Austria

Large language models (LLMs) exihibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question.
In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner.
Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives.
These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs&#39; cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

ACL 2025

How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Structure in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs

psychology

linguistics

pragmatics

### Welcome to CogSci Conference 2025!

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was a hybrid meeting held in San Francisco. 

<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/amvr/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>

#### About

The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.

#### Our History 

* **Society Creation**<br>
The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit professional organization in Massachusetts in 1979. The organizing committee included Roger Schank, Allan Collins, Donald Norman, and a number of other scholars from psychology, linguistics, computer science, and philosophy. 
<br><br>
* **Conference Creation**<br>
The first conference on cognitive science was held at La Jolla, California in August, 1979, and has occurred annually since then. The proceedings of each conference are published, and those from most years are available through Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The annual proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference represent a major source of information on new work and new ideas in the scientific study of thinking. In 1990, the Society, with help from an anonymous donor, established the David Marr Prize for the best student paper at each annual meeting.
<br><br>
* **Journal Creation**<br>
The Journal, Cognitive Science, began publication in 1976, and is now published by Wiley-Blackwell. The Executive Editor is currently Richard P. Cooper of Birkbeck, University of London, and there are 18 Associate Editors and a 30-member editorial board. It serves as the premier outlet for research reports that intersect two or more disciplines. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society. The Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society voted in late 2006 to found a new journal, Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS). The Editor in Chief is Wayne Gray, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The journal seeks to fill a niche not occupied by Cognitive Science Journal or other cognitive science journals. Membership in the Society includes a subscription to Cognitive Science and TopiCS. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society.
<br><br>

#### Code of Conduct

By attending the CogSci 2025 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s **[Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ChPuihLy6jE_BWqfO7J2KKgX35JW2zsM/view?usp=sharing)**.
<br><br>


You need to log in with the email address you registered with. 

Login credentials were sent to you from Underline -  subject line "Welcome to the CogSci 2025 Conference". Please be sure to check your spam/promotional inbox  if you do not see an email confirmation right away.





Please log in to join this event.

To access the site, please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/).

If you are registered and feel like you are seeing this message by mistake, please make sure you are logged in with the same email that you registered with. 

Please register!

CogSci 2025

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

Large language models (LLMs) exihibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question.
In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner.
Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives.
These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

poster

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair:<br>
*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.*<br>
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)<br><br><br>



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

Some statements have one well-defined continuation (e.g., "the Eiffel Tower is in [$Paris$]"), whereas others have a natural distribution over multiple options (e.g., "the weighted coin flip was [$Heads/Tails$].") We argue that language model (LM) outputs should capture these natural distributions. Our work specifically tests whether LM output probabilities are calibrated to numeric information within their textual contexts. For example, if the context (the prompt) concerns two equally likely options (e.g., heads or tails for a fair coin), the LM output probabilities should also be equal. Likewise, in a context with nonuniformly likely events (e.g., rolling a pair with two dice) an LM should output proportionate probabilities. However, we find that even in simple settings, the best LMs (1) are poorly calibrated and (2) have systematic biases: artifacts like word identity, word order, and word frequency all impact calibration. For example, `gpt-4o-mini` often picks the first of two options presented in the prompt regardless of the options' implied likelihoods, whereas `Llama-3.1-8B` picks the second. Models do not allocate probability mass among valid options in a calibrated manner.

Language Model Probabilities are Not Calibrated in Numeric Contexts

Multi-document (MD) processing is crucial for LLMs to handle real-world tasks such as summarization and question-answering across large sets of documents. While LLMs have improved at processing long inputs, MD contexts still present unique difficulties, including management of inter-document dependencies, redundancy, and incoherent structures. To address this challenge, we introduce MDCure, a scalable and effective instruction data generation framework to enhance the MD capabilities of LLMs without the computational cost of pre-training or reliance on human-annotated data. MDCure generates high-quality synthetic MD instruction data over sets of articles via targeted prompts. We also introduce MDCureRM, a cost-effective, MD-specific reward model to score and filter generated data based on their training utility for MD settings. MDCure is compatible with open- and closed-source models in addition to policy optimization methods such as PPO, enabling even small open- source models to surpass proprietary LLMs as strong generators of high-quality MD instruction data without further data filtering. With MDCure, we fine-tune a wide variety of LLMs up to 70B parameters in size from the FlanT5, Qwen2, and LLAMA3.1 model families. Extensive evaluations on a wide range of MD and long-context benchmarks spanning various tasks and domains show MDCure consistently improves performance over pre-trained baselines and base models by up to 75.1%.

MDCure: A Scalable Pipeline for Multi-Document Instruction-Following

Evaluating machine-generated text remains a significant challenge in NLP, especially for non-English languages. Current methodologies, including automated metrics, human assessments, and LLM-based evaluations, predominantly focus on English, revealing a significant gap in multilingual evaluation frameworks. We introduce the Cross Lingual Auto Evaluation (CIA) Suite, an extensible framework that includes evaluator LLMs (Hercule) and a novel test set (Recon) specifically designed for multilingual evaluation. Our test set features 500 human-annotated instructions spanning various task capabilities along with human judgment scores across six languages. This would enable benchmarking of general-purpose multilingual LLMs and facilitate meta-evaluation of Evaluator LLMs. The proposed model, Hercule, is a cross-lingual evaluation model that addresses the scarcity of reference answers in the target language by learning to assign scores to responses based on easily available reference answers in English. Our experiments demonstrate that Hercule aligns more closely with human judgments compared to proprietary models, demonstrating the effectiveness of such cross-lingual evaluation in low resource scenarios. Further, it is also effective in zero-shot evaluation on unseen languages. This study is the first comprehensive examination of cross-lingual evaluation using LLMs, presenting a scalable and effective approach for multilingual assessment. All code, datasets, and models will be publicly available to enable further research in this important area.

Cross-Lingual Auto Evaluation for Assessing Multilingual LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in scientific research assessment, particularly in automated paper review. However, existing LLM-based review systems face significant challenges, including limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepReview, a multi-stage framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. Using DeepReview-13K, a curated dataset with structured annotations, we train DeepReviewer-14B, which outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens. In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21% and 80.20% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations. Our work sets a new benchmark for LLM-based paper review, with all resources publicly available.

DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process

This paper introduces PhoAudiobook, a newly curated dataset comprising 941 hours of high-quality audio for Vietnamese text-to-speech. Using PhoAudiobook, we conduct experiments on three leading zero-shot TTS models: VALL-E, VoiceCraft, and XTTS-V2. Our findings demonstrate that PhoAudiobook consistently enhances model performance across various metrics. Moreover, VALL-E and VoiceCraft exhibit superior performance in synthesizing short sentences, highlighting their robustness in handling diverse linguistic contexts. We publicly release PhoAudiobook to facilitate further research and development in Vietnamese text-to-speech.

Zero-Shot Text-to-Speech for Vietnamese

Claims made by individuals or entities are oftentimes nuanced and cannot be clearly labeled as entirely "true" or "false"---as is frequently the case with scientific and political claims. However, a claim (e.g., "vaccine A is better than vaccine B") can be dissected into its integral aspects and sub-aspects (e.g., efficacy, safety, distribution), which are individually easier to validate. This enables a more comprehensive, structured response that provides a well-rounded perspective on a given problem while also allowing the reader to prioritize specific angles of interest within the claim (e.g., safety towards children). Thus, we propose ClaimSpect, a retrieval-augmented generation-based framework for automatically constructing a hierarchy of aspects typically considered when addressing a claim and enriching them with corpus-specific perspectives. This structure hierarchically partitions an input corpus to retrieve relevant segments, which assist in discovering new sub-aspects. Moreover, these segments enable the discovery of varying perspectives towards an aspect of the claim (e.g., support, neutral, or oppose) and their respective prevalence (e.g., "how many biomedical papers believe vaccine A is more transportable than B?"). We apply ClaimSpect to a wide variety of real-world scientific and political claims featured in our constructed dataset, showcasing its robustness and accuracy in deconstructing a nuanced claim and representing perspectives within a corpus. Through real-world case studies and human evaluation, we validate its effectiveness over multiple baselines.

Beyond True or False: Retrieval-Augmented Hierarchical Analysis of Nuanced Claims

Evacuation decision prediction is critical for efficient and effective wildfire response by helping emergency management anticipate traffic congestion and bottlenecks, allocate resources, and minimize negative impacts. Traditional statistical methods for evacuation decision prediction fail to capture the complex and diverse behavioral logic of different individuals. In this work, for the first time, we introduce *FLARE*, short for facilitating LLM for advanced reasoning on wildfire evacuation decision prediction, a Large Language Model (LLM)-based framework that integrates behavioral theories and models to streamline the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and subsequently integrate with memory-based Reinforcement Learning (RL) module to provide accurate evacuation decision prediction and understanding. Our proposed method addresses the limitations of using existing LLMs for evacuation behavioral predictions, such as limited survey data, mismatching with behavioral theory, conflicting individual preferences, implicit and complex mental states, and intractable mental state-behavior mapping. Experiments on three post-wildfire survey datasets show an average of 20.47\% performance improvement over traditional theory-informed behavioral models, with strong cross-event generalizability. Our complete code is publicly available at https://github.com/SusuXu-s-Lab/FLARE

From Perceptions to Decisions: Wildfire Evacuation Decision Prediction with Behavioral Theory-informed LLMs

During a conversation, there can come certain moments where its outcome hangs in the balance. In these pivotal moments, how one responds can put the conversation on substantially different trajectories leading to significantly different outcomes. Systems that can detect when such moments arise could assist conversationalists in domains with highly consequential outcomes, such as mental health crisis counseling.

In this work, we introduce an unsupervised computational method for detecting such pivotal moments as they happen. The intuition is that a moment is pivotal if our expectation of the conversation’s outcome varies widely depending on what might be said next. By applying our method to crisis counseling conversations, we first validate it by showing that it aligns with human perception—counselors take significantly longer to respond during moments detected by our method—and with the eventual conversational trajectory—which is more likely to change course at these times. We then use our framework to explore the relation between the counselor’s response during pivotal moments and the eventual outcome of the session.

Hanging in the Balance: Pivotal Moments in Crisis Counseling Conversations

The demand for synthetic data in mathematical reasoning has increased due to its potential to enhance the mathematical capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, ensuring the validity of intermediate reasoning steps remains a significant challenge, affecting data quality. While formal verification via theorem provers effectively validates LLM reasoning, the autoformalisation of mathematical proofs remains error-prone. In response, we introduce *iterative autoformalisation*, an approach that iteratively refines theorem prover formalisation to mitigate errors, thereby increasing the execution rate on the Lean prover from 60% to 87%. Building upon that, we introduce *Theorem Prover as a Judge (TP-as-a-Judge)*, a method that employs theorem prover formalisation to rigorously assess LLM intermediate reasoning, effectively integrating autoformalisation with synthetic data generation. Finally, we present *Reinforcement Learning from Theorem Prover Feedback (RLTPF),* a framework that replaces human annotation with theorem prover feedback in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Across multiple LLMs, applying *TP-as-a-Judge* and *RLTPF* improves benchmarks with only 3,508 samples, achieving 5.56% accuracy gain on Mistral-7B for MultiArith, 6.00% on Llama-2-7B for SVAMP, and 3.55% on Llama-3.1-8B for AQUA.

Theorem Prover as a Judge for Synthetic Data Generation

Generation with source attribution is important for enhancing the verifiability of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. However, existing approaches in RAG primarily link generated content to document-level references, making it challenging for users to locate evidence among multiple content-rich retrieved documents. To address this challenge, we propose Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Visual Source Attribution (VISA), a novel approach that combines answer generation with visual source attribution. Leveraging large vision-language models (VLMs), VISA identifies the evidence and highlights the exact regions that support the generated answers with bounding boxes in the retrieved document screenshots. To evaluate its effectiveness, we curated two datasets: Wiki-VISA, based on crawled Wikipedia webpage screenshots, and Paper-VISA, derived from PubLayNet and tailored to the medical domain. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of VISA for visual source attribution on documents' original look, as well as highlighting the challenges for improvement.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Language Model Probabilities are Not Calibrated in Numeric Contexts

Similar lecture

Do LLMs Comprehend the Meaning of Language?