ACL 2025 论文列表

TikTok has skyrocketed in popularity over recent years, especially among younger audiences. However, there are public concerns about the potential of this platform to promote and amplify harmful content. This study presents the first systematic analysis of conspiracy theories on TikTok. By leveraging the official TikTok Research API we collect a longitudinal dataset of 1.5M videos shared in the U.S. over three years. We estimate a lower bound on the prevalence of conspiratorial videos (up to 1000 new videos per month) and evaluate the effects of TikTok’s Creativity Program for monetization, observing an overall increase in video duration regardless of content. Lastly, we evaluate the capabilities of state-of-the-art open-weight Large Language Models to identify conspiracy theories from audio transcriptions of videos. While these models achieve high precision in detecting harmful content (up to 96%), their overall performance remains comparable to fine-tuned traditional models such as RoBERTa. Our findings suggest that Large Language Models can serve as an effective tool for supporting content moderation strategies aimed at reducing the spread of harmful content on TikTok.

Simulating human clients in mental health counseling is crucial for training and evaluating counselors (both human or simulated) in a scalable manner. Nevertheless, past research on client simulation did not focus on complex conversation tasks such as mental health counseling. In these tasks, the challenge is to ensure that the client’s actions (i.e., interactions with the counselor) are consistent with with its stipulated profiles and negative behavior settings. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that supports consistent client simulation for mental health counseling. Our framework tracks the mental state of a simulated client, controls its state transitions, and generates for each state behaviors consistent with the client’s motivation, beliefs, preferred plan to change, and receptivity. By varying the client profile and receptivity, we demonstrate that consistent simulated clients for different counseling scenarios can be effectively created. Both our automatic and expert evaluations on the generated counseling sessions also show that our client simulation method achieves higher consistency than previous methods.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires effective methods to assess semantic consistency across multiple reversible transformations. Traditional self-consistency methods often fail to capture subtle semantic errors in multi-step tasks. We introduce ConsistencyChecker, a tree-based evaluation framework that measures LLMs’ ability to preserve semantic consistency during reversible transformation processes, sidestepping benchmark data contamination issues. Our approach constructs self-consistency trees where nodes represent text states after transformations (e.g., translation, code modification, paraphrasing) and edges represent pairs of opposite transformations. By analyzing semantic preservation between nodes at different tree depths, ConsistencyChecker quantifies model reliability without requiring manually annotated reference data. Experiments demonstrate that ConsistencyChecker reliably measures generalization abilities across models from 1.5B to 72B parameters. On translation tasks, GPT-4o Mini achieves the highest L3 consistency score of 98.0%. For code generation, Qwen 2.5 32B leads with 85.1% semantic consistency at L3. Results show Pearson correlation greater than 0.7 between our embedding-based scores and WMT 2024 rankings on 4 out of 5 shared language pairs, validating the method’s effectiveness for benchmarking LLM performance without constructing new datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit pronounced conservative bias in relation extraction tasks, frequently defaulting to no_relation label when an appropriate option is unavailable. While this behavior helps prevent incorrect relation assignments, our analysis reveals that it also leads to significant information loss when reasoning is not explicitly included in the output. We systematically evaluate this trade-off across multiple prompts, datasets, and relation types, introducing the concept of Hobson’s choice to capture scenarios where models opt for safe but uninformative labels over hallucinated ones. Our findings suggest that conservative bias occurs twice as often as hallucination. To quantify this effect, we use SBERT and LLM prompts to capture the semantic similarity between conservative bias behaviors in constrained prompts and labels generated from semi-constrained and open-ended prompts.

The conformity effect describes the tendency of individuals to align their responses with the majority. Studying this bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial, as LLMs are increasingly used in various information-seeking and decision-making tasks as conversation partners to improve productivity. Thus, conformity to incorrect responses can compromise their effectiveness. In this paper, we adapt psychological experiments to examine the extent of conformity in state-of-the-art LLMs. Our findings reveal that all models tested exhibit varying levels of conformity toward the majority, regardless of their initial choice or correctness, across different knowledge domains. Notably, we are the first to show that LLMs are more likely to conform when they are more uncertain in their own prediction. We further explore factors that influence conformity, such as training paradigms and input characteristics, finding that instruction-tuned models are less susceptible to conformity, while increasing the naturalness of majority tones amplifies conformity. Finally, we propose two interventions—Devil’s Advocate and Question Distillation—to mitigate conformity, providing insights into building more robust language models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can correct their self-generated responses, but a decline in accuracy after self-correction is also witnessed. To have a deeper understanding of self-correction, we endeavor to decompose, evaluate, and analyze the self-correction behaviors of LLMs. By enumerating and analyzing answer correctness before and after self-correction, we decompose the self-correction capability into confidence (being confident to correct answers) and critique (turning wrong answers to correct) capabilities, and propose two metrics from a probabilistic perspective to measure these 2 capabilities, along with another metric for overall self-correction capability evaluation. Based on our decomposition and evaluation metrics, we conduct extensive experiments and draw some empirical conclusions. For example, we find different models can exhibit distinct behaviors: some models are confident while others are more critical. We also find the trade-off between the two capabilities (i.e. improving one can lead to a decline in the other) when manipulating model self-correction behavior by prompts or in-context learning. Further, we find a simple yet efficient strategy to improve self-correction capability by transforming Supervision Fine-Tuning (SFT) data format, and our strategy outperforms vanilla SFT in both capabilities and achieves much higher accuracy after self-correction.

Self-consistency decoding enhances LLMs’ performance on reasoning tasks by sampling diverse reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer. However, it is computationally expensive, as sampling many of these (lengthy) paths is required to increase the chances that the correct answer emerges as the most frequent one. To address this, we introduce Confidence-Informed Self-Consistency (CISC). CISC performs a weighted majority vote based on confidence scores obtained directly from the model. By prioritizing high-confidence paths, it can identify the correct answer with a significantly smaller sample size. When tested on nine models and four datasets, CISC outperforms self-consistency in nearly all configurations, reducing the required number of reasoning paths by over 40% on average. In addition, we introduce the notion of within-question confidence evaluation, after showing that standard evaluation methods are poor predictors of success in distinguishing correct and incorrect answers to the same question. In fact, the most calibrated confidence method proved to be the least effective for CISC. Lastly, beyond these practical implications, our results and analyses show that LLMs can effectively judge the correctness of their own outputs, contributing to the ongoing debate on this topic.

The quality of Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) data plays a critical role in enhancing the conversational capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the availability of high-quality human-annotated SFT data has become a significant bottleneck for LLMs, necessitating a greater reliance on synthetic training data. In this work, we introduce Condor, a two-stage synthetic data generation framework that incorporates World Knowledge Trees and Self-Reflection Refinement to produce high-quality SFT data at scale. Our experimental results demonstrate that a base model fine-tuned on only 20K Condor-generated samples achieves superior performance compared to instruct model trained with RLHF. The additional refinement stage in Condor further enables iterative self-improvement for LLMs at various scales (up to 72B), validating the effectiveness of our approach. Furthermore, our investigation into the scaling of synthetic data in post-training reveals substantial unexplored potential for performance improvements, opening promising avenues for future research.

Conditional dichotomy, the contrast between two outputs conditioned on the same context, is vital for applications such as debate, defeasible inference, and causal reasoning. Existing methods that rely on semantic similarity often fail to capture the nuanced oppositional dynamics essential for these applications. Motivated by these limitations, we introduce a novel task, Conditional Dichotomy Quantification (ConDQ), which formalizes the direct measurement of conditional dichotomy and provides carefully constructed datasets covering debate, defeasible natural language inference, and causal reasoning scenarios. To address this task, we develop the Dichotomy-oriented Geometric Embedding (DoGE) framework, which leverages complex-valued embeddings and a dichotomous objective to model and quantify these oppositional relationships effectively. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness and versatility of DoGE, demonstrating its potential in understanding and quantifying conditional dichotomy across diverse NLP applications. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/cui-shaobo/conditional-dichotomy-quantification.

Finding evidence for human opinion and behavior at scale is a challenging task, often requiring an understanding of sophisticated thought patterns among vast online communities found on social media. For example, studying how ‘gun ownership’ is related to the perception of ‘Freedom’, requires a retrieval system that can operate at scale over social media posts, while dealing with two key challenges: (1) identifying abstract concept instances, (2) which can be instantiated differently across different communities. To address these, we introduce ConceptCarve, an evidence retrieval framework that utilizes traditional retrievers and LLMs to dynamically characterize the search space during retrieval. Our experiments show that ConceptCarve surpasses traditional retrieval systems in finding evidence within a social media community. It also produces an interpretable representation of the evidence for that community, which we use to qualitatively analyze complex thought patterns that manifest differently across the communities.

Concept-based explanations work by mapping complex model computations to human-understandable concepts. Evaluating such explanations is very difficult, as it includes not only the quality of the induced space of possible concepts but also how effectively the chosen concepts are communicated to users. Existing evaluation metrics often focus solely on the former, neglecting the latter.We introduce an evaluation framework for measuring concept explanations via automated simulatability: a simulator’s ability to predict the explained model’s outputs based on the provided explanations. This approach accounts for both the concept space and its interpretation in an end-to-end evaluation. Human studies for simulatability are notoriously difficult to enact, particularly at the scale of a wide, comprehensive empirical evaluation (which is the subject of this work). We propose using large language models (LLMs) as simulators to approximate the evaluation and report various analyses to make such approximations reliable. Our method allows for scalable and consistent evaluation across various models and datasets. We report a comprehensive empirical evaluation using this framework and show that LLMs provide consistent rankings of explanation methods. Code available at Anonymous GitHub.

Lexical borrowing, the adoption of words from one language into another, is a ubiquitous linguistic phenomenon influenced by geopolitical, societal, and technological factors. This paper introduces ConLoan–a novel contrastive dataset comprising sentences with and without loanwords across 10 languages. Through systematic evaluation using this dataset, we investigate how state-of-the-art machine translation and language models process loanwords compared to their native alternatives. Our experiments reveal that these systems show systematic preferences for loanwords over native terms and exhibit varying performance across languages. These findings provide valuable insights for developing more linguistically robust NLP systems.

Knowledge Editing (KE) aims to adjust a Large Language Model’s (LLM) internal representations and parameters to correct inaccuracies and improve output consistency without incurring the computational expense of re-training the entire model. However, editing commonsense knowledge still faces difficulties, including limited knowledge coverage in existing resources, the infeasibility of annotating labels for an overabundance of commonsense knowledge, and the strict knowledge formats of current editing methods. In this paper, we address these challenges by presenting ConceptEdit, a framework that integrates conceptualization and instantiation into the KE pipeline for LLMs to enhance their commonsense reasoning capabilities. ConceptEdit dynamically diagnoses implausible commonsense knowledge within an LLM using another verifier LLM and augments the source knowledge to be edited with conceptualization for stronger generalizability. Experimental results demonstrate that LLMs enhanced with ConceptEdit successfully generate commonsense knowledge with improved plausibility compared to other baselines and achieve stronger performance across multiple question answering benchmarks. Our data, code, and models are publicly available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/ConKE.

A reliable resume-job matching system helps a company recommend suitable candidates from a pool of resumes and helps a job seeker find relevant jobs from a list of job posts. However, since job seekers apply only to a few jobs, interaction labels in resume-job datasets are sparse. We introduce ConFit v2, an improvement over ConFit to tackle this sparsity problem. We propose two techniques to enhance the encoder’s contrastive training process: augmenting job data with hypothetical reference resume generated by a large language model; and creating high-quality hard negatives from unlabeled resume/job pairs using a novel hard-negative mining strategy. This method also simplifies the representation space of the encoder. We evaluate ConFit v2 on two real-world datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms ConFit and prior methods (including BM25 and OpenAI text-embedding-003), achieving an average absolute improvement of 13.8% in recall and 17.5% in nDCG across job-ranking and resume-ranking tasks.

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has improved translation by using Transformer-based models, but it still struggles with word ambiguity and context. This problem is especially important in domain-specific applications, which often have problems with unclear sentences or poor data quality. Our research explores how adding information to models can improve translations in the context of e-commerce data. To this end we create ConECT– a new Czech-to-Polish e-commerce product translation dataset coupled with images and product metadata consisting of 11,400 sentence pairs. We then investigate and compare different methods that are applicable to context-aware translation. We test a vision-language model (VLM), finding that visual context aids translation quality. Additionally, we explore the incorporation of contextual information into text-to-text models, such as the product’s category path or image descriptions. The results of our study demonstrate that the incorporation of contextual information leads to an improvement in the quality of machine translation. We make the new dataset publicly available.

Existing attacks against multimodal language models often communicate instruction through text, either as an explicit malicious instruction or a crafted generic prompt, and accompanied by a toxic image. In contrast, here we exploit the capabilities of MLLMs in following non-textual instruction, i.e., an adversarial image or audio, namely Con Instruction. It is a novel gray-box attack method that generates adversarial images or audio to convey specific harmful instructions to MLLMs. We also find that combining our adversarial examples with certain non-empty text inputs amplifies attack success, while appending these after malicious text has limited effects. To evaluate whether an attack is successful, we introduce a new attack response categorization (ARC) that considers the response quality and relevancy concerning the malicious instruction. The results show that Con Instruction effectively bypasses the safety mechanisms in various visual and audio-language models, including LLaVA-v1.5, InternVL, Qwen-VL, and Qwen-Audio, across two standard benchmarks: AdvBench and SafeBench. Specifically, our method achieves the highest attack success rates, reaching 81.3% and 86.6% on LLaVA-v1.5 (13B). We show that larger models are more susceptible toCon Instruction, contrasting observations in their underlying LLMs. On the defense side, we explore various methods against our attacks and find substantial gaps among existing techniques. The code will be made available upon publication.

Scaling laws are a critical component of the LLM development pipeline, most famously as a way to forecast training decisions such as ‘compute-optimally’ trading-off parameter count and dataset size, alongside a more recent growing list of other crucial decisions. In this work, we ask whether compute-optimal scaling behaviour can be skill-dependent. In particular, we examine knowledge and reasoning-based skills such as knowledge-based QA and code generation, and we answer this question in the affirmative: scaling laws are skill-dependent. Next, to understand whether skill-dependent scaling is an artefact of the pretraining datamix, we conduct an extensive ablation of different datamixes and find that, also when correcting for datamix differences, knowledge and code exhibit fundamental differences in scaling behaviour. We conclude with an analysis of how our findings relate to standard compute-optimal scaling using a validation set, and find that a misspecified validation set can impact compute-optimal parameter count by nearly 50%, depending on its skill composition.

Most written natural languages are composed of sequences of words and sentences. Similar to humans, large language models (LLMs) exhibit flexibility in handling textual positions - a phenomenon we term Position Generalization. They can understand texts with position perturbations and generalize to longer texts than those encountered during training with the latest techniques. These phenomena suggest that LLMs handle positions in a tolerant manner, but how LLMs computationally process positional relevance remains largely unexplored. In this work, we show how LLMs enforce certain computational mechanisms to allow for the aforementioned tolerance in position perturbations. Despite the complex design of the self-attention mechanism, in this work, LLMs are revealed to learn a counterintuitive disentanglement of attention logits, where their values show a 0.959 linear correlation with an approximation of the arithmetic sum of positional relevance and semantic importance. Furthermore, we identify a prevalent pattern in intermediate features that enables this effect, suggesting that it is a learned behavior rather than a natural result of the model architecture. Based on these findings, we provide computational explanations and criteria for the aforementioned position flexibilities observed in LLMs.

Despite the widespread use of English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESFL), developing syntactico-semantic representations for it is limited — the irregularities in ESFL complicate systematic composition and subsequently the derivation of its semantics.This paper draws on constructivism and proposes a novel Synchronous Hyperedge Replacement Grammar (SHRG)-based constructivist approach to address the challenges. By using constructions as fundamental units, this approach not only accommodates both the idiosyncrasies and the compositional nature of ESFL, but also bridges the gap between literal cues and intended meaning.The feasibility of this constructivist approach is demonstrated using real ESFL data, resulting in a gold-standard, medium-sized syntactico-semantic bank that covers a wide range of ESFL phenomena.