Huaikang Zhou

Ziyan Cui, Ning Li, Huaikang Zhou

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.

Ning Li, Huaikang Zhou, Mingze Xu

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.

Ziqin Gong, Ning Li, Huaikang Zhou

Artificial intelligence matches or exceeds human performance on tasks with verifiable answers, from protein folding to Olympiad mathematics. Yet the capacity that most governs scientific advance is not reasoning but taste: the ability to judge which untested ideas deserve pursuit, exercised daily by editors and funders but never successfully articulated, taught, or automated. Here we show that fine-tuning language models on journal publication decisions recovers evaluative judgment inaccessible to both frontier models and human expertise. Using a held-out benchmark of research pitches in management spanning four quality tiers, we find that eleven frontier models, spanning major proprietary and open architectures, barely exceed chance, averaging 31% accuracy. Panels of journal editors and editorial board members reach 42% by majority vote. Fine-tuned models trained on years of publication records each surpass every frontier model and expert panel, with the best single model achieving 59%. These models exhibit calibrated confidence, reaching 100% accuracy on their highest-confidence predictions, and transfer this evaluative signal to untrained pairwise comparisons and one-sentence summaries. The mechanism generalizes: models trained on economics publication records achieve 70% accuracy. Scientific taste was not missing from AI's reach; it was deposited in the institutional record, waiting to be extracted. These results provide a scalable mechanism to triage the expanding volume of scientific production across disciplines where quality resists formal verification.