Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.15484 v2 pith:OT2IMRQH submitted 2024-06-17 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords biashiringllmsresumeframeworkgendercontentdemographic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in hiring has led to legislative actions to protect vulnerable demographic groups. This paper presents a novel framework for benchmarking hierarchical gender hiring bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) for resume scoring, revealing significant issues of reverse gender hiring bias and overdebiasing. Our contributions are fourfold: Firstly, we introduce a new construct grounded in labour economics, legal principles, and critiques of current bias benchmarks: hiring bias can be categorized into two types: Level bias (difference in the average outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups) and Spread bias (difference in the variance of outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups); Level bias can be further subdivided into statistical bias (i.e. changing with non-demographic content) and taste-based bias (i.e. consistent regardless of non-demographic content). Secondly, the framework includes rigorous statistical and computational hiring bias metrics, such as Rank After Scoring (RAS), Rank-based Impact Ratio, Permutation Test, and Fixed Effects Model. Thirdly, we analyze gender hiring biases in ten state-of-the-art LLMs. Seven out of ten LLMs show significant biases against males in at least one industry. An industry-effect regression reveals that the healthcare industry is the most biased against males. Moreover, we found that the bias performance remains invariant with resume content for eight out of ten LLMs. This indicates that the bias performance measured in this paper might apply to other resume datasets with different resume qualities. Fourthly, we provide a user-friendly demo and resume dataset to support the adoption and practical use of the framework, which can be generalized to other social traits and tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RL fine-tuning with a counterfactual mention/influence reward raises LLM self-explanation faithfulness (Phi-CCT) from near zero to ~0.66 in-distribution for two 8B models, with partial transfer to held-out tasks.

  2. Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show a quality-dependent position bias, favoring the first option for high-quality choices and later options for low-quality ones, and higher-temperature sampling can reveal the underlying preference.

  3. Evaluating the Promise and Pitfalls of LLMs in Hiring Decisions

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A benchmark of LLMs versus a proprietary hiring model on ~10,000 real candidate-job pairs reports the proprietary model wins on accuracy and fairness, while all tested LLMs show racial and intersectional bias.

Pith tools