arXiv:2611.04510v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Industries are increasingly adopting AI-driven systems to automate a wide range of tasks, including high-stakes decisions in human resources, such as candidate screening and recruitment. This makes evaluating their fairness essential, particularly when decisions directly affect individuals' opportunities. Accordingly, the EU AI Act classifies recruitment AI systems as high-risk, imposing strict requirements on their deployment. In this context, compact “System~1'' decision models offer a fast and cost-efficient alternative to general-purpose LLMs, yet their fairness remains largely unexplored. This article presents the first systematic bias and fairness audit of \jev{}, a typed-decision model targeting recruitment applications. The study evaluates how explicit demographic attributes and implicit candidate cues influence screening scores, rankings, and shortlisting outcomes. These effects are compared against a noise floor derived from name substitutions and typographical variations. The evaluation also examines output validity, latency, and cost. Counterfactual CV datasets and evaluation code are released for reproducibility.
Abstract: Industries are increasingly adopting AI-driven systems to automate a wide range of tasks, including high-stakes decisions in human resources, such as candidate screening and recruitment. This makes evaluating their fairness essential, particularly when decisions directly affect individuals' opportunities. Accordingly, the EU AI Act classifies recruitment AI systems as high-risk, imposing strict requirements on their deployment. In this context, compact “System~1'' decision models offer a fast and cost-efficient alternative to general-purpose LLMs, yet their fairness remains largely unexplored. This article presents the first systematic bias and fairness audit of \jev{}, a typed-decision model targeting recruitment applications. The study evaluates how explicit demographic attributes and implicit candidate cues influence screening scores, rankings, and shortlisting outcomes. These effects are compared against a noise floor derived from name substitutions and typographical variations. The evaluation also examines output validity, latency, and cost. Counterfactual CV datasets and evaluation code are released for reproducibility.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org