United States

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer&#39;s stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

NAACL 2025

From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis

stance

deliberation

argumentation

### Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Welcome to the 2025 meeting of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics! I am proud to help organize the first NAACL conference to carry the new name of our organization, one that emphasizes inclusion for all of the Americas. I am also pleased to welcome you to Albuquerque, New Mexico, a state whose unique blend of cultural influences will make for an excellent backdrop for NAACL 2025, especially with this year’s special theme on NLP in a Multicultural World. 
**[Continue reading...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jX-qGhqVSZZCIrAnJaz798pflu5Irrdn/view?usp=sharing)**

*- Colin Cherry, Google, NAACL 2025 General Chair* 

[![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/b087f8a4dc5816d6e1a6514e59c59ac3.png)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T96GzPqObXrMln2BMByCSXTSizjTg69P/view?usp=sharing)

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

To access NAACL 2025 event page you are required to register. Please follow [**this link**](https://2025.naacl.org/registration/registration/) to register. Access will depend on your registration type.

Please register!

Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer's stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

poster

Embedding models play a crucial role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) by creating text embeddings used in various tasks such as information retrieval and assessing semantic text similarity. This paper focuses on research related to embedding models in the Russian language. It introduces a new Russian-focused embedding model called ru-en-RoSBERTa and the ruMTEB benchmark, the Russian version extending the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB). Our benchmark includes seven categories of tasks, such as semantic textual similarity, text classification, reranking, and retrieval. The research also assesses a representative set of Russian and multilingual models on the proposed benchmark. The findings indicate that the new model achieves results that are on par with state-of-the-art models in Russian. We release the model ru-en-RoSBERTa, and the ruMTEB framework comes with open-source code, integration into the original framework and a public leaderboard.

The Russian-focused embedders' exploration: ruMTEB benchmark and Russian embedding model design

LLMs have demonstrated impressive performance in answering medical questions, such as achieving passing scores on medical licensing examinations. However, medical board exams or general clinical questions do not capture the complexity of realistic clinical cases. Moreover, the lack of reference explanations means we cannot easily evaluate the reasoning of model decisions, a crucial component of supporting doctors in making complex medical decisions. To address these challenges, we construct two new datasets: JAMA Clinical Challenge and Medbullets. (Footnote: Datasets and code are available at <https://github.com/HanjieChen/ChallengeClinicalQA>.) JAMA Clinical Challenge consists of questions based on challenging clinical cases, while Medbullets comprises simulated clinical questions. Both datasets are structured as multiple-choice question-answering tasks, accompanied by expert-written explanations. We evaluate seven LLMs on the two datasets using various prompts. Experiments demonstrate that our datasets are harder than previous benchmarks. In-depth automatic and human evaluations of model-generated explanations provide insights into the promise and deficiency of LLMs for explainable medical QA.

Benchmarking Large Language Models on Answering and Explaining Challenging Medical Questions

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEVALPRO, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEVALPRO comprises 2,138 question triplets, totaling 6,414 distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEVALPRO is **more challenging** (the best LMM lags behind human performance by 31.73%, compared to an average gap of 8.03% in previous benchmarks) and **more trustworthy** (the best LLM trails the best LMM by 23.09%, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just 14.64%). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.

MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation

Maybe not. We identify and analyse errors in the popular Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark. Even though MMLU is widely adopted, our analysis demonstrates numerous ground truth errors that obscure the true capabilities of LLMs. For example, we find that 57% of the analysed questions in the Virology subset contain errors. To address this issue, we introduce a comprehensive framework for identifying dataset errors using a novel error annotation protocol. Then, we create MMLU-Redux, which is a subset of 5,700 manually re-annotated questions across all 57 MMLU subjects. Using MMLU-Redux, we demonstrate significant discrepancies with the model performance metrics that were originally reported. Our results strongly advocate for revising MMLU’s error-ridden questions to enhance its future utility and reliability as a benchmark. Therefore, we open up MMLU-Redux for additional annotation.

Are We Done with MMLU?

Computational argumentation, which involves generating answers or summaries for controversial topics like abortion bans and vaccination, has become increasingly important in today's polarized environment. Sophisticated LLM capabilities offer the potential to provide nuanced, evidence-based answers to such questions through Retrieval-Augmented Argumentation (RAArg), leveraging real-world evidence for high-quality, grounded arguments. However, evaluating RAArg remains challenging, as human evaluation is costly and difficult for complex, lengthy answers on complicated topics. At the same time, re-using existing argumentation datasets is no longer sufficient, as they lack long, complex arguments and realistic evidence from potentially misleading sources, limiting holistic evaluation of retrieval effectiveness and argument quality. To address these gaps, we investigate automated evaluation methods using multiple fine-grained LLM judges, providing better and more interpretable assessments than traditional single-score metrics and even previously reported human crowdsourcing. To validate the proposed techniques, we introduce ConQRet, a new benchmark featuring long and complex human-authored arguments on debated topics, grounded in real-world websites, allowing an exhaustive evaluation across retrieval effectiveness, argument quality, and groundedness. We validate our LLM Judges on a prior dataset and the new ConQRet benchmark. Our proposed LLM Judges and the ConQRet benchmark can enable rapid progress in computational argumentation and can be naturally extended to other complex retrieval-augmented generation tasks.

ConQRet: A New Benchmark for Fine-Grained Automatic Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Computational Argumentation

To deploy language models safely, it is crucial that they abstain from responding to inappropriate requests. Several prior studies test the safety promises of models based on their effectiveness in blocking malicious requests. In this work, we focus on evaluating the underlying techniques that cause models to abstain. We create `SELECT`, a benchmark derived from a set of benign concepts (e.g., ''rivers'') from a knowledge graph. Focusing on benign concepts isolates the effect of safety training, and grounding these concepts in a knowledge graph allows us to study the *generalization* and *specificity* of abstention techniques. Using `SELECT`, we benchmark different abstention techniques over six open-weight and closed-source models. We find that the examined techniques indeed cause models to abstain with over 80% abstention rates. However, these techniques are not as effective for descendants of the target concepts, where abstention rates drop by 19%. We also characterize the generalization-specificity trade-offs for different techniques. Overall, no single technique is invariably better than others, and our findings inform practitioners of the various trade-offs involved.

Knowledge Graph Guided Evaluation of Abstention Techniques

Templatic memes, characterized by a semantic structure adaptable to the creator's intent, represent a significant yet underexplored area within meme processing literature. With the goal of establishing a new direction for computational meme analysis, here we create a knowledge base composed of more than 5,200 meme templates, information about them, and 54,000 examples of template instances (templatic memes). To investigate the semantic signal of meme templates, we show that we can match memes in datasets to base templates contained in our knowledge base with a distance-based lookup. To demonstrate the power of meme templates, we create TSplit, a method to reorganize datasets, where a template or templatic instance can only appear in either the training or test split. Our re-split datasets enhance general meme knowledge and improve sample efficiency, leading to more robust models. Our examination of meme templates results in state-of-the-art performance for every dataset we consider, paving the way for analysis grounded in templateness.

A Template Is All You Meme

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our evaluation reveals key findings: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness depends on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for over 500 LLM-evaluators, laying groundwork for future research in instruction-following evaluation.

ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with precise length control, particularly in zero-shot settings. We conduct a comprehensive study evaluating LLMs' length control capabilities across multiple measures and propose practical methods to improve controllability. Our experiments with LLaMA 3 reveal stark differences in length adherence across measures and highlight inherent biases of the model. To address these challenges, we introduce a set of methods: length approximation, target adjustment, sample filtering, and automated revisions. By combining these methods, we demonstrate substantial improvements in length compliance while maintaining or enhancing summary quality, providing highly effective zero-shot strategies for precise length control without the need for model fine-tuning or architectural changes. With our work, we not only advance our understanding of LLM behavior in controlled text generation but also pave the way for more reliable and adaptable summarization systems in real-world applications.

Zero-Shot Strategies for Length-Controllable Summarization

Successful teamwork requires team members to understand each other and communicate effectively, managing multiple linguistic and paralinguistic tasks at once. Because of the potential for interrelatedness of these tasks, it is important to have the ability to make multiple types of predictions on the same dataset. Here, we introduce Multimodal Communication Annotations for Teams (MultiCAT), a speech- and text-based dataset consisting of audio recordings, automated and hand-corrected transcriptions. MultiCAT builds upon data from teams working collaboratively to save victims in a simulated search and rescue mission, and consists of annotations and benchmark results for the following tasks: (1) dialog act classification, (2) adjacency pair detection, (3) sentiment and emotion recognition, (4) closed-loop communication detection, and (5) vocal (phonetic) entrainment detection. We also present exploratory analyses on the relationship between our annotations and team outcomes. We posit that additional work on these tasks and their intersection will further improve understanding of team communication and its relation to team performance. Code & data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14834835

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2025

The Russian-focused embedders' exploration: ruMTEB benchmark and Russian embedding model design

Similar lecture

From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis