Austria

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating high-labor data tasks, but the adoption of LLMs in high-stake scenarios faces two key challenges: their tendency to answer despite uncertainty and their difficulty handling long input contexts robustly.
We investigate commonly used off-the-shelf LLMs&#39; ability to identify low-confidence outputs for human review through &quot;check set selection&quot;--a process where LLMs prioritize information needing human judgment.
Using a case study on social media monitoring for disaster risk management,
we define the “check set” as a list of tweets escalated to the disaster manager when the LLM has the least confidence, enabling human oversight within budgeted effort.
We test two strategies for LLM check set selection: *individual confidence elicitation* -- LLMs assesses confidence for each tweet classification individually, requiring more prompts with shorter contexts, and *direct set confidence elicitation* -- LLM evaluates confidence for a list of tweet classifications at once, using less prompts but longer contexts.
Our results reveal that set selection via individual probabilities is more reliable but that direct set confidence merits further investigation.
Direct set selection challenges include inconsistent outputs, incorrect check set size, and low inter-annotator agreement. 
Despite these challenges, our approach improves collaborative disaster tweet classification by outperforming random-sample check set selection, demonstrating the potential of human-LLM collaboration.

ACL 2025

Evaluating Large Language Models for Confidence-based Check Set Selection

crisis nlp

llm evaluation

human-in-the-loop

prompting

### 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)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating high-labor data tasks, but the adoption of LLMs in high-stake scenarios faces two key challenges: their tendency to answer despite uncertainty and their difficulty handling long input contexts robustly.
We investigate commonly used off-the-shelf LLMs' ability to identify low-confidence outputs for human review through "check set selection"--a process where LLMs prioritize information needing human judgment.
Using a case study on social media monitoring for disaster risk management,
we define the “check set” as a list of tweets escalated to the disaster manager when the LLM has the least confidence, enabling human oversight within budgeted effort.
We test two strategies for LLM check set selection: *individual confidence elicitation* -- LLMs assesses confidence for each tweet classification individually, requiring more prompts with shorter contexts, and *direct set confidence elicitation* -- LLM evaluates confidence for a list of tweet classifications at once, using less prompts but longer contexts.
Our results reveal that set selection via individual probabilities is more reliable but that direct set confidence merits further investigation.
Direct set selection challenges include inconsistent outputs, incorrect check set size, and low inter-annotator agreement. 
Despite these challenges, our approach improves collaborative disaster tweet classification by outperforming random-sample check set selection, demonstrating the potential of human-LLM collaboration.

poster

This paper introduces the Balanced Arabic Readability Evaluation Corpus BAREC, a large-scale, fine-grained dataset for Arabic readability assessment. BAREC consists of 68,182 sentences spanning 1+ million words, carefully curated to cover 19 readability levels, from kindergarten to postgraduate comprehension. The corpus balances genre diversity, topical coverage, and target audiences, offering a comprehensive resource for evaluating Arabic text complexity. The corpus was fully manually annotated by a large team of annotators. The average pairwise inter-annotator agreement, measured by Quadratic Weighted Kappa, is 81.3%, reflecting a high level of substantial agreement. Beyond presenting the corpus, we benchmark automatic readability assessment across different granularity levels, comparing a range of techniques. Our results highlight the challenges and opportunities in Arabic readability modeling, demonstrating competitive performance across various methods. To support research and education, we will make BAREC openly available, along with detailed annotation guidelines and benchmark results.

A Large and Balanced Corpus for Fine-grained Arabic Readability Assessment

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a widely adopted approach for text quality evaluation, including hallucination evaluation. While previous studies have focused exclusively on single-context evaluation (e.g., discourse faithfulness or world factuality), real-world hallucinations typically involve mixed contexts, which remains inadequately evaluated. In this study, we use summarization as a representative task to comprehensively evaluate LLMs' capability in detecting mixed-context hallucinations, specifically distinguishing between factual and non-factual hallucinations. Through extensive experiments across direct generation and retrieval-based models of varying scales, our main observations are: (1) LLMs' intrinsic knowledge introduces inherent biases in hallucination evaluation; (2) These biases particularly impact the detection of factual hallucinations, yielding a significant performance bottleneck; (3) The fundamental challenge lies in effective knowledge utilization, balancing between LLMs' intrinsic knowledge and external context for accurate mixed-context hallucination evaluation.

Evaluating LLMs’ Assessment of Mixed-Context Hallucination Through the Lens of Summarization

Large Language Models (LLMs) are valued for their strong performance across various tasks, but they also produce inaccurate or misleading outputs. Uncertainty Estimation (UE) quantifies the model's confidence and helps users assess response reliability. However, existing UE methods have not been thoroughly examined in scenarios like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), where the input prompt includes non-parametric knowledge. This paper shows that current UE methods cannot reliably assess correctness in the RAG setting. We further propose an axiomatic framework to identify deficiencies in existing methods and guide the development of improved approaches. Our framework introduces five constraints that an effective UE method should meet after incorporating retrieved documents into the LLM's prompt. Experimental results reveal that no existing UE method fully satisfies all the axioms, explaining their suboptimal performance in RAG. We further introduce a simple yet effective calibration function based on our framework, which not only satisfies more axioms than baseline methods but also improves the correlation between uncertainty estimates and correctness.

Axiomatic Analysis of Uncertainty Estimation For Retrieval Augmented Generation

Misinformation is a global issue that shapes public discourse, influencing opinions and decision-making across various domains. While automated fact-checking (AFC) has become essential in combating misinformation, most work in multilingual settings has focused on claim verification rather than generating explanatory verdicts, leaving a gap in AFC resources beyond English. To address this, we introduce EuroVerdict, a multilingual dataset designed for verdict generation, covering eight European languages. Developed in collaboration with professional fact-checkers, the dataset includes claims, manually written verdicts, and supporting evidence, consisting of fact-checking articles and additional secondary sources. We evaluate EuroVerdict with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct on verdict generation under different settings, varying the prompt language, input article language, and training approach. Our results show that fine-tuning consistently improves performance, with models fine-tuned on original-language articles achieving the highest scores in both automatic and human evaluations. Using articles in a different language than the claim slightly lowers performance; however, pairing them with language-specific prompts improves results. Zero-shot and Chain of Thought configurations perform worse, reinforcing the benefits of fine-tuning for multilingual verdict generation.

EuroVerdict: A Multilingual Dataset for Verdict Generation Against Misinformation

Large language models (LLMs) encode vast amounts of world knowledge acquired via training on large web-scale datasets crawled from the internet. However, the datasets used to train the LLMs typically exhibit a geographical bias towards English-speaking Western countries. This results in LLMs producing biased or hallucinated responses to queries that require answers localized to other geographical regions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark named LoFTI (Localization and Factuality Transfer to Indian Locales) that can be used to evaluate an LLM's contextual localization and factual text transfer capabilities. LoFTI consists of factual statements about entities in source and target locations; the source locations are spread across the globe and the target locations are all within India with varying degrees of hyperlocality (country, states, cities). The entities span a wide variety of categories. We use LoFTI to evaluate Mixtral, Llama3.3-70B, GPT-4 and two other Mixtral-based approaches well-suited to the task of localized factual transfer. We demonstrate that LoFTI is a high-quality evaluation benchmark and all the models, including GPT-4, produce skewed results across varying levels of hyperlocality.

LoFTI: Localization and Factuality Transfer to Indian Locales

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive potential in clinical question answering (QA), with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) emerging as a leading approach for ensuring the factual accuracy of model responses. However, current automated RAG metrics perform poorly in clinical and conversational use cases. Using clinical human evaluations of responses is expensive, unscalable, and not conducive to the continuous iterative development of RAG systems. To address these challenges, we introduce ASTRID - an Automated and Scalable TRIaD for evaluating clinical QA systems leveraging RAG - consisting of three metrics: Context Relevance (CR), Refusal Accuracy (RA), and Conversational Faithfulness (CF). Our novel evaluation metric, CF, is designed to better capture the faithfulness of a model’s response to the knowledge base without penalising conversational elements. Additionally, our metric RA captures the refusal to address questions outside of the system’s scope of practice. To validate our triad, we curate a dataset of over 200 real-world patient questions posed to an LLM-based QA agent during surgical follow-up for cataract surgery - the highest volume operation in the world - augmented with clinician-selected questions for emergency, and clinical and non-clinical out-of-domain scenarios. We demonstrate that CF predicts human ratings of faithfulness more accurately than existing definitions in conversational settings. Furthermore, using eight different LLMs, we demonstrate that the three metrics can closely agree with human evaluations, highlighting the potential of these metrics for use in LLM-driven automated evaluation pipelines. Finally, we show that evaluation using our triad of CF, RA, and CR exhibits alignment with clinician assessment for inappropriate, harmful, or unhelpful responses. We also publish the prompts and datasets for these experiments, providing valuable resources for further research and development.

ASTRID - An Automated and Scalable TRIaD for the Evaluation of RAG-based Clinical Question Answering Systems

This study investigates the condition under which Transformer-based language models (LMs) identify and distinguish entities, such as individuals and organizations, with their internal representations, focusing on the many-to-many correspondence between entities and their mentions. We first formulate two problems, ambiguity and variability of entity mentions, and propose a framework analogous to clustering quality metrics to measure how well the models resolve these issues. Our experiments examine four Transformer-based autoregressive models, showing that they effectively identify and distinguish entities with metrics analogous to precision and recall exceeding 0.8. Further analysis reveals that entity-related information is compactly represented in a low-dimensional linear subspace at early LM layers and provides potential interpretations of these findings through the lens of isomorphism between LM representations and entity-centric knowledge structures in the real world.

On Entity Identification in Language Models

Handling ambiguity and underspecification is an important challenge in natural language interfaces, particularly for tasks like text-to-SQL semantic parsing. We propose a modular approach that resolves ambiguity using natural language interpretations before mapping these to logical forms (e.g., SQL queries). Although LLMs excel at parsing unambiguous utterances, they show strong biases for ambiguous ones, typically predicting only preferred interpretations. We constructively exploit this bias to generate an initial set of preferred disambiguations and then apply a specialized infilling model to identify and generate missing interpretations. To train the infilling model, we introduce an annotation method that uses SQL execution to validate different meanings. Our approach improves interpretation coverage and generalizes across datasets with different annotation styles, database structures, and ambiguity types.

Disambiguate First Parse Later: Generating Interpretations for Ambiguity Resolution in Semantic Parsing

Automatic medical coding has the potential to ease documentation and billing processes. For this task, transparency plays an important role for medical coders and regulatory bodies, which can be achieved using explainability methods. However, the evaluation of these approaches has been mostly limited to short text and binary settings due to a scarcity of annotated data. Recent efforts by Cheng et al. (2023) have introduced the MDACE dataset, which provides a valuable resource containing code evidence in clinical records. In this work, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the MDACE dataset and perform plausibility evaluation of current explainable ICD coding systems from an applied perspective. With this, we contribute to a deeper understanding of automatic ICD coding and evidence extraction. Our findings reveal that ground truth evidence aligns with code descriptions to a certain degree. An investigation into state-of-the-art approaches shows a high overlap with ground truth evidence. We propose introduce match measures and highlight success and failure cases. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations for developing and evaluating explainable ICD coding systems.

The anatomy of evidence: An investigation into explainable ICD coding

Human readers can efficiently comprehend scrambled words, a phenomenon known as Typoglycemia, primarily by relying on word form; if word form alone is insufficient, they further utilize contextual cues for interpretation. While advanced large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar abilities, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. To investigate this, we conduct controlled experiments to analyze the roles of word form and contextual information in semantic reconstruction and examine LLM attention patterns. Specifically, we first propose SemRecScore, a reliable metric to quantify the degree of semantic reconstruction, and validate its effectiveness. Using this metric, we study how word form and contextual information influence LLMs’ semantic reconstruction ability, identifying word form as the core factor in this process. Furthermore, we analyze how LLMs utilize word form and find that they rely on specialized attention heads to extract and process word form information, with this mechanism remaining stable across varying levels of word scrambling. This distinction between LLMs’ fixed attention patterns primarily focused on word form and human readers’ adaptive strategy in balancing word form and contextual information provides insights into enhancing LLM performance by incorporating human-like, context-aware mechanisms. Code is available on: https://github.com/Aurora-cx/TypoLLM.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

A Large and Balanced Corpus for Fine-grained Arabic Readability Assessment

Similar lecture

Evaluating Large Language Models for Confidence-based Check Set Selection