Abstract
Multi-stage LLM hiring pipelines (resume improvement, interview question generation, answer feedback) can fabricate credentials, inflate qualifiers, and invent experience. We evaluate two mitigations, prompt guardrails and human-in-the-loop (HITL) checkpoints, against a fully automated baseline. In a controlled experiment (10 synthetic resumes x 2 job descriptions x 3 repetitions x 3 conditions; 180 runs), the baseline (C1) produced at least one unsupported claim in 96.7% of outputs (mean 6.80 findings/output). Prompt guardrails (C2) reduced finding density by 86% (6.80 to 0.92/output), but 50.0% of outputs still contained a fabrication, showing prompt-level mitigation alone is insufficient. A human checkpoint after resume improvement (C3) eliminated all identity fabrications, reduced finding density by 59% (6.88 to 2.82/output), reduced item-level fabrication from 96.7% to 75.0% (p=.022), and cut capture of JD-embedded trap requirements from 47% to 2% (vs. 5% under the guardrail). An exploratory analysis of multi-specialty resumes shows contamination rising monotonically with domain distance between specialties, suggesting career changers are especially exposed. The reviewer in this study caught all flagrant fabrications, but subtle qualifier drops and plausible new claims survived review roughly half the time (54.5% removal). Neither mitigation degraded the deliverable: claim retention exceeded 99% under both. The interventions are complementary: the guardrail eliminates unprompted additions and qualifier inflation cheaply, while the checkpoint gives near-categorical guarantees against the most severe failures, invented identities and JD-baited claims. These results support a layered architecture combining guardrails with a human checkpoint. A supplementary run with a newer-generation model (90.0% baseline fabrication rate) suggests the problem is not resolved by model progress alone.
Explore similar work
Jul 1, 2026cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication. We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent. In ablation experiments across three LLMs, four temperature settings, and six layer configurations on 25 synthetic resumes spanning 14 industries, undefended baselines produce 2.48-5.36 detected hallucinations per resume. Among detectors independent of the active defenses, temporal hallucinations are reduced by 50-95% across all conditions; overall detected hallucination rate falls to 0.04-0.24. Prompt-level grounding alone achieves zero detected hallucinations at low temperature with a capable instruction-following model; higher temperatures and weaker models reveal the need for the deterministic layers as a complement. We release the contamination taxonomy, evaluation code, and raw data.
Shashank Indukuri, Adarsh Agrawal
Jun 25, 2026cs.AI
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen and rank job applicants, creating incentives for candidates to strategically manipulate algorithmic hiring systems. We study prompt injection in automated résumé screening, defined as subtle self-promotional text that introduces no new qualifications but is designed to influence LLM evaluations. Using controlled experiments, we show that prompt injection reliably improves applicant rankings when résumé quality is homogeneous and few candidates inject. However, its effectiveness rapidly diminishes as more candidates inject, collapsing when manipulation becomes widespread. When candidate quality is heterogeneous, prompt injection is less effective on average, but can occasionally allow lower-quality candidates to outrank higher-quality ones, raising fairness concerns. Overall, LLM-based screening is most vulnerable when manipulation is rare and candidate quality differences are small. Code and resources are publicly available at: https://github.com/preetb1199/Prompt_Injection_ACL26
Preet Baxi, Jiannan Xu, Jane Yi Jiang +1
Sep 15, 2026cs.CL
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.
Qiangju Chen, Yang Xiao