Beyond Visual Realism: Toward Reliable Financial Time Series Generation

Generative models for financial time series often create data that look realistic and even reproduce stylized facts such as fat tails or volatility clustering. However, these apparent successes break down under trading backtests: models like GANs or WGAN-GP frequently collapse, yielding extreme and unrealistic results that make the synthetic data unusable in practice. We identify the root cause in the neglect of financial asymmetry and rare tail events, which strongly affect market risk but are often overlooked by objectives focusing on distribution matching. To address this, we introduce the Stylized Facts Alignment GAN (SFAG), which converts key stylized facts into differentiable structural constraints and jointly optimizes them with adversarial loss. This multi-constraint design ensures that generated series remain aligned with market dynamics not only in plots but also in backtesting. Experiments on the Shanghai Composite Index (2004--2024) show that while baseline GANs produce unstable and implausible trading outcomes, SFAG generates synthetic data that preserve stylized facts and support robust momentum strategy performance. Our results highlight that structure-preserving objectives are essential to bridge the gap between superficial realism and practical usability in financial generative modeling.

Pardon? Evaluating Conversational Repair in Large Audio-Language Models

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have demonstrated strong performance in spoken question answering (QA), with existing evaluations primarily focusing on answer accuracy and robustness to acoustic perturbations. However, such evaluations implicitly assume that spoken inputs remain semantically answerable, an assumption that often fails in real-world interaction when essential information is missing. In this work, we introduce a repair-aware evaluation setting that explicitly distinguishes between answerable and unanswerable audio inputs. We define answerability as a property of the input itself and construct paired evaluation conditions using a semantic-acoustic masking protocol. Based on this setting, we propose the Evaluability Awareness and Repair (EAR) score, a non-compensatory metric that jointly evaluates task competence under answerable conditions and repair behavior under unanswerable conditions. Experiments on two spoken QA benchmarks across diverse LALMs reveal a consistent gap between answer accuracy and conversational reliability: while many models perform well when inputs are answerable, most fail to recognize semantic unanswerability and initiate appropriate conversational repair. These findings expose a limitation of prevailing accuracy-centric evaluation practices and motivate reliability assessments that treat unanswerable inputs as cues for repair and continued interaction.