Papers for
human resources software developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Generative AI creates and spreads biases in beauty and race
Generative AI Produces and Transmits Beauty Bias
Abstract: Societies reward people judged to be attractive by standards intertwined with gender and race. In this paper, we examine if and how generative AI may contribute to these dynamics. We audited 27 text-to-image generators released between 2022 and 2026 using simple prompts that never mention attractiveness or beauty, analyzing 51,300 generated faces and 160,196 photographs of real people across primary and supplementary comparisons. We used three automated measures and collected ratings from 550 human raters on a subset of images. Nearly all generators produced faces scoring above photographed faces under automated measures, and human raters judged the outputs of all 23 generators as significantly more attractive than photographed faces, even after correction for multiple comparisons. When focusing our analysis on gender, we find that 37% of female-prompted generated faces outscored the median professional fashion model. Across racial, ethnic, and national categories, groups associated with darker skin tones tended to receive lower attractiveness scores than groups associated with lighter skin tones. In a preregistered hiring simulation experiment (N = 570), exposure to AI-generated faces selected for high human-rated attractiveness lowered hireability and trustworthiness ratings and reduced interview advancement for an identical test set of candidates paired with photographs of real people; exposure to retouched photographs produced no such effect. Generative AI can reproduce racial hierarchies and gendered patterns of beauty and alter the context in which real people are judged.
Personality assessment improves across video interview types with language models
Cross-Protocol Personality Assessment with LLMs: Aligning Behavioral Evidence with Human Ratings
Abstract: Personality assessment from asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) plays a crucial role in recruitment by enabling standardized and behaviorally grounded evaluation for job applicants. However, most of the previous works are confined to a single interview protocol. Independently collected protocols differ in question sets and question-trait mapping. Thus, the human-rated evidence from one protocol cannot be used directly under another. To address this limitation, we propose the Cross-protocol Evidence-grounded Personality Assessment (CEPA) framework, which aligns behavioral representations across interview protocols. CEPA addresses protocol heterogeneity by projecting source behavioral records into the target protocol's construct-oriented representation space. It retrieves behaviorally relevant and personality-complementary human-rated exemplars to ground an ensemble of LLM raters, which enables behavior-to-personality associations without target-specific supervision. In cross-protocol experiments, CEPA reduces average mean squared error (MSE) by 43.8% (Forward) and 17.0% (Reverse) relative to the strongest baseline. Our empirical experiments show that human-rated evidence from one protocol can support personality assessment under another without target-specific supervision or retraining.
Resume matching uses interpretable features distilled from large language models
Building Interpretable Feature Representations for Resume-Vacancy Matching by Distilling Production LLM Signals
Abstract: Matching candidates to vacancies is central to recruitment, and a recruiter needs to see why a candidate fits, not only a single opaque relevance score. We provide this evidence as named, interpretable matching dimensions recruiters can act on - eight in our current deployment. We propose a two-part approach. The first is an LLM-based labeler whose prompts and feature definitions were refined from recruiter feedback while it served as an earlier production matching stage. In the current architecture, it is used only for offline labeling and is not called on online requests. The second is a feature bi-encoder distilled from it: a LoRA-adapted embedding backbone with compact per-dimension heads that runs on CPU and serves all online requests. Both parts keep improving: prompts are revised as feedback arrives, and the bi-encoder is retrained on the updated labels. The model is trained on 168,772 labeled vacancy-resume pairs (17,921 vacancies and 180,030 resumes). Recruiters using the service can confirm or revise surfaced feature predictions. On 927 recruiter-recorded values from this selected production-feedback subset, the deployed student agrees with the recorded decisions in 888 cases (95.79%). This is operational, non-blinded agreement rather than an independent human evaluation.