GESA: Graph-Enhanced Semantic Allocation for Generalized, Fair, and Explainable Candidate-Role Matching

Abstract--Accurate, fair, and explainable allocation of candidates to roles represents a fundamental challenge across multiple domains including corporate hiring, academic admissions, fellowship awards, and volunteer placement systems. Current state-of-the-art approaches suffer from semantic inflexibility, persistent demographic bias, opacity in decision-making processes, and poor scalability under dynamic policy constraints. Our experimental evaluation on large-scale international benchmarks comprising 20,000 candidate profiles and 3,000 role specifications demonstrates superior performance with 94.5% top-3 allocation accuracy, 37% improvement in diversity representation, 0.98 fairness score across demographic categories, and sub-second end-to-end latency. Additionally, GESA incorporates hybrid recommendation capabilities and glass-box explainability, making it suitable for deployment across diverse international contexts in industry, academia, and non-profit sectors. The problem of matching candidates to appropriate roles efficiently and fairly represents one of the most critical challenges in modern organizational and institutional decision-making processes. This challenge spans multiple domains: corporate talent acquisition where companies struggle to identify optimal candidates from thousands of applications [1], academic admissions where universities must select students who will thrive in specific programs [2], research fellowship allocation where funding bodies need to match candidates with projects [3], and volunteer placement systems where non-profit organizations seek to optimize volunteer-task assignments [4]. Despite decades of research and development, existing allocation systems continue to exhibit fundamental limitations that significantly impact their effectiveness and fairness. First, semantic inflexibility remains a persistent issue--traditional keyword-based and static embedding approaches fail to capture the nuanced contextual relationships between candidate qualifications and role requirements [5].