Evaluation of LLMs Biases Towards Elite Universities: A Persona-Based Exploration
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12801v2
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 23:23:13 GMT
- Title: Evaluation of LLMs Biases Towards Elite Universities: A Persona-Based Exploration
- Authors: Shailja Gupta, Rajesh Ranjan,
- Abstract summary: This study investigates whether popular LLMs exhibit bias towards elite universities when generating personas for technology industry professionals.
We generated 432 personas across GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Claude 3 Sonnet with actual data from LinkedIn.
Results showed that LLMs significantly overrepresented elite universities, with 72.45% of generated personas featuring these institutions, compared to only 8.56% in the actual LinkedIn data.
This research highlights the need to address educational bias in LLMs and suggests strategies for mitigating such biases in AI-driven recruitment processes.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Elite universities are a dream destination for not just students but also top employers who get a supply of amazing talents. When we hear about top universities, the first thing that comes to mind is their academic rigor, prestigious reputation, and highly successful alumni. However, society at large is not just represented by a few elite universities, but several others. We have seen several examples where many, even without formal education, built big businesses. There are various instances in which several people, however talented, couldn't make it to top elite universities because of several resource constraints. For recruitment of candidates, we do see candidates from a few elite universities well represented in top technology companies. However, we found during our study that LLMs go overboard in representing that. This study investigates whether popular LLMs exhibit bias towards elite universities when generating personas for technology industry professionals. We employed a novel persona-based approach to compare the educational background predictions of GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Claude 3 Sonnet with actual data from LinkedIn. The study focused on various roles at Microsoft, Meta, and Google, including VP Product, Director of Engineering, and Software Engineer. We generated 432 personas across the three LLMs and analyzed the frequency of elite universities (Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and Harvard) in these personas compared to LinkedIn data. Results showed that LLMs significantly overrepresented elite universities, with 72.45% of generated personas featuring these institutions, compared to only 8.56% in the actual LinkedIn data. ChatGPT 3.5 exhibited the highest bias, followed by Claude Sonnet 3, while Gemini performed best. This research highlights the need to address educational bias in LLMs and suggests strategies for mitigating such biases in AI-driven recruitment processes.
Related papers
- SciEx: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Scientific Exams with Human Expert Grading and Automatic Grading [100.02175403852253]
One common use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is performing tasks on scientific topics.
Inspired by the way university students are evaluated on such tasks, we propose SciEx - a benchmark consisting of university computer science exam questions.
We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs on our new benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-14T21:52:21Z) - Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others.
We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation.
We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z) - Beyond Self-Promotion: How Software Engineering Research Is Discussed on
LinkedIn [10.174594209898743]
We investigate how software engineering (SE) practitioners and researchers approach each other via public LinkedIn discussions.
We find that a considerable proportion of LinkedIn posts on SE research are written by people who are not the paper authors.
We formulate concrete advice for researchers and practitioners to make sharing new research findings on LinkedIn more fruitful.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-04T13:38:51Z) - LLM360: Towards Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMs [89.05970416013403]
The goal of LLM360 is to support open and collaborative AI research by making the end-to-end training process transparent and reproducible by everyone.
As a first step of LLM360, we release two 7B parameter LLMs pre-trained from scratch, Amber and CrystalCoder, including their training code, data, intermediate checkpoints, and analyses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-11T17:39:00Z) - Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks.
Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z) - Forecasting Success of Computer Science Professors and Students Based on
Their Academic and Personal Backgrounds [0.0]
We analyze the influence of students' previous universities on their chances of being accepted to prestigious North American universities.
Our findings demonstrate that the ranking of their prior universities is a significant factor in achieving their goals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-04T18:30:24Z) - Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as
Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks.
This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR)
To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval.
To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z) - Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science? [79.62471267510963]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without training data)
This work provides a road map for using LLMs as Computational Social Science tools.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-12T17:33:28Z) - Measuring University Impact: Wikipedia approach [1.7894318579694353]
We discuss the new methodological technique that evaluates the impact of university based on popularity of their alumni's pages on Wikipedia.
Preliminary analysis shows that the number of page-views is higher for the contemporary persons that prove the perspectives of this approach.
The ranking based on the alumni popularity was compared with the ranking of universities based on the popularity of their webpages on Wikipedia.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-27T17:41:56Z) - The De-democratization of AI: Deep Learning and the Compute Divide in
Artificial Intelligence Research [0.2855485723554975]
Large technology firms and elite universities have increased participation in major AI conferences since deep learning's unanticipated rise in 2012.
The effect is concentrated among elite universities, which are ranked 1-50 in the QS World University Rankings.
This increased presence of firms and elite universities in AI research has crowded out mid-tier (QS ranked 201-300) and lower-tier (QS ranked 301-500) universities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-22T15:11:14Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.