AgentFinVQA: A Deployable Multi-Agent Pipeline for Auditable Financial Chart QA
arXiv AIArchived Jun 19, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.19782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial chart question answering in regulated settings demands more than accuracy: practitioners must know which answers to trust before acting on them, and many institutions cannot send client data to external model providers. Yet existing chart-QA agents are accuracy-focused and opaque, and most assume proprietary API access; to our knowledge, none combines auditability with on-premise deployability without significant accuracy compromise. We p
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 18 Jun 2026]
AgentFinVQA: A Deployable Multi-Agent Pipeline for Auditable Financial Chart QA
Aravind Narayanan, Shaina Raza
Financial chart question answering in regulated settings demands more than accuracy: practitioners must know which answers to trust before acting on them, and many institutions cannot send client data to external model providers. Yet existing chart-QA agents are accuracy-focused and opaque, and most assume proprietary API access; to our knowledge, none combines auditability with on-premise deployability without significant accuracy compromise. We present AgentFinVQA, a multi-agent pipeline that decomposes each query into planning, OCR, legend grounding, visual inspection, and verification, recording every step in a traceable Model Evaluation Packet (MEP) per sample. On FinMME, AgentFinVQA improves +7.68 pp over a primary-backbone matched zero-shot baseline with a proprietary backbone (Gemini-3 Flash; 71.24% vs. 63.56%, McNemar p \approx 1.1 \times 10^{-16}), and +4.84 pp with open-weights Qwen3.6-27B-FP8 served locally. The verifier's verdict also serves as a useful confidence signal (68.2% vs. 55.6% exact accuracy on confirmed vs. revised answers), enabling human-in-the-loop review routing. Error analysis shows that question misunderstanding, legend confusion and extraction error account for nearly two-thirds of failures and are the categories least detected by the verifier, identifying clear directions for future work. Together these results show that auditable, on-premise financial chart QA is practical and that the open-weights system keeps most of the accuracy gains while enabling full data residency. We release our code to support reproducible evaluation.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.19782 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.19782v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.19782
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Aravind Narayanan [view email]
[v1] Thu, 18 Jun 2026 04:33:07 UTC (490 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)