The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices
Open accessAbstract
There has been rapidly growing interest in the use of algorithms in hiring, especially as a means to address or mitigate bias. Yet, to date, little is known about how these methods are used in practice. How are algorithmic assessments built, validated, and examined for bias? In this work, we document and analyze the claims and practices of companies offering algorithms for employment assessment. In particular, we identify vendors of algorithmic pre-employment assessments (i.e., algorithms to screen candidates), document what they have disclosed about their development and validation procedures, and evaluate their practices, focusing particularly on efforts to detect and mitigate bias. Our analysis considers both technical and legal perspectives. Technically, we consider the various choices vendors make regarding data collection and prediction targets, and explore the risks and trade-offs that these choices pose. We also discuss how algorithmic de-biasing techniques interface with, and create challenges for, antidiscrimination law.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048
Self-citationArtificial Intelligence in Human Resources Management: Challenges and a Path Forward
Tambe, P., Cappelli, P., & Yakubovich, V. (2019) · California Management Review · doi:10.1177/0008125619867910 · Cited by 1,609
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1706255114 · Cited by 887
Problem Formulation and Fairness
Passi, S., & Barocas, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287567 · Cited by 283
Self-citationToward fairness in AI for people with disabilities SBG@a research roadmap
Guo, A., Kamar, E., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., & Morris, M. R. (2020) · ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing · doi:10.1145/3386296.3386298 · Cited by 128
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Seyyed-Kalantari, L., Zhang, H., McDermott, M. B. A., Chen, I. Y., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01595-0 · Cited by 928
Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach
Birhane, A. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205 · Cited by 707
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646
Langer, M., & Landers, R. N. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878 · Cited by 338
Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI
Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Diaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., & Mohamed, S. (2022) · Equity and Access in Algorithms Mechanisms and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3551624.3555290 · Cited by 330
Towards Human-Centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Y., Leemann, T., Nguyen, T.-T., Fiedler, L., Qian, P., Unhelkar, V., Seidel, T., Kasneci, G., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3331846 · Cited by 278
The Fallacy of AI Functionality
Raji, I. D., Kumar, I. E., Horowitz, A., & Selbst, A. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533158 · Cited by 251
Sánchez-Monedero, J., Dencik, L., & Edwards, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372849 · Cited by 196
Building and Auditing Fair Algorithms: A Case Study in Candidate Screening
Wilson, C., Ghosh, A., Jiang, S., Mislove, A., Baker, L., Szary, J., Trindel, K., & Polli, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445928 · Cited by 133
Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04053 · Cited by 646
A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle
Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. (2021) · Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3465416.3483305 · Cited by 82
Li, D., Raymond, L., & Bergman, P. (2020) · doi:10.3386/w27736 · Cited by 64
Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection
Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., & Kubicek, B. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118723 · Cited by 59
“In the context of personnel preselection, this includes a summary of applicants’ qualifications and an assessment of their suitability for the position (Raghavan et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodAuditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime
Groves, L., Metcalf, J., Kennedy, A., Vecchione, B., & Strait, A. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658959 · Cited by 59
OK computer: Worker perceptions of algorithmic recruitment
Fumagalli, E., Rezaei, S., & Salomons, A. (2022) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104420 · Cited by 46
Lewicki, K., Lee, M. S. A., Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581463 · Cited by 30
Automating Automaticity: How the Context of Human Choice Affects the Extent of Algorithmic Bias
Agan, A., Davenport, D., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2023) · doi:10.3386/w30981 · Cited by 25
Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systems
Kroll, J. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445937 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1906.09208
- OpenAlex
- W3013300757
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 14
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Keywords
- automated hiring, pre-employment assessment, algorithmic bias, bias mitigation, employment discrimination, anti-discrimination law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
