From Matching Models to Recruiting Agents: A Systematized Narrative Review of AI Recruitment Systems, Evaluation, and Governance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04286v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 08:46:03 GMT
• Title: From Matching Models to Recruiting Agents: A Systematized Narrative Review of AI Recruitment Systems, Evaluation, and Governance
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 1.436449142247059
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence in recruitment has shifted the object being automated from profile pairs and ranked lists to multi-stage workflows that retrieve evidence, compare candidates, and support or execute actions. This systematized narrative review traces that development from bilateral retrieval and behavioral ranking through neural person--job matching, large language model (LLM) components, and tool-using recruiting agents. Using a purposive search and coding protocol updated through 23 July 2026, plus targeted updates through 2 September 2026, we organize 40 representative works with supporting industrial and legal sources. This synthesis is not a prevalence estimate. 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. Across document understanding, retrieval, ranking, assessment, interviewing, sourcing, and human handoff, we distinguish field-, pair-, list-, case-, trajectory-, and outcome-level evidence. Persistent gaps arise because behavioral labels confound exposure, preference, and qualification; private and synthetic data limit external validity; final-output scores conceal pipeline failures; and, within the coded set, privacy is not directly evaluated and no row jointly evaluates utility, fairness, privacy, and security. These observations describe the coded set rather than the field as a whole. We therefore 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. Progress should be judged by whether workflows retrieve the right evidence, preserve uncertainty, support contestable decisions, and improve outcomes under explicit cost and risk constraints.

Related papers

• Terminal Agents: A Survey of AI Agents in Command-Line Environments [102.48222742145474]
  Large language model agents increasingly act through terminals, yet existing surveys disperse terminal-mediated behavior across software engineering, tool use, and computer-use research.<n>We regard terminal agents as systems whose dominant progress-bearing action--observation loop is mediated by terminal command execution, textual feedback, and stateful environment interaction.<n>Our synthesis shows that realized behavior is jointly shaped by the model, interface, harness, runtime, and environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T18:16:44Z)
• Vibe Coding: Practice, Performance, Productivity, and Risk -A State-of-the-Art Review [5.061021429555365]
  State-of-the-art review assembles that evidence across a cross-disciplinary corpus spanning software engineering, human-computer interaction, labour economics, security research, governance, and education.<n>We survey the model landscape, the tool ecosystem, and the performance record by task type, finding the early benchmarks saturated but task-level capability uneven.<n>We document security failures in deployed applications, code-quality degradation visible in large-scale code and developer telemetry, unsettled copyright exposure, and evidence of skill atrophy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T16:10:28Z)
• Engineering Reliable Coding Agents: Evaluating and Operating the System Around the Model [0.0]
  Book synthesizes 164 scholarly works, 100 practitioner records, 29 benchmark records, and 17 author-system case records.<n>Written as a structured multivocal review, targeted update audits, software-engineering coverage analysis, and distributed-systems evidence synthesis.<n>Book contributes a versioned catalog of 206 reliability records, including 56 developed in depth, plus 13 research leads.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T01:34:25Z)
• From Skill Extraction to Multistakeholder Recommendation: A Two-Stage Framework for Bias Governance in Skills-Based Job Matching [0.8749675983608171]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T07:37:17Z)
• Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation [68.04679314462481]
  We formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s)<n>We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation.<n>Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T12:20:11Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• FRESCO: Benchmarking and Optimizing Re-rankers for Evolving Semantic Conflict in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [73.22935457705057]
  We introduce FRESCO, a benchmark for evaluating re-rankers in temporally dynamic contexts.<n>By pairing recency-seeking queries with historical Wikipedia revisions, FRESCO tests whether re-rankers can prioritize factually recent evidence while maintaining semantic relevance.<n>Our evaluation reveals a consistent failure mode across existing re-rankers: a strong bias toward older, semantically rich documents, even when they are factually obsolete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T17:04:25Z)
• Althea: Human-AI Collaboration for Fact-Checking and Critical Reasoning [26.796186521236194]
  We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system that integrates question generation, evidence retrieval, and structured reasoning to support user-driven evaluation of online claims.<n>On the AVeriTeC benchmark, Althea achieves a Macro-F1 of 0.44, outperforming standard verification pipelines and improving discrimination between supported and refuted claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T18:23:35Z)
• Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
  We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z)
• AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents [0.0]
  This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents.<n>It uses modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents.<n>It achieves 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:46:15Z)
• Auditing and Generating Synthetic Data with Controllable Trust Trade-offs [54.262044436203965]
  We introduce a holistic auditing framework that comprehensively evaluates synthetic datasets and AI models. It focuses on preventing bias and discrimination, ensures fidelity to the source data, assesses utility, robustness, and privacy preservation. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness by auditing various generative models across diverse use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T09:03:18Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)

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.