Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 61 references

Synthetic CVs To Build and Test Fairness-Aware Hiring Tools

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a pipeline for generating synthetic CVs from anonymized donated resumes and a dataset of 1,730 documents that preserves demographic distributions for fairness benchmarking.

desk verdict A well-intentioned synthetic CV dataset with novel sensitive attributes, but the validation doesn't back the claim that it reproduces the bias signal real CVs would give you. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21179 v1 pith:YW3I2RVJ submitted 2025-08-28 cs.CY cs.IRcs.LG

Jorge Saldivar , Anna Gatzioura , Carlos Castillo This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.IRcs.LG
keywords syntheticdataalgorithmichiringfairnessbenchmarkingCVdatasetdonationbiasdetection
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 aims to fill a gap: there is no publicly available collection of CVs with rich sensitive attributes for studying algorithmic hiring discrimination. It provides a method to generate synthetic CVs from real CVs donated by consenting workers, and releases 1,730 such CVs annotated with demographic variables such as age, gender, LGBTQ+ status, minority status, and perceived foreignness. The central claim is that these synthetic CVs are likely to be as useful as real documents for studying bias in algorithmic hiring, because their distributional properties match the reference pool and people cannot reliably tell them apart. If true, this gives researchers and companies a privacy-preserving benchmark to test whether ranking algorithms discriminate by protected characteristics.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a generator driven by a reference pool of parsed, anonymized CVs split into three tables: anonymized CVs, education-experience-skill combinations, and named entities. The generator samples section sizes from Weibull distributions fitted to real CVs with matching attributes, fills the sections by clustering education and experience items and drawing from shuffled institution lists, and enforces coherence rules (chronological order, duration caps, no duplicates). A minimum of 20 real CVs per parameter combination is required to protect donor anonymity, and a final manual coherence review keeps only CVs rated highly for plausibility.

What would settle it

Run the same resume-ranking algorithm on the original real donated CVs and on the synthetic CVs, then compare fairness metrics such as disparate impact by gender, age, or origin. If the synthetic data fails to reproduce the direction or magnitude of the real data's discriminatory outcomes, the 'as useful as real' claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a dataset of 1,730 synthetic CVs, generated from 1,211 donated real CVs through a hybrid automatic-and-manual pipeline, is likely to be as useful as real CVs for studying bias in algorithmic hiring, while protecting donors' identities. They support this with distribution comparisons showing near alignment between synthetic and reference data, with Jensen-Shannon divergence scores ranging from 0.01 for gender to 0.25 for LGBTQ+ status, and with a crowdsourcing test in which evaluators could distinguish real from synthetic CVs only 53% of the time. They position the dataset as a candidate standard benchmark for detecting biased ranking functions in candidate screening.

Load-bearing premise

The donated pool of 1,211 CVs—mostly Spanish and overrepresenting certain sectors while underrepresenting manual-labor professions and some demographic groups—is representative and large enough that the generator's 20-CV minimum per parameter combination still produces a dataset covering the diversity needed for fairness benchmarking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fairness-aware ranking algorithms can be evaluated before deployment against a common corpus without exposing real applicants.
  • Researchers at different institutions can reproduce and compare bias-detection results because the dataset is accessible under a license agreement.
  • The generation methodology can be reused with other donation pools to build workforce-specific benchmarking datasets.
  • The synthetic approach aligns with the EU AI Act's recommendation to prefer synthetic data for detecting and mitigating bias.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each synthetic CV carries only one demographic attribute, intersectional analyses (e.g., minority women, older LGBTQ+ applicants) cannot be run directly on this dataset; future versions or pooled parameters would be needed.
  • The privacy threshold of 20 matching CVs per parameter combination silently excludes small or underrepresented groups, so the dataset's coverage of protected attributes should itself be audited before it is used as a benchmark.
  • The indistinguishability result suggests a testable extension: comparing human screening of synthetic versus real CVs could reveal whether perceived authenticity affects reviewer decisions, not just ranking algorithms.
  • The 'as useful as real' claim could be quantified downstream by comparing fairness metrics from the same ranking pipeline run on synthetic and real CVs.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a privacy-preserving pipeline for generating synthetic CVs from real donated CVs and presents a resulting dataset of 1,730 synthetic CVs across six job sectors, along with demographic attributes such as age, gender, religion, LGBTQ+ status, minority status, and perceived foreignness. The generator fits parametric distributions (e.g., Weibull) on the donated data, uses clustering to assemble coherent education/experience/skills sections, and applies manual verification. The authors claim the synthetic dataset can serve as a benchmarking standard for fairness-aware hiring research and is 'likely to be as useful as the real documents' for studying bias. Validation is based on univariate distribution comparisons using Jensen–Shannon divergence and a crowdsourced human-indistinguishability test. The paper also documents substantial limitations: only six sectors, a single demographic attribute per CV, absence of disability and non-Christian religious profiles, and replication of source-sample biases.

Significance. If the central claim were properly validated, this would be a valuable contribution: there is currently no publicly available CV corpus with protected attributes suitable for fairness benchmarking, and the EU AI Act explicitly encourages synthetic data for bias testing. The authors also make good-faith efforts on ethics and privacy, including ethical review, anonymization, separation of sensitive fields into intermediate tables, a minimum-cell rule for named entities, and a manual coherence review. The dataset is distributed under a license that aims to prevent re-identification. However, the validation provided does not establish that bias measurements on the synthetic CVs reproduce the bias signals of the real CVs, which is the load-bearing requirement for the paper's benchmarking claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.1 / Table 9] The Jensen–Shannon divergence is computed between the synthetic and the reference distributions for the same variables (sector, experience, age, gender, etc.) that were used to fit the generator. This is a fidelity check against the training reference, not an independent measure of utility for fairness benchmarking. Moreover, fairness audits depend on the joint/conditional relationship between protected attributes and CV content (education, roles, seniority, skills), and univariate marginals do not capture such relationships. The claim 'likely to be as useful as the real documents' therefore goes beyond the evidence. Please add a downstream validation: run a fairness audit on both the reference and synthetic corpora and show that the group-level conclusions match.
  2. [Section 4.2.2] The subjective evaluation reports 53% overall accuracy, 0.52 probability of correctly classifying a real CV, and 0.55 probability that a synthetic CV is mistaken for real. These numbers are essentially at chance and, by themselves, indicate only that humans cannot easily distinguish the synthetic CVs; they do not show that bias-relevant signals are preserved. In addition, the statistic that 90% of synthetic CVs were labeled real by at least one of three evaluators is weak, since with three independent binary judgments a high proportion of items will receive at least one 'real' label by chance. A fairness benchmark needs to demonstrate that the synthetic data reproduce group-level differences in CV content, not merely that they look plausible.
  3. [Sections 3.3.2 and 4.1] The generator's minimum of 20 matching real CVs per parameter combination restricts the synthetic dataset to six job sectors, prevents combinations of demographic attributes, and excludes disability and non-Christian religious profiles entirely. These limitations are acknowledged in Section 5.1.2, but they directly undermine the paper's framing of the dataset as a standard fairness benchmark for 'people from diverse backgrounds' (Section 1). Since the disclosed limitations mean the corpus cannot be used to study bias for several protected groups and cannot support intersectional analyses, the central claim and title-level framing should be revised, or the authors should provide evidence that the included groups and sectors are sufficient for the stated benchmarking goals.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 5.1.2] The reference pool is 78% Spanish, overrepresents ICT/engineering/business/clerical sectors, and underrepresents manual-labor sectors, minority religions, and disabled people. The authors acknowledge that the synthetic corpus inherits and possibly amplifies these biases. This is not itself a flaw if the dataset is positioned as a case study, but the paper proposes the dataset as a benchmarking standard with 'representative' characteristics. The manuscript should either add evidence about how the source-sample composition affects fairness measurements, or substantially narrow the generality claims. A comparison of fairness metrics on the real donated CVs versus the synthetic CVs would also clarify how much of the original bias signal survives the generation process.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2.1 / Table 9] Typo: 'Foreigness' should be 'Foreignness'. Also, the sentence 'The closer the score closer to 0' needs rewording, and the caption for Figure 3 should state how excluded reference sectors affect the displayed percentages and the JS score.
  2. [Section 4.2.2] The subjective test would benefit from reporting inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Fleiss' kappa) and from including attention checks beyond excluding extremely fast submissions. The current report of 90% of synthetic CVs labeled as real by at least one evaluator is not very informative, as noted above.
  3. [Section 3.2.2] The manual coherence review is described as performed by a single research assistant trained by the authors. Please clarify whether a second annotator was used, or whether a reliability study was conducted; otherwise the 4-out-of-5 cutoff is difficult to interpret.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Distributional validation is partially in-sample: the generator is fitted to the reference and then compared to it; independent crowdworker and coherence checks keep the central claim from collapsing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3.1 / Section 4.2.1, Table 9]
    "We extract all anonymous CVs of non-European donors (from Table 2) and check the number of items in their skill sections. Then, a Weibull distribution [49] that satisfies these numbers is computed. ... In summary, our analysis reveals similar patterns between the reference and generated distributions across variables. These findings suggest that the synthetic CVs are likely to be as useful as the real documents for studying bias in algorithmic hiring."

    The generator's structural parameters are fit to the reference dataset: per-parameter Weibull distributions are computed from reference CVs, and content is sampled from the same reference tables. The validation then computes Jensen-Shannon divergence between the same reference distributions and the generated ones. Because the generator's stated objective is 'to resemble the characteristics of real donated CVs', high univariate similarity is a by-construction consequence, not an independent test of whether fairness audits on synthetic CVs reproduce audits on real CVs. The utility claim thus rests partly on an in-sample consistency check; only the crowdworker indistinguishability test and manual coherence review are independent evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a synthetic CV dataset plus generation pipeline. The main quantitative validation compares univariate distributions (sector, experience, gender, age, LGBTQ+, minority, foreignness) between the synthetic and reference datasets (Table 9). Because the generator computes Weibull distributions and skill-relevance probabilities from that same reference and samples content from it, the close Jensen-Shannon scores are partly guaranteed by construction. This is a real, but partial, circularity: it shows the generator reproduced the marginals it was given, not that the synthetic corpus preserves the joint/conditional signal that a fairness audit would measure. The paper itself acknowledges the limitation (Section 5.1.2: 'the generator reproduces the distribution of the collected data... biases will be replicated'). Independent support exists: the subjective evaluation (53% accuracy; 90% of synthetic CVs judged real by at least one evaluator) tests indistinguishability, and every CV passed a manual coherence review with score >=4. The self-citation [51] for reference representativeness is not load-bearing because the paper supplies descriptive donation statistics and the synthetic-utility argument does not depend on that citation alone. Overall, the validation has a by-construction component, but the central benchmarking claim retains independent content, so the circularity score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality and representativeness of the donation sample, plus a series of modeling choices (Weibull sampling, thresholds, manual review). These are not derived from external benchmarks; they are inputs to the generation process.

free parameters (7)
  • Weibull shape/scale per parameter group = not reported
    Fitted to the number of items in each CV section across donated CVs matching each input parameter; used to sample section sizes.
  • Minimum matching CVs threshold = 20
    Ad hoc rule to protect donor identity; if fewer than 20 real CVs match a parameter combination, generation for that combination is abandoned.
  • Named-entity inclusion threshold = 5
    Arbitrary rule in the approved protocol; named entities are only kept if at least 5 CVs in a sector share the attribute value.
  • Skills cap = 12
    Imposed because generation tests showed coherence drops beyond 12 skills.
  • Max education items = 5 (1 bachelor, 1 abroad, 2 masters, 1 PhD)
    Arbitrary rule defining the structure of the education section.
  • Coherence rating cutoff = 4 out of 5
    Manual review threshold; only CVs rated at least 4 by one research assistant are retained.
  • Sample combination strategy = random choice among mean, median, min, max
    Randomly chosen per section to combine Weibull samples from each input parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The donation sample is representative of the European workforce in gender, age, and foreign condition.
    Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.6 to justify using the donations as a reference; if false, synthetic CVs inherit a skewed demographic base.
  • standard math Weibull distributions are adequate for modeling section item counts, and sampling from them yields non-negative integers.
    Used in Section 3.3.1 as the basis for item-count sampling.
  • domain assumption Automatic parsing and translation preserve the semantic content of CVs.
    Section 3.2 relies on EdenAI parsing and automatic translation into English; errors propagate into the intermediate tables.
  • domain assumption The privacy safeguards (splitting into three tables, shuffling entities, minimum 20 CVs) reduce re-identification risk to acceptable levels.
    Section 3.4 argues this; the dataset can only serve as an open benchmark if this holds.
  • domain assumption A single research assistant's manual coherence rating is a valid measure of CV plausibility.
    Section 3.2.2 uses one trained assistant; no inter-rater reliability is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic CVs To Build and Test Fairness-Aware Hiring Tools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YW3I2RVJ

@misc{pith2026250821179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic CVs To Build and Test Fairness-Aware Hiring Tools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YW3I2RVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21179}
}
read the original abstract

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline proposed to generate the synthetic dataset. Black circles indicate manual tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Screenshot of the website used in the subjective evaluation of the synthetic CVs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of job sector distributions in the reference and synthetic datasets. Values in the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of years of professional experience distributions in the reference and synthetic datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of gender distributions in the reference and synthetic datasets. Percentages in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of age distributions in the reference and synthetic datasets. Only categories available in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of demographic attribute distributions in the reference and synthetic datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Resume dataset

    [n. d.]. Kaggle “Resume dataset”. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/snehaanbhawal/resume-dataset. Accessed: 2025-04-04

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review 94, 4 (2004), 991–1013

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Fadi Boutros, Vitomir Struc, Julian Fierrez, and Naser Damer. 2023. Synthetic data for face recognition: Current state and future prospects. Image and Vision Computing 135 (2023), 104688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2023.104688

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Andrea Bruera, Francesco Alda, and Francesco Di Cerbo. 2022. Generating realistic synthetic curricula vitae for machine learning applications under differential privacy. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ethical and Legal Issues in Human Language Technologies and Multilingual De-Identification of Sensitive Data In Language Resources within the 13th Langua...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Sarah Chander. 2017. Women of Color in the Workplace. European Network Against Racism

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Zhisheng Chen. 2023. Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices. Humanities and social sciences communications 10, 1 (2023), 1–12

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    EP Council. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008,(EU) No 167/2013,(EU) No 168/2013,(EU) 2018/858,(EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU,(EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial ...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bo Cowgill. 2018. Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms: Theory and evidence from resume screening. Columbia Business School, Columbia University 29 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Jessamyn Dahmen and Diane Cook. 2019. SynSys: A synthetic data generation system for healthcare applications. Sensors 19, 5 (2019), 1181

    2019

  2. [10]

    Jeffrey Dastin. 2022. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In Ethics of data and analytics. Auerbach Publications, 296–299

    2022

  3. [11]

    Maria De-Arteaga, Alexey Romanov, Hanna Wallach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2019. Bias in bios: A case study of semantic representation bias in a high-stakes setting. In proceedings of th...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Jens-Joris Decorte, Jeroen Van Hautte, Thomas Demeester, and Chris Develder. 2021. Jobbert: Understanding job titles through skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09605 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nazarii Drushchak and Mariana Romanyshyn. 2024. Introducing the Djinni Recruitment Dataset: A Corpus of Anonymized CVs and Job Postings. In Proceedings of the Third Ukrainian Natural Language Processing Workshop (UNLP) @ LREC-COLING 2024, Mariana Romanyshyn, Nataliia Romanyshy...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Peter Eigenschink, Thomas Reutterer, Stefan Vamosi, Ralf Vamosi, Chang Sun, and Klaudius Kalcher. 2023. Deep generative models for synthetic data: A survey. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 47304–47320

    2023

  7. [15]

    Khaled El Emam, Lucy Mosquera, and Richard Hoptroff. 2020. Practical synthetic data generation: balancing privacy and the broad availability of data. O’Reilly Media

    2020

  8. [16]

    Markus Endres, Asha Mannarapotta Venugopal, and Tung Son Tran. 2022. Synthetic Data Generation: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the 26th International Database Engineered Applications Symposium (Budapest, Hungary) (IDEAS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    European Commission. 2019. Final Report of the High-Level Expert Group on the Impact of the Digital Transformation on EU Labour Markets. European Commission website, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/final-report- high-level-expert-group-impact-digital-transformati...

    2019

  10. [18]

    European Institute for Gender Equality. 2021. Covid-19 derails gender equality gains. https://eige.europa.eu/newsroom/ news/covid-19-derails-gender-equality-gains

    2021

  11. [19]

    Dennis, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Asia J

    Alessandro Fabris, Nina Baranowska, Matthew J. Dennis, Philipp Hacker, Jorge Saldivar, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, and Asia J. Biega. 2023. Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring. arXiv:2309.13933 [cs.CY]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Joseph B Fuller, Manjari Raman, Eva Sage-Gavin, Kristen Hines, et al. 2021. Hidden workers: Untapped talent. Harvard Business School Project on Managing the Future of Work and Accenture 1 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    High-Level Expert Group et al. 2018. High-Level Expert Group on the Impact of the Digital Transformation on EU Labour Markets. Digital Single Market (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Shuang Hao, Wenfeng Han, Tao Jiang, Yiping Li, Haonan Wu, Chunlin Zhong, Zhangjun Zhou, and He Tang. 2024. Synthetic data in AI: Challenges, applications, and ethical implications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01629 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Christopher Harris. 2023. Mitigating age biases in resume screening AI models. InThe International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, Vol. 36

    2023

  16. [24]

    Bill Howe, Julia Stoyanovich, Haoyue Ping, Bernease Herman, and Matt Gee. 2017. Synthetic data for social good. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.08874 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kameni Florentin Flambeau Jiechieu and Norbert Tsopze. 2021. Skills prediction based on multi-label resume classifi- cation using CNN with model predictions explanation. Neural Computing and Applications 33, 10 (2021), 5069–5087

    2021

  18. [26]

    James Jordon, Lukasz Szpruch, Florimond Houssiau, Mirko Bottarelli, Giovanni Cherubin, Carsten Maple, Samuel N Cohen, and Adrian Weller. 2022. Synthetic Data–what, why and how? arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03257 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Indu Joshi, Marcel Grimmer, Christian Rathgeb, Christoph Busch, Francois Bremond, and Antitza Dantcheva. 2024. Synthetic data in human analysis: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 7 (2024), 4957–4976

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ioannis Kaloskampis. 2019. Synthetic data for public good. https://datasciencecampus.ons.gov.uk/projects/synthetic- data-for-public-good/

    2019

  21. [29]

    Shivani Kapania, Stephanie Ballard, Alex Kessler, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2025. Examining the Expanding Role of Synthetic Data Throughout the AI Development Pipeline. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18493 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jacob Devlin Ming-Wei Chang Kenton and Lee Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT, Vol. 1. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2

    2019

  23. [31]

    Adam Kortylewski, Bernhard Egger, Andreas Schneider, Thomas Gerig, Andreas Morel-Forster, and Thomas Vetter

  24. [32]

    Siyka Kovacheva, Boris Popivanov, Radka Peeva, D Coletto, I Dimitriadis, G Fullin, M Fischer-Souan, and O Marcovici

  25. [33]

    Lan Li, Tina Lassiter, Joohee Oh, and Min Kyung Lee. 2021. Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and HR Professional’s perspectives on AI use in hiring. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 166–176

    2021

  26. [34]

    Ruibo Liu, Jerry Wei, Fangyu Liu, Chenglei Si, Yanzhe Zhang, Jinmeng Rao, Steven Zheng, Daiyi Peng, Diyi Yang, Denny Zhou, et al. 2024. Best practices and lessons learned on synthetic data for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07503 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yingzhou Lu, Minjie Shen, Huazheng Wang, Xiao Wang, Capucine van Rechem, Tianfan Fu, and Wenqi Wei. 2023. Machine learning for synthetic data generation: a review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04062 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, and Ruben Tolosana. 2020. SensitiveNets: Learning agnostic representations with application to face images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43, 6 (2020), 2158–2164

    2020

  29. [37]

    Hajra Murtaza, Musharif Ahmed, Naurin Farooq Khan, Ghulam Murtaza, Saad Zafar, and Ambreen Bano. 2023. Synthetic data generation: State of the art in health care domain. Computer Science Review 48 (2023), 100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.100546

    2023

  30. [38]

    Frank Nielsen. 2019. On the Jensen–Shannon symmetrization of distances relying on abstract means. Entropy 21, 5 (2019), 485

    2019

  31. [39]

    Beata Nowok, Gillian M Raab, and Chris Dibben. 2016. synthpop: Bespoke creation of synthetic data in R. Journal of statistical software 74 (2016), 1–26

    2016

  32. [40]

    Steven Ovadia. 2014. Markdown for librarians and academics. Behavioral & social sciences librarian 33, 2 (2014), 120–124

    2014

  33. [41]

    Prasanna Parasurama, João Sedoc, and Anindya Ghose. 2022. Gendered Information in Resumes and Hiring Bias: A Predictive Modeling Approach. Available at SSRN 4074976 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Goran Paulin and Marina Ivasic-Kos. 2023. Review and analysis of synthetic dataset generation methods and techniques for application in computer vision. Artificial intelligence review 56, 9 (2023), 9221–9265. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publ...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Alejandro Peña, Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Alfonso Ortega, Ainhoa Herrarte, Manuel Alcantara, and Javier Ortega-Garcia. 2023. Human-centric multimodal machine learning: Recent advances and testbed on AI-based recruitment. SN Computer Science 4, 5 (2023), 434

    2023

  36. [44]

    Alejandro Peña, Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, and Julian Fierrez. 2020. Bias in multimodal AI: Testbed for fair automatic recruitment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 28–29

    2020

  37. [45]

    Vamsi K Potluru, Daniel Borrajo, Andrea Coletta, Niccolò Dalmasso, Yousef El-Laham, Elizabeth Fons, Mohsen Ghassemi, Sriram Gopalakrishnan, Vikesh Gosai, Eleonora Kreačić, et al. 2023. Synthetic data applications in finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00081 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    RecSys Challenge 2016. 2016. Dataset page, ACM RecSys Challenge 2016. GitHub repository. https://github.com/ recsyschallenge/2016/blob/master/TrainingDataset.md Training dataset specification for the ACM RecSys Challenge 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    RecSys Challenge 2017. 2017. Dataset page, ACM RecSys Challenge 2017. Webpage, RecSys Challenge website. https:// www.recsyschallenge.com/2017/#dataset Details on the dataset for ACM RecSys Challenge 2017 — job recommendation task by XING in a cold-start scenario

    2017

  40. [48]

    N Reimers. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Horst Rinne. 2008. The Weibull distribution: a handbook. Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2008

  42. [50]

    Miguel Rujas, Rodrigo Martín Gómez del Moral Herranz, Giuseppe Fico, and Beatriz Merino-Barbancho. 2025. Syn- thetic data generation in healthcare: A scoping review of reviews on domains, motivations, and future applications. International Journal of Medical Informatics 195 (2...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Jorge Saldivar, Jessica Wulf, and Carlos Castillo. 2025. Data Donation: A First Step Towards Improving Representative- ness in Algorithmic Hiring Datasets. Available at SSRN 5160523 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Panagiotis Skondras, Panagiotis Zervas, and Giannis Tzimas. 2023. Generating Synthetic Resume Data with Large Language Models for Enhanced Job Description Classification. Future Internet 15, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ fi15110363

    2023

  45. [53]

    Daniel Susser and Jeremy Seeman. 2024. Critical Provocations for Synthetic Data. Surveillance & Society 22, 4 (2024), 453–459

    2024

  46. [54]

    Kamal Taha. 2023. Semi-supervised and un-supervised clustering: A review and experimental evaluation. Information Systems 114 (2023), 102178

    2023

  47. [55]

    Nicholas Tilmes. 2022. Disability, fairness, and algorithmic bias in AI recruitment. Ethics and Information Technology 24, 2 (2022), 21

    2022

  48. [56]

    Pengda Wang, Andrew C Loignon, Sirish Shrestha, George C Banks, and Frederick L Oswald. [n. d.]. Leveraging Synthetic Data to Advance Organizational Science. ([n. d.])

  49. [57]

    Cedric Deslandes Whitney and Justin Norman. 2024. Real Risks of Fake Data: Synthetic Data, Diversity-Washing and Consent Circumvention. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1733–1744

    2024

  50. [58]

    Josephine Yam and Joshua August Skorburg. 2021. From human resources to human rights: Impact assessments for hiring algorithms. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 4 (2021), 611–623

    2021

  51. [59]

    Sijing Zhang, Ping Li, and Ziyan Cai. 2022. Are Male Candidates Better than Females? Debiasing BERT Resume Retrieval System. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 616–621. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article ...

    2022

  52. [2018]

    Growth, Equal Opportunities, Migration and Markets (GEMM) Report on institutional and contextual factors

  53. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops

    Analyzing and reducing the damage of dataset bias to face recognition with synthetic data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 0–0

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.