Behind the Screens: Uncovering Bias in AI-Driven Video Interview Assessments Using Counterfactuals

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12114v1
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 18:46:14 GMT
• Title: Behind the Screens: Uncovering Bias in AI-Driven Video Interview Assessments Using Counterfactuals
• Authors: Dena F. Mujtaba, Nihar R. Mahapatra,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-enhanced personality assessments are increasingly shaping hiring decisions, using affective computing to predict traits from the Big Five (OCEAN) model. However, integrating AI into these assessments raises ethical concerns, especially around bias amplification rooted in training data. These biases can lead to discriminatory outcomes based on protected attributes like gender, ethnicity, and age. To address this, we introduce a counterfactual-based framework to systematically evaluate and quantify bias in AI-driven personality assessments. Our approach employs generative adversarial networks (GANs) to generate counterfactual representations of job applicants by altering protected attributes, enabling fairness analysis without access to the underlying model. Unlike traditional bias assessments that focus on unimodal or static data, our method supports multimodal evaluation-spanning visual, audio, and textual features. This comprehensive approach is particularly important in high-stakes applications like hiring, where third-party vendors often provide AI systems as black boxes. Applied to a state-of-the-art personality prediction model, our method reveals significant disparities across demographic groups. We also validate our framework using a protected attribute classifier to confirm the effectiveness of our counterfactual generation. This work provides a scalable tool for fairness auditing of commercial AI hiring platforms, especially in black-box settings where training data and model internals are inaccessible. Our results highlight the importance of counterfactual approaches in improving ethical transparency in affective computing.

Related papers

• Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening [0.0]
  This study investigates the question of competence through a two-part audit of eight major AI platforms.<n>Experiment 1 confirmed complex, contextual racial and gender biases, with some models penalizing candidates merely for the presence of demographic signals.<n>Experiment 2, which evaluated core competence, provided a critical insight: some models that appeared unbiased were, in fact, incapable of performing a substantive evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T16:57:13Z)
• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• Uncovering Bias in Foundation Models: Impact, Testing, Harm, and Mitigation [26.713973033726464]
  Bias in Foundation Models (FMs) poses significant challenges for fairness and equity across fields such as healthcare, education, and finance.<n>These biases, rooted in the overrepresentation of stereotypes and societal inequalities in training data, exacerbate real-world discrimination, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and erode trust in AI systems.<n>We introduce Trident Probe Testing (TriProTesting), a systematic testing method that detects explicit and implicit biases using semantically designed probes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T19:06:37Z)
• Understanding trade-offs in classifier bias with quality-diversity optimization: an application to talent management [2.334978724544296]
  A major struggle for the development of fair AI models lies in the bias implicit in the data available to train such models.<n>We propose a method for visualizing the biases inherent in a dataset and understanding the potential trade-offs between fairness and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T22:14:02Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• 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)
• Fairness Explainability using Optimal Transport with Applications in Image Classification [0.46040036610482665]
  We propose a comprehensive approach to uncover the causes of discrimination in Machine Learning applications. We leverage Wasserstein barycenters to achieve fair predictions and introduce an extension to pinpoint bias-associated regions. This allows us to derive a cohesive system which uses the enforced fairness to measure each features influence emphon the bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T00:10:23Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• Improving Fairness of AI Systems with Lossless De-biasing [15.039284892391565]
  Mitigating bias in AI systems to increase overall fairness has emerged as an important challenge. We present an information-lossless de-biasing technique that targets the scarcity of data in the disadvantaged group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T17:38:38Z)
• Fair Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Information Networks [35.80367469624887]
  We propose a comprehensive set of de-biasing methods for fair HINs representation learning. We study the behavior of these algorithms, especially their capability in balancing the trade-off between fairness and prediction accuracy. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods in an automated career counseling application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-18T08:28:18Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

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.