# Modeling Fairness in Recruitment AI via Information Flow

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13793 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.13793/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07572/) (2022)
- [The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00907/) (2023)
- [Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03721/) (2021)
- [Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.09553/) (2020)
- [Causal Reasoning for Algorithmic Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.05859/) (2018)
- [Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04201/) (2021)
- [Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.04460/) (2022)
- [Let it RAIN for Social Good](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.04697/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Transparency as Answerability: Role-Dependent Information Flow Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16887/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Avoiding bias and understanding the real-world consequences of AI-supported decision-making are critical to address fairness and assign accountability. Existing approaches often focus either on technical aspects, such as datasets and models, or on high-level socio-ethical considerations - rarely capturing how these elements interact in practice. In this paper, we apply an information flow-based modeling framework to a real-world recruitment process that integrates automated candidate matching with human decision-making. Through semi-structured stakeholder interviews and iterative modeling, we construct a multi-level representation of the recruitment pipeline, capturing how information is transformed, filtered, and interpreted across both algorithmic and human components. We identify where biases may emerge, how they can propagate through the system, and what downstream impacts they may have on candidates. This case study illustrates how information flow modeling can support structured analysis of fairness risks, providing transparency across complex socio-technical systems.