arXiv:2507. 11548v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The use of publicly available generative AI systems for resume evaluation is often justified by the assumption that these tools reduce bias relative to human judgment.
By Kevin T Webster
The paper proposes a scalable, automated method for auditing candidate‑job matching systems for demographic bias. It employs large‑language‑model agents to generate neutral resumes, injects controlled demographic variations, ranks candidates with a fine‑tuned embedding model, and evaluates nine fairness metrics across counterfactual, group‑fairness, and merit‑aware families, producing a composite risk report. Experiments on a small corpus show that single‑score audits miss nuanced issues, underscoring the need for multi‑metric evaluation and LLM‑generated audits as a low‑cost complement to human reviews.
By Sai Yashwant, Shruti Bansal, Anurag Dubey, Samaroha Chatterjee, Satyam Kumar, Shreyash Gupta, Gantala Thulsiram
The paper introduces SCOPED‑Hiring, a process‑aware fairness diagnosis pipeline for large language model (LLM) based multi‑agent hiring systems. It generates controlled resume variants, runs role‑based hiring committees, and logs over 311,000 structured decision trajectories, converting them into quantitative fairness signals across six diagnostic lenses: final outcome, counterfactual, process, pathway, dynamic, and design effects. The study finds that balanced final hire rates can conceal hidden trajectory unfairness—such as career gaps, proxy cues, and identity cues—and demonstrates that targeted repairs guided by these diagnoses can reduce the total layered burden by 72.3% while only slightly altering the hire rate.
By Yiran Zhao, Lu Zhou, Liming Fang, Yufei Chen, Jiafei Wu, Zhe Liu, Xiaogang Xu
arXiv:2607. 28934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender.
By Martin Lukk (University of Toronto)
arXiv:2407.20371v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) hiring tools have revolutionized resume screening, and large language models (LLMs) have the potential to do the...
By Kyra Wilson, Aylin Caliskan
arXiv:2604.19984v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Research has documented LLMs' name-based bias in hiring and salary recommendations. In this paper, we instead consider a setting where LLMs g...
By Huy Nghiem, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Sy-Tuyen Ho, Hal Daume III
The study examines how the design of audit questions influences perceived bias in large language models (LLMs). Using 40,726 requests across five models and three domains—hiring, lending, and medical triage—the authors find that demographic bias effects are not replicated when the audit is standardized. Instead, the audit’s construction, such as question phrasing and ordering, has a stronger impact on model responses than applicant demographics.
By Siddharth Vohra, Manikandan Ravikiran
The paper proposes Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework that requires regulated institutions to maintain a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) separating allowable from disallowed causal pathways in high‑risk machine learning systems. CEG introduces the Causal Harm Rate to quantify prediction variation due to disallowed pathways and pairs each decision with a signed Decision‑Evidence Packet (DEP) that cryptographically links the prediction to the DAG and path‑specific attributions, enabling efficient inclusion proofs via a Merkle tree. Empirical validation on synthetic credit data and the German Credit dataset demonstrates that CEG more clearly isolates causal effects than traditional fairness metrics and that a proof‑of‑concept implementation shows operational feasibility with manageable performance tradeoffs.
By Samah Kareem, Bar{\i}\c{s} \c{C}elikta\c{s}
arXiv:2506. 23033v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Fairness audits are a key component of responsible machine-learning deployment.
By Yash Vardhan Tomar
FairLens is a benchmark and evaluation framework that measures fairness and validity of vision‑language models (VLMs) in high‑stakes domains such as hiring, legal, and healthcare. It uses over 100,000 face‑image and question pairs covering gender, race, and age, and assesses responses through demographic parity, soundness, demographic association, and bias in free‑text generation. The study finds that VLMs often make unwarranted inferences from faces rather than abstaining, especially in legal and healthcare contexts, and that small parity gaps can still hide unsafe treatment across groups.
By Vahid Reza Khazaie, Ahmed Y. Radwan, Shaina Raza
arXiv:2510. 21011v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI tools are increasingly used to portray people in professional roles, understanding their racial and gender representational biases is critical.
By Ilona van der Linden, Sahana Kumar, Arnav Dixit, Aadi Sudan, Smruthi Danda, David C. Anastasiu, Kai Lukoff
The study evaluates ten bias audit instruments across ten advanced language models on occupational gender, age, and socioeconomic status. While each tool reliably detects bias, their rankings of model performance are essentially random, indicating that different audits measure distinct constructs. The findings show that a single audit can identify bias direction within its own framework, but no audit can consistently rank models against one another.
By William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang, Vitor D. de Moura, Jos\'e O. Gomes