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
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.
๐ 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 37โ70% 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
- From SEC Filings to Financial Signals: Evaluating LLMs on Stock Market Reactions and Analyst Forecasts (2026)
- Forecast-Dojo: Replayable Environments for Benchmarking and Training LLM Forecasting Agents (2026)
- CAME: Company-Aware Evidence-Memory Experts for Interpretable Quarter-Ahead Revenue Forecasting (2026)
- NumTrace: Auditing the Number Provenance of Financial Analyst Agents (2026)
- The Price of Thought: Does Test-Time Reasoning Pay in LLM Trading? (2026)
- When AI Advisors Agree: Distinguishing Forecast Risk from Forecast Reliability (2026)
- Momentum, Commentary Tone, and Earnings Surprise in LLM Financial Forecasts (2026)
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
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
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper