Prediction market platforms list thousands of contracts whose logical and economic connections are implicit in their resolution rules. We introduce a hierarchical agentic reduction (HAR) pipeline for constructing inspectable cross-event relation graphs and a behavioral benchmark for evaluating their alignment with market prices. This partitions a catalog of prediction markets, specified by question and resolution text, into topic clusters, applies typed LLM reasoning to small batches, and proposes signed relations with rationales between specific markets. We evaluate semantic relation graphs spanning eight monthly Kalshi catalogs (February to September 2026). Using data from 30.3 million trades, we compute a benchmark that compares linked pairs' signed price-change correlations with those of matched, unlinked controls from the same topic cluster on identical timestamps. Under full-sample and leave-first-week-out evaluation, relations identified by our pipeline exhibit higher signed Pearson price-change correlations, with statistical significance, than matched within-topic controls. This increase also appears under Spearman correlation and becomes larger among relations labeled as medium or high strength. This benchmark provides a criterion for comparing relation-discovery methods against observations beyond their input text, and our results indicate the ability of agentic AI and LLM reasoning to identify meaningful relations between individual markets in connected Web marketplaces.
Abhinav Goel, Agostino Capponi, Alfio Gliozzo, Chaitya Shah
AI agents can now write software from a plain-English description, but code that runs is not the same as code that does what was asked. This gap matters most for smart contracts, the programs behind Web3 applications that move money on a blockchain and cannot be fixed once deployed. We ask how to check whether an AI-written contract behaves as it should, and where the requested behavior gets lost. We design an evaluation built on execution rather than opinion. We replay the same transactions on an AI-written contract and on the original it should reproduce and measure how often they agree. We test every grading tool on planted mistakes, compare against an answer key written without the description, and audit our own scorer until known wrong answers cannot pass. Common methods, such as AI judges and standard analysis tools, miss obvious mistakes, and scoring choices matter too. Checking only the functions every system includes hid about half the difference between pipelines. We then propose an elicitation-first architecture. Before writing code, the agent asks the client a short checklist of questions, checks the contract against an independently written executable answer key, and returns disagreements to the client instead of silently rewriting code. Asking first matters far more than reviewing or patching afterwards, across three AI models, while automated security fixes often break requested behavior. A few well-chosen questions recover much of what a short description omits, and their value can be estimated without the original contract. To our knowledge, this is the first study in smart contract synthesis to gather missing requirements before generation and check the result against an independently written executable model. The lessons extend to any setting where AI agents turn requests into programs. We release our tools, 600 tasks and all results.
Product reviews significantly influence purchasing decisions on e-commerce platforms. However, the sheer volume of reviews can overwhelm users, obscuring information most relevant to their individual needs. Existing e-commerce summarization systems typically produce generic, static summaries that fail to account for the fact that (i) different users prioritize different product characteristics, and (ii) these preferences may evolve with interactions. To address these challenges, we propose an online learning framework that generates personalized summaries for each user by representing user interests in a latent aspect space and selecting preference-aligned review evidence. Our system then iteratively refines its understanding of user preferences by incorporating feedback on the generated summaries directly over time. We evaluate our framework on Amazon Reviews'23 using controlled feedback simulations and robustness checks with held-out-history, independent-embedding, and external LLM-based evaluators. These experiments show improvements in preference-aligned evidence selection under the evaluated feedback settings. A separate human-based study finds that scenario-conditioned summaries are preferred over generic (uniformly-aggregated) alternatives in 69.9% of paired comparisons.