Neural networks applied to financial time series operate in a regime of underspecification, where predictors achieve comparable out-of-sample error. Using large-scale volatility forecasting for S&P 500 stocks--twelve architecture-optimizer configurations, thirteen seeds each, evaluated on 564,795 held-out observations--we show that comparable test loss conceals measurably different predictors. In eleven of twelve comparisons, models trained from identical initialization and identical data order diverge $1.3$ to $7.8$ times further than repeated runs of either optimizer alone, ruling out initialization noise as the explanation. On a common scale, predictions differ by 5--17\% of the typical forecast error while the models' error magnitudes differ by less than 0.7\% of it. The divergence reshapes nonlinear response profiles, temporal dependence, and ultimately decisions: volatility-ranked portfolios trace a Sharpe-turnover frontier with up to 58\% turnover dispersion at comparable gross Sharpe ratios. In underspecified settings, optimization is a consequential source of inductive bias, and model evaluation must extend beyond scalar loss to functional and decision-level behavior.
Hoyoung Lee, Suyeol Yun, Jack Haverty, Yunju Cho, Meesong Kim, Daekyung Park, Sumin Kim, Jihoon Kwon 等 20 位作者
Evaluating finance research agents requires rubrics that reflect expert standards and fix the values correct as of an information cutoff. Expert-reviewed finance benchmarks rely on fixed, per-item rubrics, which are costly to extend and cannot encode each institution's own standard. In FinAutoRubric, experts specify reusable evaluation guidance, while agents and code carry out query-specific rubric generation, review, and validation. This expert guidance governs every agent, as prompts and as rules that code enforces, and a Task Bank of reusable criteria carries it across tasks. In long-horizon loops that follow the expert guidance, a writer agent researches every expected value and a reviewer agent verifies it, and failures escalate to a human. On three expert-authored finance benchmarks, its rubrics track expert scoring as closely as the strongest evaluated generator while stating the expert rubric's expected value for more criteria, their scores agree with human grading, and in-house analysts prefer them in a blind review. The released 100-query FinAutoRubric Benchmark, built from in-house analysts' key questions across 78 tasks and eight asset classes, shows that rubrics from an earlier model generation still leave headroom for a later one.