搜索结果：Hiring

The main contribution of this paper resides in providing novel algorithmic advances and analytical insights for the sequential hiring problem, a recently introduced dynamic optimization model where a firm adaptively fills a limited number of positions from a pool of applicants with known values and acceptance probabilities. While earlier research established a strong foundation -- notably an LP-based $(1 - \frac{e^{-k}k^k}{k!})$-approximation by Epstein and Ma (Operations Research, 2024) -- the attainability of superior approximation guarantees has remained a central open question. Our work addresses this challenge by establishing the first polynomial-time approximation scheme for sequential hiring, proposing an $O(n^{O(1)} \cdot T^{2^{\tilde{O}(1/ε^{2})}})$-time construction of semi-adaptive policies whose expected reward is within factor $1 - ε$ of optimal. To overcome the constant-factor optimality loss inherent to earlier literature, and to circumvent intrinsic representational barriers of adaptive policies, our approach is driven by the following innovations: -- The block-responsive paradigm: We introduce block-responsive policies, a new class of decision-making strategies, se

The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has heightened interest in the labor market value of AI related skills, yet causal evidence on their role in hiring decisions remains scarce. This study examines whether AI skills serve as a positive hiring signal and whether they can offset conventional disadvantages such as older age or lower formal education. We conducted an experimental survey with 1,725 recruiters from the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. Using a paired conjoint design, recruiters evaluated hypothetical candidates represented by synthetically designed resumes. Across three occupations of graphic design, office assistance, and software engineering, AI skills significantly increase interview invitation probabilities by approximately 8 to 15 percentage points, compared with candidates without such skills. AI credentials, such as university or company backed skill certificates, only lead to a moderate increase in invitation probabilities compared with self declaration of AI skills. AI skills also partially or fully offset disadvantages related to age and lower education, with effects strongest for office assistants, for whom formal AI

Algorithmic tools are increasingly used in hiring to improve fairness and diversity, often by enforcing constraints such as gender-balanced candidate shortlists. However, we show theoretically and empirically that enforcing equal representation at the shortlist stage does not necessarily translate into more diverse final hires, even when there is no gender bias in the hiring stage. We identify a crucial factor influencing this outcome: the correlation between the algorithm's screening criteria and the human hiring manager's evaluation criteria -- higher correlation leads to lower diversity in final hires. Using a large-scale empirical analysis of nearly 800,000 job applications across multiple technology firms, we find that enforcing equal shortlists yields limited improvements in hire diversity when the algorithmic screening closely mirrors the hiring manager's preferences. We propose a complementary algorithmic approach designed explicitly to diversify shortlists by selecting candidates likely to be overlooked by managers, yet still competitive according to their evaluation criteria. Empirical simulations show that this approach significantly enhances gender diversity in final hi

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in hiring has led to legislative actions to protect vulnerable demographic groups. This paper presents a novel framework for benchmarking hierarchical gender hiring bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) for resume scoring, revealing significant issues of reverse gender hiring bias and overdebiasing. Our contributions are fourfold: Firstly, we introduce a new construct grounded in labour economics, legal principles, and critiques of current bias benchmarks: hiring bias can be categorized into two types: Level bias (difference in the average outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups) and Spread bias (difference in the variance of outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups); Level bias can be further subdivided into statistical bias (i.e. changing with non-demographic content) and taste-based bias (i.e. consistent regardless of non-demographic content). Secondly, the framework includes rigorous statistical and computational hiring bias metrics, such as Rank After Scoring (RAS), Rank-based Impact Ratio, Permutation Test, and Fixed Effects Model. Thirdly, we analyze gender hiring biases in ten state-of-the-art LLMs. Seven out of te

[Context] Online Recruitment and Selection (R&S) processes are often the first point of contact between early-career software engineers and the tech industry. Yet many candidates experience these processes as opaque, inefficient, or even discouraging. While prior research has extensively documented the flaws and biases in online tech hiring, little is known about the practices that create positive candidate experiences. [Objective & Method] This paper explores such practices, referred to as Constructive Patterns (CPs), from the perspective of early-career software engineers. Guided by Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews in which participants collectively described over 470 online R&S experiences. [Results] Through thematic analysis, we identified 22 CPs that reflect positive practices such as comprehensive and transparent job advertisements (CP01), specific and developmental feedback (CP03), humanized and respectful interaction (CP06), and framing the process as a two-way street (CP18). [Conclusion] Our findings extend the conversation on tech hiring beyond diagnosing dysfunctions toward designing for human-centered and grow

Software engineers are responsible for developing, maintaining, and innovating software. To hire software engineers, organizations employ a tech hiring pipeline. This process typically consists of a series of steps to evaluate the extent to which applicants meet job requirements and can effectively contribute to a development team -- such as resume screenings and technical interviews. However, research highlights substantial flaws with current tech hiring practices -- such as bias from stress-inducing assessments. As the landscape of software engineering (SE) is dramatically changing, assessing the technical proficiency and abilities of software engineers is an increasingly crucial task to meet technological needs and demands. In this paper, we outline challenges in current hiring practices and present future directions to promote fair and evidence-based evaluations in tech hiring pipelines. Our vision aims to enhance outcomes for candidates and assessments for employers to enhance the workforce in the tech industry.

In an era of increasingly capable foundation models, job seekers are turning to generative AI tools to enhance their application materials. However, unequal access to and knowledge about generative AI tools can harm both employers and candidates by reducing the accuracy of hiring decisions and giving some candidates an unfair advantage. To address these challenges, we introduce a new variant of the strategic classification framework tailored to manipulations performed using large language models, accommodating varying levels of manipulations and stochastic outcomes. We propose a ``two-ticket'' scheme, where the hiring algorithm applies an additional manipulation to each submitted resume and considers this manipulated version together with the original submitted resume. We establish theoretical guarantees for this scheme, showing improvements for both the fairness and accuracy of hiring decisions when the true positive rate is maximized subject to a no false positives constraint. We further generalize this approach to an $n$-ticket scheme and prove that hiring outcomes converge to a fixed, group-independent decision, eliminating disparities arising from differential LLM access. Fina

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in hiring, with large language models (LLMs) having the potential to influence or even make hiring decisions. However, this raises pressing concerns about bias, fairness, and trust, particularly across diverse cultural contexts. Despite their growing role, few studies have systematically examined the potential biases in AI-driven hiring evaluation across cultures. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of how LLMs assess job interviews across cultural and identity dimensions. Using two datasets of interview transcripts, 100 from UK and 100 from Indian job seekers, we first examine cross-cultural differences in LLM-generated scores for hirability and related traits. Indian transcripts receive consistently lower scores than UK transcripts, even when they were anonymized, with disparities linked to linguistic features such as sentence complexity and lexical diversity. We then perform controlled identity substitutions (varying names by gender, caste, and region) within the Indian dataset to test for name-based bias. These substitutions do not yield statistically significant effects, indicating that names alone, when isolated fr

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become widely adopted, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved on both sides of decision-making processes, ranging from hiring to content moderation. This dual adoption raises a critical question: do LLMs systematically favor content that resembles their own outputs? Prior research in computer science has identified self-preference bias -- the tendency of LLMs to favor their own generated content -- but its real-world implications have not been empirically evaluated. We focus on the hiring context, where job applicants often rely on LLMs to refine resumes, while employers deploy them to screen those same resumes. Using a large-scale controlled resume correspondence experiment, we find that LLMs consistently prefer resumes generated by themselves over those written by humans or produced by alternative models, even when content quality is controlled. The bias against human-written resumes is particularly substantial, with self-preference bias ranging from 67% to 82% across major commercial and open-source models. To assess labor market impact, we simulate realistic hiring pipelines across 24 occupations. These simulations show that

The growing prominence of large language models (LLMs) in daily life has heightened concerns that LLMs exhibit many of the same gender-related biases as their creators. In the context of hiring decisions, we quantify the degree to which LLMs perpetuate societal biases and investigate prompt engineering as a bias mitigation technique. Our findings suggest that for a given resumé, an LLM is more likely to hire a female candidate and perceive them as more qualified, but still recommends lower pay relative to male candidates.

Algorithmic hiring has become increasingly necessary in some sectors as it promises to deal with hundreds or even thousands of applicants. At the heart of these systems are algorithms designed to retrieve and rank candidate profiles, which are usually represented by Curricula Vitae (CVs). Research has shown, however, that such technologies can inadvertently introduce bias, leading to discrimination based on factors such as candidates' age, gender, or national origin. Developing methods to measure, mitigate, and explain bias in algorithmic hiring, as well as to evaluate and compare fairness techniques before deployment, requires sets of CVs that reflect the characteristics of people from diverse backgrounds. However, datasets of these characteristics that can be used to conduct this research do not exist. To address this limitation, this paper introduces an approach for building a synthetic dataset of CVs with features modeled on real materials collected through a data donation campaign. Additionally, the resulting dataset of 1,730 CVs is presented, which we envision as a potential benchmarking standard for research on algorithmic hiring discrimination.

Hiring processes often involve the manual screening of hundreds of resumes for each job, a task that is time and effort consuming, error-prone, and subject to human bias. This paper presents Smart-Hiring, an end-to-end Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipeline de- signed to automatically extract structured information from unstructured resumes and to semantically match candidates with job descriptions. The proposed system combines document parsing, named-entity recognition, and contextual text embedding techniques to capture skills, experience, and qualifications. Using advanced NLP technics, Smart-Hiring encodes both resumes and job descriptions in a shared vector space to compute similarity scores between candidates and job postings. The pipeline is modular and explainable, allowing users to inspect extracted entities and matching rationales. Experiments were conducted on a real-world dataset of resumes and job descriptions spanning multiple professional domains, demonstrating the robustness and feasibility of the proposed approach. The system achieves competitive matching accuracy while preserving a high degree of interpretability and transparency in its decision process. This

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly used in real-world products, where personalized and context-aware user interactions are essential. A central enabler of such capabilities is the agent's long-term semantic memory system, which extracts implicit and explicit signals from noisy longitudinal behavioral data, stores them in a structured form, and supports low-latency retrieval. Building industrial-grade long-term memory for LLM agents raises five challenges: scalability, low-latency retrieval, privacy constraints, cross-domain generalizability, and observability. We introduce the Hierarchical Long-Term Semantic Memory (HLTM) framework, which organizes textual data into a schema-aligned memory tree that captures semantic knowledge at multiple levels of granularity, enabling scalable ingestion, privacy-aware storage, low-latency retrieval, and transparent provenance; HLTM further incorporates an adaptation mechanism to generalize across diverse use cases. Extensive evaluations on LinkedIn's Hiring Assistant show that HLTM improves answer correctness and retrieval F1 significantly by more than 10%, while significantly advancing the Pareto frontier between query and indexi

Foundation models require fine-tuning to ensure their generative outputs align with intended results for specific tasks. Automating this fine-tuning process is challenging, as it typically needs human feedback that can be expensive to acquire. We present AutoRefine, a method that leverages reinforcement learning for targeted fine-tuning, utilizing direct feedback from measurable performance improvements in specific downstream tasks. We demonstrate the method for a problem arising in algorithmic hiring platforms where linguistic biases influence a recommendation system. In this setting, a generative model seeks to rewrite given job specifications to receive more diverse candidate matches from a recommendation engine which matches jobs to candidates. Our model detects and regulates biases in job descriptions to meet diversity and fairness criteria. The experiments on a public hiring dataset and a real-world hiring platform showcase how large language models can assist in identifying and mitigation biases in the real world.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications like hiring, yet their potential for unfair decision-making remains understudied in generative and retrieval settings. In this work, we examine the allocational fairness of LLM-based hiring systems through two tasks that reflect actual HR usage: resume summarization and applicant ranking. By constructing a synthetic resume dataset with controlled perturbations and curating job postings, we investigate whether model behavior differs across demographic groups. Our findings reveal that generated summaries exhibit meaningful differences more frequently for race than for gender perturbations. Models also display non-uniform retrieval selection patterns across demographic groups and exhibit high ranking sensitivity to both gender and race perturbations. Surprisingly, retrieval models can show comparable sensitivity to both demographic and non-demographic changes, suggesting that fairness issues may stem from broader model brittleness. Overall, our results indicate that LLM-based hiring systems, especially in the retrieval stage, can exhibit notable biases that lead to discriminatory outcomes in real-

The field of the mathematical sciences relies on a continuous academic pipeline in which individuals progress from undergraduate study through graduate training and postdoctoral program to long term faculty employment. National statistics report trends in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree awards, but these data alone do not explain how individuals move through the academic system or how structural constraints shape downstream career outcomes. Persistent growth in postdoctoral appointments alongside relatively stable faculty employment indicates that degree production alone is insufficient to characterize workforce dynamics. In this study, we develop a discrete time compartmental model of the academic pipeline in the field of the mathematical sciences that links observed degree flows to latent population stocks. Undergraduate and graduate populations are reconstructed directly from nationally reported degree data, allowing postdoctoral and faculty dynamics to be examined under completion, exit, and hiring processes. Advancement to faculty positions is modeled as vacancy limited, with competition for permanent positions depending on downstream population size. Numerical simul

Early-stage candidate validation is a major bottleneck in hiring, because recruiters must reconcile heterogeneous inputs (resumes, screening answers, code assignments, and limited public evidence). This paper presents an AI-driven, modular multi-agent hiring assistant that integrates (i) document and video preprocessing, (ii) structured candidate profile construction, (iii) public-data verification, (iv) technical/culture-fit scoring with explicit risk penalties, and (v) human-in-the-loop validation via an interactive interface. The pipeline is orchestrated by an LLM under strict constraints to reduce output variability and to generate traceable component-level rationales. Candidate ranking is computed by a configurable aggregation of technical fit, culture fit, and normalized risk penalties. The system is evaluated on 64 real applicants for a mid-level Python backend engineer role, using an experienced recruiter as the reference baseline and a second, less experienced recruiter for additional comparison. Alongside precision/recall, we propose an efficiency metric measuring expected time per qualified candidate. In this study, the system improves throughput and achieves 1.70 hours

The use of large language models (LLMs) in hiring promises to streamline candidate screening, but it also raises serious concerns regarding accuracy and algorithmic bias where sufficient safeguards are not in place. In this work, we benchmark several state-of-the-art foundational LLMs - including models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Deepseek, and compare them with our proprietary domain-specific hiring model (Match Score) for job candidate matching. We evaluate each model's predictive accuracy (ROC AUC, Precision-Recall AUC, F1-score) and fairness (impact ratio of cut-off analysis across declared gender, race, and intersectional subgroups). Our experiments on a dataset of roughly 10,000 real-world recent candidate-job pairs show that Match Score outperforms the general-purpose LLMs on accuracy (ROC AUC 0.85 vs 0.77) and achieves significantly more equitable outcomes across demographic groups. Notably, Match Score attains a minimum race-wise impact ratio of 0.957 (near-parity), versus 0.809 or lower for the best LLMs, (0.906 vs 0.773 for the intersectionals, respectively). We discuss why pretraining biases may cause LLMs with insufficient safeguards to propagate societal

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly under scrutiny for perpetuating identity-based discrimination in high-stakes domains such as hiring, particularly against people with disabilities (PwD). However, existing research remains largely Western-centric, overlooking how intersecting forms of marginalization--such as gender and caste--shape experiences of PwD in the Global South. We conduct a comprehensive audit of six LLMs across 2,820 hiring scenarios spanning diverse disability, gender, nationality, and caste profiles. To capture subtle intersectional harms and biases, we introduce ABLEIST (Ableism, Inspiration, Superhumanization, and Tokenism), a set of five ableism-specific and three intersectional harm metrics grounded in disability studies literature. Our results reveal significant increases in ABLEIST harms towards disabled candidates--harms that many state-of-the-art models failed to detect. These harms were further amplified by sharp increases in intersectional harms (e.g., Tokenism) for gender and caste-marginalized disabled candidates, highlighting critical blind spots in current safety tools and the need for intersectional safety evaluations of frontier models in h