← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2605.28114 · v3
Agent Personas Shift Allocation Decisions About People: What Matters Is Whether the Two Strings Match
首次提交 2026-05-27 16:06
版本更新 2026-11-09 15:06
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
摘要
Language models are increasingly used to make decisions about people, such as whom to interview, which insurance claims to approve and which patients to see first. Research on bias in these decisions has focused on whether a person's race or gender changes the outcome. However, developers also write text that the model reads before every decision, including a persona that gives the model a role and often names a project, team or office. Whether such text affects whom a model selects remains largely unexamined. We asked what happens when a string in the persona also appears in one candidate's record. Across four kinds of decision, fourteen publicly released models and 328,480 choices between two candidates, instruction-tuned models, the kind used in chat assistants, selected the candidate whose record repeated the persona's string in 71.3% of decisions between equally qualified candidates, compared with 50.1% when no string was shared. When that candidate was one step less qualified, the rates were 31.5% and 11.7%. A made-up project code was enough. The effect persisted when the record labelled the string a conflict of interest, even in models that otherwise selected such a candidate less often. When the shared string was the candidate's race, a similar shift appeared. Bias audits built around protected attributes can at most show the resulting gaps between groups, not their source.
作者备注：32 pages, 3 figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-11-09 15:06 · 最新观测版本
Agent Personas Shift Allocation Decisions About People: What Matters Is Whether the Two Strings Match
Language models are increasingly used to make decisions about people, such as whom to interview, which insurance claims to approve and which patients to see first. Research on bias in these decisions has focused on whether a person's race or gender changes the outcome. However, developers also write text that the model reads before every decision, including a persona that gives the model a role and often names a project, team or office. Whether such text affects whom a model selects remains largely unexamined. We asked what happens when a string in the persona also appears in one candidate's record. Across four kinds of decision, fourteen publicly released models and 328,480 choices between two candidates, instruction-tuned models, the kind used in chat assistants, selected the candidate whose record repeated the persona's string in 71.3% of decisions between equally qualified candidates, compared with 50.1% when no string was shared. When that candidate was one step less qualified, the rates were 31.5% and 11.7%. A made-up project code was enough. The effect persisted when the record labelled the string a conflict of interest, even in models that otherwise selected such a candidate less often. When the shared string was the candidate's race, a similar shift appeared. Bias audits built around protected attributes can at most show the resulting gaps between groups, not their source.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗