This paper presents a comparative evaluation of dense embedding models for semantic candidate-job matching in high-volume staffing workflows. Incoming job descriptions are converted into structured English search text and language-specific keywords through LLM-based parsing, and candidate profiles are indexed as semantically enriched resume representations. We evaluate EmbeddingGemma (base) against EmbeddingGemma fine-tuned with Cached Multiple Negatives Ranking Loss (MNRL) within a unified hybrid retrieval pipeline that fuses vector similarity and full-text relevance via reciprocal rank fusion (RRF), and benchmark both against the MPNet model on a batch comparative evaluation dataset scored through the deployed job-candidate matching scoring pipeline. We further document, with mathematical detail, the broader set of contrastive fine-tuning objectives considered during model development (including AnglE/CoSENT-style refinement) and the empirical rationale for retaining Cached-MNRL-only adaptation as the preferred configuration. To support reproducible model selection, we define a broader evaluation framework comprising standard information retrieval metrics (Recall@K, mean reciprocal rank, nDCG) under the exact hybrid-retrieval protocol; the metrics used for the evaluation reported in this paper are fine-tuning convergence diagnostics and a batch comparative evaluation using the deployed AI-Match score and an independent LLM-as-a-Judge relevance score, and we state this scope explicitly rather than implying the full framework was measured. The paper addresses the gap between general-purpose embedding benchmarks and enterprise job-candidate matching constraints, providing a structured basis for comparing embedding strategies under realistic job-candidate retrieval conditions.
Figures & tables
Loss
Supervision
Primary effect on space
Cached MNRL
Positive pairs (+ in-batch neg.)
Retrieval ranking; local neighborhoods
Triplet / hard-neg
(a,p,n)
Margin separation vs. named neg.
Cosine MSE
Graded y
Absolute score calibration
CoSENT
Graded y (pairwise)
Ordinal cosine consistency
ST-AnglE ( AnglELoss )
Graded y (pairwise)
CoSENT-style ranking w/ angle sim
Table 1: Inductive bias of embedding losses considered in this work.
Iter.
Relative corpus size
Runtime (h)
Throughput (samples/s)
Final train loss
Min. val. loss
1
Smallest
2.60
14.02
0.418
2.192
2
Medium
3.71
14.30
0.399
2.144
3
Largest
6.51
14.13
0.350
2.063
Table 2: Cached-MNRL training runs across the three corpus-scaling iterations. Exact corpus sizes are proprietary and withheld; iterations are ordered by increasing corpus size.
Figure 1: Cached-MNRL training loss (a) and validation loss (b) versus training step for the three corpus-scaling iterations, extracted from Azure ML MLflow chart exports. Validation loss improves monotonically with corpus scale despite a higher final training loss for iteration 3.
Iter.
Split
Pearson
Spearman
MAE
MSE
ROC-AUC
PR-AUC
F1
Jobs
R@1
R@3–10
2
Val
0.203
0.186
0.360
0.173
0.576
0.567
0.705
20
0.650
≥0.95
2
Test
0.209
0.221
0.343
0.159
0.592
0.538
0.649
22
0.636
1.00
3
Val
0.072
0.077
0.378
0.194
0.538
0.609
0.753
12
0.917
1.00
3
Test
0.161
0.152
0.356
0.168
0.561
0.563
0.692
18
0.556
1.00
Table 3: Post-hoc regression/classification/ranking diagnostics on the fine-tuning validation and test posthoc subsets ( n=512 rows per split).
Metric
MPNet base (FR)
Gemma base (EN)
Gemma+MNRL (EN)
Candidates scored n
9,332
8,543
9,849
Weighted mean score
59.3
52.7
73.5
Score mode (bucket)
60 – 70
50 – 60
70 – 80
Modal bucket share
34.9%
65.3%
81.7%
Share scored ≥60
38.3%
6.2%
95.0%
Table 4: AI-Match score distribution by embedding configuration (batch comparative evaluation). Note: AI-Match scores are not directly comparable across embedding backbones; see Section 4.3 discussion below.
Figure 2: Share of candidates exceeding LLM-as-a-Judge relevance thresholds, by embedding configuration, on the batch comparative evaluation dataset ( n=9,292 / 8,065 / 9,848 judged candidates for MPNet-FR, Gemma-base-EN, and Gemma+MNRL-EN respectively).
Metric
Base EN
Fine-tuned EN
Change
AI-Match weighted mean score
52.7
73.5
+20.8
AI-Match share ≥60
6.2%
95.0%
+88.8 pts
LLM-Judge share >60
88.1%
88.6%
+0.5 pts
LLM-Judge share >70
69.30%
69.35%
+0.05 pts
LLM-Judge share >80
43.8%
45.6%
+1.7 pts
LLM-Judge share >90
16.9%
17.7%
+0.8 pts
Table 5: Effect of Cached-MNRL fine-tuning on EmbeddingGemma (English), isolated from the MPNet Model (French) comparison.