StaffPro: an LLM Agent for Joint Staffing and Profiling

Alessio Maritan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

StaffPro: an LLM Agent for Joint Staffing and Profiling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read StaffPro claims that one LLM agent can jointly staff tasks and profile workers in a closed feedback loop.

desk verdict A well-described LLM-agent prototype for staffing and profiling, but the simulation-based evidence is a self-consistency check and the 'lifelong learning' claim is not supported by the biased-feedback experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21636 v1 pith:VGVIOQJ5 submitted 2025-07-29 cs.AI

Alessio Maritan This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords LLMagentsstaffingworkerprofilingtaskschedulingteamformationhuman-in-the-looplatentattributeestimationworkforcemanagement

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

This paper tries to establish that staffing and worker profiling can be solved as one closed-loop problem by an LLM agent. StaffPro takes task descriptions and optimization objectives in natural language, generates feasible schedules with a classical scheduler, and then mines the human feedback those schedules provoke — acceptances, rejections, self-evaluations, peer reviews, and supervisor reports — into continuously updated estimates of each worker's skills and preferences. The scheduling and estimation mutually reinforce: better estimates make better assignments, and the assignments generate the feedback that refines the estimates. The paper demonstrates the loop in a simulated consulting firm of twenty workers, reporting that estimation error falls, questions to workers decrease, and schedule quality rises over time. If the result transfers, automated workforce management no longer needs handcrafted utility functions or rigid worker models.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the closed feedback loop itself, with the profiling estimator as its engine. A schedule is generated from estimated attributes $\hat\theta_{k-1}$; the schedule provokes acceptances, rejections, self-evaluations, peer comments, and supervisor reviews; the profiling module parses those texts into observations of the form $(w,o,s,\ell)$ or $(w,p,\ell)$; and the estimates are recomputed as weighted averages, $\hat\theta_w[p] \propto \sum \gamma^{k-h}\ell$ for preferences and $\hat\theta_w[s] \propto \sum \gamma^{k-h}\alpha_{o,w,s}\ell$ for skills. These averages give the system a single, always-updated profile per attribute and are what the paper identifies as the practical implementation of the maximum-likelihood estimator in (2). The scheduler itself is deliberately a black box, so the loop, not any particular scheduling algorithm, is the reusable discovery.

What would settle it

A direct calculation settles it: hold one observer's bias $b_{o,w,s}$ fixed at a nonzero value while feedback accumulates; the weighted average (4b) converges to $\theta_w[s] + b_{o,w,s}$, not $\theta_w[s]$, so estimation error plateaus above zero. In the paper's own simulation this is visible in Figure 5c, where estimation error drops sharply only after the feedback switches to an unbiased generator at time step 1000; hence a real deployment with persistent biased raters would fail to reach the claimed optimal staffing over time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that staffing and worker profiling are two halves of one closed loop, and that an LLM agent can run both. Staffing at time $k$ is a constrained combinatorial maximization of a weighted aggregation of objectives, where some objectives are quantitative and some are expressed in natural language; profiling is posed as maximum-likelihood estimation, $\hat\theta_k = \arg\max_{\theta'} p(F_{1:k}\mid\theta')$, over the latent vector of worker skills and preferences given all feedback so far. The observed feedback is modeled by equation (3): skill reports equal the true level plus an observer-specific bias and Gaussian noise, while workers' reports of their own preferences are assumed truthful. The agent inverts this model by using an LLM to extract single-point observations from unstructured feedback and then averaging them with recency and observer-reliability weights. In a simulated consulting firm with twenty workers and three thousand tasks, the paper reports that the agent starts with zero knowledge, asks progressively fewer questions, lowers estimation error, and generates assignments whose outcome optimality rises over time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every human signal the agent reads — self-evaluations, peer comments, supervisor reports, and task acceptances or rejections — is a noisy but honest measurement of the worker's true skill or preference, with biases that average out and preferences that are never strategically distorted; if real-world feedback is systematically biased or deliberately misleading, the profiling loop will converge to the wrong profile no matter how well the LLM extracts observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Natural-language objectives become usable in staffing, so supervisors can optimize for criteria that are hard to encode analytically, such as 'a united team' or 'diverse soft-skill coverage'.
Worker profiling happens as a byproduct of normal scheduling, from feedback that would be generated anyway, so no separate data-collection effort is needed.
The number of direct questions the agent asks humans falls over time, because accumulated observations let it evaluate criteria without interrupting workers.
Schedule quality and profiling quality improve together, so an organization that keeps the agent running gets progressively better matches between workers and tasks.
The agent design is modular — scheduler, LLM, and profiling module are interchangeable — so new constraints, new worker or task templates, or better LLMs can be adopted without breaking the loop.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the same closed loop applies wherever allocation decisions depend on latent human attributes and feedback arrives as text — patient-to-doctor scheduling, tutor-student matching, or project-team formation on freelancing platforms; the paper demonstrates only the consulting simulation.
My inference: because the skill estimator weights observers by fixed coefficients $\alpha_{o,w,s}$, an observer whose bias changes over time — a manager whose standards drift — will inject a time-varying error that the recency discount $\gamma^{k-h}$ partially handles but that the paper does not analyze.
My inference: a direct stress test the paper does not run is strategic feedback, in which workers inflate self-assessments or conceal preferences to secure better tasks; the generative model (3c) assumes truthful preference reports, so this is the natural next boundary to probe.
My inference: if profiling is the true driver of schedule improvement, then attaching the same profiling estimator to a classical, non-LLM scheduler that maximizes the same objectives should reproduce the rising optimality trend; this would separate the contribution of lifelong profiling from the contribution of LLM-based criteria evaluation.

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

Short version: the paper builds a plausible engineering system, StaffPro, that combines natural-language staffing objectives with a constraint-based scheduler and a profiling loop that mines human feedback for worker attributes. That combo is new as far as I know, and the write-up is refreshingly concrete about prompts, memory, and the scheduler heuristic. But the evidence section is a simulation that feeds the agent's own generative model back to the agent, and the headline claims outrun what the data actually show.

The formalization in Section 2 is a standard multi-objective scheduling problem plus a latent-attribute estimation problem; the novelty is in the integration. The profiling estimator in Eq. (4) is just a discounted weighted average over extracted observations. The claim that it implements the MLE (Eq. 2) is asserted, not derived, and the weights γ and α_o,w,s are free knobs. That matters because the paper's own feedback model (Eq. 3b) includes persistent observer biases, and the weighted average can't invert those unless the α's are chosen to do exactly that. The stress-test note is right on the money: Fig. 5c shows skill MAE plateauing under biased feedback and dropping sharply only after the simulator switches to unbiased feedback at t=1000. The paper actually admits this in the text ('the biases ... result in steady state estimation errors'), so the central claim of lifelong profiling under realistic conditions is not demonstrated anywhere in the experiments.

The staffing side is nicer. The scheduler in Appendix A is a real multi-path beam-search heuristic with an explicit caveat that it doesn't enforce deadlines, and the rescheduling algorithm is a reasonable attempt at least-disruption repair. The LLM-based criteria evaluation is well-described and interpretable. But there are no baselines, no error bars, and the 'optimality' oracle in Fig. 5d is computed from the same true attributes used to generate the feedback, so the positive trend is largely a self-consistency check. Also, 'game changer' in the intro and 'optimal staffing performance over time' in the abstract are overclaims.

Who should read it: researchers working on LLM agents for operations and workforce management will find the architecture a useful blueprint, and the appendix scheduler is a concrete starting point. It deserves a serious referee, but the revision must either temper the claims or add evidence that the learning loop works under biased, outcome-correlated feedback. I'd send it out.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes StaffPro, an LLM agent that jointly solves staffing (task assignment and scheduling) and worker profiling (continuous estimation of latent skills and preferences). The authors formalize the problem as a mixed-integer program for scheduling plus a maximum-likelihood formulation for profiling, and describe a modular system in which an LLM evaluates natural-language objectives, a scheduler generates feasible candidate schedules, and a profiling module extracts observations from human feedback and combines them via weighted averages. The experimental section simulates a consulting firm with 20 workers and 3,000 tasks, showing that estimation error decreases and schedule optimality increases over time. The paper claims lifelong worker profiling and optimal staffing performance from analyzing human feedback.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the paper would be a useful step toward LLM-based workforce management: the joint staffing-and-profiling formulation is natural, the separation between LLM evaluation and algorithmic scheduling supports interpretability, and the explicit treatment of human-in-the-loop feedback is a strength. However, the central quantitative evidence is a self-contained synthetic loop: feedback is generated from the paper's own model (3), the profiling estimator (4) is designed to invert that model, and the oracle that measures scheduling optimality uses the same true attributes that generated the data. The paper also provides no baselines, no error bars, and no code, so the main claims are not independently assessable. The formalization and system architecture may be useful, but the validation does not support the abstract's claim that the agent 'realizes life-long worker profiling and ensures optimal staffing performance over time' on real human feedback.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.1-4.2, Eqs. (3), Fig. 5] The central empirical demonstration is self-consistent rather than predictive. All skill feedback is generated by the authors' own model (3b): observations equal true attributes plus Gaussian bias and noise, and preference reports are truthful by (3c). The oracle that computes task optimality in Sec. 4.2 uses the same true attributes that generated the data. The profiling estimator (4) was designed to invert this generative process, so the decreasing MAE in Fig. 5c and increasing optimality in Fig. 5d show that the agent can recover attributes from data generated by the model it assumes, not that it can profile workers from real human feedback. The paper should test feedback that violates (3) (e.g., outcome-correlated bias, strategic misreporting, or LLM extraction errors), use real or human-annotated feedback, or explicitly re-scope the claims to a proof-of-concept.
[Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The claim that the weighted average (4) implements the maximum likelihood estimator (2) is not derived and is not consistent with the paper's own feedback model. With persistent observer biases b_{o,w,s} in (3b), the weighted average in (4b) converges to the true level plus the weighted average of the biases, not to the true level, unless the observer weights alpha are chosen to compensate each bias. No such compensation is described, alpha is a free parameter, and Fig. 5c confirms the consequence: skill MAE plateaus while feedback is biased and drops only after time step 1000, when the simulator switches to unbiased feedback. A derivation of the MLE under (3), or a bias-robust estimator, is needed before the profiling module's core justification is established.
[Sec. 4.2, Fig. 5d] The staffing result is reported for a single simulation run with no baselines, no error bars, and no statistical tests. The regression line in Fig. 5d is fit to one trajectory, and the improvement could be partly an artifact of the agent asking workers questions during early steps and defaulting to the median level for unknown attributes, rather than of lifelong profiling. The paper should compare StaffPro against baselines (e.g., no profiling, static profiling, or scheduling with true attributes), run multiple seeds, and report per-seed variability, especially for the period after the unbiased-feedback switch.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 5.1] The text reads 'unrelated from out work' and should be 'unrelated to our work'.
[Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'the retrieved observations can be different from the original ones are likely affected by some reconstruction noise' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.
[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (4)] The proportionality symbol hides the normalization factors; giving the explicit normalized form of the weighted average would make the estimator easier to analyze and reproduce.
[Fig. 5] The caption states that the horizontal axis is logarithmic after time step 100, but the tick labels in Fig. 5a and 5b are not consistently formatted; a shared, clearly labeled legend for the vertical line at time step 1000 would improve readability.
[Appendix A, Algorithm 3] The set P_h is used before its definition is given; the definition should be moved before the first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the profiling estimator is hand-designed and validated on a synthetic loop, but no claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the paper's central structure is: define a latent-attribute feedback model (Eq. 3), build an LLM-based estimator (Eq. 4) that averages extracted observations, and evaluate it in a simulation where feedback is generated from the same model with known latent attributes. This is a synthetic self-consistency check of an estimator, not a circular reduction: the agent never sees the true attributes directly, the estimator is not fitted to the test labels, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The claimed equivalence between Eq. (4) and the MLE of Eq. (2) is asserted without derivation and is doubtful under the paper's own bias model, but that is an unsupported/incorrect mathematical claim, not a circularity. The observed error drop in Fig. 5c after t=1000 is explicitly caused by the simulator switching from biased to unbiased feedback ('As expected, removing biases causes the estimation error to decrease dramatically'), which is a controlled change in the data-generating process, not a fitted parameter called a prediction; this limits external validity but does not make the derivation circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renaming of known results. The result is therefore not circular in the sense of reducing to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a synthetic feedback-generation model that the paper itself defines, together with several home-made tuning parameters (level scales, gamma, observer weights, objective weights). No external benchmarks are used.

free parameters (6)

Qualitative level to numeric score mapping = not specified
The 7 skill levels and 5 preference levels in Section 4.1 are averaged in Eq (4) and evaluated in criteria, but the numeric conversion is not given.
Discount factor gamma = not specified
Eq (4a) weights observations by recency; simulation does not report gamma.
Observer weights alpha_{o,w,s} = not specified
Eq (4b) weights skill observations per observer; value must be chosen by supervisors, and the simulation does not specify the choice.
Objective importance coefficients c_i = not specified
The 9 objectives in Appendix B are aggregated by V with weights; these weights are not reported.
Bias/noise standard deviations sigma_b, sigma_v = 1.5
Simulation parameters in Section 4.1 that define the synthetic feedback generator.
Scheduling beam width K = 3
Beam width for the multi-path conditional scheduler; affects schedule optimality and runtime.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Human feedback is generated by truth plus Gaussian bias and noise, with truthful preference reporting (Eq 3)
Used to generate all simulated feedback in Section 4.1; the profiling module in Section 3.2 is designed to invert this model.
ad hoc to paper Weighted averages in Eq (4) implement the maximum likelihood estimator in Eq (2)
Asserted in Section 3.2 without derivation; under model (3) the MLE would require known bias and noise variances, which are not used.
domain assumption An off-the-shelf LLM can reliably score natural-language optimization criteria
The staffing module relies on LLM evaluation of qualitative objectives (Section 3.1); only one prompt example is given, with no validation of scoring accuracy.
ad hoc to paper The oracle task outcomes are determined by criteria 6,7,8 and true attributes
Section 4.2 defines optimality via an oracle computed from true attributes; this assumes the chosen criteria are the right measures of real task performance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StaffPro: an LLM Agent for Joint Staffing and Profiling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGVIOQJ5

@misc{pith2026250721636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StaffPro: an LLM Agent for Joint Staffing and Profiling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGVIOQJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21636}
}

read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents integrate pre-trained LLMs with modular algorithmic components and have shown remarkable reasoning and decision-making abilities. In this work, we investigate their use for two tightly intertwined challenges in workforce management: staffing, i.e., the assignment and scheduling of tasks to workers, which may require team formation; and profiling, i.e., the continuous estimation of workers' skills, preferences, and other latent attributes from unstructured data. We cast these problems in a formal mathematical framework that links scheduling decisions to latent feature estimation, and we introduce StaffPro, an LLM agent that addresses staffing and profiling jointly. Differently from existing staffing solutions, StaffPro allows expressing optimization objectives using natural language, accepts textual task descriptions and provides high flexibility. StaffPro interacts directly with humans by establishing a continuous human-agent feedback loop, ensuring natural and intuitive use. By analyzing human feedback, our agent continuously estimates the latent features of workers, realizing life-long worker profiling and ensuring optimal staffing performance over time. A consulting firm simulation example demonstrates that StaffPro successfully estimates workers' attributes and generates high quality schedules. With its innovative design, StaffPro offers a robust, interpretable, and human-centric solution for automated personnel management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21636 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visual representation of how people may rate the skills of a target worker. In each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** High-level representation of the proposed LLM agent: architecture, essential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Our profiling pipeline consists in extracting observations about workers’ attributes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: In 5a and 5b, the horizontal axis is in logarithmic scale after time step 100. In 5b and 5c, the vertical line at time step 1000 indicates when we started generating unbiased human feedback. In 5d, for visualization purposes, the color of each data point is proportiona…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visual representation of the multi-path conditional scheduling heuristic implemented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

J. M. Ivancevich, M. T. Matteson, and R. Konopaske,Organizational behavior and management. Bpi/Irwin New York, 1990

work page 1990
[2]

Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior,

A. M. Isen and R. A. Baron, “Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior,” Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–53, 1991

work page 1991
[3]

The multi-skilled resource- constrained project scheduling problem: A systematic review and an exploration of future landscapes.,

Z. Bahroun, R. As’ ad, M. Tanash, and R. Athamneh, “The multi-skilled resource- constrained project scheduling problem: A systematic review and an exploration of future landscapes.,” Management Systems in Production Engineering, vol. 32, no. 1, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Using large language models for project staffing: Evaluation of gpt-based mapping of teams to projects,

N. Mikhridinova, F. A. Yurdakul, and C. Wolff, “Using large language models for project staffing: Evaluation of gpt-based mapping of teams to projects,” inProceedings of the 12th IPMA Research Conference “Project Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, pp. 1–19, IPMA, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Re-examining the functional diversity–performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning,

A. G. Tekleab, A. Karaca, N. R. Quigley, and E. W. Tsang, “Re-examining the functional diversity–performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning,”Journal of business research, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 3500–3507, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,

L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y. Lin,et al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,”Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 186345, 2024. 18

work page 2024
[7]

Application of llm agents in recruitment: A novel framework for resume screening,

C. Gan, Q. Zhang, and T. Mori, “Application of llm agents in recruitment: A novel framework for resume screening,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08315, 2024

arXiv 2024
[8]

Enhancing job recommendation through llm-based generative adversarial networks,

Y. Du, D. Luo, R. Yan, X. Wang, H. Liu, H. Zhu, Y. Song, and J. Zhang, “Enhancing job recommendation through llm-based generative adversarial networks,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 8363–8371, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 38 references

[9]

User modeling and user profiling: A comprehensive survey,

E. Purificato, L. Boratto, and E. W. De Luca, “User modeling and user profiling: A comprehensive survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09660, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Know you first and be you better: Modeling human-like user simulators via implicit profiles,

K. Wang, X. Li, S. Yang, L. Zhou, F. Jiang, and H. Li, “Know you first and be you better: Modeling human-like user simulators via implicit profiles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18968, 2025

2025 arXiv
[11]

Palr: Personalization aware llms for recommendation,

F. Yang, Z. Chen, Z. Jiang, E. Cho, X. Huang, and Y. Lu, “Palr: Personalization aware llms for recommendation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07622, 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

Rah! recsys–assistant– human: A human-centered recommendation framework with llm agents,

Y. Shu, H. Zhang, H. Gu, P. Zhang, T. Lu, D. Li, and N. Gu, “Rah! recsys–assistant– human: A human-centered recommendation framework with llm agents,”IEEE Trans- actions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

2024
[13]

User modeling in the era of large language models: Current research and future directions,

Z. Tan and M. Jiang, “User modeling in the era of large language models: Current research and future directions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11518, 2023

2023 arXiv
[14]

Recmind: Large language model powered agent for recommendation,

Y. Wang, Z. Jiang, Z. Chen, F. Yang, Y. Zhou, E. Cho, X. Fan, X. Huang, Y. Lu, and Y. Yang, “Recmind: Large language model powered agent for recommendation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14296, 2023

2023 arXiv
[15]

Recommender ai agent: Integrating large language models for interactive recommendations,

X. Huang, J. Lian, Y. Lei, J. Yao, D. Lian, and X. Xie, “Recommender ai agent: Integrating large language models for interactive recommendations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16505, 2023

2023 arXiv
[16]

Multi-skills resource constrained and personality traits based project scheduling,

S. Akbar, I. Ahmad, R. Khan, I. O. Lopes, and R. Ullah, “Multi-skills resource constrained and personality traits based project scheduling,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 131419–131429, 2022

2022
[17]

Multi-skill project scheduling with skill evolution and cooperation effectiveness,

Q. Li, Q. Sun, S. Tao, and X. Gao, “Multi-skill project scheduling with skill evolution and cooperation effectiveness,”Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2023–2045, 2020

2023
[18]

A multi-objective model for multi-project scheduling and multi-skilled staff assignment for it product development considering competency evolution,

R. Chen, C. Liang, D. Gu, and J. Y. Leung, “A multi-objective model for multi-project scheduling and multi-skilled staff assignment for it product development considering competency evolution,”International Journal of Production Research, vol. 55, no. 21, pp. 6207–6234, 2017

2017
[19]

Ant colony optimization for software project scheduling and staffing with an event-based scheduler,

W.-N. Chen and J. Zhang, “Ant colony optimization for software project scheduling and staffing with an event-based scheduler,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2012

2012
[20]

Metanetwork analysis for project task assignment,

Y. Li, Y. Lu, D. Li, and L. Ma, “Metanetwork analysis for project task assignment,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 141, no. 12, p. 04015044, 2015

2015
[21]

A game-theoretical model for task assignment in project management,

B. Lagesse, “A game-theoretical model for task assignment in project management,” in 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, vol. 2, pp. 678–680, IEEE, 2006

2006
[22]

Multi-criteria task assignment in workflow management systems,

M. Shen, G.-H. Tzeng, and D.-R. Liu, “Multi-criteria task assignment in workflow management systems,” in36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of The, pp. 9–pp, IEEE, 2003

2003
[23]

Team formation in large organizations: A deep reinforcement learning approach,

B. Lv, J. Jiang, L. Wu, and H. Zhao, “Team formation in large organizations: A deep reinforcement learning approach,”Decision Support Systems, vol. 187, p. 114343, 2024. 19

2024
[24]

Learning to extract expert teams in social networks,

C.-C. Chang, M.-Y. Chang, J.-Y. Jhang, L.-Y. Yeh, and C.-Y. Shen, “Learning to extract expert teams in social networks,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1552–1562, 2022

2022
[25]

Learning to form skill-based teams of experts,

R. Hamidi Rad, H. Fani, M. Kargar, J. Szlichta, and E. Bagheri, “Learning to form skill-based teams of experts,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, pp. 2049–2052, 2020

2020
[26]

The big five personality dimensions and job perfor- mance: a meta-analysis,

M. R. Barrick and M. K. Mount, “The big five personality dimensions and job perfor- mance: a meta-analysis,”Personnel psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1991

1991
[27]

An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications,

R. R. McCrae and O. P. John, “An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications,” Journal of personality, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 175–215, 1992

1992
[28]

Diversity is strategy: the effect of r&d team diversity on innovative performance,

M. Garcia Martinez, F. Zouaghi, and T. Garcia Marco, “Diversity is strategy: the effect of r&d team diversity on innovative performance,”R&D Management, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 311–329, 2017

2017
[29]

Work stress and employee performance: an assessment of impact of work stress,

D. L. Pandey, “Work stress and employee performance: an assessment of impact of work stress,” International Research Journal of Human Resource and Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 05, pp. 124–135, 2020. A A Possible Scheduler In this section we describe a possible algorithm to sol...

2020
[30]

Maximize the average priority level of the tasks in the schedule
[31]

The waiting time of each task, defined as the difference between scheduled start time and arrival time of the task, is weighted by the priority level of the task

Minimize the average waiting time of the tasks in the schedule. The waiting time of each task, defined as the difference between scheduled start time and arrival time of the task, is weighted by the priority level of the task
[32]

Maximize the number of tasks in the schedule
[33]

Minimize the economic cost of the schedule, computed by multiplying workers’ wages by their working time
[34]

Minimize the variance between workers’ active times, so that all workers are busy approximately the same amount of time
[35]

In team tasks, maximize the diversity in soft skills among team members, measured using the cosine distance. More specifically, to obtain this metric we vectorize the soft skill levels of each worker, compute the cosine similarity between these vectors for each pair of workers...
[36]

In team tasks, maximize the compatibility between team members, computed using the estimated teammate preferences
[37]

This involves asking the LLM to compute a compatibility score for each task-worker pair based on the estimated hard skills of the workers

For each task, maximize the match between the task description and the hard skills of the workers assigned to it. This involves asking the LLM to compute a compatibility score for each task-worker pair based on the estimated hard skills of the workers. The LLM can answer with ...
[38]

Also in this case, we ask the LLM to compute a numerical score for each task-worker pair based on the estimated task preferences of workers

For each task, maximize the fit between the task description and the preferences of the workers assigned to it. Also in this case, we ask the LLM to compute a numerical score for each task-worker pair based on the estimated task preferences of workers. In case of insufficient ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. M. Ivancevich, M. T. Matteson, and R. Konopaske,Organizational behavior and management. Bpi/Irwin New York, 1990

work page 1990

[2] [2]

Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior,

A. M. Isen and R. A. Baron, “Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior,” Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–53, 1991

work page 1991

[3] [3]

The multi-skilled resource- constrained project scheduling problem: A systematic review and an exploration of future landscapes.,

Z. Bahroun, R. As’ ad, M. Tanash, and R. Athamneh, “The multi-skilled resource- constrained project scheduling problem: A systematic review and an exploration of future landscapes.,” Management Systems in Production Engineering, vol. 32, no. 1, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Using large language models for project staffing: Evaluation of gpt-based mapping of teams to projects,

N. Mikhridinova, F. A. Yurdakul, and C. Wolff, “Using large language models for project staffing: Evaluation of gpt-based mapping of teams to projects,” inProceedings of the 12th IPMA Research Conference “Project Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, pp. 1–19, IPMA, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Re-examining the functional diversity–performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning,

A. G. Tekleab, A. Karaca, N. R. Quigley, and E. W. Tsang, “Re-examining the functional diversity–performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning,”Journal of business research, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 3500–3507, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,

L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y. Lin,et al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,”Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 186345, 2024. 18

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Application of llm agents in recruitment: A novel framework for resume screening,

C. Gan, Q. Zhang, and T. Mori, “Application of llm agents in recruitment: A novel framework for resume screening,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08315, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Enhancing job recommendation through llm-based generative adversarial networks,

Y. Du, D. Luo, R. Yan, X. Wang, H. Liu, H. Zhu, Y. Song, and J. Zhang, “Enhancing job recommendation through llm-based generative adversarial networks,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 8363–8371, 2024

work page 2024