arXiv subjects

Huaikang Zhou

Publications and source records attributed to Huaikang Zhou.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

LLMs learn scientific taste from institutional traces across the social sciences

Reinforcement-learned reasoning has powered recent AI leaps on verifiable tasks, including mathematics, code, and structure prediction. The harder bottleneck is evaluative judgment in low-verifiability domains, where no oracle anchors reward and the core question is which untested ideas deserve attention. We test whether institutional traces, the record of what fields published, where, and at which tier, can serve as a training signal for AI evaluators. Across eight social science disciplines (psychology, economics, communication, sociology, political science, management, business and finance, public administration), we built held-out four-tier research-pitch benchmarks and supervised-fine-tuned (SFT) LLMs on field-specific publication outcomes. The fine-tuned models cleared the 25 percent chance baseline and exceeded frontier-model performance by wide margins, with best single-model accuracy ranging from 55.0 percent in public administration to 85.5 percent in psychology. In management, evaluated against 48 expert gatekeepers, 174 junior researchers, and 11 frontier reasoning models, the best single fine-tuned model (Qwen3-4B) reached 59.2 percent, 17.6 percentage points above expert majority vote (41.6 percent, non-tied) and 28.1 percentage points above the frontier mean (31.1 percent). The fine-tuned models also showed calibrated confidence: confidence rose when predictions were correct and fell when wrong, mirroring how a skilled reviewer can say "I'm sure" versus "I'm guessing." Selective triage on this signal reached very high accuracy on the highest-confidence subsets in every field. Institutional traces, we conclude, encode a scalable training signal for the low-verifiability judgment on which science depends.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Can Large Language Models Replace Human Subjects? A Large-Scale Replication of Scenario-Based Experiments in Psychology and Management

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into scientific research, particularly in the social sciences, where understanding human behavior is critical. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in replicating human-like responses in various psychological experiments. We conducted a large-scale study replicating 156 psychological experiments from top social science journals using three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and DeepSeek v3). Our results reveal that while LLMs demonstrate high replication rates for main effects (73-81%) and moderate to strong success with interaction effects (46-63%), They consistently produce larger effect sizes than human studies, with Fisher Z values approximately 2-3 times higher than human studies. Notably, LLMs show significantly lower replication rates for studies involving socially sensitive topics such as race, gender and ethics. When original studies reported null findings, LLMs produced significant results at remarkably high rates (68-83%) - while this could reflect cleaner data with less noise, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals, it also suggests potential risks of effect size overestimation. Our results demonstrate both the promise and challenges of LLMs in psychological research, offering efficient tools for pilot testing and rapid hypothesis validation while enriching rather than replacing traditional human subject studies, yet requiring more nuanced interpretation and human validation for complex social phenomena and culturally sensitive research questions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management

This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Through comparative analyses across two studies, including various task performance outputs, we demonstrate that LLMs can serve as a reliable and even superior alternative to human raters in evaluating knowledge-based performance outputs, which are a key contribution of knowledge workers. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Additionally, combined multiple GPT ratings on the same performance output show strong correlations with aggregated human performance ratings, akin to the consensus principle observed in performance evaluation literature. However, we also find that LLMs are prone to contextual biases, such as the halo effect, mirroring human evaluative biases. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation. By highlighting both the potential and limitations of LLMs, our study contributes to the discourse on AI role in management studies and sets a foundation for future research to refine AI theoretical and practical applications in management.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Generative AI Enhances Team Performance and Reduces Need for Traditional Teams

Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have transformed collaborative work processes, yet the impact on team performance remains underexplored. Here we examine the role of generative AI in enhancing or replacing traditional team dynamics using a randomized controlled experiment with 435 participants across 122 teams. We show that teams augmented with generative AI significantly outperformed those relying solely on human collaboration across various performance measures. Interestingly, teams with multiple AIs did not exhibit further gains, indicating diminishing returns with increased AI integration. Our analysis suggests that centralized AI usage by a few team members is more effective than distributed engagement. Additionally, individual-AI pairs matched the performance of conventional teams, suggesting a reduced need for traditional team structures in some contexts. However, despite this capability, individual-AI pairs still fell short of the performance levels achieved by AI-assisted teams. These findings underscore that while generative AI can replace some traditional team functions, more comprehensively integrating AI within team structures provides superior benefits, enhancing overall effectiveness beyond individual efforts.

cs.HC↗