Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11548v2
• Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 01:30:09 GMT
• Title: Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening
• Authors: Kevin T Webster,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing use of generative AI for resume screening is predicated on the assumption that it offers an unbiased alternative to biased human decision-making. However, this belief fails to address a critical question: are these AI systems fundamentally competent at the evaluative tasks they are meant to perform? This study investigates the question of competence through a two-part audit of eight major AI platforms. Experiment 1 confirmed complex, contextual racial and gender biases, with some models penalizing candidates merely for the presence of demographic signals. Experiment 2, which evaluated core competence, provided a critical insight: some models that appeared unbiased were, in fact, incapable of performing a substantive evaluation, relying instead on superficial keyword matching. This paper introduces the "Illusion of Neutrality" to describe this phenomenon, where an apparent lack of bias is merely a symptom of a model's inability to make meaningful judgments. This study recommends that organizations and regulators adopt a dual-validation framework, auditing AI hiring tools for both demographic bias and demonstrable competence to ensure they are both equitable and effective.

Related papers

• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• 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)
• FAIRE: Assessing Racial and Gender Bias in AI-Driven Resume Evaluations [3.9681649902019136]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T07:11:30Z)
• A Critical Review of Predominant Bias in Neural Networks [19.555188118439883]
  We find that there exists a persistent, extensive but under-explored confusion regarding these two types of biases.<n>We aim to restore clarity by providing two mathematical definitions for these two predominant biases and leveraging these definitions to unify a comprehensive list of papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:55:19Z)
• 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)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [91.86718720024825]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias.<n>Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning.<n>We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Auditing for Bias in Ad Delivery Using Inferred Demographic Attributes [50.37313459134418]
  We study the effects of inference error on auditing for bias in one prominent application: black-box audit of ad delivery using paired ads.<n>We propose a way to mitigate the inference error when evaluating skew in ad delivery algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T18:57:03Z)
• Reducing annotator bias by belief elicitation [3.0040661953201475]
  We propose a simple method for handling bias in annotations without requirements on the number of annotators or instances. We ask annotators about their beliefs of other annotators' judgements of an instance, under the hypothesis that these beliefs may provide more representative labels than judgements. The results indicate that bias, defined as systematic differences between the two groups of annotators, is consistently reduced when asking for beliefs instead of judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T07:44:01Z)
• 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)
• Data quality dimensions for fair AI [0.0]
  We consider the problem of bias in AI systems from the point of view of data quality dimensions.<n>We highlight the limited model construction of bias mitigation tools based on accuracy strategy.<n>We propose to reconsider the fairness of the classification task in terms of completeness, consistency, timeliness and reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T16:48:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.