Yuyang Dai
Publications
Seeing Is Not Deciding: Can Multimodal LLMs Act as Effective CEOs?
Large language models are increasingly applied as autonomous decision-making agents. However, in executive business decisions, existing benchmarks are limited to textonly settings. This makes it unclear whether models can perceive visual business evidence and effectively integrate it to improve decision quality. We introduce C-SUITEBENCH, a controlled multimodal benchmark that includes five decision tasks under paired text-only and multimodal conditions across 50 scenarios. We place nine frontier models in the role of a chief executive officer and evaluate their decision-making ability. Multimodal inputs consistently improve evidence-centric reasoning, with the largest and most reliable gains appearing in risk forecasting and board-facing justification. However, we uncover a multimodal integration paradox: adding visual business information degrades constrained resource allocation for all nine models, even as visual grounding itself improves. Ablation experiments reveal that this failure emerges from signal crowding, although each visual channel helps individually, their combination disrupts constraint satisfaction during decoding. These findings demonstrate that visual perception and constrained action are separable bottlenecks in multimodal agents, and that indiscriminate visual augmentation can harm high-stakes decision making, motivating selective grounding strategies for future executive AI systems.
Overview of FinMMEval 2026 Task 2: Multilingual Financial Short-Answer Question Answering
FinMMEval 2026 Task 2 evaluates short-answer financial question answering over multilingual evidence. Each final-test item pairs an English question with financial statements and news in English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and Greek. Participating systems submit one concise answer per item in JSONL format. The final-test set contains 256 items, split evenly between easy and expert tiers; each tier contains four question templates instantiated over 32 company-report groups. Gold answers were withheld during submission, and systems were ranked by macro-averaged item-level ROUGE-1 F1 against organizer-held reference answers. The final leaderboard includes 12 ranked submissions. The strongest systems are closely clustered, with the top four separated by less than one percentage point in ROUGE-1 F1. The submitted system papers document retrieval-augmented generation, cross-lingual evidence handling, structured prompting, answer compression, and validation strategies.
Overview of FinMMEval 2026 Task 1: Multilingual Financial Multiple-Choice Question Answering
FinMMEval 2026 Task 1 evaluates multilingual financial multiple-choice question answering in English, Chinese, Arabic, and Hindi. The task tests whether systems can select the correct answer to finance questions involving domain terminology, numerical interpretation, and conceptual financial reasoning across languages and scripts. The final-test set contains 800 questions, with 200 questions per language; gold answers were withheld during submission, and each language was ranked independently by accuracy. The final leaderboards contain 13 English, 11 Chinese, 11 Arabic, and 10 Hindi ranked submissions. Top accuracies range from 92.0% in Hindi to 97.5% in English and Arabic, with the same leading teams appearing near the top across all four languages. The documented systems used retrieval augmentation, direct answer-option scoring, language-specific prompting, selective self-consistency, confidence checks, and LLM-based review stages.
Can LLMs Be CEOs? Benchmarking Strategic Resource Reallocation with Multi-Role Agent Simulation
Evaluating the decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a growing research priority, yet existing benchmarks focus on isolated cognitive tasks such as reasoning, knowledge retrieval, and economic rationality in stylized settings. These evaluations overlook the defining challenge of real executive decision-making: integrating conflicting recommendations from specialized stakeholders under information asymmetry, organizational constraints, and temporal dependencies. We introduce \textsc{CEO-Bench}, a multi-agent benchmark that evaluates LLMs on CEO-level strategic resource reallocation -- the process of redirecting capital across business units in a multi-round, constraint-rich organizational environment. In \textsc{CEO-Bench}, LLM agents receive conflicting advice from four role-conditioned C-suite advisors (CFO, CTO, COO, CMO), each with private signals and distinct priorities, and must synthesize these into a concrete allocation plan evaluated along four dimensions: role integration, conditional boldness, history-sensitive judgment, and plan validity. Experiments across five frontier models on 13 scenarios reveal that all models achieve high structural validity but diverge sharply on strategic calibration -- the hardest capability layer. We identify systematic failure modes including single-advisor capture, conservative default under ambiguity, and historical amnesia, and uncover a structural integration-boldness tradeoff: models that engage more deeply with conflicting perspectives tend to produce less decisive action. These findings delineate the current capability boundary of LLMs as organizational decision-makers and inform the design of future AI-assisted executive systems.
Herculean: An Agentic Benchmark for Financial Intelligence
As AI agents improve, the central question is no longer whether they can solve isolated well-defined financial tasks, but whether they can reliably carry out financial professional work. Existing financial benchmarks offer only a partial view of this ability, as they primarily evaluate static competencies such as question answering, retrieval, summarization, and classification. We introduce Herculean, the first skilled benchmark for agentic financial intelligence spanning four representative workflows, including Trading, Hedging, Market Insights, and Auditing. Each workflow is instantiated as a standardized MCP-based skill environment with its own tools, interaction dynamics, constraints, and success criteria, enabling consistent end-to-end assessment of heterogeneous agent systems. Across frontier agents, we find agents perform relatively well on Trading and Market Insights, but struggle substantially on Hedging and Auditing, where long-horizon coordination, state consistency, and structured verification are critical. Overall, our results point to a key gap in current agents in turning financial reasoning into dependable workflow execution in high-stakes financial workflows.
Rescaling Confidence: What Scale Design Reveals About LLM Metacognition
Verbalized confidence, in which LLMs report a numerical certainty score, is widely used to estimate uncertainty in black-box settings, yet the confidence scale itself (typically 0--100) is rarely examined. We show that this design choice is not neutral. Across six LLMs and three datasets, verbalized confidence is heavily discretized, with more than 78% of responses concentrating on just three round-number values. To investigate this phenomenon, we systematically manipulate confidence scales along three dimensions: granularity, boundary placement, and range regularity, and evaluate metacognitive sensitivity using meta-d'. We find that a 0--20 scale consistently improves metacognitive efficiency over the standard 0--100 format, while boundary compression degrades performance and round-number preferences persist even under irregular ranges. These results demonstrate that confidence scale design directly affects the quality of verbalized uncertainty and should be treated as a first-class experimental variable in LLM evaluation.
The CLEF-2026 FinMMEval Lab: Multilingual and Multimodal Evaluation of Financial AI Systems
We present the setup and the tasks of the FinMMEval Lab at CLEF 2026, which introduces the first multilingual and multimodal evaluation framework for financial Large Language Models (LLMs). While recent advances in financial natural language processing have enabled automated analysis of market reports, regulatory documents, and investor communications, existing benchmarks remain largely monolingual, text-only, and limited to narrow subtasks. FinMMEval 2026 addresses this gap by offering three interconnected tasks that span financial understanding, reasoning, and decision-making: Financial Exam Question Answering, Multilingual Financial Question Answering (PolyFiQA), and Financial Decision Making. Together, these tasks provide a comprehensive evaluation suite that measures models' ability to reason, generalize, and act across diverse languages and modalities. The lab aims to promote the development of robust, transparent, and globally inclusive financial AI systems, with datasets and evaluation resources publicly released to support reproducible research.
RealFin: How Well Do LLMs Reason About Finance When Users Leave Things Unsaid?
Reliable financial reasoning requires knowing not only how to answer, but also when an answer cannot be justified. In real financial practice, problems often rely on implicit assumptions that are taken for granted rather than stated explicitly, causing problems to appear solvable while lacking enough information for a definite answer. We introduce REALFIN, a bilingual benchmark that evaluates financial reasoning by systematically removing essential premises from exam-style questions while keeping them linguistically plausible. Based on this, we evaluate models under three formulations that test answering, recognizing missing information, and rejecting unjustified options, and find consistent performance drops when key conditions are absent. General-purpose models tend to over-commit and guess, while most finance-specialized models fail to clearly identify missing premises. These results highlight a critical gap in current evaluations and show that reliable financial models must know when a question should not be answered.