Sidi Chang

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang

Outcome-only evaluation can certify economically unsafe agents: a policy can hit a business KPI while violating deployable behavioral discipline. In hotel pricing with hidden competitor state, a learner can achieve plausible revenue per available room while failing to preserve the rate discipline of a rule-based revenue-management competitor. We introduce discipline stability, a trace-based evaluation paradigm: define the benchmark behavior, restrict observations to the deployment regime, induce trace diagnostics from failure, separate mechanisms with ablations, and test transfer and deployment. Across a two-hotel benchmark and a compact hidden-budget bidding task, reward-only PPO variants miss trace alignment; revealing hidden state reduces label uncertainty; deterministic copy collapses uncertainty; and trace-prior or corrected history policies better preserve price or bid distributions. Pure behavior cloning is nearly enough for symmetric imitation, while Trace-Prior RL adds bounded adaptation under capacity asymmetry. The contribution is an evaluation and benchmark paradigm, not a new optimizer or a universal claim about MARL

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang

Outcome metrics can certify the wrong behavior. We study this failure in a two-hotel revenue-management simulator where Hotel A trains an agent against a fixed rule-based revenue-management competitor, Hotel B. A standard learning agent can obtain near-reference revenue per available room (RevPAR) while failing to learn market-like yield management: it sells too aggressively, undercuts, or collapses to modal price buckets. We diagnose this as a Goodhart-style failure under partial observability. Hotel A cannot observe the competitor's remaining inventory, booking curve, or pricing rule, so the same Hotel A-visible state maps to multiple plausible Hotel B prices. Deterministic value-based RL and deterministic copying collapse this unresolved uncertainty into shortcut behavior. We introduce a trace-level diagnostic protocol using RevPAR, occupancy, ADR, full price-bucket distributions, L1/JS distances, and seed-level confidence intervals. The verified repair is Trace-Prior RL: learn a distributional market prior from lagged market traces, then train a stochastic pricing policy with a RevPAR reward and a KL penalty to the learned prior. The final policy matches Hotel B's RevPAR, occupancy, ADR, and price distribution within seed-level uncertainty, while still optimizing Hotel A's own reward. We argue that the contribution is not a new optimizer and not a hotel-pricing leaderboard, but a reproducible failure-and-repair recipe for agentic systems where scalar rewards are easy to game and the intended behavior is only visible in traces. A key finding is that higher exact action accuracy can worsen aggregate trace alignment when the target is distributional.

Sidi Chang, Peiying Zhu, Yuxiao Chen et al.

As LLMs become credible readers of earnings calls, investor-relations Q\&A, guidance, and disclosure language, supervised financial NLP benchmarks increasingly function as decision evidence for model selection and deployment. A hidden assumption is that gold labels make such evidence objective. This assumption breaks down when the benchmark ruler itself is sensitive to rubric wording, metric choice, or aggregation policy. We study this measurement risk on Japanese Financial Implicit-Commitment Recognition (JF-ICR; a pinned 253-item test split x 4 frontier LLMs x 5 rubrics x 3 temperatures x 5 ordinal metrics). Three findings follow. First, rubric wording materially changes model-assigned labels: R2--R3 agreement ranges from 70.0% to 83.4%, with the dominant movement near the +1 / 0 implicit-commitment boundary. This pattern is consistent with a pragmatic-boundary interpretation, but is not a validated linguistic-causality claim because the present rubric variants confound semantics, examples, and verbosity. Second, not every metric remains informative under the JF-ICR class distribution. Within-one accuracy is too easy because near misses receive credit and the majority class dominates; worst-class accuracy is too noisy because the rarest class has only two examples. Exact accuracy, macro-F1, and weighted \k{appa} are therefore the identifiable metrics under our operational rule. Third, ranking claims become more defensible only after this metric-identifiability audit: Bradley--Terry, Borda, and Ranked Pairs agree on the identifiable metric subset, while the full five-metric sweep produces disagreement on the closest pair. The contribution is not a new leaderboard, but a reporting discipline for supervised financial benchmarks whose gold labels exist and whose evaluation ruler still requires governance.

Sidi Chang, Peiying Zhu, Yuxiao Chen

Long-horizon investment decisions create a pre-realization evaluation problem: realized returns are the eventual arbiter of investment quality, but they arrive too late and are too noisy to guide many model-development and governance decisions. LLM judges offer a tempting substitute for pre-deployment evaluation of AI-finance systems, but unvalidated judges may reward verbosity, confidence, or rubric mimicry rather than financial judgment. This paper introduces \textbf{ValueAlpha}, a preregistered agreement-gated stress-test protocol for deciding when LLM-judged investment-rationale claims are publishable, qualified, or invalid. In a controlled market-state capital-allocation prototype with 1,000 honest decision cycles and 100 preregistered adversarial controls (1,100 trajectories, 5,500 judge calls), ValueAlpha clears the aggregate agreement gate at \(\barκ_w = 0.7168\) but prevents several overclaims. Lower-rank systems collapse into a tie-class, one rubric dimension fails the per-dimension gate (\texttt{constraint\_awareness}, \(\barκ_w = 0.2022\)), single-judge rankings are family-dependent, and terse-correct rationales receive a \(Δ= -2.81\) rubric-point penalty relative to honest rationales. A targeted anchor-specificity probe further shows that financial constructs such as constraint awareness are operationally load-bearing. The contribution is therefore not a leaderboard and not a claim to measure true investment skill. ValueAlpha is a pre-calibration metrology layer for AI-finance evaluation: it determines whether a proposed LLM-judge-based investment-rationale claim is stable enough, agreed enough, and uncontaminated enough to be reported at all.

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang

When a traveler asks an AI search engine to recommend a hotel, which sources get cited -- and does query framing matter? We audit 1,357 grounding citations from Google Gemini across 156 hotel queries in Tokyo and document a systematic pattern we call the Intent-Source Divide. Experiential queries draw 55.9\% of their citations from non-OTA sources, compared to 30.8\% for transactional queries -- a 25.1 percentage-point gap ($p < 5 \times 10^{-20}$). The effect is amplified in Japanese, where experiential queries draw 62.1\% non-OTA citations compared to 50.0\% in English -- consistent with a more diverse Japanese non-OTA content ecosystem. For an industry in which hotels have long paid OTAs for demand acquisition, this pattern matters because it suggests that AI search may make hotel discovery less exclusively controlled by commission-based intermediaries.