From Skill Extraction to Multistakeholder Recommendation: A Two-Stage Framework for Bias Governance in Skills-Based Job Matching

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15707v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 07:37:17 GMT
• Title: From Skill Extraction to Multistakeholder Recommendation: A Two-Stage Framework for Bias Governance in Skills-Based Job Matching
• Abstract summary: biases in skills extraction, profile formation, and candidate-job matching may contribute to unfair treatment of candidates.<n>We propose a two-stage framework for detecting and governing bias in skills-based job matching.
• Score: 0.8749675983608171
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-based labor-market systems or platforms can affect access to job opportunities prior to organizational candidate rankings or hiring decisions. Such applications warrant caution, as biases in skill extraction, profile formation, and candidate-job matching may contribute to unfair treatment of candidates. In this paper, we propose a two-stage framework for detecting and governing bias in skills-based job matching. Stage 1, skill extraction and profile formation, addresses how candidates provide skills and preferences to the system, how the system extracts and structures this information, and the bias risks this entails, with a focus on chatbot-based elicitation. Stage 2, multistakeholder candidate-job recommendation, would embed this information in a recommender system in which candidate, company, and regulatory objectives are represented by separate agents, each producing an independent candidate-job ranking; these rankings would be combined through social choice-based aggregation into a single, auditable recommendation. The two stages are connected by a shared distinction between hard constraints, which require correction before processing continues, and soft constraints, which are logged to inform later decisions. Following an AI Act-aligned assessment methodology (based on the Fraunhofer AI Assessment Catalog), we propose using distributional auditing and counterfactual testing to produce a Stage 1 bias inventory sorted into hard and soft constraints, with the latter informing fairness thresholds for Stage 2. The same logic would apply to Stage 2: fairness metrics crossing predefined thresholds would trigger an adapted recommendation process, while smaller deviations would be logged as bias reports and persistent fairness states.

Related papers

• From Matching Models to Recruiting Agents: A Systematized Narrative Review of AI Recruitment Systems, Evaluation, and Governance [1.436449142247059]
  This review traces development from bilateral retrieval and behavioral ranking through neural personjob matching.<n>We analyze three coupled transitions: from similarity to reciprocal suitability, from a model to a compound workflow, and from offline prediction to evidence- and productivity-aligned evaluation.<n>We introduce a staged mapping from evaluation evidence to the strongest defensible claim, together with an agenda for reciprocal, evidence-grounded, temporally controlled, selective, and auditable systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T08:46:03Z)
• De-conflating Preference and Qualification: Constrained Dual-Perspective Reasoning for Job Recommendation with Large Language Models [8.386442126920372]
  JobRec is a generative job recommendation framework for deconflating preference and qualification via constrained dual-perspective reasoning.<n>JobRec consistently outperforms strong baselines and provides improved controllability for strategy-aware professional matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T04:42:53Z)
• AI-Driven Decision-Making System for Hiring Process [0.0]
  This paper presents an AI-driven, modular multi-agent hiring assistant.<n>It integrates (i) document and video preprocessing, (ii) structured candidate profile construction, (iii) public-data verification, (iv) technical/culture-fit scoring with explicit risk penalties, and (v) human-in-the-loop validation via an interactive interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T18:45:17Z)
• An External Fairness Evaluation of LinkedIn Talent Search [55.18656975953939]
  We conduct an independent, third-party audit for bias of LinkedIn's Talent Search ranking system.<n>We focus on potential ranking bias across two attributes: gender and race.<n>Our analysis reveals an under-representation of minority groups in early ranks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T19:10:49Z)
• Rethinking Consistent Multi-Label Classification under Inexact Supervision [60.79309683889278]
  In partial multi-label learning, each instance is annotated with a candidate label set, among which only some labels are relevant.<n>In complementary multi-label learning, each instance is annotated with complementary labels indicating the classes to which the instance does not belong.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T08:30:32Z)
• Mapping Stakeholder Needs to Multi-Sided Fairness in Candidate Recommendation for Algorithmic Hiring [0.0]
  This paper presents a multi-stakeholder approach to fairness in a candidate recommender system.<n>Job seekers, companies, recruiters, and other job portal employees were interviewed.<n>We use these interviews to explore their lived experiences of unfairness in hiring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T11:37:19Z)
• Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening [0.0]
  This study investigates the question of competence through a two-part audit of eight major AI platforms.<n>Experiment 1 confirmed complex, contextual racial and gender biases, with some models penalizing candidates merely for the presence of demographic signals.<n>Experiment 2, which evaluated core competence, provided a critical insight: some models that appeared unbiased were, in fact, incapable of performing a substantive evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T16:57:13Z)
• Towards Two-Stage Counterfactual Learning to Rank [50.51916012823433]
  Counterfactual learning to rank aims to learn a ranking policy from user interactions.<n>In real-world applications, the candidate document set is on the order of millions, making a single-stage ranking policy impractical.<n>We propose a two-stage CLTR estimator that considers the interaction between the two stages and estimates the joint value of the two policies offline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T22:00:12Z)
• Two Tickets are Better than One: Fair and Accurate Hiring Under Strategic LLM Manipulations [4.536082020644864]
  We introduce a new variant of the strategic classification framework tailored to manipulations performed using large language models.<n>We propose a two-ticket'' scheme, where the hiring algorithm applies an additional manipulation to each submitted resume.<n>We prove that hiring outcomes converge to a fixed, group-independent decision, eliminating disparities arising from differential access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T19:01:04Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax Audit Models [73.24381010980606]
  This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the IRS. We show how the use of more flexible machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity. Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-20T16:27:06Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.