FailSafeQA
Models answer finance questions over long documents while the query or the document is degraded, irrelevant or missing. An LLM judge scores robustness, context grounding and compliance.
The paper scores 24 models. 132 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.
- Made by
- Writer
- Released
- February 2025
- Kind
- Finance
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
In the authors’ words
We propose a new long-context financial benchmark, FailSafeQA, designed to test the robustness and context-awareness of LLMs against six variations in human-interface interactions in LLM-based query-answer systems within finance. We concentrate on two case studies: Query Failure and Context Failure. In the Query Failure scenario, we perturb the original query to vary in domain expertise, completeness, and linguistic accuracy. In the Context Failure case, we simulate the uploads of degraded, irrelevant, and empty documents. We employ the LLM-as-a-Judge methodology with Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct and use fine-grained rating criteria to define and calculate Robustness, Context Grounding, and Compliance scores for 24 off-the-shelf models. The results suggest that although some models excel at mitigating input perturbations, they must balance robust answering with the ability to refrain from hallucinating. Notably, Palmyra-Fin-128k-Instruct, recognized as the most compliant model, maintained strong baseline performance but encountered challenges in sustaining robust predictions in 17% of test cases. On the other hand, the most robust model, OpenAI o3-mini, fabricated information in 41% of tested cases. The results demonstrate that even high-performing models have significant room for improvement and highlight the role of FailSafeQA as a tool for developing LLMs optimized for dependability in financial applications. The dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Writer/FailSafeQA
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for FailSafeQA yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Law, finance and medicine
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- FinSearchComp In use Agents search the web to fetch live financial data, look up history, and run multi-step investigations, across 635 expert-written questions. Scored by answer accuracy.
Ling-3.1-flash 81.7%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%