InvestPhilBench D
AI benchmark · Finance
Full listing name: InvestPhilBench: A Multi-Layer Dynamic Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Procedural Reasoning in Expert Investment Philosophy
What is InvestPhilBench?
Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors. We introduce InvestPhilBench, a multi-layer dynamic benchmark spanning eight cognitive tiers, from principle identification (L1) to novel framework extrapolation (L8). The v0.6 release comprises 118 primary-source-verified investment principle cards, 25 decision framework cards with explicit topology metadata, and 243 QA questions (197 dev / 46 held-out test). For reproducible scoring at scale we introduce the Benchmark Automated Scoring Pipeline (BASP) -- five algorithmic metrics (OGRS, KCCS, SAP@k, IVP, CKCA) -- the Failure Mode Detection Protocol (FMDP) with computable rules for six failure modes, and Gate Reconstruction Accuracy (GRA), a per-gate metric for questions with gold reasoning programs. In this release, InvestPhilBench is primarily a benchmark-and-methodology contribution. A four-model sanity wave on the 188-question development split shows a sharp provider-tier split (BASP 0.906 vs. 0.438); these mixed-judge numbers are confounded upper bounds. The central finding: the BASP composite saturates at the frontier (Claude L4 = 0.932) while GRA still exposes a procedural deficit (frontier L4 GRA approx. 0.77, L7 GRA 0.57-0.62) -- composite scoring rewards fluent prose and hides the procedural gap. v0.6 implements a unified judge and true model-in-the-loop retrieval/oracle conditions; the de-confounded multi-model leaderboard and full three-condition run are v1.0 deliverables. On a 100-item expert-annotated gold set the automated BASP composite tracks the human reference at Pearson r = 0.72 (MAE = 0.10), with attribution (SAP@3) the weakest sub-metric and the failure-mode detector running sensitive-but-over-flagging.
Tier D
Long tail: little or no usage data yet.
How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.
- 4 models scored
- fewer than 5 models scored
- in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
- Adoption: 4 models scored; fewer than 5 models scored. Tier D.
- Not yet read on X.
- In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
- Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.
Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.
Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.