FAIRE: Assessing Racial and Gender Bias in AI-Driven Resume Evaluations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In an era where AI-driven hiring is transforming recruitment practices, concerns about fairness and bias have become increasingly important. To explore these issues, we introduce a benchmark, FAIRE (Fairness Assessment In Resume Evaluation), to test for racial and gender bias in large language models (LLMs) used to evaluate resumes across different industries. We use two methods-direct scoring and ranking-to measure how model performance changes when resumes are slightly altered to reflect different racial or gender identities. Our findings reveal that while every model exhibits some degree of bias, the magnitude and direction vary considerably. This benchmark provides a clear way to examine these differences and offers valuable insights into the fairness of AI-based hiring tools. It highlights the urgent need for strategies to reduce bias in AI-driven recruitment. Our benchmark code and dataset are open-sourced at our repository: https://github.com/athenawen/FAIRE-Fairness-Assessment-In-Resume-Evaluation.git.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2025.
Builds on
5 of 20 references.
References · 5
- 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 174
- 2019Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Searchcited by 138
- 2024Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Modelscited by 33
- 2024Application of LLM Agents in Recruitment: A Novel Framework for Resume Screeningcited by 24
- 2024Large Language Models Still Exhibit Bias in Long Textcited by 16
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2025Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2026CoMAI: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Robust and Equitable Interview Evaluationcited by 2
- 2026Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Levelcited by 0
- 2026Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailablecited by 0
- 2026From Matching Models to Recruiting Agents: A Systematized Narrative Review of AI Recruitment Systems, Evaluation, and Governancecited by 0
- 2026From Matching Models to Recruiting Agents: A Systematized Narrative Review of AI Recruitment Systems, Evaluation, and Governance3 Sep 2026
- 2026Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable3 Sep 2026
- 2026Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Level7 Aug 2026
- 2026CoMAI: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Robust and Equitable Interview Evaluation17 Mar 2026
- 2025Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models17 Jun 2025