mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

An External Stability Audit Framework to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiring

arXiv 2201.09151 ↗First posted 23 Jan 2022cs.CY cs.AI cs.LGcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated hiring systems are among the fastest-developing of all high-stakes AI systems. Among these are algorithmic personality tests that use insights from psychometric testing, and promise to surface personality traits indicative of future success based on job seekers' resumes or social media profiles. We interrogate the validity of such systems using stability of the outputs they produce, noting that reliability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for validity. Our approach is to (a) develop a methodology for an external audit of stability of predictions made by algorithmic personality tests, and (b) instantiate this methodology in an audit of two systems, Humantic AI and Crystal. Crucially, rather than challenging or affirming the assumptions made in psychometric testing -- that personality is a meaningful and measurable construct, and that personality traits are indicative of future success on the job -- we frame our methodology around testing the underlying assumptions made by the vendors of the algorithmic personality tests themselves. Our main contribution is the development of a socio-technical framework for auditing the stability of algorithmic systems. This contribution is supplemented with an open-source software library that implements the technical components of the audit, and can be used to conduct similar stability audits of algorithmic systems. We instantiate our framework with the audit of two real-world personality prediction systems, namely Humantic AI and Crystal. The application of our audit framework demonstrates that both these systems show substantial instability with respect to key facets of measurement, and hence cannot be considered valid testing instruments.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 98 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2022.

Builds on

12 of 98 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  2. 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
  3. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
  4. 2019The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelinescited by 129
  5. 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
  6. 2021Algorithmic Auditing and Social Justice: Lessons from the History of Audit Studiescited by 22
  7. 2021Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Auditscited by 20
  8. 2020Auditing ML Models for Individual Bias and Unfairnesscited by 18
  9. 2021A Silicon Valley Love Triangle: Hiring Algorithms, Pseudo-Science, and the Quest for Auditabilitycited by 16
  10. 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitationscited by 14
  11. 2020Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiringcited by 11
  12. 2020Hiring Fairly in the Age of Algorithmscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 4.

10 papers.