ResumeNet: A Learning-based Framework for Automatic Resume Quality Assessment

Recruitment of appropriate people for certain positions is critical for any companies or organizations. Manually screening to select appropriate candidates from large amounts of resumes can be exhausted and time-consuming. However, there is no public tool that can be directly used for automatic resume quality assessment (RQA). This motivates us to develop a method for automatic RQA. Since there is also no public dataset for model training and evaluation, we build a dataset for RQA by collecting around 10K resumes, which are provided by a private resume management company. By investigating the dataset, we identify some factors or features that could be useful to discriminate good resumes from bad ones, e.g., the consistency between different parts of a resume. Then a neural-network model is designed to predict the quality of each resume, where some text processing techniques are incorporated. To deal with the label deficiency issue in the dataset, we propose several variants of the model by either utilizing the pair/triplet-based loss, or introducing some semi-supervised learning technique to make use of the abundant unlabeled data. Both the presented baseline model and its variants are general and easy to implement. Various popular criteria including the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, F-measure and ranking-based average precision (AP) are adopted for model evaluation. We compare the different variants with our baseline model. Since there is no public algorithm for RQA, we further compare our results with those obtained from a website that can score a resume. Experimental results in terms of different criteria demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. We foresee that our approach would transform the way of future human resources management.Comment: ICD

NIPS - Not Even Wrong? A Systematic Review of Empirically Complete Demonstrations of Algorithmic Effectiveness in the Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Literature

Objective: To determine the completeness of argumentative steps necessary to conclude effectiveness of an algorithm in a sample of current ML/AI supervised learning literature. Data Sources: Papers published in the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, n\'ee NIPS) journal where the official record showed a 2017 year of publication. Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting a (semi-)supervised model, or pre-processing fused with (semi-)supervised models for tabular data. Study Appraisal: Three reviewers applied the assessment criteria to determine argumentative completeness. The criteria were split into three groups, including: experiments (e.g real and/or synthetic data), baselines (e.g uninformed and/or state-of-art) and quantitative comparison (e.g. performance quantifiers with confidence intervals and formal comparison of the algorithm against baselines). Results: Of the 121 eligible manuscripts (from the sample of 679 abstracts), 99\% used real-world data and 29\% used synthetic data. 91\% of manuscripts did not report an uninformed baseline and 55\% reported a state-of-art baseline. 32\% reported confidence intervals for performance but none provided references or exposition for how these were calculated. 3\% reported formal comparisons. Limitations: The use of one journal as the primary information source may not be representative of all ML/AI literature. However, the NeurIPS conference is recognised to be amongst the top tier concerning ML/AI studies, so it is reasonable to consider its corpus to be representative of high-quality research. Conclusion: Using the 2017 sample of the NeurIPS supervised learning corpus as an indicator for the quality and trustworthiness of current ML/AI research, it appears that complete argumentative chains in demonstrations of algorithmic effectiveness are rare