Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals that even after redacting explicit demographic fields, LLMs can still infer protected attributes from unstructured prose and declared languages in résumés, challenging the efficacy of standard de-identification protocols. The research further demonstrates that evaluation artifacts, such as how judges handle ties, significantly distort bias audit results compared to actual model behavior on content. These findings are critical for refining fairness metrics and ensuring robust testing of hiring algorithms against subtle demographic leakage.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Beyond the Name: Demographic Leakage in De-Identified R\'esum\'es and Evaluation Artifacts in LLM Bias Audits

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.16501v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: De-identified r\'esum\'e screening assumes that redacting explicit fields prevents ethnocultural inference; however, recent audits attribute residual leakage to declared languages. We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves this leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 counterfactual r\'esum\'es. By holding language attributes strictly identical, we isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers. Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience, demonstrating that non-language prose sustains demographic inference. Crucially, models diverge only under faint cues (0.086-0.690), establishing salience as an essential evaluation axis. Furthermore, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge outcomes are highly sensitive to evaluation design: forbidding ties yields an apparent selection-rate ratio of 0.39 alongside strong position and content effects, whereas permitting ties produces near-universal ties for most models ($\ge94\%$). Downstream scoring shows only very small between-condition differences, highlighting the need to distinguish demographic signals recoverable from r\'esum\'e content from effects introduced by the evaluation protocol.

Abstract:De-identified résumé screening assumes that redacting explicit fields prevents ethnocultural inference; however, recent audits attribute residual leakage to declared languages. We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves this leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 counterfactual résumés. By holding language attributes strictly identical, we isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers. Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience, demonstrating that non-language prose sustains demographic inference. Crucially, models diverge only under faint cues (0.086-0.690), establishing salience as an essential evaluation axis. Furthermore, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge outcomes are highly sensitive to evaluation design: forbidding ties yields an apparent selection-rate ratio of 0.39 alongside strong position and content effects, whereas permitting ties produces near-universal ties for most models ($\ge94\%$). Downstream scoring shows only very small between-condition differences, highlighting the need to distinguish demographic signals recoverable from résumé content from effects introduced by the evaluation protocol.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.16501 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.16501v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.16501 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words

Related coverage