FinGovBench / METHOD_INDEPENDENCE.md
redqueen77's picture
Add reproducible TF-IDF baseline and open-weight reference evaluation
f2ca97c verified
|
Raw History Blame Contribute Delete
2.14 kB

Method independence

FinGovBench evaluates governance of a financial AI workflow. It does not require any particular model architecture or graph-based submission.

Independent benchmark object

Each public case declares the operational workflow boundary, versioned components, dependencies, evidence available at the case's as_of time, assurance claims, authority tier, permitted actions and observed change. This is a system specification analogous to an architecture or lineage record. It contains no method-specific probabilities, path contributions or certificates.

Gold outcomes are defined by the financial event and governance contract:

  • SEC cases use an official accession-level reported-value pair and a declared workflow contract; their labels remain provisional until independent domain adjudication.
  • controlled cases use a prespecified event, authority boundary and executable contract.
  • the evaluator, not a submitted method, determines whether the selected action and revalidation scope permit release.

What a submission must do

A method receives the same workflow declaration and must return the affected components, governance action, revalidation components and release decision. A submission may use rules, a flat uncertainty model, an LLM, a knowledge graph or another method. It may transform the neutral workflow declaration into its preferred internal format.

Optional graph-based methods

Graph-based uncertainty propagation is one optional evaluated approach. It must read exactly the same public closed-loop inputs as lexical and flat-uncertainty comparators. No method-specific telemetry or labels are provided.

Anti-circularity requirements

Before version 1.0:

  1. independent reviewers must adjudicate event validity, required action and revalidation scope without seeing any method prediction;
  2. submitted predictions cannot alter gold labels or case inclusion;
  3. all methods receive the same public inputs and sealed test labels;
  4. genuine and controlled results remain separate; and
  5. any threshold or learned policy freezes on development data before test evaluation.