# Reasoning Beyond the Obvious: Evaluating Divergent and Convergent Thinking in LLMs for Financial Scenarios

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18368 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18368/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 15 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.09268/) (2016)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [Can language models learn from explanations in context?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02329/) (2022)
- [NaturalReasoning: Reasoning in the Wild with 2.8M Challenging Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13124/) (2025)
- [ARB: Advanced Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13692/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Language Model Creativity: A Case Study on Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.09007/) (2024)
- [Self-Reflection in LLM Agents: Effects on Problem-Solving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06682/) (2024)
- [Divergent Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13012/) (2024)
- [Cofca: A Step-Wise Counterfactual Multi-hop QA benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11924/) (2024)
- [MastermindEval: A Simple But Scalable Reasoning Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05891/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [CreativeBench: Benchmarking and Enhancing Machine Creativity via Self-Evolving Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11863/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Most reasoning benchmarks for LLMs emphasize factual accuracy or step-by-step logic. In finance, however, professionals must not only converge on optimal decisions but also generate creative, plausible futures under uncertainty. We introduce ConDiFi, a benchmark that jointly evaluates divergent and convergent thinking in LLMs for financial tasks. ConDiFi features 607 macro-financial prompts for divergent reasoning and 990 multi-hop adversarial MCQs for convergent reasoning. Using this benchmark, we evaluated 14 leading models and uncovered striking differences. Despite high fluency, GPT-4o underperforms on Novelty and Actionability. In contrast, models like DeepSeek-R1 and Cohere Command R+ rank among the top for generating actionable, insights suitable for investment decisions. ConDiFi provides a new perspective to assess reasoning capabilities essential to safe and strategic deployment of LLMs in finance.