An External Stability Audit Framework to Test the Validity of Personality Prediction in AI Hiring
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
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
- 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
- 2019The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelinescited by 129
- 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
- 2021Algorithmic Auditing and Social Justice: Lessons from the History of Audit Studiescited by 22
- 2021Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Auditscited by 20
- 2020Auditing ML Models for Individual Bias and Unfairnesscited by 18
- 2021A Silicon Valley Love Triangle: Hiring Algorithms, Pseudo-Science, and the Quest for Auditabilitycited by 16
- 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitationscited by 14
- 2020Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiringcited by 11
- 2020Hiring Fairly in the Age of Algorithmscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 4.
10 papers.
- 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Surveycited by 30
- 2024Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approachescited by 9
- 2023A Brief Tutorial on Sample Size Calculations for Fairness Auditscited by 4
- 2026Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiringcited by 2
- 2024The Cadaver in the Machine: The Social Practices of Measurement and Validation in Motion Capture Technologycited by 1
- 2024Still More Shades of Null: An Evaluation Suite for Responsible Missing Value Imputationcited by 1
- 2026Greater accessibility can amplify discrimination in generative AIcited by 1
- 2023The Initial Screening Order Problemcited by 0
- 2026White-Box Sensitivity Auditing with Steering Vectorscited by 0
- 2026Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recoursecited by 0
- 2026Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse31 Aug 2026
- 2026Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring26 May 2026
- 2026Greater accessibility can amplify discrimination in generative AI23 Mar 2026
- 2026White-Box Sensitivity Auditing with Steering Vectors23 Jan 2026
- 2024Still More Shades of Null: An Evaluation Suite for Responsible Missing Value Imputation11 Sep 2024
- 2024Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches7 Jul 2024
- 2024The Cadaver in the Machine: The Social Practices of Measurement and Validation in Motion Capture Technology19 Jan 2024
- 2023A Brief Tutorial on Sample Size Calculations for Fairness Audits7 Dec 2023
- 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey25 Sep 2023
- 2023The Initial Screening Order Problem28 Jul 2023