Human, Algorithm, or Both? Gender Bias in Human-Augmented Recruiting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06240v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 13:01:06 GMT
• Title: Human, Algorithm, or Both? Gender Bias in Human-Augmented Recruiting
• Abstract summary: This study presents a quantitative analysis of gender bias across three scenarios of a real-world recruitment platform.<n>We find that human recruiters produce lists of candidates that are fairer in terms of gender than the AI-only solution.<n>Our work provides one of the first empirical comparisons of fairness across human, AI, and hybrid recruiting processes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent years have seen rapid growth in the market for HR technology and AI-driven HR solutions in particular. This popularity has also resulted in increased attention to the negative aspects of using AI to support hiring practices, such as the risk of reinforcing existing biases against vulnerable groups based on gender or other sensitive attributes. Combining human experience with AI efficiency in making recruiting and selection decisions has the potential to help mitigate these biases, but despite a considerable amount of research on fairness in algorithmic hiring, actual empirical evaluations comparing the fairness of human, AI, and human-augmented decision-making remain scarce. In this study, we address this gap by presenting a quantitative analysis of gender bias across three scenarios of a real-world recruitment platform: (1) recruiters searching a CV database manually for relevant candidates, (2) AI-driven matching between candidates and jobs, and (3) a combination of human and AI-driven recruiting. We find that human recruiters produce lists of candidates that are fairer in terms of gender than the AI-only solution, with more deliberation by humans resulting in fairer outcomes. However, the combination of human and AI-driven is more than the sum of its parts and produces the fairest candidate lists: interacting with the slate of recommended candidates first before manually searching for additional candidates has a beneficial effect on the gender fairness of the set of candidates that are viewed, clicked, and contacted afterwards. Our work provides one of the first empirical comparisons of fairness across human, AI, and hybrid recruiting processes, offering evidence to inform the development of more equitable hiring practices and highlighting the importance of human oversight for mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring.

Related papers

• Resume Screening, Fast and Slow: (Biased) AI Recommendations' Influence on Human Decision Making [8.112078916511516]
  We analyzed the time people spend viewing candidate resumes from an experiment investigating biased AI resume screening.<n>We found that spending more time viewing resumes corresponds to candidates' selection chance increasing by 3-4% if they are not recommended.<n>These results demonstrate how people's decision-making processes can be insufficient for overseeing AI in high-stakes domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T20:22:04Z)
• No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy [8.423021413553464]
  People collaborate with simulated AI models exhibiting race-based preferences (bias) to evaluate candidates for 16 high and low status occupations.<n>Simulated AI bias approximates factual and counterfactual estimates of racial bias in real-world AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T17:16:26Z)
• Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance [0.06554326244334868]
  We investigate how AI agents based on large language models assess and integrate human input.<n>We find that the AI system systematically discounts human advice, penalizing human errors more severely than algorithmic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:05:27Z)
• Exploring the Implementation of AI in Early Onset Interviews to Help Mitigate Bias [0.0]
  This paper investigates the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in early-stage recruitment interviews.<n>Results indicate that AI effectively minimizes sentiment-driven biases by 41.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-17T00:40:35Z)
• Fairness in AI-Driven Recruitment: Challenges, Metrics, Methods, and Future Directions [0.0]
  Recruitment process significantly impacts an organization's performance, productivity, and culture.<n>This paper systematically reviews biases identified in AI-driven recruitment systems, categorizes fairness metrics and bias mitigation techniques, and highlights auditing approaches used in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T05:25:14Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• 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)
• PECAN: Leveraging Policy Ensemble for Context-Aware Zero-Shot Human-AI Coordination [52.991211077362586]
  We propose a policy ensemble method to increase the diversity of partners in the population. We then develop a context-aware method enabling the ego agent to analyze and identify the partner's potential policy primitives. In this way, the ego agent is able to learn more universal cooperative behaviors for collaborating with diverse partners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-16T12:14:58Z)
• 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)
• Skill Preferences: Learning to Extract and Execute Robotic Skills from Human Feedback [82.96694147237113]
  We present Skill Preferences, an algorithm that learns a model over human preferences and uses it to extract human-aligned skills from offline data. We show that SkiP enables a simulated kitchen robot to solve complex multi-step manipulation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T18:04:08Z)
• Bias: Friend or Foe? User Acceptance of Gender Stereotypes in Automated Career Recommendations [8.44485053836748]
  We show that a fair AI algorithm on its own may be insufficient to achieve its intended results in the real world. Using career recommendation as a case study, we build a fair AI career recommender by employing gender debiasing machine learning techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-13T23:27:45Z)
• 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.