I want to match users to job posts, hoping to write a neural network to pick up on keywords users are looking for. My initial thinking was recurrent neural networks (RNNs) since we're dealing with language-modeling. But keyword positions shouldn't be important (keyword invariance). Eg, both the following job titles should match positive:

  • "Seeking React, React Native, Node, Postgres developer."
  • "Senior web developer. We use Node and React. Ideally also familiar with PostgreSQL."

My guess is that RNNs won't work here, and I should use CNNs instead since invariance is its specialty (at least with images). Alternatively, any other better-suited models than RNNs or CNNs?

  • $\begingroup$ Well, according to the book "Deep Learning" of Goodfellow et al. CNN's are appropriate for topologic-structured data (in example, images), while RNN's are the better choice when it comes to label sequence-structured data (in example, text). Can you elaborate what kind of structure your input has? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 14:21

1 Answer 1


If order truly isn't necessary, recurrent neural networks might be the wrong tool to use altogether. I would recommend representing the job postings as bags-of-words or document vectors and performing another neural network architecture or simple nearest-neighbor search to start with.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Only recurrent neural networks assume an ordering in the inputs. Feedforward neural networks are just as capable as nearest-neighbor to work with bag-of-words. $\endgroup$
    – Pieter
    Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ Starting simple though is a good advice. $\endgroup$
    – Pieter
    Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ Yes but he specifically asked about CNNs, which have certain spacial arrangement/invariance assumptions baked into them, which don't apply to arbitrary BOW vectors. And if he were to use a fully-connected network instead, then a single network layer will need to contain ~vocab_size^2 many weights, which is likely to be impractical large. $\endgroup$
    – jon_simon
    Commented Mar 10, 2017 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.