Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27371v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 17:59:55 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring
• Abstract summary: Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors.<n>We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications.<n>We find clear racial disparities in applicant outcomes.
• Score: 70.15400013850069
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors. We hypothesize that algorithmic monoculture leads to the same individuals and members of the same racial groups facing rejection. We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications where all the applications are screened by algorithms built by the same vendor. We find clear racial disparities in applicant outcomes. Of all applications submitted by Asian and Black applicants, 14.74% and 25.87% are submitted to positions that adversely impact Asian and Black applicants, respectively, according to U.S. employment discrimination standards. Individuals also receive homogeneous outcomes: 4% of all applicants who apply to 10 positions are recommended for rejection from all positions, a rate higher than expected by chance. To better understand this homogeneity, we leverage the deterministic replicability of hiring algorithms to generate the outcomes applicants would have received if they applied to all positions. We show that applicants would need to apply widely in order to ensure their applications are considered by a human

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)
• Diversification as Risk Minimization [55.503117695676416]
  We show that diversification algorithms are no more robust than a naive, non-diversified algorithm.<n>We introduce VRisk, which measures the expected risk faced by the least-served fraction of intents in a query.<n>We then propose VRisker, a fast greedy re-ranker with provable approximation guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T13:51:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms [6.974741712647656]
  We present the results of two experiments capturing laypeople's perceptions of affirmative algorithms.<n>We find that people view fair algorithms favorably and denounce discriminatory systems.<n>We identify a source of these divisions: people have varying beliefs about who (if anyone) is marginalized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T08:25:15Z)
• "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)
• 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)
• Selection-Expansion: A Unifying Framework for Motion-Planning and Diversity Search Algorithms [69.87173070473717]
  We investigate the properties of two diversity search algorithms, the Novelty Search and the Goal Exploration Process algorithms. The relation to MP algorithms reveals that the smoothness, or lack of smoothness of the mapping between the policy parameter space and the outcome space plays a key role in the search efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-10T13:52:27Z)
• Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection [3.4961413413444817]
  We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T12:27:18Z)
• 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.