Researcher profile

Lei Xiao

Lei Xiao contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Advancing ESG Intelligence: An Expert-level Agent and Comprehensive Benchmark for Sustainable Finance

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria are essential for evaluating corporate sustainability and ethical performance. However, professional ESG analysis is hindered by data fragmentation across unstructured sources, and existing large language models (LLMs) often struggle with the complex, multi-step workflows required for rigorous auditing. To address these limitations, we introduce ESGAgent, a hierarchical multi-agent system empowered by a specialized toolset, including retrieval augmentation, web search and domain-specific functions, to generate in-depth ESG analysis. Complementing this agentic system, we present a comprehensive three-level benchmark derived from 310 corporate sustainability reports, designed to evaluate capabilities ranging from atomic common-sense questions to the generation of integrated, in-depth analysis. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that ESGAgent outperforms state-of-the-art closed-source LLMs with an average accuracy of 84.15% on atomic question-answering tasks, and excels in professional report generation by integrating rich charts and verifiable references. These findings confirm the diagnostic value of our benchmark, establishing it as a vital testbed for assessing general and advanced agentic capabilities in high-stakes vertical domains.

preprint2026arXiv

FraudBench: A Multimodal Benchmark for Detecting AI-Generated Fraudulent Refund Evidence

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated images have become increasingly realistic and readily adaptable to concrete real-world claims, creating new challenges for verifying visual evidence. A concrete emerging risk is AI-generated refund fraud, in which manipulated or synthetic images are used to support claims about damaged products, poor delivery conditions, or service-related defects. Existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks mainly evaluate standalone authenticity classification, cross-generator transfer, or forensic localization, leaving claim-conditioned fraudulent evidence detection underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce FraudBench, a multimodal benchmark for detecting AI-generated fraudulent refund evidence. FraudBench is constructed from real-world user-review evidence across e-commerce, food delivery, and travel-service scenarios. We curate real evidence images together with their associated review and product metadata, identify genuine damaged and undamaged evidence through MLLM-assisted filtering and human annotation, and synthesize fake-damaged evidence from genuine undamaged reference images using six state-of-the-art image editing and generation models. Using FraudBench, we evaluate MLLMs, specialized AI-generated image detectors, and human participants under the same settings. Experiments show that current MLLMs often recognize real-damaged evidence but fail on many fake-damaged subsets, with fake-damage detection rates (TPR) far below the 50% baseline on most generator subsets. Specialized detectors generally perform better but remain inconsistent across generators and can produce false positives on real-damaged samples, revealing a clear gap between generic AI image detection and reliable claim-conditioned refund-evidence verification.