Detecting Soft Skills in ML Engineering Roles CVs

Soft skills shape collaboration among ML engineers, data scientists, and software engineers building ML-enabled systems, yet what we know about them comes almost entirely from the demand side. Job advertisements, surveys, and hiring manager interviews capture what employers ask for. How candidates themselves articulate these competencies has not been studied, and existing CV-mining work is both keyword-based, so it cannot see skills conveyed through narrative, and descriptive, reporting frequency rankings without testing whether group differences exceed sampling variation. We close both gaps. Using a balanced corpus of 300 curated CVs spanning the three roles, we extract explicitly listed and implicitly narrated soft skills with an LLM-based pipeline validated against a human-annotated ground truth, a distinction that existing extractors were not designed to make. We then convert the demand-side literature's claims into 13 falsifiable hypotheses about role signatures, seniority progression, and disclosure style, and test them with effect sizes under family-wise error control, so that candidate-side data can corroborate or contradict the demand-side account rather than merely illustrate it. Eleven hypotheses are supported, one partially, and one refuted. Candidates disclose soft skills through narrative rather than keyword lists by roughly three to one, and most so for the competencies employers value most: leadership, coordination, and mentoring (88-96% narrative). Seniority nearly triples the odds of articulating leadership. That competency, assumed universal in prior work, is articulated by software engineers at half the rate of their peers. Technical candidates do articulate soft skills, but a keyword-based screening systematically misses them.

Discourse-Aware Policy Analysis with Argumentation: A Hybrid LLM-Symbolic Framework for Disaster Governance

Policy documents shape governance outcomes, but their reasoning is often implicit. Participatory commitments and managerial control routinely coexist in the same text, and the tensions between them are rarely stated directly. Existing computational approaches to policy discourse cannot express the frame-mediated relations that drive these tensions, where one argument narrows or instrumentalizes another rather than rejecting it. End-to-end summarization by large language models produces fluent text but offers little structure that domain experts can inspect or contest. We present Apaf, a hybrid LLM--symbolic pipeline that operationalizes critical discourse analysis as a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework over policy text. Arguments are first classified into deliberative or managerial frames. Four frame-mediated relation subtypes (agency reduction, agenda shift, instrumental support, and normative support) are then produced by deterministic rules over LLM-extracted features. We release a novel dataset of 100 sub-documents of disaster-risk-reduction policy from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia, and show that the resulting argument graphs are accurate, interpretable, and stable across jurisdictions.

Too much evidence, too little time: From text to actionable recommendations through multi-objective evidence reasoning

Evidence-based clinical decision making requires specialists to identify, evaluate and synthesize relevant scientific literature. However, PubMed searches for complex clinical cases often return hundreds of publications that cannot be reviewed manually under time constraints. This study proposes SCEPTER (Single-Case Evidence-driven PubMed-To-rEcommendation Reasoner), a framework for transforming clinical case descriptions into evidence-based recommendations. SCEPTER combines PubMed retrieval, PubMedBERT semantic ranking, large language model (LLM)-based claim extraction, evidence-level weighting, contradiction detection, consensus analysis and multi-objective Pareto claim selection. The framework generates structured evidence syntheses and grounded actionable recommendations. A Paper Q&A module further enables interactive exploration of selected publications. The proposed framework introduces multi-objective reasoning model that integrates literature support, contradiction analysis and interactive literature interrogation into a unified clinical decision-support pipeline. Evaluation on 150 case studies demonstrated that the framework reduced an average search space of 576 papers to 53 retained papers, 7 Pareto-optimal claims and 3 final recommendations, corresponding to an overall compression ratio of 192:1. Despite this reduction, the retained evidence maintained high diversity (entropy=0.901). The ablation study showed that Pareto-based selection increased evidence diversity and recommendation utility compared with conventional ranking approaches.