Gender-equity tools that rely on names disproportionately reward women with Western-sounding, gender-legible names while bypassing women whose names lose gender cues in transliteration; observational analysis of citation-diversity statements and two preregistered experiments across cultures identify a persistent 'legibility gap' driven by linguistic legibility rather than evaluator familiarity.

Main Finding

When interventions and measurements rely on name-based gender inference, they systematically benefit people whose names retain clear gender cues in English (primarily Western names) while bypassing those whose names lose such cues in transliteration (notably many East Asian names). This “legibility gap” means policies that increase women’s representation on average can nonetheless redistribute recognition away from culturally or linguistically less legible women.

Key Points

• Definition: The “legibility gap” is the unequal visibility and benefit created when gender is inferred from names that vary in how clearly they signal gender once transliterated into English.
• Observational result (citation diversity statements, CDSs):
  • Papers that included CDSs cited women more (30.8% vs 23.8%; +7.0 percentage points).
  • The increase in citations to women disproportionately accrued to authors with English-origin/Western names; citations to Chinese, Japanese, Arab, and other non-Western name groups fell.
  • The apparent gain for women was offset by reductions in citations to gender-blind names (−8.6 percentage points), suggesting reallocation rather than uniform improvement.
• Causal evidence (preregistered experiments):
  • Study 2 (US participants, N=750): Gender-feedback nudges raised selection of Western women significantly (10.8% → 21.1%; β = 0.1029, p < .001) but did not significantly increase selection of Eastern women (8.2% → 10.8%; p = .217).
  • Study 3 (participants from China, South Korea, Italy, Germany; final N ≈ 1,443): Replicated pattern—gender feedback increased selection of Western women (7.8% → 21.4%; β = 0.1360, p < .001) but not Eastern women (no significant change). The asymmetry persisted even when evaluators shared the cultural background of Eastern names.
  • Mechanism: results support linguistic legibility (names encoding gender cues surviving transliteration) rather than cultural unfamiliarity of evaluators.
• Scope/limits: Focuses on name-based (binary) gender inference tools; does not address nonbinary identities; country-level West/East coarse-grained; potential downstream cumulative effects not measured here.

Data & Methods

• Observational study (Study 1):
  • Dataset: Papers published 2020–2024 collected May 2024.
  • Sample: 216 papers with citation diversity statements (CDS) and 432 matched comparison papers (total N = 648 papers), together citing 40,719 references.
  • Matching: Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM) to obtain comparable papers by journal/characteristics.
  • Gender inference: gender-guesser library.
  • Cultural origin inference: Ethnea.
  • Analysis: Paper-level regressions controlling for publication year, field, region, team size, citation impact. Key coefficients show CDS association with increased woman-citation share and decreased share of gender-blind/non-Western names.
• Experiments (Studies 2 & 3):
  • Pre-registered designs (links provided in paper).
  • Study 2: US sample N = 750; selection task for a real Facebook campaign; random assignment to control vs gender-feedback; measured final pick distribution by candidate type (Western/Eastern, man/woman).
  • Study 3: Cross-cultural sample (China, South Korea, Italy, Germany; ~1,500 recruited, ~1,443 completed); same design as Study 2 but with heterogeneous evaluator cultures; tested interaction between evaluator region and candidate origin.
  • Statistical tests: logistic/linear models, Wald tests for differences across groups; results robust to controls for participant demographics.
• Robustness: Observational and causal evidence converge; experiments isolate treatment and mechanism (legibility vs familiarity).

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement and allocation are linked: When algorithmic systems or dashboard metrics use inferred demographics as inputs, measurement errors that are systematic by language/culture become allocation errors—resources, visibility, or opportunities (e.g., citations, invited talks, candidate shortlists) can be misdirected.
• Fairness metrics can be misleading: Aggregate parity gains (e.g., more women cited) can mask heterogeneous effects across cultural or linguistic groups. Relying on a single inferred attribute without auditing subgroup effects risks reinforcing cross-cultural inequality.
• Market and career impacts:
  • Citation counts and visibility feed hiring, promotions, funding, and collaboration markets. The legibility gap can exacerbate cumulative advantage for those already legible to measurement systems, amplifying inequality over time.
  • Global talent evaluation platforms and marketplaces that use automated demographic inference may undervalue whole segments of the global workforce.
• Policy and design recommendations for AI economists and practitioners:
  • Do not use name-based inferred gender as an allocation signal without auditing for cross-cultural heterogeneity.
  • Where possible, collect self-reported demographic data (opt-in, privacy-protected) rather than inferring from names.
  • If inference is necessary, model uncertainty: propagate classifier confidence into downstream decisions and avoid hard thresholds that treat noisy labels as ground truth.
  • Develop multilingual, script-aware classifiers and incorporate native-script information (avoid relying only on English transliterations).
  • Disaggregate impact analyses by cultural/linguistic groups to detect legibility gaps; report subgroup effects, not only averages.
  • Adopt corrective weighting or targeted outreach for under-legible groups, and monitor long-term compounding effects.
  • Perform regular algorithmic audits that test for interpreter-general biases (i.e., whether a measurement approach favors signals that survive translation).
• Research agenda:
  • Quantify downstream economic costs of misallocation due to legibility gaps (career trajectories, funding misdirection).
  • Extend analysis beyond binary gender to nonbinary identities and other axes (ethnicity, caste, religion) that may similarly lose signal in transliteration.
  • Design and evaluate scalable alternatives to name-based inference (e.g., federated self-identification, multilingual name registries, pronoun metadata in scholarly profiles).

In short: algorithmic, name-based gender inference can introduce culturally structured bias into measurement and allocation. AI economics work that evaluates interventions, designs equitable algorithms, or builds policy tools must account for legibility heterogeneity across languages and cultures to avoid inadvertent redistribution of opportunity.