Janhavi Danve

Rudra Jadhav, Janhavi Danve

As Large Language Models reshape the global labor market, policymakers and workers need empirical data on which occupational skills may be most susceptible to automation. We present the Skill Automation Feasibility Index (SAFI), benchmarking four frontier LLMs -- LLaMA 3.3 70B, Mistral Large, Qwen 2.5 72B, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across 263 text-based tasks spanning all 35 skills in the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy (1,052 total model calls, 0% failure rate). Cross-referencing with real-world AI adoption data from the Anthropic Economic Index (756 occupations, 17,998 tasks), we propose an AI Impact Matrix -- an interpretive framework that positions skills along four quadrants: High Displacement Risk, Upskilling Required, AI-Augmented, and Lower Displacement Risk. Key findings: (1) Mathematics (SAFI: 73.2) and Programming (71.8) receive the highest automation feasibility scores; Active Listening (42.2) and Reading Comprehension (45.5) receive the lowest; (2) a "capability-demand inversion" where skills most demanded in AI-exposed jobs are those LLMs perform least well at in our benchmark; (3) 78.7% of observed AI interactions are augmentation, not automation; (4) all four models converge to similar skill profiles (3.6-point spread), suggesting that text-based automation feasibility may be more skill-dependent than model-dependent. SAFI measures LLM performance on text-based representations of skills, not full occupational execution. All data, code, and model responses are open-sourced.

Rudra Jadhav, Janhavi Danve, Sonalika Shaw

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated graders in educational settings, concerns about fairness and bias in their evaluations have become critical. This study investigates whether LLMs exhibit implicit grading bias based on writing style when the underlying content correctness remains constant. We constructed a controlled dataset of 180 student responses across three subjects (Mathematics, Programming, and Essay/Writing), each with three surface-level perturbation types: grammar errors, informal language, and non-native phrasing. Two state-of-the-art open-source LLMs -- LLaMA 3.3 70B (Meta) and Qwen 2.5 72B (Alibaba) -- were prompted to grade responses on a 1-10 scale with explicit instructions to evaluate content correctness only and to disregard writing style. Our results reveal statistically significant grading bias in Essay/Writing tasks across both models and all perturbation types (p < 0.05), with effect sizes ranging from medium (Cohen's d = 0.64) to very large (d = 4.25). Informal language received the heaviest penalty, with LLaMA deducting an average of 1.90 points and Qwen deducting 1.20 points on a 10-point scale -- penalties comparable to the difference between a B+ and C+ letter grade. Non-native phrasing was penalized 1.35 and 0.90 points respectively. In sharp contrast, Mathematics and Programming tasks showed minimal bias, with most conditions failing to reach statistical significance. These findings demonstrate that LLM grading bias is subject-dependent, style-sensitive, and persists despite explicit counter-bias instructions in the grading prompt. We discuss implications for equitable deployment of LLM-based grading systems and recommend bias auditing protocols before institutional adoption.