PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 21, 20250 citationsOpen Access

Interpretable AI Decision-Support System for Early-Stage Hiring

View Full Paper
VFV.Yu. FilatovaAZAndrii ZelenchukDFDmytro Filatov

Key Points

  • To develop an interpretable AI decision-support system for early-stage hiring to enhance candidate validation efficiency.
  • Developed a modular multi-agent hiring assistant integrating various candidate assessment techniques.
  • Utilized document and video preprocessing and structured candidate profile construction.
  • Implemented risk penalties in scoring for technical and culture fit; included human-in-the-loop validation.
  • Evaluated on 64 real applicants comparing performance with experienced and less experienced recruiters.
  • Achieved 1.70 hours per qualified candidate versus 3.33 hours for the experienced recruiter.
  • Demonstrated improved throughput and reduced screening costs while maintaining human oversight on decisions.

Abstract

Early-stage candidate validation is a major bottleneck in hiring, because recruiters must reconcile heterogeneous inputs (resumes, screening answers, code assignments, and limited public evidence). This paper presents an AI-driven, modular multi-agent hiring assistant that 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. The pipeline is orchestrated by an LLM under strict constraints to reduce output variability and to generate traceable component-level rationales. Candidate ranking is computed by a configurable aggregation of technical fit, culture fit, and normalized risk penalties. The system is evaluated on 64 real applicants for a mid-level Python backend engineer role, using an experienced recruiter as the reference baseline and a second, less experienced recruiter for additional comparison. Alongside precision/recall, we propose an efficiency metric measuring expected time per qualified candidate. In this study, the system improves throughput and achieves 1.70 hours per qualified candidate versus 3.33 hours for the experienced recruiter, with substantially lower estimated screening cost, while preserving a human decision-maker as the final authority

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Filatova et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69473b64db9c958d0dfca83fhttps://doi.org/10.31224/6030
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper