PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning
November 14, 2025 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Afra Feyza Akyรผrek, Advait Gosai, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Vipul Gupta, Jaehwan Jeong, Anisha Gunjal, Tahseen Rabbani, Maria Mazzone, David Randolph, Mohammad Mahmoudi Meymand, Gurshaan Chattha, Paula Rodriguez, Diego Mares, Pavit Singh, Michael Liu, Subodh Chawla, Pete Cline, Lucy Ogaz, Ernesto Hernandez, Zihao Wang, Pavi Bhatter, Marcos Ayestaran, Bing Liu, Yunzhong He
arXiv ID
2511.11562
Category
cs.CL: Computation & Language
Cross-listed
cs.CY
Citations
5
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Computation & Language
๐
๐
Old Age
๐
๐
Old Age
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
๐
๐
Old Age
XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translation
๐
๐
Old Age
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
๐
๐
Old Age
HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted