A Methodology for Assessing the Risk of Metric Failure in LLMs Within the Financial Domain

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.13524
• Title: A Methodology for Assessing the Risk of Metric Failure in LLMs Within the Financial Domain
• Authors: William Flanagan, Mukunda Das, Rajitha Ramanyake, Swanuja Maslekar, Meghana Mangipudi, Jeel Shah, Joong Ho Choi, Shruti Nair, Shambhavi Bhusan, Sanjana Dulam, Mouni Pendharkar, Nidhi Singh, Vashisth Doshi, Sachi Shah Paresh
• Institutions: BNY Responsible AI Office, BNY AI Hub, Carnegie Mellon University
• Classification: cs.AI
• Conference: 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13524

Abstract

With the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence in the financial services industry, model performance evaluation has become a critical barrier to adoption and deployment. Traditional machine learning metrics often fail to generalize to GenAI workloads and typically require supplementation through subject matter expert (SME) assessment. Even with this combined approach, many projects fail to adequately consider the various unique risks inherent in selecting specific metrics. Furthermore, many widely-used benchmarks created by foundational research laboratories and educational institutions fail to generalize to industrial applications. This paper explains these challenges and provides a risk assessment framework for better application of SME and machine learning metrics.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem Identification

This research addresses critical evaluation challenges when deploying generative AI in the financial domain:

• Metric Generalization Failure: Traditional ML metrics fail to effectively evaluate GenAI performance in financial scenarios
• Benchmark Disconnect: Benchmarks developed in academia show significant gaps with actual industrial requirements
• Overlooked Assessment Risks: Existing evaluation methods insufficiently consider risks inherent in metric selection itself

2. Problem Significance

The unique characteristics of the financial industry make this problem particularly important:

• High-Risk Environment: Financial decision errors can result in massive economic losses and regulatory penalties
• Stringent Regulatory Requirements: Must satisfy transparency, explainability, and compliance requirements
• High Trust Requirements: Employee and customer trust in AI systems is critical for successful deployment

3. Real-World Case Drivers

The paper illustrates serious consequences of evaluation failures through concrete examples:

• Apple Card Credit Discrimination Incident: Algorithmic bias led to gender discrimination, damaging customer trust despite legal compliance
• UnitedHealth and Cigna Insurance Claims Disputes: AI systems automatically rejected medical claims without adequate human review

Core Contributions

1. Identified Critical Challenges in GenAI Evaluation: Systematically analyzed limitations of traditional metrics in financial GenAI applications
2. Proposed a Five-Dimensional Risk Classification Framework: Established a comprehensive classification system encompassing data, model, process, governance, and ethical risks
3. Constructed a Practical Risk Assessment Methodology: Provided financial institutions with actionable strategies for identifying and mitigating metric failure risks
4. Bridged Academic Research and Industrial Practice: Clarified gaps between academic benchmarks and enterprise requirements with proposed solutions

Methodology Details

Task Definition

This research aims to establish a systematic framework for:

• Identification: Discovering various risk patterns where GenAI evaluation metrics may fail
• Assessment: Quantifying the probability and impact magnitude of these risks
• Mitigation: Providing targeted risk management measures

Risk Classification Framework

The paper proposes five major risk categories, each containing specific failure modes:

1. Data Risk

• Distribution Shift
  • Definition: Input data deviates over time from the data slice used to calibrate metrics
  • Probability: High | Impact: High
  • Mitigation Measures: Establish automated data drift detectors and conduct periodic metric revalidation
• Label Drift
  • Definition: Evolution of SME judgment standards (e.g., new guidelines changing the definition of "factuality")
  • Probability: Medium | Impact: Medium
  • Mitigation Measures: Maintain versioned annotation guidelines and track inter-annotator agreement

2. Model Risk

• Calibration Drift
  • Definition: Changes in score distributions across model versions, masking true performance degradation
  • Probability: Medium | Impact: High
  • Mitigation Measures: Deploy control charts; trigger automatic recalibration when distributions exceed thresholds
• Adversarial Vulnerability
  • Definition: Small input perturbations cause large deviations in metric outputs
  • Probability: Low | Impact: High
  • Mitigation Measures: Harden preprocessing; conduct fuzzing tests with adversarial samples

3. Process and Annotation Risk

• Annotation Inconsistency
• Action Bias
• Scope Misalignment
• Scalability Constraints

4. Governance and Compliance Risk

• Documentation Gaps
• Knowledge Continuity Risk
• Domain-Intensive Metrics
• Regulatory Misalignment

5. Ethical and Reputational Risk

• Bias and Fairness Failures
• Hallucination Escape

Technical Innovations

1. Systematic Risk Classification: First comprehensive risk classification system for GenAI evaluation in the financial domain
2. Probability-Impact Matrix: Provides quantitative probability and impact assessment for each risk pattern
3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies: Each risk type is equipped with specific technical and management mitigation measures
4. Hybrid Assessment Methodology: Combines advantages of automated metrics and SME assessment, proposing innovative approaches such as "LLM-as-Judge"

Experimental Setup

Evaluation Methodology

The paper employs an evaluation approach based on actual industrial experience:

• Expert Judgment: Risk probability and impact determined based on actual experience from BNY internal SMEs
• Case Studies: Real-world cases such as Apple Card and UnitedHealth validate the effectiveness of the risk classification
• Comparative Analysis: Systematic comparison between academic benchmarks and actual industrial requirements

Data Sources

• Internal Practice Data: Actual project experience from BNY Responsible AI Office and AI Hub
• Regulatory Requirements: EU AI Act, OCC manuals, and other regulatory documents
• Industry Cases: Publicly documented AI failure cases and litigation records

Experimental Results

Key Findings

1. Significant Academic-Industrial Gap:
   • Academic benchmarks such as MMLU and SWE-bench fail to reflect the complexity of actual enterprise workloads
   • Laboratory evaluation focuses on "can the model solve this test," while enterprises need "can the system provide reliable, auditable, cost-effective outputs under real conditions"
2. Trust is a Critical Barrier:
   • Incorrect LLM responses immediately undermine employee confidence in the system
   • In high-risk regulatory environments, even a single error can completely destroy confidence
3. Regulatory Compliance Challenges:
   • Closed-source LLMs restrict bank visibility into training data and weights
   • Regulators expect banks to develop use-case-specific new metrics such as hallucination rates and factual consistency

Risk Priority Ranking

Based on probability-impact analysis, the following risks require priority attention:

• High Probability-High Impact: Distribution shift, documentation gaps, knowledge continuity risk, hallucination escape
• Medium Probability-High Impact: Calibration drift, annotation inconsistency, action bias

Related Work

Traditional ML Evaluation Methods

• Classical Metrics: Accuracy, precision, F1 score, ROUGE, BLEU, etc.
• Limitations: Cannot capture creativity, factuality, and contextual relevance of GenAI outputs

GenAI Evaluation Research

• Academic Benchmarks: MMLU, SWE-bench, and other general capability tests
• Industrial Requirements: Task success rate, compliance fidelity, error severity, operational feasibility

Financial AI Risk Management

• Regulatory Frameworks: EU AI Act, OCC guidelines, etc.
• Industry Practices: Explainable AI, human review processes, clear documentation requirements

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Evaluation Framework Requires Redesign: Traditional ML metrics are insufficient for evaluating financial GenAI applications; integration with business KPIs and regulatory requirements is necessary
2. Risk Management is Critical: Metric selection itself carries multidimensional risks requiring systematic identification and mitigation
3. Academic-Industry Collaboration is Essential: Collaboration between academia and industry is needed to develop domain-specific evaluation methodologies

Limitations

1. Scope Constraints: Research limited to generative AI applications in the financial domain
2. Subjectivity: Risk levels and probability judgments based on SME experience within a specific organization
3. Generalizability: Risk severity may vary across different financial institutions and use cases

Future Directions

1. Automated Monitoring Systems: Develop systems capable of real-time detection of concept drift and data drift
2. Adversarial Testing: Establish more comprehensive stress testing and adversarial evaluation methodologies
3. Cross-Domain Extension: Extend the risk assessment framework to other high-risk industries

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Practice-Oriented: Based on genuine industrial experience with strong practical value
2. Systematic Approach: Provides comprehensive risk classification and mitigation strategies
3. High Timeliness: Promptly addresses urgent needs for GenAI applications in finance
4. Strong Actionability: Each risk type provides specific mitigation measures

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Quantitative Analysis: Lacks detailed experimental data and quantitative validation
2. Limited Theoretical Depth: More empirical summary than theoretical innovation
3. Inadequate Method Validation: Insufficient controlled experiments or effectiveness verification

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new perspectives and frameworks for GenAI evaluation research
2. Industrial Value: Offers practical guidance for financial institutions deploying GenAI
3. Regulatory Reference: Can inform regulatory agencies in developing relevant policies

Applicable Scenarios

• AI risk management departments in financial institutions
• Evaluation and verification teams for GenAI products
• Regulatory agencies developing AI governance policies
• AI application evaluation in other high-risk industries

References

The paper cites multiple important regulatory documents, industry reports, and academic research, including:

• EU AI Act related documents
• U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) manuals
• Apple Card investigation reports
• McKinsey research on AI trust
• Relevant legal litigation cases

These references provide strong support for the paper's arguments, demonstrating research rigor and authority.