Augmented Fine-Tuned LLMs for Enhanced Recruitment Automation

Ali Hamdi; Khaled Shaban; Mai Hassan; Mohamed T. Younes; Omar Walid

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Augmented Fine-Tuned LLMs for Enhanced Recruitment Automation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning four open-weight LLMs on a hybrid resume corpus turns them into reliable structured resume parsers, with Phi-4 14B reaching an F1 of 90.62%, a 27.7% gain over its base version.

desk verdict The paper's F1 headline is a mislabeled SBERT cosine-similarity score, its references are generated by the same model used to build the training data, and Table I contradicts the main conclusion; the evaluation needs a full rebuild. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06196 v1 pith:2PHSMKMI submitted 2025-09-07 cs.CL

Mohamed T. Younes , Omar Walid , Khaled Shaban , Ali Hamdi , Mai Hassan This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords resumeparsingfine-tuninglargelanguagemodelsrecruitmentautomationLoRAhybriddatasetJSONextractionapplicanttrackingsystem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that fine-tuning four open-weight language models on a hybrid corpus of real resumes and synthetic JSON examples turns them into reliable resume parsers, with Phi-4 14B reaching 90.62% F1 and large gains in exact-match, BLEU, and ROUGE over its untuned base. The authors build the dataset by parsing 2,400 Kaggle resumes with DeepSeek into a strict JSON schema and augmenting it with synthetic resumes in the same format. They then fine-tune LLaMA 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Phi-4 14B, and Gemma 2 9B with LoRA and evaluate on resume parsing and candidate-job matching. If correct, the work shows that small, domain-adapted models can deliver competitive structured-extraction accuracy while being cheaper and better for privacy than relying on generic large models. The reported gains are not uniform: fine-tuned Mistral and Gemma score lower on F1 than their base versions, a result the authors attribute to base-model overfitting to general semantic patterns.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid dataset pipeline: DeepSeek, a 236-billion-parameter model, parses 2,400 Kaggle resumes into a standardized JSON schema and generates synthetic resumes in the same format; normalization aligns dates and skill terminology; an 80/10/10 split feeds training, validation, and test sets. On top of this, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) with rank 16 and alpha 16 adapts LLaMA 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Phi-4 14B, and Gemma 2 9B using a batch size of 8, a learning rate of 5e-5, and 200 training steps. Evaluation couples Levenshtein-based exact match, SBERT-cosine F1, smoothed BLEU-4, and averaged ROUGE-1/2/L.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of resumes from the Kaggle dataset, have two independent human annotators produce JSON following the paper's schema, and compute the fine-tuned Phi-4 F1 against that human ground truth. If the F1 drops substantially below 90.62%, or if human–DeepSeek agreement is low, the central claim of precise resume extraction is largely an artifact of the labelling procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain-specific fine-tuning on structured, standardized JSON data substantially improves resume parsing for open-weight LLMs. Specifically, the fine-tuned Phi-4 14B model reaches an F1 score of 90.62%, a 27.7% improvement over its base, and a BLEU score of 47.58%, a 142.5% improvement; the fine-tuned LLaMA 3.1 leads exact-match at 82.05%. The authors attribute these gains to the hybrid dataset: real resumes parsed by DeepSeek provide realistic variety while synthetic resumes cover edge cases, and the shared JSON schema makes outputs consistent and easy to integrate into applicant-tracking systems. The paper also reports that base Gemma 2 and Mistral beat their fine-

Load-bearing premise

The reference JSON created by DeepSeek for real and synthetic resumes is assumed to be correct ground truth; the paper reports no human audit, so all metrics quantify agreement with DeepSeek, not true extraction accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fine-tuned Phi-4 can be dropped into an applicant-tracking pipeline to automate extraction of skills, experience, and education into structured records, reducing manual screening effort.
Employers could fine-tune compact models on their own resume archives and run parsing on-premise, avoiding sending candidate data to third-party APIs and easing privacy constraints.
The standardized JSON output format makes these models swappable components in existing HR software rather than requiring bespoke integrations.
If the gains generalize beyond this dataset, small domain-adapted models become a cost-effective alternative to relying on very large generic LLMs for structured extraction tasks.
The gap between semantic F1 and exact match (Phi-4: 90.62% vs 81.83%) indicates that semantic-similarity metrics may reward paraphrased-but-different outputs, so deployment should pair them with field-level validation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because DeepSeek generated both the labels and the test references, the reported metrics measure how faithfully the fine-tuned models imitate DeepSeek's annotation style rather than an absolute notion of extraction correctness; an independent human-annotated benchmark could move the numbers up or down.
The synthetic-resume augmentation may be doing much of the work: if the JSON schema is simple enough, a deterministic parser might achieve similar exact-match accuracy without fine-tuning an LLM, a baseline the paper does not report.
The method is recursive in an interesting way: any systematic bias in DeepSeek (for example, inventing 'Java expertise' from 'JavaScript') becomes baked into the training targets, so fine-tuning amplifies rather than corrects that bias.
A testable extension would be to audit fine-tuned outputs field-by-field (skills vs experience vs education) to see where residual errors concentrate, guiding whether the next improvement should come from more data, better labels, or schema changes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Before you spend time on this one: the headline result is not a real F1 score. Section III-D defines F1_sem as the cosine similarity between SBERT embeddings of the flattened reference and prediction. That's a semantic overlap score, not precision/recall, so the abstract's talk of "exceptional precision and recall" doesn't follow. And Table I shows that under this metric, fine-tuning lowers the score for LLaMA 3.1, Mistral, and Gemma 2 relative to their base versions. Only Phi-4 improves, and that improvement is measured with the non-F1 metric. The paper's own data contradicts the claim that fine-tuning helps.

To be fair, the experimental setup is not lazy: they assemble a hybrid dataset from the Kaggle resume set plus synthetic examples, standardize everything into JSON, and LoRA-fine-tune four open-weight models. The EM, BLEU, and ROUGE columns do improve after fine-tuning, which could be a modest, useful result for recruitment automation if the evaluation were trustworthy.

But the evaluation isn't trustworthy. DeepSeek parsed the real resumes and generated the synthetic ones; those same DeepSeek outputs serve as the test references. So the fine-tuned models are measured on how well they imitate DeepSeek, not on extraction correctness. There's no human audit, no inter-annotator agreement, no error bars, no code or data to reproduce the runs. The metrics list promises an Overall Similarity score that never appears in the results. And there's an unresolved citation placeholder in Section III-B. These aren't cosmetic issues; they compound the metric problem.

The reader's REJECT is right, and the stress-test note is correct. The metric mislabel alone is decisive; the circularity is a second load-bearing flaw. This is not a paper with one weak section. The evaluation would need to be rebuilt from the ground up with human-labeled references and a standard F1 definition before the results can be interpreted.

Who's it for? In its current form, nobody. A practitioner might glance at the EM/BLEU/ROUGE table, but without independent labels those numbers don't transfer. I would not cite it, and I would not send it to a serious referee. Desk-reject, with an explicit note that a resubmission would need a redesigned benchmark.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes fine-tuning four open-weight LLMs (LLaMA 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Phi-4 14B, Gemma 2 9B) with LoRA on a hybrid dataset of real resumes parsed by DeepSeek and DeepSeek-generated synthetic resumes, all standardized in JSON. The models are evaluated on Exact Match, F1, BLEU, and ROUGE, and the paper claims that fine-tuned Phi-4 achieves the highest F1 score of 90.62%, with improvements up to 27.7% in F1 and 142.5% in BLEU over base versions. The work is positioned as an advance over the authors' prior MLAR system for recruitment automation.

Significance. If the reported gains were valid, the paper would provide practically relevant evidence that small open-weight models can be adapted via LoRA for structured resume parsing. The paper is transparent enough to permit independent checking: full per-model scores are reported, and the metric definitions are stated explicitly. However, the central measurement is not F1, the reported results contradict the main claim for three of four models, and the reference labels are generated by the same model used to create training data. As it stands, the contribution does not establish the claimed improvements in recruitment-task accuracy.

major comments (4)

[Section III-D, Eq. (2)] The metric labeled 'F1 Score' is defined as F1_sem = cos(SBERT(R), SBERT(P)), which is a cosine similarity between Sentence-BERT embeddings of flattened reference and predicted outputs. This is not a precision/recall F1 measure. Table I reports this cosine similarity as 'F1 (%)', and the abstract describes the 90.62 value as 'exceptional precision and recall.' The evaluation therefore does not measure F1 at all, and the headline claim is unsupported.
[Table I and Section V] Under the paper's own F1_sem definition, fine-tuning reduces the score for three of four models: LLaMA 3.1 falls from 86.60 to 78.84, Mistral from 87.02 to 72.19, and Gemma 2 from 87.40 to 75.66. Only Phi-4 improves (70.95 to 90.62). The conclusion that 'fine-tuned models achieve substantial performance gains, with improvements of up to 27.7% in F1' is contradicted by the reported data for 75% of the models. The single Phi-4 gain is based on the mislabeled cosine-similarity metric.
[Section III-B] DeepSeek is used both to parse real resumes into JSON and to generate synthetic resumes; these outputs form the training targets. The test references are also DeepSeek outputs, with no human audit or inter-annotator agreement reported. Consequently, every reported metric, including EM, BLEU, ROUGE, and F1_sem, measures agreement with DeepSeek's annotations rather than extraction accuracy. Fine-tuned models are rewarded for imitating DeepSeek, which is structurally circular for the paper's accuracy claim.
[Abstract and Sections II/V] The abstract claims comparison 'compared to base models and other state-of-the-art LLMs,' but the experiments compare only the four fine-tuned models against their own base versions. No external state-of-the-art LLM baselines are reported, so this comparison claim is not supported by the presented results.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-B] Algorithm 1 references 'Ratner et al.' with a dangling '[?]' and no corresponding reference; the citation should be completed.
[Sections IV and V] Algorithm 3 is referenced for the evaluation process but is not included in the manuscript; the evaluation pseudocode is missing.
[Section III-D, Eq. (1)] The 'Exact Match' metric is defined as an average Levenshtein ratio, which is not exact match. The name is misleading and should be changed or the metric redefined.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, sentence fragments, and unclear formulations (e.g., Section I: 'New advancements in artificial intelligence has changed recruitment workflows a lot'). A thorough editorial pass is needed.
[Section III-B] The paper states DeepSeek has 236 billion parameters but cites DeepSeek-V2 [17]; please clarify the exact model version and parameter count used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The headline evaluation is circular: DeepSeek generates both the training targets and the test references, so the reported 'F1' and other metrics measure how well fine-tuned models imitate DeepSeek, not independent resume-parsing accuracy.

fitted input called prediction [Section III-B (Hybrid Dataset Creation), Algorithm 1, Section IV, Table I]
"Its large parameter size and strong performance in information extraction tasks make it well-suited for generating high-quality reference outputs. ... It is important to note that DeepSeek was used exclusively for parsing the real-world resumes and generating synthetic resumes to establish high-quality reference data."

Algorithm 1 builds D_combined from DeepSeek-parsed real resumes and DeepSeek-generated synthetic resumes, then splits it into D_train, D_val, and D_test. The test references are therefore DeepSeek's JSON annotations, the same output distribution the fine-tuned models are trained to reproduce. The reported EM, F1, BLEU, and ROUGE improvements are computed against those same DeepSeek-generated labels, so they measure fidelity to the teacher model rather than correctness of resume extraction. No human-annotated or independently verified test set is used, so the claimed 'prediction' of improved accuracy is built into the benchmark construction.

full rationale

The central evaluation is circular. Section III-B says DeepSeek parsed the real-world resumes and generated synthetic resumes 'to establish high-quality reference data,' and Algorithm 1 partitions this single DeepSeek-derived corpus into training and test sets. Fine-tuning on DeepSeek's JSON and then scoring against DeepSeek's JSON tests only how well the student models imitate DeepSeek. Additionally, Section III-D defines F1_sem = cos(SBERT(R), SBERT(P)), so the quantity reported as 'F1' in Table I and called 'exceptional precision and recall' in the abstract is a cosine similarity, not an F1 score; this is a metric-validity problem independent of the circular benchmark. The self-citations to MLAR [1] are contextual and not load-bearing. The benchmark circularity warrants a 7 rather than a lower score because the headline improvement claim rests on agreement with the same model that generated the labels.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on the unverified assumption that DeepSeek's JSON labels are correct. Free parameters are standard training hyperparameters chosen by hand. No new theoretical entities are introduced. The main burden is the DeepSeek-as-ground-truth assumption, which also drives the circularity score.

free parameters (6)

LoRA rank r = 16
Algorithm 2 sets r=16 by hand. Standard LoRA configuration, not tuned against validation in the paper.
LoRA scaling factor alpha = 16
Algorithm 2 sets alpha=16. Chosen by hand without reported tuning.
Batch size = 8
Algorithm 2 hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis reported.
Learning rate = 5e-5
Algorithm 2 hyperparameter; no sweep reported.
Max training steps = 200
Algorithm 2 sets 200 steps; no convergence criterion or early stopping shown.
Warmup steps = 5
Algorithm 2 hyperparameter; no justification.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption DeepSeek's JSON outputs are correct ground truth for resume parsing
Section III-B uses DeepSeek to parse real resumes and generate synthetic resumes, and this becomes the reference for training and testing. No human verification is performed.
domain assumption The Kaggle Resume Dataset is representative of real-world resumes
Section III-B sources 2,400 resumes from this dataset and assumes they cover the diversity needed for evaluation.
ad hoc to paper SBERT cosine similarity approximates F1 accuracy for structured extraction
Section III-D defines the metric as cos(SBERT(R), SBERT(P)), which is semantic similarity, not a precision/recall F1 score. Calling it F1 is an ad hoc redefinition that the paper relies on for its headline result.
domain assumption The JSON schema captures all entities needed for recruitment decisions
Section III-A defines the extraction target as name, contact, skills, experience, education, department. Whether these suffice for candidate-job matching is assumed, not validated.
domain assumption LoRA with the reported hyperparameters preserves pre-trained capabilities while learning the new task
Algorithm 2 assumes LoRA adaptation is effective; results show inconsistent gains, casting doubt on this assumption for three of four models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augmented Fine-Tuned LLMs for Enhanced Recruitment Automation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PHSMKMI

@misc{pith2026250906196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augmented Fine-Tuned LLMs for Enhanced Recruitment Automation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PHSMKMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06196}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel approach to recruitment automation. Large Language Models (LLMs) were fine-tuned to improve accuracy and efficiency. Building upon our previous work on the Multilayer Large Language Model-Based Robotic Process Automation Applicant Tracking (MLAR) system . This work introduces a novel methodology. Training fine-tuned LLMs specifically tuned for recruitment tasks. The proposed framework addresses the limitations of generic LLMs by creating a synthetic dataset that uses a standardized JSON format. This helps ensure consistency and scalability. In addition to the synthetic data set, the resumes were parsed using DeepSeek, a high-parameter LLM. The resumes were parsed into the same structured JSON format and placed in the training set. This will help improve data diversity and realism. Through experimentation, we demonstrate significant improvements in performance metrics, such as exact match, F1 score, BLEU score, ROUGE score, and overall similarity compared to base models and other state-of-the-art LLMs. In particular, the fine-tuned Phi-4 model achieved the highest F1 score of 90.62%, indicating exceptional precision and recall in recruitment tasks. This study highlights the potential of fine-tuned LLMs. Furthermore, it will revolutionize recruitment workflows by providing more accurate candidate-job matching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06196 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Flow Diagram, outlining the key steps in the creation of the hybrid dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Mlar: Multi-layer large language model-based robotic process automation applicant track- ing,

M. T. Younes, O. Walid, M. Hassan, and A. Hamdi, “Mlar: Multi-layer large language model-based robotic process automation applicant track- ing,” in2025 4th International Conference on Computer Technologies (ICCTech). IEEE, 2025, pp. 7–12

2025
[2]

A structured approach to im- plementing robotic process automation in hr,

S. Balasundaram and S. Venkatagiri, “A structured approach to im- plementing robotic process automation in hr,”Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1427, no. 1, p. 012008, January 2020

work page 2020
[3]

The impact of business process management and applicant tracking systems on recruiting process per- formance,

S. Laumer, C. Maier, and A. Eckhardt, “The impact of business process management and applicant tracking systems on recruiting process per- formance,”Journal of Business Economics, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 421–453, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Robotic process automation for recruitment process,

N. Nawaz, “Robotic process automation for recruitment process,”Inter- national Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 608–611, March-April 2019

work page 2019
[5]

A deep learning bert- based approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment,

E. Abdollahnejad, M. Kalman, and B. H. Far, “A deep learning bert- based approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment,” in2021 In- ternational Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 2021, pp. 98–104

2021
[6]

A survey on hr process automation: Trends, technologies, and future directions,

S. Wang, P. Patel, A. Dubey, and A. Jakubik, “A survey on hr process automation: Trends, technologies, and future directions,”IEEE Trans- actions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 689–701, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

An ml- based resume screening and ranking system,

V . AR, R. K. P. Kumar, S. P. VVNS, V . KVK, and S. P, “An ml- based resume screening and ranking system,” in2024 International Conference on Signal Processing, Computation, Electronics, Power and Telecommunication (IConSCEPT), 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024
[8]

Prospectcv: Llm- based advanced cv-jd evaluation platform,

G. Vagale, S. Y . Bhat, P. P. Dharishini, and P. GK, “Prospectcv: Llm- based advanced cv-jd evaluation platform,” in2024 IEEE Students Conference on Engineering and Systems (SCES), 2024, pp. 1–6

2024

Show all 24 references

[9]

Combining robotic process automation with artificial intelligence: Applications, terminology, benefits, and chal- lenges,

L. Schaudt and D. Schlegel, “Combining robotic process automation with artificial intelligence: Applications, terminology, benefits, and chal- lenges,” inEurasian Business and Economics Perspectives. Springer, 2023, pp. 83–99

2023
[10]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

2019
[11]

Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention,

P. He, X. Liu, J. Gao, and W. Chen, “Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

2021
[12]

Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks,

S. Gururangan, A. Marasovi ´c, S. Swayamdipta, K. Lo, I. Beltagy, D. Downey, and N. A. Smith, “Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks,” inProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Comput...

2020
[13]

Layoutlm: Pre-training of text and layout for document image understanding,

Y . Xu, M. Li, L. Cui, S. Huang, F. Wei, and M. Zhou, “Layoutlm: Pre-training of text and layout for document image understanding,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 2020, pp. 1192–1200

2020
[14]

On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation,

Y . Xiao and W. Y . Wang, “On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation,” inProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 2734–2744

2021
[15]

Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems,

A. Wang, Y . Pruksachatkun, N. Nangia, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. R. Bowman, “Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems,” inAdvances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 3261–3275

2020
[16]

Resume dataset,

S. Bhawal, “Resume dataset,” https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ snehaanbhawal/resume-dataset, 2021

2021
[17]

Deepseek-v2: A strong, economical, and efficient mixture-of-experts language model,

DeepSeek-AI, “Deepseek-v2: A strong, economical, and efficient mixture-of-experts language model,” 2023

2023
[18]

Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacardet al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” 2023

2023
[19]

Mistral 7b,

A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Menschet al., “Mistral 7b,” 2023

2023
[20]

Phi-4 technical report,

M. Abdinet al., “Phi-4 technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08905

2024 arXiv
[21]

Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology,

G. DeepMind, “Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology,” 2023

2023
[22]

Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks,

N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks,” inProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2019, pp. 3982– 3992

2019
[23]

Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W. Zhu, “Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” inProceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 311–318

2002
[24]

Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

C.-Y . Lin, “Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,” inText Summarization Branches Out: Proceedings of the ACL-04 Workshop, 2004, pp. 74–81

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Mlar: Multi-layer large language model-based robotic process automation applicant track- ing,

M. T. Younes, O. Walid, M. Hassan, and A. Hamdi, “Mlar: Multi-layer large language model-based robotic process automation applicant track- ing,” in2025 4th International Conference on Computer Technologies (ICCTech). IEEE, 2025, pp. 7–12

2025

[2] [2]

A structured approach to im- plementing robotic process automation in hr,

S. Balasundaram and S. Venkatagiri, “A structured approach to im- plementing robotic process automation in hr,”Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1427, no. 1, p. 012008, January 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

The impact of business process management and applicant tracking systems on recruiting process per- formance,

S. Laumer, C. Maier, and A. Eckhardt, “The impact of business process management and applicant tracking systems on recruiting process per- formance,”Journal of Business Economics, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 421–453, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Robotic process automation for recruitment process,

N. Nawaz, “Robotic process automation for recruitment process,”Inter- national Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 608–611, March-April 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

A deep learning bert- based approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment,

E. Abdollahnejad, M. Kalman, and B. H. Far, “A deep learning bert- based approach to person-job fit in talent recruitment,” in2021 In- ternational Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 2021, pp. 98–104

2021

[6] [6]

A survey on hr process automation: Trends, technologies, and future directions,

S. Wang, P. Patel, A. Dubey, and A. Jakubik, “A survey on hr process automation: Trends, technologies, and future directions,”IEEE Trans- actions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 689–701, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

An ml- based resume screening and ranking system,

V . AR, R. K. P. Kumar, S. P. VVNS, V . KVK, and S. P, “An ml- based resume screening and ranking system,” in2024 International Conference on Signal Processing, Computation, Electronics, Power and Telecommunication (IConSCEPT), 2024, pp. 1–6

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Prospectcv: Llm- based advanced cv-jd evaluation platform,

G. Vagale, S. Y . Bhat, P. P. Dharishini, and P. GK, “Prospectcv: Llm- based advanced cv-jd evaluation platform,” in2024 IEEE Students Conference on Engineering and Systems (SCES), 2024, pp. 1–6

2024