mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Monocultural Biases: Correlated biases in large language models lead to unequal systemic exclusion rates in hiring

arXiv 2609.22169 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.CY econ.GNcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Employers are increasingly using large language models (LLMs) to automate their hiring process. This paper investigates the risk of monocultural biases, in which the widespread deployment of large language models homogenizes biases across the labor market, leading to greater systemic exclusion for certain demographic groups. For ten LLMs, we measure hiring biases across their base and post-trained versions to identify which stage, pre-training or post-training, lead to monocultural biases. We find that, compared to their base models, post-trained models are 3.6% less likely to callback older applicants. This negative shift occurs in eight of the ten models that we evaluate. Post-trained models have much more correlated decisions than base models which is likely driven by human capital traits like skills or college major. However, greater consensus among models increases global systemic exclusion rates from 5.6% to 17.3% and exacerbates demographic inequalities, with intersectional systemic exclusion rates ranging from 12.2% to 21.7% for post-trained models. We find that this inequality is primarily driven by age-based discrimination that is exacerbated in post-training. These results indicate that while post-training techniques may improve models' abilities to select the best applicants, they may raise systemic inequality risks for those at the margin by uniformly introducing new biases.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

Builds on

20 of 38 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  2. 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 639
  3. 2023Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questionscited by 263
  4. 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 157
  5. 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 100
  6. 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 91
  7. 2024XGrammar: Flexible and Efficient Structured Generation Engine for Large Language Modelscited by 75
  8. 2024Datasets for Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 71
  9. 2025Falcon-H1: A Family of Hybrid-Head Language Models Redefining Efficiency and Performancecited by 57
  10. 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
  11. 2025Cultivating Pluralism In Algorithmic Monoculture: The Community Alignment Datasetcited by 35
  12. 2024"You Gotta be a Doctor, Lin": An Investigation of Name-Based Bias of Large Language Models in Employment Recommendationscited by 33
8 more
  1. 2024The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT's Race and Gender Biases in Hiringcited by 29
  2. 2024Stop! In the Name of Flaws: Disentangling Personal Names and Sociodemographic Attributes in NLPcited by 22
  3. 2024Generative Monoculture in Large Language Modelscited by 22
  4. 2024JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 21
  5. 2025Can Generative AI agents behave like humans? Evidence from laboratory market experimentscited by 10
  6. 2023Monoculture in Matching Marketscited by 5
  7. 2025Planted in Pretraining, Swayed by Finetuning: A Case Study on the Origins of Cognitive Biases in LLMscited by 5
  8. 2025Who Gets the Callback? Generative AI and Gender Biascited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.