Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six widely used LLMs, we addressed this gap by identifying the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examining their downstream implications. Study 1 showed that LLMs generally relied on a narrower subset of human creativity evaluation standards. Convergence with human standards was strongest in the novelty dimension, whereas divergence was clearest in the contextual dimension, which captures social, market, and reputational information. Moreover, each LLM exhibited distinct, model-specific standards that varied substantially in breadth. These differences in evaluation standards were reflected in actual creativity judgments. Study 2 (N = 1,103 ideas) showed that LLM evaluations were moderately correlated with human evaluations, and individual LLMs with broader standards better distinguished ideas humans judged as more versus less creative. Study 3 (N = 1,195) showed that LLMs were less sensitive to contextual information: such information significantly altered human creativity ratings but left LLM ratings largely unchanged. Together, our findings help explain the mixed evidence on LLM-human alignment, showing that alignment depends on the evidence a judgment demands and the standards each model applies. LLMs may resemble humans when evaluations emphasize intrinsic qualities such as novelty, yet diverge when judgments require contextual information. Selecting an LLM evaluator is therefore a consequential decision: different models, applying different standards, recognize different ideas as creative.

Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems

Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems are increasingly proposed for financial trading, yet their reported performance remains difficult to compare because studies vary in data provenance, temporal split discipline, execution timing, turnover treatment, and transaction-cost modeling. This article presents a targeted topical review and reproducibility audit of execution realism in LLM-based trading research. A coded evidence matrix covering 30 trade-relevant primary studies is used to assess point-in-time controls, split transparency, held-out evaluation, cost and turnover treatment, execution semantics, universe definition, and artifact release. Across the audited sample, architecture reporting is generally clearer than the evaluation assumptions needed to judge whether a trading result is economically interpretable or reproducible. A 10-equity worked example is included only as a methodological scaffold to illustrate how explicit friction and timing choices can materially compress active-strategy results. The main conclusion is that the next useful step for LLM trading research is not only better agent design, but also clearer reporting standards for execution realism, reproducibility, and evaluation comparability.