arXiv:2510.25065v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in sparse reward policy gradient methods have enabled effective reinforcement learning (RL)-based language model post-training. However, for reasoning tasks such as mathematical problem solving, binarized outcome rewards provide limited feedback on intermediate reasoning steps. While some studies have attempted to address this issue by estimating overall reasoning quality, it remains unclear whether these rewards are reliable proxies for the quality of stepwise reasoning. In this study, we consider reasoning as a structured process and propose TACReward, the reward model that can be seamlessly integrated into sparse reward policy gradient methods without additional human annotation costs or architectural modifications. TACReward aggregates stepwise structural deviations between teacher and policy reasoning using process mining techniques, producing a scalar output reward range of [0, 1] to indicate reasoning quality. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that integrating the TACReward into sparse reward frameworks encourages the policy model to improve the structural quality of reasoning. Consequently, this leads to consistent performance improvements over existing sparse reward frameworks. Our code and checkpoints are publicly available at https://github.com/Thrillcrazyer/TACReward and https://huggingface.co/Thrillcrazyer/TACReward7B.

arXiv:2602.14233v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into financial workflows, but evaluation practice has not kept up. Finance-specific biases can inflate performance, contaminate backtests, and make reported results useless for any deployment claim. We identify five recurring biases in financial LLM applications. They include look-ahead bias, survivorship bias, narrative bias, objective bias, and cost bias. These biases break financial tasks in distinct ways and they often compound to create an illusion of validity. We reviewed 164 papers from 2023 to 2025 and found that no single bias is discussed in more than 28 percent of studies. This position paper argues that bias in financial LLM systems requires explicit attention and that structural validity should be enforced before any result is used to support a deployment claim. We propose a Structural Validity Framework and an evaluation checklist with minimal requirements for bias diagnosis and future system design. The material is available at https://github.com/Eleanorkong/Awesome-Financial-LLM-Bias-Mitigation.