Johann D. Gaebler

Calvin Isley, Johann D. Gaebler, Sharad Goel

Statistical decision algorithms are increasingly deployed in domains where ground-truth labels are hard to obtain, such as hiring, university admissions, and content moderation. In these settings, models are typically trained on historical human evaluations -- for example, using past hiring decisions as a proxy for true applicant quality. However, if past evaluations unjustly favor certain groups, models trained on these labels may inherit those biases. To address this problem, we propose basing predictions on rubric embeddings, a representation framework that replaces standard black-box embeddings with features derived from expert-defined criteria that align with the underlying construct of interest. By anchoring predictions to semantically meaningful dimensions, this approach guards against biased proxy signals. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence that rubric embeddings mitigate label bias under plausible conditions. Empirically, we evaluate our method on a novel dataset of applications to a large master's program. We find that models trained on rubric embeddings reduce group disparities while improving measures of cohort quality. Our results suggest that basing predictions on interpretable, domain-grounded representations offers a practical approach to learning in the presence of biased labels.

Johann D. Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq et al.

Regulatory efforts to protect against algorithmic bias have taken on increased urgency with rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), which are machine learning models that can achieve performance rivaling human experts on a wide array of tasks. A key theme of these initiatives is algorithmic "auditing," but current regulations -- as well as the scientific literature -- provide little guidance on how to conduct these assessments. Here we propose and investigate one approach for auditing algorithms: correspondence experiments, a widely applied tool for detecting bias in human judgements. In the employment context, correspondence experiments aim to measure the extent to which race and gender impact decisions by experimentally manipulating elements of submitted application materials that suggest an applicant's demographic traits, such as their listed name. We apply this method to audit candidate assessments produced by several state-of-the-art LLMs, using a novel corpus of applications to K-12 teaching positions in a large public school district. We find evidence of moderate race and gender disparities, a pattern largely robust to varying the types of application material input to the models, as well as the framing of the task to the LLMs. We conclude by discussing some important limitations of correspondence experiments for auditing algorithms.