0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextAI 'digital twins' of financial influencers reveal stock views that forecast short-term returns: a 10-percentage-point increase in buy-leaning twin recommendations predicts roughly 24 basis points higher excess return at five days and 50 basis points at ten days, with strongest signal for stocks the influencers never publicly mentioned.
Talking to Digital Twins: Selective Disclosure and Belief Measurement in Financial Social Media
Real-time, standardized interviews of LLM-built digital twins of finfluencers recover public-persona stock views that (especially in the silent region) predict short-horizon excess returns for large-cap stocks.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
Social media affect financial markets, but public posts by financial media personas are voluntary disclosures. What is not disclosed is therefore usually unobserved. We address this measurement problem by conducting repeated, real-time interviews of "digital twins" built from monitored finfluencers' X accounts under a fixed protocol. The interviews recover stock-level public-persona belief proxies even when no public recommendation is made. Because the interviews are generated and archived before the relevant return windows, the design avoids the look-ahead bias that arises when LLMs are queried ex post. The evidence shows that information obtained from these digital-twin interviews predicts the cross section of large-cap stock returns in the expected direction. Repeated real-time interviews therefore show how selective disclosure can be turned into measurable panels of market views.
Summary
Main Finding
Repeated, standardized interviews of LLM-based “digital twins” constructed from finfluencers’ public X accounts recover daily, stock-level public-persona belief proxies — including for stocks the human finfluencers never publicly mention — and these elicited beliefs predict short-horizon cross-sectional returns. The design archives timestamped responses in real time (avoiding LLM look-ahead bias) and shows economically meaningful signals: digital-twin recommendations match human posts 91.5% of the time, the silent region comprises 84.8% of observations, and within the silent region a 10 percentage-point increase in the buy-minus-sell measure predicts ≈24 bps excess return at 5 trading days and ≈50 bps at 10 trading days.
Key Points
- Problem addressed: social-media disclosures are selective; silence is ambiguous and mixes an underlying view with a disclosure decision. Standard post-scrapes cannot observe the “silent region.”
- Innovation: build persona-conditioned LLM "digital twins" from each monitored X account (profile + recent public content), and run a fixed daily interview protocol that elicits buy/hold/sell, confidence, speculation, horizon, and catalysts for a fixed cross-section of large-cap stocks.
- Real-time timestamping: interviews are generated and archived before return windows, avoiding ex post look-ahead bias that arises when querying pretrained LLMs about past beliefs.
- Validation:
- Same-day/ticker/account overlap: digital-twin recommendations agree with human recommendations 91.5% of the time.
- Digital-twin responses lean toward directions that later become public recommendations (pre-disclosure signal).
- Account identity explains a meaningful share of variation in macro interview responses after removing date effects.
- Measurement advantages:
- Coverage gain: recovers stock-level views even when human finfluencers are silent (silent region = 84.8% of stock-event records).
- Richer belief dimensions: separates direction (buy/sell tilt), disagreement (cross-sectional dispersion), and uncertainty/confidence.
- Predictive evidence:
- Net Buy Share (share of buys minus sells across digital twins) predicts future excess returns in the expected direction.
- Stronger predictability in the silent region; effects measured in basis points over 5–10 day horizons.
- Framing: authors treat the return predictability primarily as corroborating evidence that the instrument recovers economically meaningful public-persona belief proxies, not as a pure trading strategy claim.
Data & Methods
- Monitored pool: a set of finfluencer public accounts on X (selected and monitored continuously).
- Digital twin construction: persona prompt built from account biography and recent monitored public posts; twin instructed to answer as the public persona.
- Interview protocol:
- Daily, standardized across accounts.
- Questions cover market stance and explicit buy/hold/sell recommendations for a fixed cross-section of large-cap stocks; elicit confidence, speculative flag, horizon, and catalysts.
- Responses are timestamped and archived in real time.
- Key variables:
- Net Buy Share: (share of digital-twin recommendations that are buys) − (share that are sells).
- Measures of disagreement (cross-sectional dispersion) and uncertainty (confidence/speculative flags).
- Empirical tests:
- Validation overlap tests comparing twins vs. public posts on same day/ticker/account.
- Cross-sectional return regressions predicting excess returns over 5–10 trading days using Net Buy Share and controls; emphasis on the silent region (where human accounts did not publicly mention the stock).
- Fixed effects and date-control specifications to separate account identity effects and common-date macro signals.
- Design notes addressing LLM issues:
- Interviews run live rather than reconstructed ex post to avoid the model embedding future data (look-ahead).
- Use of instruction tuning, in-context conditioning, and context augmentation to make persona-conditioned, structured replies.
Implications for AI Economics
- New measurement instrument: LLM-mediated digital twins can convert selectively disclosed public personas into panel belief data, expanding observable information beyond voluntary posts. This creates a replicable instrument for studying public-facing beliefs at scale and high frequency.
- Study of selective disclosure: the approach permits direct separation of belief content from disclosure decisions, which matters for models of information aggregation, attention, and market impact in digital environments.
- Policy and regulation: regulators studying finfluencer influence and disclosure compliance can use similar LLM-based elicitation to monitor public-persona stances systematically, but must account for the distinction between persona-proxied views and private human beliefs/holdings.
- Methodological caution for AI econometrics:
- Real-time timestamping is essential to avoid new forms of look-ahead bias when using pretrained LLMs; ex post reconstruction risks contaminating tests with post-outcome knowledge encoded in model parameters or training data.
- Digital-twin outputs are proxies for public personas, not ground-truth private beliefs or trades. Researchers should not conflate persona-conditioned responses with actual human intentions or holdings.
- Potential for strategic responses and general equilibrium effects: if finfluencers learn their digital twins are being queried and used, they may alter public behavior or persona content, changing the data-generating process.
- Broader research opportunities:
- Apply the instrument to other domains with selective disclosure (policy communication, pundit commentary, consumer influencers).
- Use panel belief data to refine models of attention-driven demand, disagreement-driven trading, and information diffusion in platform-mediated markets.
- Investigate long-run dynamics: whether public-persona signals are persistent, how twins track persona drift, and how market participants respond to revealed silent-region beliefs.
- Limitations and risks:
- External validity beyond monitored X finfluencers and large-cap universe requires testing.
- LLM design choices, prompt engineering, and retrieval/context augmentation materially affect outputs; reproducibility depends on archival of prompts, model versions, and context windows.
- Ethical considerations: constructing persona-conditioned agents raises questions about representation, consent, and potential misuse if twins are mistaken for actual people.
Assessment
Paper Typecorrelational
Evidence Strengthmedium — The paper presents a novel, prospectively collected dataset and multiple validations (high twin-human match, time-stamped interviews, and predictive regressions showing economically meaningful coefficients in the silent region). However, identification is associative rather than causal (no exogenous variation or randomization), and key threats remain from LLM construction choices, model training data overlap, prompt sensitivity, and possible omitted confounders.
Methods Rigormedium — The authors implement careful, real-time data collection to eliminate look-ahead bias, validate digital twins against observed human posts, and run controlled cross-sectional predictive tests with attention to silent vs. public regions. Nevertheless, the design lacks an exogenous shock or experimental randomization to rule out alternative explanations (e.g., common information driving both twin responses and returns), and the paper as supplied does not (in the excerpt) detail robustness checks for prompt/model dependence, sample construction, or alternative specifications.
SamplePanel of digital-twin interviews constructed from monitored finfluencers' public X account information and recent posts; daily standardized interviews asking buy/hold/sell and confidence for a pre-specified cross-section of large-cap, liquid, heavily followed stocks; interviews are timestamped and archived in real time; 'silent region' (stocks not mentioned publicly) comprises ~84.8% of interview stock-event observations; exact number of accounts, time span, and sample dates not provided in the excerpt.
Themeshuman_ai_collab innovation
IdentificationCreate time-stamped, prospectively generated panel data by running standardized, daily interviews of LLM-based 'digital twins' constructed from monitored finfluencers' X account public content; validate twins against contemporaneous human recommendations (match rate reported at 91.5%); use Net Buy Share (share buys minus sells across twins) and controlled cross-sectional regressions of short-horizon excess returns (5- and 10-day) to test predictive content while avoiding ex post/look-ahead bias.
GeneralizabilityLimited to public personas on X (results may not generalize to other platforms or to private communications)., Digital twin responses reflect the public persona encoded in prompts and model behavior, not necessarily the human influencer's private beliefs or trades., Dependent on specific LLM, prompt engineering, context-window/retrieval setup and model training data—replicability may vary across models and time as LLMs change., Sample restricted to large-cap, liquid, heavily followed firms; may not extend to small caps, illiquid stocks, or other asset classes., Short-horizon predictability in specific market regimes may not persist; market adaptivity could erode signals over time.
Claims (10)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeated, standardized interviews of digital twins constructed from finfluencers’ X accounts recover stock-level public-persona belief proxies even when the finfluencers make no public recommendation. Other | positive | Coverage and measurement of stock-level public-persona beliefs in the absence of voluntary disclosure |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| The interviews were generated and archived before the relevant stock-return windows, thereby avoiding the look-ahead bias associated with ex post LLM queries. Ai Safety And Ethics | positive | Temporal validity of the belief-measurement and return-prediction design |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| Digital-twin recommendations match recommendations made by the corresponding human finfluencers 91.5% of the time. Decision Quality | positive | Agreement between digital-twin and human-finfluencer recommendations |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
91.5% match rate
|
| Before a later public recommendation appears, digital-twin interviews already tend to lean in the direction that eventually becomes public. Decision Quality | positive | Directional alignment of pre-disclosure digital-twin recommendations with later public recommendations |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| The silent region—stocks not explicitly mentioned by the human finfluencers—accounts for 84.8% of the interview stock-event observations. Automation Exposure | positive | Share of interview observations occurring without an explicit public stock mention |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
84.8% of interview stock-event observations
|
| Stocks with more buy-leaning digital-twin interview recommendations outperform their benchmark over the subsequent ten trading days, while stocks with more sell-leaning recommendations underperform. Decision Quality | positive | Subsequent cross-sectional benchmark-adjusted stock returns |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| Within the silent region, a ten-percentage-point increase in the buy-minus-sell interview measure predicts 24 basis points higher future excess return at the five-trading-day horizon. Decision Quality | positive | Five-trading-day future excess stock return |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
24 basis points higher future excess return for a ten-percentage-point increase
|
| Within the silent region, a ten-percentage-point increase in the buy-minus-sell interview measure predicts 50 basis points higher future excess return at the ten-trading-day horizon. Decision Quality | positive | Ten-trading-day future excess stock return |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
50 basis points higher future excess return for a ten-percentage-point increase
|
| The predictive relationship is strongest for stocks in the silent region, rather than for stocks explicitly mentioned by the human finfluencers. Decision Quality | positive | Relative strength of cross-sectional return predictability across disclosure regimes |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| At the aggregate level, broad day-level optimism has a contrarian relationship with returns, whereas within-day stock rankings have a positive stock-selection relationship with returns. Decision Quality | mixed | Returns associated with aggregate market stance and within-day stock rankings |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|