Skip to content
← Back to explorer

When Tables Go Crazy: Evaluating Multimodal Models on French Financial Documents

Virginie Mouilleron, Théo Lasnier, Anna Mosolova, Djamé Seddah · Feb 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Stale

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 16, 2026, 4:04 PM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Mar 16, 2026, 4:04 PM

Stale

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence unavailable

Abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored. This gap is especially critical in finance, where documents mix dense regulatory text, numerical tables, and visual charts, and where extraction errors can have real-world consequences. We introduce Multimodal Finance Eval, the first multimodal benchmark for evaluating French financial document understanding. The dataset contains 1,204 expert-validated questions spanning text extraction, table comprehension, chart interpretation, and multi-turn conversational reasoning, drawn from real investment prospectuses, KIDs, and PRIIPs. We evaluate six open-weight VLMs (8B-124B parameters) using an LLM-as-judge protocol. While models achieve strong performance on text and table tasks (85-90% accuracy), they struggle with chart interpretation (34-62%). Most notably, multi-turn dialogue reveals a sharp failure mode: early mistakes propagate across turns, driving accuracy down to roughly 50% regardless of model size. These results show that current VLMs are effective for well-defined extraction tasks but remain brittle in interactive, multi-step financial analysis. Multimodal Finance Eval offers a challenging benchmark to measure and drive progress in this high-stakes setting.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

Expert verification

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

Automatic metrics, Long Horizon tasks

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Accuracy

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: While models achieve strong performance on text and table tasks (85-90% accuracy), they struggle with chart interpretation (34-62%).

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: The dataset contains 1,204 expert-validated questions spanning text extraction, table comprehension, chart interpretation, and multi-turn conversational reasoning, drawn from real investment prospectuses, KIDs, and PRIIPs.

Human Data Lens

Structured extraction is still processing. Below are provisional signals inferred from abstract text only.

  • Potential human-data signal: Expert verification
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are currently inferred heuristically from abstract text.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.

Generated Mar 16, 2026, 4:04 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on many document understanding tasks, yet their reliability in specialized, non-English domains remains underexplored.
  • This gap is especially critical in finance, where documents mix dense regulatory text, numerical tables, and visual charts, and where extraction errors can have real-world consequences.
  • We introduce Multimodal Finance Eval, the first multimodal benchmark for evaluating French financial document understanding.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.