Financial text classification has increasingly become an important aspect in quantitative trading systems and related tasks, such as financial sentiment analysis and the classification of financial news. In this paper, we assess the performance of the large language model Qwen3-8B on both tasks. Qwen3-8B is a state-of-the-art model that exhibits strong instruction-following and multilingual capabilities, and is distinct from standard models, primarily because it is specifically optimized for efficient fine tuning and high performance on reasoning-based benchmarks, making it suitable for financial applications. To adapt this model, we apply Noisy Embedding Instruction Finetuning and based on our previous work, this method increases robustness by injecting controlled noise into the embedding layers during supervised adaptation. We improve efficiency further with Rank-stabilized Low-Rank Adaptation low-rank optimization approach, and FlashAttention, which allow for faster training with lower GPU memory. For both tasks, we benchmark Qwen3-8B against standard classical transformer models, such as T5, BERT, and RoBERTa, and large models at scale, such as LLaMA1-7B, LLaMA2-7B, and Baichuan2-7B. The findings reveal that Qwen3-8B consistently surpasses these baselines by obtaining better classification accuracy and needing fewer training epochs. The synergy of instruction-based fine-tuning and memory-efficient optimization methods suggests Qwen3-8B can potentially serve as a scalable, economical option for real-time financial NLP applications. Qwen3-8B provides a very promising base for advancing dynamic quantitative trading systems in the future.

When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.

Self-assessment is a key aspect of reliable intelligence, yet evaluations of large language models (LLMs) focus mainly on task accuracy. We adapted the 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) to elicit simulated self-assessments from ten LLMs across four conditions: no task, computational reasoning, social reasoning, and summarization. GSES responses were highly stable across repeated administrations and randomized item orders. However, models showed significantly different self-efficacy levels across conditions, with aggregate scores lower than human norms. All models achieved perfect accuracy on computational and social questions, whereas summarization performance varied widely. Self-assessment did not reliably reflect ability: several low-scoring models performed accurately, while some high-scoring models produced weaker summaries. Follow-up confidence prompts yielded modest, mostly downward revisions, suggesting mild overestimation in first-pass assessments. Qualitative analysis showed that higher self-efficacy corresponded to more assertive, anthropomorphic reasoning styles, whereas lower scores reflected cautious, de-anthropomorphized explanations. Psychometric prompting provides structured insight into LLM communication behavior but not calibrated performance estimates.

This paper comprehensively elaborates on the construction methodology, multi-dimensional evaluation system, and underlying design philosophy of CUFEInse v1.0. Adhering to the principles of "quantitative-oriented, expert-driven, and multi-validation," the benchmark establishes an evaluation framework covering 5 core dimensions, 54 sub-indicators, and 14,430 high-quality questions, encompassing insurance theoretical knowledge, industry understanding, safety and compliance, intelligent agent application, and logical rigor. Based on this benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted on 11 mainstream large language models. The evaluation results reveal that general-purpose models suffer from common bottlenecks such as weak actuarial capabilities and inadequate compliance adaptation. High-quality domain-specific training demonstrates significant advantages in insurance vertical scenarios but exhibits shortcomings in business adaptation and compliance. The evaluation also accurately identifies the common bottlenecks of current large models in professional scenarios such as insurance actuarial, underwriting and claim settlement reasoning, and compliant marketing copywriting. The establishment of CUFEInse not only fills the gap in professional evaluation benchmarks for the insurance field, providing academia and industry with a professional, systematic, and authoritative evaluation tool, but also its construction concept and methodology offer important references for the evaluation paradigm of large models in vertical fields, serving as an authoritative reference for academic model optimization and industrial model selection. Finally, the paper looks forward to the future iteration direction of the evaluation benchmark and the core development direction of "domain adaptation + reasoning enhancement" for insurance large models.

We present a multi-expert system for creating Non-Player Characters (NPCs) capable of both natural dialogue and contextual action execution in interactive environments. Our approach leverages Qwen3 as the base model with specialized Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapters to create three distinct expert modules: tool calling, tool response interpretation, and direct dialogue. The system not only meets but exceeds the computational constraints, delivering responses in an average of 3 seconds (well under the 7-second limit) on L40S GPUs while utilizing less than 30GB of the available 48GB VRAM, demonstrating efficiency alongside performance. This computational efficiency also contributes to reduced energy consumption and lower carbon footprint compared to less optimized approaches. The proposed solution achieved top performance in the Commonsense Persona-Grounded Dialogue Challenge 2025, securing the second position in the competition.

Reasoning-focused LLMs sometimes alter their behavior when they detect that they are being evaluated, which can lead them to optimize for test-passing performance or to comply more readily with harmful prompts if real-world consequences appear absent. We present the first quantitative study of how such "test awareness" impacts model behavior, particularly its performance on safety-related tasks. We introduce a white-box probing framework that (i) linearly identifies awareness-related activations and (ii) steers models toward or away from test awareness while monitoring downstream performance. We apply our method to different state-of-the-art open-weight reasoning LLMs across both realistic and hypothetical tasks (denoting tests or simulations). Our results demonstrate that test awareness significantly impacts safety alignment (such as compliance with harmful requests and conforming to stereotypes) with effects varying in both magnitude and direction across models. By providing control over this latent effect, our work aims to provide a stress-test mechanism and increase trust in how we perform safety evaluations.

Tool calling has become increasingly popular for Large Language Models (LLMs). However, for large tool sets, the resulting tokens would exceed the LLM's context window limit, making it impossible to include every tool. Hence, an external retriever is used to provide LLMs with the most relevant tools for a query. Existing retrieval models rank tools based on the similarity between a user query and a tool description (TD). This leads to suboptimal retrieval as user requests are often poorly aligned with the language of TD. To remedy the issue, we propose ToolDreamer, a framework to condition retriever models to fetch tools based on hypothetical (synthetic) TD generated using an LLM, i.e., description of tools that the LLM feels will be potentially useful for the query. The framework enables a more natural alignment between queries and tools within the language space of TD's. We apply ToolDreamer on the ToolRet dataset and show that our method improves the performance of sparse and dense retrievers with and without training, thus showcasing its flexibility. Through our proposed framework, our aim is to offload a portion of the reasoning burden to the retriever so that the LLM may effectively handle a large collection of tools without inundating its context window.

Accurate coding of tumor diagnoses with ICD-10-GM and ICD-O-3 is essential for structured cancer documentation in Germany. Smaller open-weight LLMs are appealing for privacy-preserving automation but often struggle with coding accuracy in German-language contexts. This study investigates whether instruction-based fine-tuning on public datasets improves the coding accuracy of open-weight LLMs for German tumor diagnosis texts. The evaluation uses coded diagnoses from the local tumor documentation system as test data. In a systematic data quality assessment, the upper limit for ICD-10 coding performance was estimated at 60-79% for exact and 81-94% for partial (three-character codes only) derivation. As training data, over 500,000 question-answer pairs were created based on the ICD-10-GM, ICD-O-3, and OPS catalogues. Eight open-weight models from the Qwen, Llama, and Mistral families (7-70 B parameters) were fine-tuned. ICD-10-GM accuracy rose from 1.4-24% to 41-58%, and partial accuracy from 31-74% to 73-83%. The accuracy of ICD-O-3 topography coding also improved but started and remained considerably lower with an exact accuracy of 22-40% and a partial accuracy of 56-67% after fine-tuning. Malformed code outputs dropped to 0% for all models. Tumor-diagnosis recognition reached 99%. Accuracy correlated positively with model size, but gaps between small and large models narrowed after fine-tuning. The reasoning mode in Qwen3 generally yielded a lower performance than fine-tuning and was over 100 times slower. Our findings highlight the potential of leveraging public catalogues to build instruction datasets that improve LLMs in medical documentation tasks. The complete training dataset and the best-performing checkpoints of the fine-tuned models are available from https://huggingface.co/datasets/stefan-m-lenz/ICDOPS-QA-2024.

Evaluating language models fairly is becoming harder as static benchmarks available on the internet risk contamination by training data. This makes it unclear whether models are truly reasoning or just recalling answers. In this paper, we introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids this problem by using algorithmic problem generation. Unlike traditional benchmarks that risk contamination from internet-scale training data, BeyondBench creates mathematically grounded problems on the fly, ensuring each test remains fresh and uncontaminated. Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels: the Easy Suite (29 tasks) for basic arithmetic and statistics, the Medium Suite (5 tasks, 49 variations) for sequence patterns and reasoning, and the Hard Suite (10 tasks, 68 variations) tackling NP-complete and constraint satisfaction problems. Each task generates problems from a combinatorial space larger than 10^15 unique instances, with solutions verified deterministically by mathematical proofs. We evaluated 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters and multiple quantization schemes. Our results show consistent reasoning deficiencies across model families, with performance degrading sharply as problem complexity increases from polynomial to exponential. In our Hard Suite evaluations, models such as Gemini-2.5-pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B achieved average accuracies of 56.38%, 26.91%, and 33.60%, respectively. Moreover, we observe that performance drops drastically without tool usage, with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano showing a decline of 16.81%, 28.05%, and 47.59% accuracy on the hard suite. Our leaderboard is publicly available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/BeyondBench/

Understanding how Large Language Models (LLMs) perform complex reasoning and their failure mechanisms is a challenge in interpretability research. To provide a measurable geometric analysis perspective, we define the concept of the Reasoning Manifold, a latent low-dimensional geometric structure formed by the internal representations corresponding to all correctly reasoned generations. This structure can be conceptualized as the embodiment of the effective thinking paths that the model has learned to successfully solve a given task. Based on this concept, we build REMA, a framework that explains the origins of failures by quantitatively comparing the spatial relationships of internal model representations corresponding to both erroneous and correct reasoning samples. Specifically, REMA first quantifies the geometric deviation of each erroneous representation by calculating its k-nearest neighbors distance to the approximated manifold formed by correct representations, thereby providing a unified failure signal. It then localizes the divergence points where these deviations first become significant by tracking this deviation metric across the model's layers and comparing it against a baseline of internal fluctuations from correct representations, thus identifying where the reasoning chain begins to go off-track. Our extensive experiments on diverse language and multimodal models and tasks demonstrate the low-dimensional nature of the reasoning manifold and the high separability between erroneous and correct reasoning representations. The results also validate the effectiveness of the REMA framework in analyzing the origins of reasoning failures. This research connects abstract reasoning failures to measurable geometric deviations in representations, providing new avenues for in-depth understanding and diagnosis of the internal computational processes of black-box models.