Mapping Stakeholder Needs to Multi-Sided Fairness in Candidate Recommendation for Algorithmic Hiring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00908v1
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:37:19 GMT
• Title: Mapping Stakeholder Needs to Multi-Sided Fairness in Candidate Recommendation for Algorithmic Hiring
• Authors: Mesut Kaya, Toine Bogers,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a multi-stakeholder approach to fairness in a candidate recommender system.<n>Job seekers, companies, recruiters, and other job portal employees were interviewed.<n>We use these interviews to explore their lived experiences of unfairness in hiring.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Already before the enactment of the EU AI Act, candidate or job recommendation for algorithmic hiring -- semi-automatically matching CVs to job postings -- was used as an example of a high-risk application where unfair treatment could result in serious harms to job seekers. Recommending candidates to jobs or jobs to candidates, however, is also a fitting example of a multi-stakeholder recommendation problem. In such multi-stakeholder systems, the end user is not the only party whose interests should be considered when generating recommendations. In addition to job seekers, other stakeholders -- such as recruiters, organizations behind the job postings, and the recruitment agency itself -- are also stakeholders in this and deserve to have their perspectives included in the design of relevant fairness metrics. Nevertheless, past analyses of fairness in algorithmic hiring have been restricted to single-side fairness, ignoring the perspectives of the other stakeholders. In this paper, we address this gap and present a multi-stakeholder approach to fairness in a candidate recommender system that recommends relevant candidate CVs to human recruiters in a human-in-the-loop algorithmic hiring scenario. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 different stakeholders (job seekers, companies, recruiters, and other job portal employees). We used these interviews to explore their lived experiences of unfairness in hiring, co-design definitions of fairness as well as metrics that might capture these experiences. Finally, we attempt to reconcile and map these different (and sometimes conflicting) perspectives and definitions to existing (categories of) fairness metrics that are relevant for our candidate recommendation scenario.

Related papers

• An External Fairness Evaluation of LinkedIn Talent Search [55.18656975953939]
  We conduct an independent, third-party audit for bias of LinkedIn's Talent Search ranking system.<n>We focus on potential ranking bias across two attributes: gender and race.<n>Our analysis reveals an under-representation of minority groups in early ranks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T19:10:49Z)
• Synthetic CVs To Build and Test Fairness-Aware Hiring Tools [2.558250634293445]
  This paper introduces an approach for building a synthetic dataset of CVs with features modeled on real materials collected through a data donation campaign.<n>The resulting dataset of 1,730 CVs is presented, which we envision as a potential benchmarking standard for research on algorithmic hiring discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T19:35:32Z)
• Algorithmic Hiring and Diversity: Reducing Human-Algorithm Similarity for Better Outcomes [0.5831737970661138]
  We show theoretically and empirically that enforcing equal representation at the shortlist stage does not translate into more diverse final hires.<n>We identify a crucial factor influencing this outcome: the correlation between the algorithm's screening criteria and the human hiring manager's evaluation criteria.<n>We propose a complementary algorithmic approach designed explicitly to diversify shortlists by selecting candidates likely to be overlooked by managers, yet still competitive according to their evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T14:09:43Z)
• 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 and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey [43.463169774689646]
  This survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness.<n>Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T08:04:18Z)
• A Co-design Study for Multi-Stakeholder Job Recommender System Explanations [2.6681297407122577]
  We find that different stakeholder types indeed have strongly differing explanation preferences. Candidates indicated a preference for brief, textual explanations that allow them to quickly judge potential matches. On the other hand, hiring managers preferred visual graph-based explanations that provide a more technical and comprehensive overview at a glance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T14:51:20Z)
• The Initial Screening Order Problem [20.105850916041952]
  We investigate the role of the initial screening order (ISO) in candidate screening.<n>The ISO refers to the order in which the screener searches the candidate pool when selecting $k$ candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T08:48:32Z)
• A Survey on Fairness-aware Recommender Systems [59.23208133653637]
  We present concepts of fairness in different recommendation scenarios, comprehensively categorize current advances, and introduce typical methods to promote fairness in different stages of recommender systems. Next, we delve into the significant influence that fairness-aware recommender systems exert on real-world industrial applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T07:08:22Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Allocation Schemes in Analytic Evaluation: Applicant-Centric Holistic or Attribute-Centric Segmented? [30.17763246746458]
  Many applications such as hiring and university admissions involve evaluation and selection of applicants. In these applications, the number of applicants is often large, and a common practice is to assign the task to multiple evaluators in a distributed fashion. We consider assigning each evaluator more applicants but fewer attributes per applicant, termed segmented allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-18T22:02:46Z)
• A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review [84.68308372858755]
  Malicious reviewers strategically bid in order to unethically manipulate the paper assignment. A critical impediment towards creating and evaluating methods to mitigate this issue is the lack of publicly-available data on malicious paper bidding. We release a novel dataset, collected from a mock conference activity where participants were instructed to bid either honestly or maliciously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T20:23:33Z)
• Opportunistic Multi-aspect Fairness through Personalized Re-ranking [5.8562079474220665]
  We present a re-ranking approach to fairness-aware recommendation that learns individual preferences across multiple fairness dimensions. We show that our opportunistic and metric-agnostic approach achieves a better trade-off between accuracy and fairness than prior re-ranking approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-21T04:25:20Z)

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.