External Stability Auditing to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09151v1
• Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 00:44:56 GMT
• Title: External Stability Auditing to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiring
• Authors: Alene K. Rhea, Kelsey Markey, Lauren D'Arinzo, Hilke Schellmann, Mona Sloane, Paul Squires, Julia Stoyanovich
• Abstract summary: We develop a methodology for an external audit of stability of predictions made by algorithmic personality tests. We instantiate this methodology in an audit of two systems, Humantic AI and Crystal. We find that both systems show substantial instability with respect to key facets of measurement.
• Score: 4.837064018590988
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated hiring systems are among the fastest-developing of all high-stakes AI systems. Among these are algorithmic personality tests that use insights from psychometric testing, and promise to surface personality traits indicative of future success based on job seekers' resumes or social media profiles. We interrogate the validity of such systems using stability of the outputs they produce, noting that reliability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for validity. Our approach is to (a) develop a methodology for an external audit of stability of predictions made by algorithmic personality tests, and (b) instantiate this methodology in an audit of two systems, Humantic AI and Crystal. Crucially, rather than challenging or affirming the assumptions made in psychometric testing -- that personality is a meaningful and measurable construct, and that personality traits are indicative of future success on the job -- we frame our methodology around testing the underlying assumptions made by the vendors of the algorithmic personality tests themselves. In our audit of Humantic AI and Crystal, we find that both systems show substantial instability with respect to key facets of measurement, and so cannot be considered valid testing instruments. For example, Crystal frequently computes different personality scores if the same resume is given in PDF vs. in raw text format, violating the assumption that the output of an algorithmic personality test is stable across job-irrelevant variations in the input. Among other notable findings is evidence of persistent -- and often incorrect -- data linkage by Humantic AI.

Related papers

• Stop Evaluating AI with Human Tests, Develop Principled, AI-specific Tests instead [2.809966405091883]
  We argue that interpreting benchmark performance as measurements of human-like traits, lacks sufficient theoretical and empirical justification.<n>We call for the development of principled, AI-specific evaluation frameworks tailored to AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T18:14:35Z)
• AI-Driven Tools in Modern Software Quality Assurance: An Assessment of Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions [0.0]
  The research aims to assess the benefits, challenges, and prospects of integrating modern AI-oriented tools into quality assurance processes.<n>The research demonstrates AI's transformative potential for QA but highlights the importance of a strategic approach to implementing these technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T20:22:47Z)
• TestAgent: An Adaptive and Intelligent Expert for Human Assessment [62.060118490577366]
  We propose TestAgent, a large language model (LLM)-powered agent designed to enhance adaptive testing through interactive engagement.<n>TestAgent supports personalized question selection, captures test-takers' responses and anomalies, and provides precise outcomes through dynamic, conversational interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T16:07:54Z)
• Behind the Screens: Uncovering Bias in AI-Driven Video Interview Assessments Using Counterfactuals [0.0]
  We introduce a counterfactual-based framework to evaluate and quantify bias in AI-driven personality assessments.<n>Our approach employs generative adversarial networks (GANs) to generate counterfactual representations of job applicants.<n>This work provides a scalable tool for fairness auditing of commercial AI hiring platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T18:46:14Z)
• The Future of Software Testing: AI-Powered Test Case Generation and Validation [0.0]
  This paper explores the transformative potential of AI in improving test case generation and validation. It focuses on its ability to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and scalability in testing processes. It also addresses key challenges associated with adapting AI for testing, including the need for high quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T17:12:40Z)
• Test Generation Strategies for Building Failure Models and Explaining Spurious Failures [4.995172162560306]
  Test inputs fail not only when the system under test is faulty but also when the inputs are invalid or unrealistic. We propose to build failure models for inferring interpretable rules on test inputs that cause spurious failures. We show that our proposed surrogate-assisted approach generates failure models with an average accuracy of 83%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T18:36:15Z)
• Towards Reliable AI: Adequacy Metrics for Ensuring the Quality of System-level Testing of Autonomous Vehicles [5.634825161148484]
  We introduce a set of black-box test adequacy metrics called "Test suite Instance Space Adequacy" (TISA) metrics. The TISA metrics offer a way to assess both the diversity and coverage of the test suite and the range of bugs detected during testing. We evaluate the efficacy of the TISA metrics by examining their correlation with the number of bugs detected in system-level simulation testing of AVs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T10:16:05Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Action Quality Assessment [67.20617610820857]
  We propose a novel probabilistic model, named Uncertainty-Driven AQA (UD-AQA), to capture the diversity among multiple judge scores. We generate the estimation of uncertainty for each prediction, which is employed to re-weight AQA regression loss. Our proposed method achieves competitive results on three benchmarks including the Olympic events MTL-AQA and FineDiving, and the surgical skill JIGSAWS datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-29T07:21:15Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Using Sampling to Estimate and Improve Performance of Automated Scoring Systems with Guarantees [63.62448343531963]
  We propose a combination of the existing paradigms, sampling responses to be scored by humans intelligently. We observe significant gains in accuracy (19.80% increase on average) and quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) (25.60% on average) with a relatively small human budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-17T05:00:51Z)
• An Uncertainty-based Human-in-the-loop System for Industrial Tool Wear Analysis [68.8204255655161]
  We show that uncertainty measures based on Monte-Carlo dropout in the context of a human-in-the-loop system increase the system's transparency and performance. A simulation study demonstrates that the uncertainty-based human-in-the-loop system increases performance for different levels of human involvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T15:47:37Z)
• Causal Feature Selection for Algorithmic Fairness [61.767399505764736]
  We consider fairness in the integration component of data management. We propose an approach to identify a sub-collection of features that ensure the fairness of the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T20:20:10Z)
• Jointly Predicting Job Performance, Personality, Cognitive Ability, Affect, and Well-Being [42.67003631848889]
  We create a benchmark for predictive analysis of individuals from a perspective that integrates physical and physiological behavior, psychological states and traits, and job performance. We design data mining techniques as benchmark and uses real noisy and incomplete data derived from wearable sensors to predict 19 constructs based on 12 standardized well-validated tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T14:30:29Z)

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.