Austria

Large language models excel at problem-solving but often struggle with complex reasoning and factual accuracy. While chain-of-thought and retrieval-augmented generation help break down problems and retrieve knowledge, they still falter on challenging tasks like competitive programming due to frequent reasoning errors and irrelevant retrieval. To address this, we introduce Critic-guided planning with Retrieval-augmentation, CR-Planner, a novel framework that leverages fine-tuned critic models to guide both reasoning and retrieval processes through planning. CR-Planner iteratively selects and executes sub-goals, guided by critic models. A sub-goal critic identifies promising sub-goals from reasoning, query generation, and retrieval, while an execution critic evaluates outputs of sub-goal executions. We employ Monte Carlo Tree Search to collect data for critic training, allowing systematic exploration of action sequences and effective navigation toward the final answer. We evaluate CR-Planner on challenging domain-knowledge-intensive and reasoning-heavy tasks, including competitive programming, theorem-driven math reasoning, and complex domain retrieval problems. It significantly outperforms baselines, demonstrating effectiveness in both reasoning and retrieval.

ACL 2025

Can We Further Elicit Reasoning in LLMs? Critic-Guided Planning with Retrieval-Augmentation for Solving Challenging Tasks

retrieval-augmented generation

planning

reasoning

### 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

Legal scholars are increasingly using corpus based methods for assessing historical meaning. Among work focused on the so-called founding era (mid to late 18th century), the majority of such studies use the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA) and rely on methods such as word counting and manual coding. Here, we demonstrate what can be inferred about meaning change and variation using more advanced NLP methods, focusing on terms in the U.S. Constitution. We also carry out a data quality assessment of COFEA, pointing out issues with OCR quality and metadata, compare diachronic change to synchronic variation, and discuss limitations when using NLP methods for studying historical meaning.

Meaning Variation and Data Quality in the Corpus of Founding Era American English

It has been frequently observed that human speakers align their language use with each other during conversations. In this paper, we study empirically whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit the same behavior of conversational adaptation.
We construct a corpus of conversations between LLMs and find that two LLM agents end up making more similar syntactic choices as conversations go on, confirming that modern LLMs adapt their language use to their conversational partners in at least a rudimentary way.

LLMs syntactically adapt their language use to their conversational partner

Do language models (LMs) offer insights into human language learning? A common argument against this idea is that because their architecture and training paradigm are so vastly different from humans, LMs can learn arbitrary inputs as easily as natural languages. 
We test this claim by training LMs to model impossible and typologically unattested languages.
Unlike previous work, which has focused exclusively on English, we conduct experiments on 12 languages from 4 language families with two newly constructed parallel corpora. Our results show that while GPT-2 small can largely distinguish attested languages from their impossible counterparts, it does not achieve perfect separation between all the attested languages and all the impossible ones. We further test whether GPT-2 small distinguishes typologically attested from unattested languages with different NP orders by manipulating word order based on Greenberg's Universal 20. We find that the model's perplexity scores do not distinguish attested vs. unattested word orders, while its performance on the generalization test does. These findings suggest that LMs exhibit some human-like inductive biases, though these biases are weaker than those found in human learners.

Anything Goes? A Crosslinguistic Study of (Im)possible Language Learning in LMs

In this paper, we propose a new data synthesis method called \textbf{LogicPro}, which leverages LeetCode-style algorithm \underline{Pro}blems and their corresponding \underline{Pro}gram solutions to synthesize Complex \underline{Logic}al Reasoning data in text format. First, we synthesize complex reasoning problems through source algorithm problems and test cases. Then, standard answers and intermediate variable outputs are obtained for each problem based on standard python solutions and test cases. Finally, with the guidance of code intermediate variables, we synthesize the text reasoning process for each reasoning problems. Through this method, we can synthesize data that is difficult, scalable, effective, and comes with golden standard answers and high-quality reasoning processes. As a result, with our 540K synthesized dataset constructed solely from 2,360 algorithm problems, our approach achieves significant improvements in multiple models for the datasets \textit{BBH^27}, \textit{LogicBench}, \textit{DROP}, \textit{AR-LSAT}, and \textit{GSM8K}, etc. outperforming a wide range of existing reasoning datasets.

LogicPro: Improving Complex Logical Reasoning via Program-Guided Learning

Improving cultural competence of language technologies is important. However most recent works rarely engage with the communities they study, and instead rely on synthetic setups and imperfect proxies of culture. In this work, we take a human-centered approach to discover and measure language-based cultural norms, and cultural competence of LLMs. We focus on a single kind of culture, *research cultures*, and a single task, *adapting writing across research cultures*. Through a set of interviews with interdisciplinary researchers, who are experts at moving between cultures, we create a framework of structural, stylistic, rhetorical, and citational norms that vary across research cultures. We operationalise these features with a suite of computational metrics and use them for (a) surfacing latent cultural norms in human-written research papers at scale; and (b) highlighting the lack of cultural competence of LLMs, and their tendency to homogenize writing. Overall, our work illustrates the efficacy of a human-centered approach to measuring cultural norms in human-written and LLM-generated texts.

Research Borderlands: Analysing Scientific Writing Across Research Cultures

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various domains, including radiology report generation. Previous approaches have attempted to utilize multimodal LLMs for this task, enhancing their performance through the integration of domain-specific knowledge retrieval. However, these approaches often overlook the knowledge already embedded within the LLMs, leading to redundant information integration. To address this limitation, we propose Radar, a framework for enhancing radiology report generation with supplementary knowledge injection. Radar improves report generation by systematically leveraging both the internal knowledge of an LLM and externally retrieved information. Specifically, it first extracts the model's acquired knowledge that aligns with expert image-based classification outputs. It then retrieves relevant supplementary knowledge to further enrich this information. Finally, by aggregating both sources, Radar generates more accurate and informative radiology reports. Extensive experiments on MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert-Plus, and IU X-ray demonstrate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs in both language quality and clinical accuracy

RADAR: Enhancing Radiology Report Generation with Supplementary Knowledge Injection

Instruction-tuning enhances the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow user instructions more accurately, improving usability while reducing harmful outputs. However, this process may increase the model’s dependence on user input, potentially leading to the unfiltered acceptance of misinformation and the generation of hallucinations. Existing studies primarily highlight that LLMs are receptive to external information that contradict their parametric knowledge, but little research has been conducted on the direct impact of instruction-tuning on this phenomenon. In our study, we investigate the impact of instruction-tuning on LLM susceptibility to misinformation. Our analysis reveals that instruction-tuned LLMs are significantly more likely to accept misinformation when it is presented by the user. A comparison with base models shows that instruction-tuning increases reliance on user-provided information, shifting susceptibility from the assistant role to the user role. Furthermore, we explore additional factors influencing misinformation susceptibility, such as the role of the user in prompt structure, misinformation length, and the presence of warnings in the system prompt. Our findings underscore the need for systematic approaches to mitigate unintended consequences of instruction-tuning and enhance the reliability of LLMs in real-world applications.

Exploring the Impact of Instruction-Tuning on LLM’s Susceptibility to Misinformation

Many court systems are overwhelmed all over the world, leading to huge backlogs of pending cases. Effective triage systems, like those in emergency rooms, could ensure proper prioritization of open cases, optimizing time and resource allocation in the court system. In this work, we introduce the Criticality Prediction dataset, a novel resource for evaluating case prioritization. Our dataset features a two-tier labeling system: (1) the binary LD-Label, identifying cases published as Leading Decisions (LD), and (2) the more granular Citation-Label, ranking cases by their citation frequency and recency, allowing for a more nuanced evaluation. Unlike existing approaches that rely on resource-intensive manual annotations, we algorithmically derive labels leading to a much larger dataset than otherwise possible. We evaluate several multilingual models, including both smaller fine-tuned models and large language models in a zero-shot setting. Our results show that the fine-tuned models consistently outperform their larger counterparts, thanks to our large training set. Our results highlight that for highly domain-specific tasks like ours, large training sets are still valuable.

From Citations to Criticality: Predicting Legal Decision Influence in the Multilingual Swiss Jurisprudence

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted the field of Math Word Problems (MWPs), transforming how these problems are approached and solved, particularly in educational contexts. However, existing evaluations often focus on final accuracy, neglecting the critical aspect of reasoning capabilities. This work addresses that gap by evaluating LLMs' abilities to detect and correct reasoning mistakes. We present a novel dataset, MWP-MISTAKE, containing MWPs with both correct and incorrect reasoning steps generated through rule-based methods and smaller language models. Our comprehensive benchmarking of state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4o and GPT4 uncovers important insights into their strengths and limitations. While GPT-4o excels in mistake detection and rectification, gaps remain, particularly in handling complex datasets and novel problems. Additionally, we identify concerns with data contamination and memorization, which affect LLM reliability in real-world applications. While OpenAI' O1 model demonstrates 90% accuracy in reasoning and final answers on complex tasks, it remains weak in mistake detection. Our findings highlight the need for improved reasoning evaluations and suggest ways to enhance LLM generalization and robustness in math problem-solving.

Exposing the Achilles’ Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning

In NLG meta-evaluation, evaluation metrics are typically assessed based on their consistency with humans. However, we identify some limitations in traditional NLG meta-evaluation approaches, such as issues in handling human ratings and ambiguous selections of correlation measures, which undermine the effectiveness of meta-evaluation. In this work, we propose a dual-perspective NLG meta-evaluation framework that focuses on different evaluation capabilities, thereby providing better interpretability. In addition, we introduce a method of automatically constructing the corresponding benchmarks without requiring new human annotations. Furthermore, we conduct experiments with 16 representative LLMs as the evaluators based on our proposed framework, comprehensively analyzing their evaluation performance from different perspectives.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Meaning Variation and Data Quality in the Corpus of Founding Era American English

Similar lecture

RAG-Critic: Leveraging Automated Critic-Guided Agentic Workflow for Retrieval Augmented Generation