• Toward Auditable Fraud Detection: Combining Graph Features, Model Explanations, and Agentic Case Investigation [0.0]
  Fraud detection systems must scale with rising transaction volume while remaining explainable and reviewable.<n>We study a layered pipeline that combines a gradient-boosted classifier, graph-derived structural features, an autoencoder-based anomaly signal, and an investigation agent.<n>We conclude that each component contributes only under specific conditions, and that a plausible rationale from an investigation agent is not evidence of a better decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T16:37:41Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• Fault Detection and Explainable Classification in Automotive HIL Validation via Denoising Autoencoders and In-Context Large Language Models [1.9435397960631864]
  Machine and deep learning have advanced fault diagnosis, yet most supervised models require large labelled datasets.<n>We propose a generalisable and explainable two-phase framework for fault detection and classification during real-time validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-04T06:43:43Z)
• When the Ruler is Broken: Parsing-Induced Suppression in LLM-Based Security Log Evaluation [0.0]
  We demonstrate a class of silent, systematic evaluation errors that can cause a fully functional model to appear completely non-functional categories.<n>We propose SOC-Bench v0, a benchmark framework comprising a standardized 13 category threat taxonomy, minimum statistical power requirements, fuzzy field extraction specification, and a public scoring script intended to prevent specific accuracy distortion in future SOC research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T06:03:11Z)
• ArgRE: Formal Argumentation for Conflict Resolution in Multi-Agent Requirements Negotiation [3.512547713134864]
  ArgRE is a multi-agent requirements system that embeds abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage.<n>It provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks.<n> Evaluation shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T03:28:13Z)
• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• Shrinking the Generation-Verification Gap with Weak Verifiers [42.538675831498715]
  Verifiers can improve language model capabilities by scoring and ranking responses from generated candidates.<n>Weaver is a framework for designing a strong verifier by combining multiple weak, imperfect verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T23:38:15Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• TrustLoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation for Failure Detection under Out-of-distribution Data [62.22804234013273]
  We propose a simple failure detection framework to unify and facilitate classification with rejection under both covariate and semantic shifts.<n>Our key insight is that by separating and consolidating failure-specific reliability knowledge with low-rank adapters, we can enhance the failure detection ability effectively and flexibly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T09:20:55Z)
• SparseCL: Sparse Contrastive Learning for Contradiction Retrieval [87.02936971689817]
  Contradiction retrieval refers to identifying and extracting documents that explicitly disagree with or refute the content of a query. Existing methods such as similarity search and crossencoder models exhibit significant limitations. We introduce SparseCL that leverages specially trained sentence embeddings designed to preserve subtle, contradictory nuances between sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-15T21:57:03Z)

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.