Austria

The theoretical code-switching (CS) literature provides numerous pointwise investigations that aim to explain patterns in CS, i.e. why bilinguals switch language in certain positions in a sentence more often than in others. A resulting consensus is that CS acceptability can be explained by the syntax of the contributing languages. There is however no large-scale, multi-language, cross-phenomena experiment that tests this claim. When designing such an experiment, we need to make sure that the system that is predicting where bilinguals tend to switch has access only to syntactic information. We provide such an experiment here. Results show that syntax alone is sufficient for an automatic system to distinguish between sentences in minimal pairs of CS, to the same degree as bilingual humans. Furthermore, the learnt syntactic patterns generalise well to unseen language pairs.

ACL 2025

Code-Switching and Syntax: A Large-Scale Experiment

bilingual

acceptability

language contact

graph neural networks

minimal pairs

syntax

code-switching

code-mixing

multilingual

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity, and I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring this event to life.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. Access credentials will be sent to your email from Underline - subject line "Welcome to ACL 2025". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

poster

Knowledge graphs (KGs) have been a cornerstone of search and recommendation due to their ability to store factual knowledge about any domain in a structured form enabling easy search and retrieval. Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive world knowledge across different benchmarks and domains but their knowledge is inconveniently scattered across their billions of parameters. In this paper, we propose a prompt-based method to construct domain-specific KGs by extracting knowledge solely from LLMs' parameters. First, we use an LLM to create a schema for a specific domain, which contains a set of domain-representative entities and relations. After that, we use the schema to guide the LLM through an iterative data generation process equipped with Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) for increased data quality. Using this method, we construct KGs for two domains: books and landmarks, which we then evaluate against Wikidata, an open-source human-created KG. Our results show that LLMs can generate large domain-specific KGs containing tens of thousands of entities and relations. However, due to the increased hallucination rates as the procedure evolves, the practical utility of obtained KGs could remain limited.

Generating Domain-Specific Knowledge Graphs from Large Language Models

When adapting ICL with or without fine-tuning, we are curious about whether the instruction-tuned language model is able to achieve well-calibrated results without suffering from the problem of overconfidence (i.e., miscalibration) considering its strong instruction following ability, especially in such limited data setups. In this work, we deliver an in-depth analysis of the behavior across different choices of learning methods from the perspective of both performance and calibration. Through extensive controlled experiments, we observe that the miscalibration problem exists across all learning methods in low-resource setups. To achieve simultaneous gain for both in-task performance and calibration, we then study the potential of self-ensembling applied at different modeling stages (e.g., variations of in-context examples or variations in prompts or different ensembling strategies) to make the predictions more calibrated and have comparable or even better performance. We find that self-ensembling with max probability produces robust and calibrated predictions. Our work reveals the potential calibration problem of using ICL despite the improvements in task performance and sheds light on which learning paradigm to choose. We also provide practical guidelines for choosing learning paradigms depending on whether the data has been seen by the model before and a worthwhile solution via self-ensembling on how to enhance both task performance and calibration of LMs, which we hope could encourage further study.

Large Language Models are Miscalibrated In-Context Learners

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. The decision-making protocol stands out as it can highly impact final model answers, depending on how decisions are reached. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because many studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making influences different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time - the decision protocol - to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and measure differences in knowledge and reasoning tasks. Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks compared to other decision protocols. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduce it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.

Voting or Consensus? Decision-Making in Multi-Agent Debate

The rapid growth of text collections digitized by imperfect OCR systems requires semantic search models that can perform well in noisy texts. Such collections are highly heterogeneous, with varying degrees of OCR quality, spelling conventions and other inconsistencies ---all phenomena that are underrepresented in the training data of standard embedding models, with ramifications for their generalization. In our paper, we show that this problem can be alleviated with a simple and inexpensive method that does not require supervision or in-domain training. Specifically, we fine-tune existing multilingual models using noisy texts and a contrastive loss. We show that these models show considerable improvements across different noise conditions. Control experiments show minimal performance loss on conventional similarity tasks, with occasional improvements. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to cheaply adapt embedding models as cross-lingual semantic search systems that generalize to heterogeneous digitized corpora.

Cheap Character Noise for OCR-Robust Multilingual Embeddings

Recent work found that LLMs are sensitive to a wide range of arbitrary prompt dimensions, including the type of delimiters, answer enumerators, instruction wording, and more. This throws into question popular single-prompt evaluation practices. In this work, we present DOVE (Dataset Of Variation Evaluation) a large-scale dataset containing prompt perturbations of various evaluation benchmarks. In contrast to previous work, we examine LLM sensitivity from an holistic perspective, and assess the joint effects of perturbations along various dimensions, resulting in thousands of perturbations per instance. We evaluate several model families against DOVE, leading to several findings, including efficient methods for choosing well-performing prompts, observing that few-shot examples reduce sensitivity, and identifying instances which are inherently hard across all perturbations. DOVE consists of more than 300M prompt perturbations and model outputs, which we make publicly available to spur a community-wide effort toward meaningful, robust, and efficient evaluation.

DOVE: A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Predictions Dataset Towards Meaningful LLM Evaluation

Aligning general-purpose large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks often incurs significant training adjustment costs. Prior research has explored various avenues to enhance alignment efficiency, primarily through minimal-data training or data-driven activations to identify key attention heads. However, these approaches inherently introduce data dependency, which hinders generalization and reusability. To address this issue and enhance model alignment efficiency, we propose the Attention Localization and Pruning Strategy ALPS, an efficient algorithm that localizes the most task-sensitive attention heads and prunes by restricting attention training updates to these heads, thereby reducing alignment costs. Experimental results demonstrate that our method activates only 10% of attention parameters during fine-tuning while achieving a 2% performance improvement over baselines on three tasks. Moreover, the identified task-specific heads are transferable across datasets and mitigate knowledge forgetting. Our work and findings provide a novel perspective on efficient LLM alignment.

ALPS: Attention Localization and Pruning Strategy for Efficient Adaptation of Large Language Models

Mathematical reasoning, a core aspect of human cognition, is vital across many domains, from educational problem-solving to scientific advancements. As artificial general intelligence (AGI) progresses, integrating large language models (LLMs) with mathematical reasoning tasks is becoming increasingly significant. This survey provides **the first comprehensive analysis of mathematical reasoning in the era of multimodal large language models (MLLMs)**. We review over 200 studies published since 2021, and examine the state-of-the-art developments in Math-LLMs, with a focus on multimodal settings. We categorize the field into three dimensions: benchmarks, methodologies, and challenges. In particular, we explore multimodal mathematical reasoning pipeline, as well as the role of (M)LLMs and the associated methodologies. Finally, we identify five major challenges hindering the realization of AGI in this domain, offering insights into the future direction for enhancing multimodal reasoning capabilities. This survey serves as a critical resource for the research community in advancing the capabilities of LLMs to tackle complex multimodal reasoning tasks.

A Survey of Mathematical Reasoning in the Era of Multimodal Large Language Model: Benchmark, Method & Challenges

We propose Fast-and-Frugal Text-Graph (FnF-TG) Transformers, a Transformer-based framework that unifies textual and structural information for inductive link prediction in text-attributed knowledge graphs. We demonstrate that, by effectively encoding ego-graphs (1-hop neighbourhoods), we can reduce the reliance on resource-intensive textual encoders. This makes the model both fast at training and inference time, as well as frugal in terms of cost. We perform a comprehensive evaluation on three popular datasets and show that FnF-TG can achieve superior performance compared to previous state-of-the-art methods. We also extend inductive learning to a fully inductive setting, where relations don't rely on transductive (fixed) representations, as in previous work, but are a function of their textual description. Additionally, we introduce new variants of existing datasets, specifically designed to test the performance of models on unseen relations at inference time, thus offering a new test-bench for fully inductive link prediction.

Fast-and-Frugal Text-Graph Transformers are Effective Link Predictors

Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to build domain-specific conversational agents, especially for e-commerce customer service chatbots, is a growing focus. While existing methods enhance dialogue performance by extracting core patterns from dialogue data and integrating them into models, two key challenges persist: (1) heavy reliance on human experts for dialogue strategy induction, and (2) LLM-based automatic extraction often focuses on summarizing specific behaviors, neglecting the underlying thought processes behind strategy selection. In this paper, we present ChatMap, which focuses on enhancing customer service chatbots by mining thought processes using a Multi-Agent aPproach. Specifically, the process begins by extracting customer requests and solutions from a raw dialogue dataset, followed by clustering similar requests, analyzing the thought processes behind solutions, and refining service thoughts. Through a quality inspection and reflection mechanism, the final service thought dataset is generated, helping chatbots provide more appropriate responses. Offline experimental results show that ChatMap performs comparably to manually annotated thought processes and significantly outperforms other baselines, demonstrating its ability to automate human annotation and enhance dialogue capabilities through strategic understanding. Online A/B tests on Taobao, a popular e-commerce platform in China reveal that ChatMap can better improve customer satisfaction and address customer requests from a business perspective.

ChatMap: Mining Human Thought Processes for Customer Service Chatbots via Multi-Agent Collaboration

Vague quantifiers such as "a few" and "many" are influenced by many contextual factors, including how many objects are present in a given context. In this work, we evaluate the extent to which vision-and-language models (VLMs) are compatible with humans when producing or judging the appropriateness of vague quantifiers in visual contexts. We release a novel dataset, VAQUUM, containing 20300 human ratings on quantified statements across a total of 1089 images. Using this dataset, we compare human judgments and VLM predictions using three different evaluation methods. Our findings show that VLMs, like humans, are influenced by object counts in vague quantifier use. However, we find significant inconsistencies across models in different evaluation settings, suggesting that judging and producing vague quantifiers rely on two different processes.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Generating Domain-Specific Knowledge Graphs from Large Language Models

Similar lecture

Minimal Pair-Based Evaluation of Code-Switching