Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals a critical instability in LLM-based resume screening, where identical candidate qualifications yield significantly different outcomes depending on document formatting and stylistic presentation. Even high-performing models like Llama-3.1-8B reverse nearly 30% of pairwise decisions under competence-preserving perturbations, highlighting that current validity metrics often overlook decision consistency. For developers deploying automated hiring tools, this underscores the urgent need to audit for presentation sensitivity alongside raw accuracy to ensure fair and reliable candidate evaluation.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Competence-Preserving Resume Perturbations Expose Presentation Sensitivity in LLM Screening

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.16517v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Resume screeners must infer job-relevant competence from resumes whose presentation can vary substantially in wording, structure, stylistic polish, and document extraction quality. Ideally, such surface variation should not change decisions when the underlying qualification evidence is unchanged. We introduce a controlled audit of this property, constructing occupation-grounded candidate profiles at controlled competence levels and rendering each profile into multiple resume presentations. A deterministic validation gate excludes variants that alter the underlying evidence before scoring. Across six open instruction-tuned LLM conditions, we find a clear disconnect between screening validity and presentation stability. Llama-3.1-8B with its native chat template achieves the strongest validity ($0.781$) yet reverses $29.6\%$ of matched pairwise decisions under competence-preserving presentation changes; Mistral-7B-v0.3 reaches validity $0.644$ with a $41.4\%$ flip rate. Native chat formatting improves validity for several chat-tuned models but does not remove this instability. These results show that resume-screening evaluations should assess not only whether a system identifies stronger candidates, but also whether those decisions remain stable when the same competence evidence is presented differently.

Abstract:Resume screeners must infer job-relevant competence from resumes whose presentation can vary substantially in wording, structure, stylistic polish, and document extraction quality. Ideally, such surface variation should not change decisions when the underlying qualification evidence is unchanged. We introduce a controlled audit of this property, constructing occupation-grounded candidate profiles at controlled competence levels and rendering each profile into multiple resume presentations. A deterministic validation gate excludes variants that alter the underlying evidence before scoring. Across six open instruction-tuned LLM conditions, we find a clear disconnect between screening validity and presentation stability. Llama-3.1-8B with its native chat template achieves the strongest validity ($0.781$) yet reverses $29.6\%$ of matched pairwise decisions under competence-preserving presentation changes; Mistral-7B-v0.3 reaches validity $0.644$ with a $41.4\%$ flip rate. Native chat formatting improves validity for several chat-tuned models but does not remove this instability. These results show that resume-screening evaluations should assess not only whether a system identifies stronger candidates, but also whether those decisions remain stable when the same competence evidence is presented differently.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.16517 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.16517v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.16517 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 266 words

Related coverage