REVIEW 2 cited by
Fairness in AI-Driven Recruitment: Challenges, Metrics, Methods, and Future Directions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The recruitment process significantly impacts an organization's performance, productivity, and culture. Traditionally, human resource experts and industrial-organizational psychologists have developed systematic hiring methods, including job advertising, candidate skill assessments, and structured interviews to ensure candidate-organization fit. Recently, recruitment practices have shifted dramatically toward artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods, driven by the need to efficiently manage large applicant pools. However, reliance on AI raises concerns about the amplification and propagation of human biases embedded within hiring algorithms, as empirically demonstrated by biases in candidate ranking systems and automated interview assessments. Consequently, algorithmic fairness has emerged as a critical consideration in AI-driven recruitment, aimed at rigorously addressing and mitigating these biases. This paper systematically reviews biases identified in AI-driven recruitment systems, categorizes fairness metrics and bias mitigation techniques, and highlights auditing approaches used in practice. We emphasize critical gaps and current limitations, proposing future directions to guide researchers and practitioners toward more equitable AI recruitment practices, promoting fair candidate treatment and enhancing organizational outcomes.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Better Together: Quantifying the Benefits of AI-Assisted Recruitment
Candidates routed through an AI video-interview pipeline passed a blind final human interview at 54%, versus 34% for resume-screened candidates, a 20-point gap that is imprecise and rests on only 70 finalists.
-
Reading Between the Lines: Classifying Resume Seniority with Large Language Models
Fine-tuned RoBERTa reached 90.6% accuracy on resume seniority classification using a new hybrid dataset, outperforming zero-shot GPT-4 and a TF-IDF baseline, though evaluation details are incomplete.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.