Related papers: Gender and Positional Biases in LLM-Based Hiring Decisions: Evidence from Comparative CV/Résumé Evaluations

Gender and Positional Biases in LLM-Based Hiring Decisions: Evidence from Comparative CV/Résumé Evaluations

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17049v2
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 00:07:04 GMT
Title: Gender and Positional Biases in LLM-Based Hiring Decisions: Evidence from Comparative CV/Résumé Evaluations
Authors: David Rozado,
Abstract summary: This study examines the behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) when evaluating professional candidates based on their resumes or curricula vitae (CVs)<n>All LLMs consistently favored female-named candidates across 70 different professions.<n>Adding an explicit gender field (male/female) to the CVs further increased the preference for female applicants.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Abstract: This study examines the behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) when evaluating professional candidates based on their resumes or curricula vitae (CVs). In an experiment involving 22 leading LLMs, each model was systematically given one job description along with a pair of profession-matched CVs, one bearing a male first name, the other a female first name, and asked to select the more suitable candidate for the job. Each CV pair was presented twice, with names swapped to ensure that any observed preferences in candidate selection stemmed from gendered names cues. Despite identical professional qualifications across genders, all LLMs consistently favored female-named candidates across 70 different professions. Adding an explicit gender field (male/female) to the CVs further increased the preference for female applicants. When gendered names were replaced with gender-neutral identifiers "Candidate A" and "Candidate B", several models displayed a preference to select "Candidate A". Counterbalancing gender assignment between these gender-neutral identifiers resulted in gender parity in candidate selection. When asked to rate CVs in isolation rather than compare pairs, LLMs assigned slightly higher average scores to female CVs overall, but the effect size was negligible. Including preferred pronouns (he/him or she/her) next to a candidate's name slightly increased the odds of the candidate being selected regardless of gender. Finally, most models exhibited a substantial positional bias to select the candidate listed first in the prompt. These findings underscore the need for caution when deploying LLMs in high-stakes autonomous decision-making contexts and raise doubts about whether LLMs consistently apply principled reasoning.

Related papers

Who Gets Cited? Gender- and Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection [0.16317061277456998]
This study systematically investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our results reveal two forms of bias: a persistent preference for male-authored references and a majority-group bias that favors whichever gender is more prevalent in the candidate pool.<n>Our findings indicate that LLMs can reinforce or exacerbate existing gender imbalances in scholarly recognition.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-02T13:27:32Z)
Who Gets the Callback? Generative AI and Gender Bias [0.030693357740321777]
We find that large language models (LLMs) tend to favor men, especially for higher-wage roles.<n>A comprehensive analysis of linguistic features in job ads reveals strong alignment of model recommendations with traditional gender stereotypes.<n>Our findings highlight how AI-driven hiring may perpetuate biases in the labor market and have implications for fairness and diversity within firms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-30T07:55:52Z)
On the Mutual Influence of Gender and Occupation in LLM Representations [24.011789371260708]
We study how occupations and the gender perception of first names in LLMs influence each other mutually.<n>We find that LLMs' first-name gender representations correlate with real-world gender statistics associated with the name, and are influenced by the co-occurrence of stereotypically feminine or masculine occupations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-09T22:11:30Z)
Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models [0.8636148452563583]
The study examines the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit gender bias in pronoun selection in occupational contexts. The jobs considered include a range of occupations, from those with a significant male presence to those with a notable female concentration. The results show a positive correlation between the models' pronoun choices and the gender distribution present in U.S. labor force data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-14T22:23:13Z)
Revealing and Reducing Gender Biases in Vision and Language Assistants (VLAs) [82.57490175399693]
We study gender bias in 22 popular image-to-text vision-language assistants (VLAs)<n>Our results show that VLAs replicate human biases likely present in the data, such as real-world occupational imbalances.<n>To eliminate the gender bias in these models, we find that fine-tuning-based debiasing methods achieve the best trade-off between debiasing and retaining performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-25T05:59:44Z)
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)
"You Gotta be a Doctor, Lin": An Investigation of Name-Based Bias of Large Language Models in Employment Recommendations [29.183942575629214]
We utilize GPT-3.5-Turbo and Llama 3-70B-Instruct to simulate hiring decisions and salary recommendations for candidates with 320 first names that strongly signal their race and gender. Our empirical results indicate a preference among these models for hiring candidates with White female-sounding names over other demographic groups across 40 occupations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T03:11:43Z)
Probing Explicit and Implicit Gender Bias through LLM Conditional Text Generation [64.79319733514266]
Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased and toxic responses. We propose a conditional text generation mechanism without the need for predefined gender phrases and stereotypes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-01T05:31:46Z)
"Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
VisoGender: A dataset for benchmarking gender bias in image-text pronoun resolution [80.57383975987676]
VisoGender is a novel dataset for benchmarking gender bias in vision-language models. We focus on occupation-related biases within a hegemonic system of binary gender, inspired by Winograd and Winogender schemas. We benchmark several state-of-the-art vision-language models and find that they demonstrate bias in resolving binary gender in complex scenes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-21T17:59:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.