China

How do Large Language Models understand moral dimensions compared to humans?

This first comprehensive large-scale Bayesian evaluation of leading language models provides the answer. In contrast to prior approaches based on deterministic ground truth (obtained via majority or inclusion consensus), we obtain the labels by modelling annotators&#39; disagreement to capture both aleatoric uncertainty (inherent human disagreement) and epistemic uncertainty (model domain sensitivity).

We evaluated Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V3, and Llama 4 Maverick across 250K+ annotations from nearly 700 annotators in 100K+ texts spanning social networks, news, and discussion forums. Our GPU-optimized Bayesian framework processed 1M+ model queries, revealing that AI models generally rank among the top 25\% of annotators in terms of balanced accuracy, substantially better than average humans.

Importantly, we find that AI produces far fewer false negatives than humans, highlighting their sensitive moral detection capabilities.

EMNLP 2025

Beyond Human Judgment: A Bayesian Evaluation of LLMs&#39; Moral Values Understanding

bayesian modelling

computational ethics

soft labels

moral foundation theory

large language models

natural language processing

## Welcome!
"I am excited to welcome you to this year’s edition of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing! Importantly, it marks the 30th edition of EMNLP. With over 8,000 submissions, more than 3,000 accepted papers, and thousands of attendees, we have come a long way from that first
workshop, which had 14 accepted papers. As the field looks ahead, Suzhou is the fitting location for celebrating this milestone: rooted in a long literary tradition, yet modern and forward-looking, and home to a large share of the NLP community."<br>

*Message from the General Chair, Dirk Hovy*





<br>

Celebrate 30 Years of EMNLP! 
EMNLP 2025 will be held in Suzhou, China from November 5th to November 9th, 2025.

How do Large Language Models understand moral dimensions compared to humans?

This first comprehensive large-scale Bayesian evaluation of leading language models provides the answer. In contrast to prior approaches based on deterministic ground truth (obtained via majority or inclusion consensus), we obtain the labels by modelling annotators' disagreement to capture both aleatoric uncertainty (inherent human disagreement) and epistemic uncertainty (model domain sensitivity).

We evaluated Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V3, and Llama 4 Maverick across 250K+ annotations from nearly 700 annotators in 100K+ texts spanning social networks, news, and discussion forums. Our GPU-optimized Bayesian framework processed 1M+ model queries, revealing that AI models generally rank among the top 25\% of annotators in terms of balanced accuracy, substantially better than average humans.

Importantly, we find that AI produces far fewer false negatives than humans, highlighting their sensitive moral detection capabilities.

Beyond Human Judgment: A Bayesian Evaluation of LLMs' Moral Values Understanding

workshop paper

Uncertainty awareness is essential for large language models (LLMs), particularly in safety-critical domains such as medicine where erroneous or hallucinatory outputs can cause harm. Yet most evaluations remain centered on accuracy, offering limited insight into model confidence and its relation to abstention. In this work, we present preliminary experiments that combine conformal prediction with abstention-augmented and perturbed variants of medical QA datasets. Our early results suggest a positive link between uncertainty estimates and abstention decisions, with this effect amplified under higher difficulty and adversarial perturbations. These findings highlight abstention as a practical handle for probing model reliability in medical QA.

Do Large Language Models Know When Not to Answer in Medical QA?

Understanding uncertainty in large language models remains a fundamental challenge, particularly in creative tasks where multiple valid outputs exist. We present a geometric framework using credal sets—convex hulls of probability distributions—to quantify and decompose uncertainty in neural text generation, calibrated against human creative variation. Analyzing 500 creative writing prompts from the \dataset{} dataset with 10 unique human continuations each, we evaluate four language models across five decoding strategies, generating 100,000 stories. Our credal set analysis reveals substantial gaps in capturing human creative variation, with the best model-human calibration reaching only 0.434 (Gemma-2B with temperature 0.7). We decompose total uncertainty into \textit{epistemic} and \textit{aleatoric} components, finding that the choice of decoding strategy contributes 39.4\% to 72.0\% of total epistemic uncertainty. Model scale shows weak correlation with calibration quality and no significant difference exists between base and instruction-tuned models in calibration quality. Our geometric framework provides actionable insights for improving generation systems for human-AI creative alignment. We release our complete experimental framework at \url{https://github.com/EstebanGarces/uncertainHuman}.

The Geometry of Creative Variability: How Credal Sets Expose Calibration Gaps in Language Models

Reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for ensuring trustworthy downstream use of large language models, especially when they are deployed in decision-support and other knowledge-intensive applications. Model certainty can be estimated from token logits, with derived probability and entropy values offering insight into performance on the prompt task. However, this approach may be inadequate for probabilistic scenarios, where the probabilities of token outputs are expected to align with the theoretical probabilities of the possible outcomes. We investigate the relationship between token certainty and alignment with theoretical probability distributions in well-defined probabilistic scenarios. Using GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-Chat, we evaluate model responses to ten prompts involving probability (e.g., roll a six-sided die), both with and without explicit probability cues in the prompt (e.g., roll a fair six-sided die). We measure two dimensions: (1) response validity with respect to scenario constraints, and (2) alignment between token-level output probabilities and theoretical probabilities. Our results indicate that, while both models achieve perfect in-domain response accuracy across all prompt scenarios, their token-level probability and entropy values consistently diverge from the corresponding theoretical distributions.

Certain but not Probable? Differentiating Certainty from Probability in LLM Token Outputs for Probabilistic Scenarios

Model-internal uncertainty metrics like perplexity potentially offer low-cost signals for Machine Translation Quality Estimation (TQE). This paper analyses perplexity in the No Language Left Behind (NLLB) multilingual model. We quantify a significant model-human perplexity gap, where the model is consistently more confident in its own, often literal, machine-generated translation than in diverse, high-quality human versions. We then demonstrate that the utility of perplexity as a TQE signal is highly context-dependent, being strongest for low-resource pairs. Finally, we present an illustrative case study where a flawed translation is refined by providing potentially useful information in a targeted prompt, simulating a knowledge-based repair. We show that as the translation's quality and naturalness improve (a +0.15 COMET score increase), its perplexity also increases, challenging the simple assumption that lower perplexity indicates higher quality and motivating a more nuanced view of uncertainty as signalling a text's departure from rigid translationese.

The Benefits of Being Uncertain: Perplexity as a Signal for Naturalness in Multilingual Machine Translation

Large language models increasingly rely on explicit reasoning chains and can produce multiple plausible responses for a given context. We study the candidate sampler that produces the set of plausible responses contrasting the ancestral (parallel) sampling against two alternatives: enumeration, which asks the model to produce $n$ candidates in one pass, and iterative sampling, which proposes candidates sequentially while conditioning on the currently generated response set. Under matched budgets, we compare these samplers on quality, lexical and computation flow diversity, and efficiency. Our empirical results demonstrate that enumeration and iterative strategies result in higher diversity at comparable quality. Our findings highlight the potential of simple non-independent sampling strategies to improve response diversity without sacrificing generation quality.

Asking a Language Model for Diverse Responses

Natural language generation (NLG) tasks are often subject to inherent variability; e.g. predicting the next word given a context has multiple valid responses, evident when asking multiple humans to complete the task. While having language models (LMs) that are aligned pluralistically, so that they are able to reproduce well the inherent diversity in perspectives of an entire population of interest is clearly beneficial, Ilia and Aziz (2024) show that LMs do not reproduce this type of linguistic variability well. They speculate this inability might stem from the lack of consistent training of LMs with data reflecting this type of inherent variability. As such, we investigate whether training LMs on multiple plausible word continuations per context can improve their ability to reproduce human linguistic variability for next-word prediction. We employ fine-tuning techniques for pre-trained and instruction-tuned models; and demonstrate their potential when fine-tuning GPT-2 and Mistral-7B-IT, using Provo Corpus. Our evaluation, which measures divergence among empirically estimated human and model next-word distributions across contexts before and after fine-tuning, shows that our multi-label fine-tuning improves the LMs’ ability to reproduce linguistic variability; both for contexts that admit higher and lower variability.

Learning to vary: Teaching LMs to reproduce human linguistic variability in next-word prediction

Pixel-based language models aim to solve the vocabulary bottleneck problem in language modeling, but the challenge of uncertainty quantification remains open. The novelty of this work consists of analysing uncertainty and confidence in pixel-based language models across 18 languages and 7 scripts, all part of 3 semantically challenging tasks. This is achieved through several methods such as Monte Carlo Dropout, Transformer Attention, and Ensemble Learning. The results suggest that pixel-based models underestimate uncertainty when reconstructing patches. The uncertainty is also influenced by the script, with Latin languages displaying lower uncertainty. The findings on ensemble learning show better performance when applying hyperparameter tuning during the named entity recognition and question-answering tasks across 16 languages.

Uncertainty in Semantic Language Modeling with PIXELS

This research aims to explore the intersection of Large Language Models and confidence calibration in Entity Matching. To this end, we perform an empirical study to compare baseline RoBERTa confidences for an Entity Matching task against confidences that are calibrated using Temperature Scaling, Monte Carlo Dropout and Ensembles. We use the Abt-Buy, DBLP-ACM, iTunes-Amazon and Company datasets. The findings indicate that the proposed modified RoBERTa model exhibits a slight overconfidence, with Expected Calibration Error scores ranging from 0.0043 to 0.0552 across datasets. We find that this overconfidence can be mitigated using Temperature Scaling, reducing Expected Calibration Error scores by up to 23.83%.

Confidence Calibration in Large Language Model-Based Entity Matching

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in question answering (QA) tasks. However, Multi-Answer Question Answering (MAQA), where a question may have several valid answers, remains challenging. Traditional QA settings often assume consistency across evidences, but MAQA can involve conflicting answers. Constructing datasets that reflect such conflicts is costly and labor-intensive, while existing benchmarks often rely on synthetic data, restrict the task to yes/no questions, or apply unverified automated annotation. To advance research in this area, we extend the conflict-aware MAQA setting to require models not only to identify all valid answers, but also to detect specific conflicting answer pairs, if any. To support this task, we introduce a novel cost-effective methodology for leveraging fact-checking datasets to construct NATCONFQA, a new benchmark for realistic, conflict-aware MAQA, enriched with detailed conflict labels, for all answer pairs. We evaluate eight high-end LLMs on NATCONFQA, revealing their fragility in handling various types of conflicts and the flawed strategies they employ to resolve them.

Consensus or Conflict? Fine-Grained Evaluation of Conflicting Answers in Question-Answering

Recent work has revealed Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as hallucination and toxicity, limiting their reliability and broader adoption. In this paper, we discover an understudied type of undesirable behavior of LLMs, which we term Verbosity Compensation (VC). VC is similar to the hesitation behavior of humans under uncertainty, compensating with excessive words such as repeating questions, introducing ambiguity, or providing excessive enumeration. We present the first work that analyzes Verbosity Compensation, explores its causes, and proposes a simple mitigating approach. Our experiments on five datasets of knowledge and reasoning-based QA tasks with 14 LLMs, reveal three conclusions. 1) A pervasive presence of VC across all models and all datasets. 2) The large performance gap between verbose and concise responses. We also demonstrate that this difference does not naturally diminish as LLM capability increases. 3) Higher uncertainty exhibited by VC responses across all five datasets, suggesting a strong connection between verbosity and model uncertainty. We propose a simple yet effective cascade algorithm that replaces the verbose responses with the other model-generated responses, alleviating the VC of the Mistral model from 63.81% to 16.16% on the Qasper dataset.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

Do Large Language Models Know When Not to Answer in Medical QA?

Similar lecture

Tales of Morality: Comparing Human- and LLM-Generated Moral Stories from Visual Cues

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

Do Large Language Models Know When Not to Answer in Medical QA?

Similar lecture

Tales of Morality: Comparing Human- and LLM-Generated Moral Stories from Visual Cues

Downloads