Papers
arxiv:2610.38293

EPSBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Earnings Forecasting

Published on Oct 28
ยท Submitted by
Liqin Ye
on Oct 30
Authors:
,
,
,
,

Abstract

The study introduces EPSBench to evaluate AI agents in forecasting quarterly earnings by linking financial evidence to income-statement drivers and comparing model predictions to analyst consensus.

Quarterly earnings forecasting requires an agent to connect financial evidence to the income-statement line items that produce a company's reported earnings. We introduce EPSBench, a benchmark for studying this ability across 149 firm-quarters from 86 US companies. Agents read a fixed collection of filings, earnings-call transcripts, and news, then estimate company-specific income-statement drivers with cited evidence. A shared accounting calculator converts these estimates into GAAP diluted earnings per share (EPS), providing a common basis for comparing forecast assumptions. We evaluate six models under a common harness, assessing point forecast error relative to date-matched analyst consensus and checking whether their prediction intervals achieve the stated coverage. Three models show no detectable paired difference in point forecast error from consensus, and three have higher error. Across all six models, nominal 80% intervals contain reported EPS in only 37--70% of runs that return an interval, and most misses fall above the upper bound because the forecasts run low. The driver records trace most of the error gap between models to operating-income estimates.

Community

Paper submitter

Excited to share EPSBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Earnings Forecasting!

EPSBench evaluates whether LLM agents can forecast quarterly earnings by reasoning over financial filings, earnings calls, and news, and estimating income-statement drivers with supporting evidence.

Across 149 firm-quarters from 86 US companies, we evaluate six models against analyst consensus.

๐Ÿ” Key findings:

  • Three models achieve point forecast errors statistically indistinguishable from analyst consensus.
  • All six models are overconfident: nominal 80% prediction intervals cover actual earnings only 37โ€“70% of the time.
  • Errors in operating-income estimates explain most of the performance differences between models.

We hope EPSBench encourages further research into reliable, evidence-grounded financial forecasting agents. Feedback and discussions are welcome!

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2610.38293
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.38293 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.38293 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.38293 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.