Tracing content requirements in financial documents using multi-granularity text analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The completeness (in terms of content) of financial documents is a fundamental requirement for investment funds. To ensure completeness, financial regulators have to spend significant time carefully checking every financial document based on relevant content requirements, which prescribe the information types to be included in financial documents (e.g., the fund name, the description of shares’ issue conditions and procedures). Although several techniques have been proposed to automatically detect certain types of information in documents across application domains, they provide limited support to help regulators automatically identify the text chunks related to financial information types, due to the complexity of financial documents and the diversity of the sentences typically characterizing an information type. In this paper, we propose FITI to trace content requirements in financial documents with multi-granularity text analysis. Given a new financial document, FITI first selects a set of candidate sentences for efficient information type identification. Then, to rank candidate sentences, FITI uses a combination of rule-based and data-centric approaches, by leveraging information retrieval (IR) and machine learning (ML) techniques that analyze the words, sentences, and contexts related to an information type. Finally, using a list of domain-specific indicator phrases related to each information type, a heuristic-based selector, which considers both the sentence ranking and domain-specific phrases, determines a list of sentences corresponding to each information type. We evaluated FITI by assessing its effectiveness in tracing financial content requirements in 100 real-world financial documents. Experimental results show that FITI is able to provide accurate identification with average precision, recall, and $$\hbox {F}_1$$ F 1 -score values of 0.824, 0.646, and 0.716, respectively. The overall accuracy of FITI significantly outperforms the best baseline (based on a transformer language model) by 0.266 in terms of $$\hbox {F}_1$$ F 1 -score. Furthermore, FITI can help regulators detect about 80% of missing information types in financial documents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".