Auditing Semantic Gains in Sequential Recommendation: A Lightweight Recovery Test

Recent semantic and generative-retrieval recommenders report substantial improvements over ID-only sequential baselines, but it remains unclear whether these gains arise from language-model reasoning, semantic-ID generation, end-to-end semantic architectures, stronger offline item representations, or complementary semantic and collaborative signals. We investigate this attribution ambiguity through LIME-Rec, a lightweight and auditable recovery test. LIME-Rec combines three independent experts: a SASRec sequential expert, an ItemCF co-occurrence expert, and a semantic expert based on frozen BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5 item embeddings. Their full-catalog scores are normalized per user and combined through auditable score-level fusion followed by bounded history calibration. The fusion gate and calibration head are fitted on validation data only, require no serving-time language-model inference, and keep each expert contribution separately inspectable. On Amazon Beauty, Toys, and Sports, LIME-Rec achieves R@10 scores of 0.0996, 0.1105, and 0.0593, outperforming the strongest comparison baseline by 7.0%-12.0%. Three-expert fusion without history calibration consistently outperforms calibrated SASRec, showing that calibration alone does not explain the recovery. Randomly permuting item-text embeddings across item IDs reduces R@10 by 13.6%-17.5%, indicating that the gains depend on genuine item-text correspondence rather than additional representation capacity. These results suggest that lightweight recovery from offline item representations and transparent fusion should be ruled out before improvements are attributed to serving-time language modeling, semantic-ID generation, or heavier semantic machinery.

FinToolBench: Evaluating LLM Agents for Real-World Financial Tool Use

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into the financial domain is driving a paradigm shift from passive information retrieval to dynamic, agentic interaction. While general-purpose tool learning has witnessed a surge in benchmarks, the financial sector, characterized by high stakes, strict compliance, and rapid data volatility, remains critically underserved. Existing financial evaluations predominantly focus on static textual analysis or document-based QA, ignoring the complex reality of tool execution. Conversely, general tool benchmarks lack the domain-specific rigor required for finance, often relying on toy environments or a negligible number of financial APIs. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinToolBench, the first real-world, runnable benchmark dedicated to evaluating financial tool learning agents. Unlike prior works limited to a handful of mock tools, FinToolBench establishes a realistic ecosystem coupling 760 executable financial tools with 295 rigorous, tool-required queries. We propose a novel evaluation framework that goes beyond binary execution success, assessing agents on finance-critical dimensions: timeliness, intent type, and regulatory domain alignment. Furthermore, we present FATR, a finance-aware tool retrieval and reasoning baseline that enhances stability and compliance. By providing the first testbed for auditable, agentic financial execution, FinToolBench sets a new standard for trustworthy AI in finance. The tool manifest, execution environment, and evaluation code will be open-sourced to facilitate future research.