Race · name group

How AI responds to Hispanic names and identity

We tested how AI models respond to Hispanic names or racial identity. We kept the rest of each biography, medical case or online comment the same. This page shows the tests available for this set of names or identity, and how each model responded.

Regulated decisionHiring and candidate screening

The control edit is a harmless change of the same size. It shows how much the model moves for no good reason, so a result only counts beyond it.

Jev, Laya and Kev are decision models that answer questions about text. A model listed as “not tested” has no result for that test.

The ranking for Hispanic

Most biased first. Each model is placed by its largest result beyond the control edit among Hispanic's decisions, the same rule as every ranking on this site. Thin ticks mark its other decisions. Select a row for that model's numbers below.

Each result shows how far one edit moved a model's answers, beyond a harmless edit of the same size. It does not show why the model reacts, or how it would treat any real person.

Laya: +1.21 percentage points beyond the control edit, range 0.83 to 1.57, on surgeon or physician

No clear effect, so not ranked

Jev500 texts tested.After the edit 0.04 points [0.00, 0.19], control edit 0.06 points; beyond the control edit −0.02 percentage points [−0.06, 0.13].

Where the range includes zero, we could not tell the result from chance with this many texts. That does not mean the model is fair. Where the range stays below zero, the model moved the other way: that shows on each result, but is not ranked.

Not tested here: Kev. Shown as missing, never as zero.

Regulated decision · Hiring and candidate screening

The compliance risk on Hispanic

The decision. Whether a short biography describes a surgeon or a physician, when we change a white-sounding full name to a Black-, Hispanic- or Asian-sounding one, or a white-sounding first name to a Black-sounding one. A screening tool that uses a model for it is reading a candidate's job or seniority from a résumé or short biography, then ranking or shortlisting candidates on that reading.

Each finding below gives the model's result, the range we are 95% sure of in brackets, the control edit it is measured against, and n, the number of texts tested.

What our test shows

Laya changes how sure it is of its surgeon or physician answer when a white-sounding full name becomes a Hispanic-sounding one: by 1.54 percentage points. By comparison, after a harmless control edit of the same size, its confidence moves 0.33 percentage points. We are 95% sure the true figure is between 1.16 and 1.90, from 500 bios. See one real biography, both ways.
Jev changes how sure it is of its surgeon or physician answer when a white-sounding full name becomes a Hispanic-sounding one: by 0.04 percentage points. By comparison, after a harmless control edit of the same size, its confidence moves 0.06 percentage points. We are 95% sure the true figure is between 0.00 and 0.19, from 500 bios. See one real biography, both ways.

The failure

The model's own probability that the person holds the senior job moves with the ethnicity a name suggests. We compare that with a harmless control edit: swapping one white-sounding name for another.

Who is harmed

Candidates whose names the model reads as Black, Hispanic or Asian.

Laws and rules that could apply

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion, sex and national origin in employment.
Read the text
“to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Section 703(a)(1) (source)
“to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Section 703(a)(2) (source)
The four-fifths rule of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 CFR 1607.4(D)): selection rates by race, sex or ethnic group.
Read the text
“A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths ( 4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.”
29 CFR 1607.4(D) (source)
New York City Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools): automated tools that screen candidates or employees in New York City, and the bias audit they need, which reports results by sex and by race or ethnicity.
Read the text
“to screen candidates for employment or employees for promotion within the city”
NYC Administrative Code §20-870, "employment decision" (source)
“the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool”
Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (source)
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act), Annex III, point 4(a): high-risk AI systems for recruitment and selection.
Read the text
“AI systems intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular to place targeted job advertisements, to analyse and filter job applications, and to evaluate candidates”
Annex III, point 4(a) (source)

How it goes wrong, and how to avoid it

This is not legal advice. It connects what these models did in our tests to the rules that govern decisions a screening tool might use them for. Whether a real use creates legal liability depends on the facts, the jurisdiction and your lawyers. Each risk below links to the test result behind it, and each rule links to its source.

Every decision, ranked

Most biased first. Each row is one decision. Each mark is one model's result beyond the control edit, with the range we are 95% sure of. Filled: a clear effect. Hollow with a dashed line: the range includes the control edit, so no clear effect. Hollow with a solid line below zero: a clear effect in the opposite direction. Select a row for its full result.

Decision	Jev beyond the control edit [range]	Laya beyond the control edit [range]
surgeon or physician	−0.02 [−0.06, 0.13] no clear effect	+1.21 [0.83, 1.57] a clear effect
prescribing an opioid (Q-Pain)	not tested	+1.12 [0.00, 2.98] no clear effect

Each model

JevNo clear effect on any of its 1 decisions, in 500 texts.

Laya+1.21 percentage points beyond a control edit of 0.33 points at its largest, on surgeon or physician. 1 of 2 decisions show a clear effect.

Kevnot tested here

Back to every result for race

How we measured this

Other ranges on this page: we repeated the measurement 1,000 times on random re-draws of the texts, each text kept with its edited version.

Which build of the model gave the results on this page: Laya: the MLX build (laya-mlx 0.1.0); Laya: the original PyTorch build (laya 0.3.7). Where Laya has been run both ways the headline results matched, and we use the MLX build.

We call an effect clear when the whole range for the result beyond the control edit stays above zero. When the range includes zero, we cannot tell the result from chance with this many texts. When every group moves the answer by about the same amount, we cannot blame one group, so the result is shown but not ranked.

The saved answers and study files behind these numbers (5)

Every number on this page is re-run from these files with bd replay.

answers/jev/surgeon-physician/race-fullname.jsonl.gz
answers/laya-mlx/surgeon-physician/race-fullname.jsonl.gz
answers/laya/qpain-treatment/race.jsonl.gz
studies/qpain-treatment-race.jsonl
studies/surgeon-physician-race-fullname.jsonl

Six things to know before you read the results

One small edit, and the answer changesEach test changes one detail, such as "he" to "she", and leaves the rest of the biography alone. Laya changed its answer on 17.85% of paralegal-or-attorney biographies when only that word changed. That is the least Laya reacts to gender, not the most, because a pronoun is only one of the ways a text shows gender.
A change has to beat a harmless one to countA model can change its answer even when nothing in the text changes: asked about the same biography twice, Jev answers differently up to 6 times in 1,000. So we measure every real edit against a control: the same question asked again, or a harmless edit of the same size. We count an effect as bias only when it is clearly bigger than its control.
Small percentages are big at scaleJev reacts less than Laya: swapping "he" for "she" changes its answer on about 1 to 4 biographies in 100. On nurse-or-physician biographies, every time Jev changed its answer, it moved toward "nurse" for the woman. Across a million screening decisions, 3.3% is 33,000 people.
The order of the options changes the answersAsk Laya "physician or surgeon?" instead of "surgeon or physician?" about the same biography, and Laya changes its answer on 6.6% of biographies. Every other number here keeps one fixed order for each question. The Option order results show how much the order matters.
Stereotype questions test the model, not the peopleSome tests ask a loaded question, such as "Is this person greedy?", about biographies that mention a religion or a nationality. A high stereotype score shows that the model has learned a stereotype. It says nothing about the people in the biographies.
Nothing here is live, and nothing is hand-pickedWe saved every answer every model gave. Every number on this site is worked out again from those saved answers, the same way each time, with nothing left out. You can check any figure in the data file.