Evaluates the quality, schema compliance, diversity, and factual grounding of automatically extracted financial knowledge graph triples from SEC 10-K filings. It measures rule-based compliance, entity and relation coverage, semantic diversity via entropy, and comparative quality using an LLM-as-a-Judge framework. Use when the user wants to benchmark on S&P 100 SEC 10-K Filings (2024), or asks about evaluating this task. Reports CheckRules.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill finreflectkg-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Finreflectkg Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-finreflectkg-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: finreflectkg-eval
description: Evaluates the quality, schema compliance, diversity, and factual grounding of automatically extracted financial knowledge graph triples from SEC 10-K filings. It measures rule-based compliance, entity and relation coverage, semantic diversity via entropy, and comparative quality using an LLM-as-a-Judge framework. Use when the user wants to benchmark on S&P 100 SEC 10-K Filings (2024), or asks about evaluating this task. Reports CheckRules.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2508.17906
bibtex_key: arun2025finreflectkg
confidence: high
---
# finreflectkg-eval
> FinReflectKG: Agentic Construction and Evaluation of Financial Knowledge Graphs — Arun et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.17906, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the quality, schema compliance, diversity, and factual grounding of automatically extracted financial knowledge graph triples from SEC 10-K filings. It measures rule-based compliance, entity and relation coverage, semantic diversity via entropy, and comparative quality using an LLM-as-a-Judge framework.
## Datasets
- **S&P 100 SEC 10-K Filings (2024)** — total 100; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `CheckRules` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- CR(t) = (1/R) * sum(phi_i(t)) for i=1 to R, where phi_i(t) is 1 if triple t complies with rule i, else 0. R=4 rules: Subject Reference, Entity Length Constraint, Entity Schema Compliance, Relationship Schema Compliance.
- `Entity Coverage Ratio (ECR)` — range: [0, 1]
- Proportion of unique entities relative to total extracted elements, measuring extraction completeness.
- `Shannon Entropy` — range: other
- H(X) = -sum(p_i * log2(p_i)) over normalized frequency distributions of entities, types, or relationships to quantify semantic diversity.
- `LLM-as-a-Judge Score` — range: percent
- Comparative scores for Precision, Faithfulness, Comprehensiveness, and Relevance. Evaluated via Qwen3-32B (temp=0.1) with 3 independent votes and a 4th tie-breaker vote when consensus is not reached.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Extracted triples (subject, relation, object) per document chunk, source text chunk, and predefined entity/relation schema.
**Output**: Per-triple compliance flags, aggregate coverage ratios, entropy values, and LLM-as-a-Judge comparative scores (percentages).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_checkrules(triples, rules):
scores = []
for t in triples:
compliant = [1 if check_rule(t, r) else 0 for r in rules]
scores.append(sum(compliant) / len(rules))
return scores
def compute_llm_judge(triples, source_text, judge_model='Qwen3-32B', temp=0.1):
votes = []
for _ in range(3):
votes.append(judge_model.generate(prompt=f'Rate precision, faithfulness, etc. for {triples} given {source_text}', temperature=temp))
if len(set(votes)) > 1:
votes.append(judge_model.generate(prompt='Tie-breaker for...', temperature=temp))
return majority_vote(votes)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Abstract references like 'the company' or 'we' are explicitly flagged as non-compliant in CheckRules, requiring canonicalization to specific names or tickers.
- Lower Shannon/Rényi entropy in the reflection method is intentional to reduce redundancy and improve graph navigability, not a metric failure.
- LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation deliberately avoids Chain-of-Thought prompting to prevent overthinking, and requires a 4th tie-breaker vote when initial 3 votes disagree.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> To address these systematic issues, CheckRules evaluates each extracted triple against a set of rules: Subject Reference, Entity Length Constraint, Entity Schema Compliance, Relationship Schema Compliance. Each extracted triple is individually evaluated against these rules. For a triple t with R rules, the CheckRules score is: CR(t) = (1/R) sum(phi_i(t)) where phi_i(t) in {0,1} indicates compliance.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{arun2025finreflectkg,
title={FinReflectKG: Agentic Construction and Evaluation of Financial Knowledge Graphs},
author={Arun et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2508.17906}
}
```
- arXiv: 2508.17906
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!