Fine-Tuning Strategy, Not Just Data: A Statistically Rigorous Audit of Gender and Stereotypical Bias in Embedding Models for HR Recommendation Systems
Organizations: Randstad N.V.
Abstract
Embedding models underpin modern job-candidate matching: resumes, job descriptions, and queries are encoded as dense vectors, and recommendations come from nearest-neighbor retrieval over that space. Any social bias in the embeddings therefore feeds directly into HR recommendations. We audit six multilingual sentence-embedding models (LaBSE- and E5-family, both public and custom fine-tuned) using Bias-in-Bios (occupational gender bias) and StereoSet (stereotypes across profession, race, gender, and religion). We treat statistical validity as a first-class concern: we identify a non-independence error in a naive significance test, where pooling non-independent pairwise similarities inflated a trivial 0.0046 mean difference to , and replace it with a profession-level paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, individual-resampling bootstrap confidence intervals, and permutation tests for StereoSet. Under the corrected methodology, knowledge-distillation (KD) fine-tuning of E5-Base significantly increases measured bias on Bias-in-Bios (, ; more negative means more bias), although this measure is sensitive to global embedding geometry. The KD result is corroborated by pro-stereotype patterns in the StereoSet profession category (uncorrected ). Binary-classification fine-tuning of the same base model shows no statistically distinguishable change (). Fine-tuning strategy is thus an actionable design lever for practitioners building HR recommenders. We also report which benchmark categories are underpowered, and note that two domain-adapted models could not be included in significance testing due to a software-access constraint, which limits our conclusions.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | What it measures | Fit for this study |
| WEAT Caliskan et al. (2017) | Association between target-concept and attribute word embeddings via cosine similarity, in the style of the Implicit Association Test. | Designed for static word embeddings and short curated word lists; does not naturally extend to the sentence-level, document-length inputs (job descriptions, resumes) used in HR retrieval. |
| SEAT May et al. (2019) | Sentence-level extension of WEAT using templated sentences. | Templated sentences are synthetic and short; does not reflect the naturalistic, variable-length biographical or job-posting text dense embedding models encode in real-world HR settings. |
| CrowS-Pairs Nangia et al. (2020) | Minimal-pair sentence completions (stereotypical vs. less-stereotypical) scored by a masked language model. | Designed for masked-LM pseudo-log-likelihood scoring, not for embedding/retrieval models; would require a non-standard adaptation to our similarity-based pipeline. |
| Winogender Rudinger et al. (2018) | Gender bias in pronoun coreference resolution. | Targets a coreference task, not an embedding-similarity or retrieval task; not directly applicable without a task-specific head. |
| SBIC Sap et al. (2020) | Free-text social bias and offensiveness annotations at the sentence level. | Broader social-bias scope (offensiveness, power implications) than the occupational and demographic association bias most relevant to job/candidate matching. |
| StereoSet Nadeem et al. (2021) | Intrasentence stereotype vs. anti-stereotype vs. unrelated completions across profession , race , gender , religion . | Selected. Directly usable with sentence embeddings via context-to-candidate cosine similarity; profession is an explicit category, directly relevant to job matching; covers demographic axes beyond gender. |
| Model | Score | 95% CI | prof. |
| LaBSE (base) | 0.3834 | [0.3662, 0.4016] | 28 |
| E5-Base | 0.7759 | [0.7714, 0.7808] | 28 |
| E5-Base-Binary | 0.7637 | [0.7466, 0.7788] | 28 |
| E5-Large-Binary | 0.7190 | [0.6945, 0.7430] | 28 |
| E5-Base-KD | 0.5994 | [0.5863, 0.6114] | 28 |
| E5-Large-KD | 0.5847 | [0.5712, 0.5981] | 28 |
Text Embedding Models
Text embedding models map words, sentences, or documents to vectors for semantic search, retrieval, clustering, and downstream prediction.
See all 124 papers