arXiv subjects

Lei Nico Zheng

Publications and source records attributed to Lei Nico Zheng.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Abstract Priorities, Concrete Rewards: How Stated Preferences Relate to What People Reward in AI Responses

AI assistants built on large language models (LLMs) are trained on human feedback and increasingly personalized to users' stated preferences. Yet how closely these preferences reflect what people reward in responses remains unclear. We compare stated and revealed preferences in the public PRISM dataset, in which 1,396 participants reported how much seven response attributes mattered to them and then rated 29,347 responses from 21 LLMs. Among responses to the same prompt, features the survey never asked about, such as response length, formatting and refusal language, were at least as strongly associated with ratings as text proxies of the surveyed attributes. Whether stated priorities matched ratings depended on how attributes were measured: participants who prioritized an attribute favoured responses from models that others perceived as strong on it, but not responses that scored higher on text proxies for it. Written feedback was more telling: participants who asked for shorter answers, even in earlier conversations, gave length less weight in their ratings, and those asking for longer answers gave it more. Their relative priorities over the surveyed attributes, however, did not predict this weight. Reasons given for choices reflected perceived attributes more than measured features. Participants also differed stably in how much they weighted several concrete features, especially length, but with a median of 6 conversations per participant, these weights were estimated poorly. The largest gain from personal information in predicting held-out choices was 0.13 percentage points, compared with 1.11 for a stronger pooled model. Stated priorities thus track perceived attributes of AI responses but say little about the concrete features that ratings reward, a distinction that matters for preference elicitation and AI personalization.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Auditing the Product, Not the Recursion: The Evaluation Evidence Behind Recursive Self-Improvement Claims

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) promises AI systems, such as self-evolving LLM agents, that become better at producing further improvements. Evaluating this promise requires separating product claims about the final system from process claims about the improvement process itself. Existing surveys specify the evidence these claims require, but how often studies report that evidence remains unmeasured. We examine this question through full-text coding of 114 eligible studies in a reproducible arXiv search frame frozen in October 2026, including 90 that describe their own systems as RSI. The codebook links claims to evaluation designs. Independent human coding, third-reader adjudication, and a separate blind coding of improver comparisons assess coding reliability. Among the 90 RSI studies, 90% report product evaluation beyond development tasks under a broad criterion that includes partial or unstated separation, while 60% report evaluation on tasks unused for selection. Only 22% audit two or more reruns of the full loop. In a human-coded random sample, the RSI studies show the same contrast: 45% evaluate on tasks unused for selection and 14% audit two or more reruns. Of the 26 studies claiming a better improvement procedure, 23 report a related comparison, but only 4 compare earlier and later procedures from identical starting artifacts at a matched budget. Across these results and a comparison set of established works, evidence for repeatability and improved procedures remains less developed than product evaluation. Three propositions explain how selection effects, shared evaluator errors, and changes in system state limit what product evaluations can establish. Together, the findings support a claim-indexed reporting standard that connects each claim to the evaluation design needed to test it.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When Synthetic Users Fail: A Cross-Domain Benchmark of LLM-Simulated Human Survey Responses

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We publicly release the cross-domain benchmark and validation framework, including all code and data, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FundaPod: A Multi-Persona Agent Pod Architecture with Knowledge Graph Memory for AI-Assisted Fundamental Investment Research

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in finance, yet most existing work emphasizes trading signals or financial NLP tasks centered on prediction. Institutional fundamental research, by contrast, requires human analysts or AI agents to gather evidence, identify business drivers, compare competing viewpoints, and generate investment memos. Its broader goal is not merely to predict outcomes, but to produce investment plans that are transparent, reusable, and verifiable, while contributing to the cumulative development of investment knowledge. We present FundaPod, a multi-persona agent pod architecture for AI-assisted fundamental investment research. We argue that fundamental research is a human-centric decision-support task that is qualitatively distinct from trading-signal generation, and is therefore better served by an independence-preserving architecture. In FundaPod, AI agents with different personas, such as value investors or macro strategists, conduct research independently under a shared provenance contract. Their disagreements are then surfaced post hoc for adjudication by the human portfolio manager (PM) through a knowledge-graph memory system. This paper contributes five design principles for human-AI hybrid systems supporting fundamental research, grounded in design-science practice and theories of cognitive isolation and human-machine coordination. It also describes four architectural mechanisms: a persona distillation pipeline that turns public investor materials into deployable agents; a declarative skill registry that lets the planner derive typed task graphs; a grounded evidence model that links memo claims to verifiable sources; and a knowledge-graph "second brain" that connects tickers, memos, analysts, and themes. We demonstrate the architecture through a complete case study and a persona-based memo comparison.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Endorsement Without New Evidence: How Sequential Voting Inflates Mandates in Online Community Governance

Online communities often treat large support margins in public elections as strong mandates. We argue that such margins can overstate the independent scrutiny behind a decision. Using 198,275 free-text rationales from Wikipedia admin elections, we introduce vote-text divergence, a measure that flags a decisive vote paired with a thin, deferential rationale. Divergence rises as voters arrive later, even after controlling for voter and election fixed effects. The pattern is consistent with information saturation: once prior text is accounted for, arrival order no longer predicts divergence, while accumulated prior evidence does. The effect is strongest among peripheral voters in the co-voting network. Yet divergence does not predict worse post-promotion outcomes, such as administrative activity or survival. Public tallies can therefore weaken the scrutiny signal even while selecting capable administrators: a margin may appear to reflect more consensus and support than it actually contains.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

ChatGPT Informed Graph Neural Network for Stock Movement Prediction

ChatGPT has demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, its potential for inferring dynamic network structures from temporal textual data, specifically financial news, remains an unexplored frontier. In this research, we introduce a novel framework that leverages ChatGPT's graph inference capabilities to enhance Graph Neural Networks (GNN). Our framework adeptly extracts evolving network structures from textual data, and incorporates these networks into graph neural networks for subsequent predictive tasks. The experimental results from stock movement forecasting indicate our model has consistently outperformed the state-of-the-art Deep Learning-based benchmarks. Furthermore, the portfolios constructed based on our model's outputs demonstrate higher annualized cumulative returns, alongside reduced volatility and maximum drawdown. This superior performance highlights the potential of ChatGPT for text-based network inferences and underscores its promising implications for the financial sector.

q-fin.ST↗