FAIRE: Assessing Racial and Gender Bias in AI-Driven Resume Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01420v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 07:11:30 GMT
• Title: FAIRE: Assessing Racial and Gender Bias in AI-Driven Resume Evaluations
• Authors: Athena Wen, Tanush Patil, Ansh Saxena, Yicheng Fu, Sean O'Brien, Kevin Zhu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark, FAIRE, to test for racial and gender bias in large language models (LLMs) used to evaluate resumes.<n>Our findings reveal that while every model exhibits some degree of bias, the magnitude and direction vary considerably.<n>It highlights the urgent need for strategies to reduce bias in AI-driven recruitment.
• Score: 3.9681649902019136
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In an era where AI-driven hiring is transforming recruitment practices, concerns about fairness and bias have become increasingly important. To explore these issues, we introduce a benchmark, FAIRE (Fairness Assessment In Resume Evaluation), to test for racial and gender bias in large language models (LLMs) used to evaluate resumes across different industries. We use two methods-direct scoring and ranking-to measure how model performance changes when resumes are slightly altered to reflect different racial or gender identities. Our findings reveal that while every model exhibits some degree of bias, the magnitude and direction vary considerably. This benchmark provides a clear way to examine these differences and offers valuable insights into the fairness of AI-based hiring tools. It highlights the urgent need for strategies to reduce bias in AI-driven recruitment. Our benchmark code and dataset are open-sourced at our repository: https://github.com/athenawen/FAIRE-Fairness-Assessment-In-Resume-Evaluation.git.

Related papers

• Evaluating Bias in LLMs for Job-Resume Matching: Gender, Race, and Education [8.235367170516769]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the potential to automate hiring by matching job descriptions with candidate resumes.<n>However, biases inherent in these models may lead to unfair hiring practices, reinforcing societal prejudices and undermining workplace diversity.<n>This study examines the performance and fairness of LLMs in job-resume matching tasks within the English language and U.S. context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T22:11:22Z)
• Who Does the Giant Number Pile Like Best: Analyzing Fairness in Hiring Contexts [5.111540255111445]
  Race-based differences appear in approximately 10% of generated summaries, while gender-based differences occur in only 1%. Retrieval models demonstrate comparable sensitivity to non-demographic changes, suggesting that fairness issues may stem from general brittleness issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T07:28:10Z)
• GenderCARE: A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in Large Language Models [73.23743278545321]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in natural language generation, but have also been observed to magnify societal biases.<n>GenderCARE is a comprehensive framework that encompasses innovative Criteria, bias Assessment, Reduction techniques, and Evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T15:35:46Z)
• GenderBias-\emph{VL}: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Vision Language Models via Counterfactual Probing [72.0343083866144]
  This paper introduces the GenderBias-emphVL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in Large Vision-Language Models. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs and state-of-the-art commercial APIs. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T05:55:15Z)
• JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Models [12.12628747941818]
  This paper presents a novel framework for benchmarking hierarchical gender hiring bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) for resume scoring. We introduce a new construct grounded in labour economics, legal principles, and critiques of current bias benchmarks. We analyze gender hiring biases in ten state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:15:57Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• A survey of bias in Machine Learning through the prism of Statistical Parity for the Adult Data Set [5.277804553312449]
  We show the importance of understanding how a bias can be introduced into automatic decisions. We first present a mathematical framework for the fair learning problem, specifically in the binary classification setting. We then propose to quantify the presence of bias by using the standard Disparate Impact index on the real and well-known Adult income data set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-31T14:48:36Z)

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.