AI job screeners prefer AI-written resumes over human ones, researchers find
AI-powered job screening systems are more likely to favor resumes written by the same large language model they use, according to a recent study. Researchers found these systems systematically prefer AI-generated resumes over human-written ones, potentially disadvantaging qualified candidates. The bias was most pronounced in fields like accounting, sales, and finance, raising concerns about fairness in hiring.
- ▪AI-powered applicant tracking systems prefer resumes generated by the same large language model they use, giving those candidates higher selection rates.
- ▪The study analyzed 2,245 human-written resumes and their AI-generated counterparts across 24 occupations using models like GPT-4o and Deepseek-V3.1.
- ▪Researchers found AI evaluators were 23% to 60% more likely to select resumes created by the same LLM, with the strongest bias in accounting, sales, and finance.
- ▪This self-preferencing behavior creates a novel form of bias that could lead employers to overlook qualified human candidates.
- ▪The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Maryland, National University of Singapore, and Ohio State University, and published on arxiv.org.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
US News AI job screeners prefer AI-written resumes over human ones, researchers find By Kathianne Boniello Published May 16, 2026, 8:11 a.m. ET Choose your bot wisely. Job seekers desperate for a new gig now have to contend with a thoroughly modern hurdle: applicant tracking systems that automatically give preference to candidates who used AI to write their resumes. A recent study found AI-powered applicant tracking systems, or ATS, not only prefer AI-written resumes over those composed by humans — they’re more likely to put candidates on the short list if they used the same large language model the company already employs.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
