India

Large language models (LLMs) are integrated into applications like shopping reviews, summarization, or medical diagnosis support, where their use affects human decisions. We investigate the extent to which LLMs expose users to biased content and demonstrate its effect on human decision-making. We assess five LLM families in summarization and news fact-checking tasks, evaluating the consistency of LLMs with their context and their tendency to hallucinate on a new self-updating dataset. Our findings show that LLMs expose users to content that changes the context’s sentiment in 26.42% of cases (framing bias), hallucinate on 60.33% of post-knowledge-cutoff questions, and highlight context from earlier parts of the prompt (primacy bias) in 10.12% of cases, averaged across all tested models. We further find that humans are 32% more likely to purchase the same product after reading a summary of the review generated by an LLM rather than the original review. To address these issues, we evaluate 18 mitigation methods across three LLM families and find the effectiveness of targeted interventions.

IJCNLP-AACL 2025

Quantifying Cognitive Bias Induction in LLM-Generated Content

cognitive bias

large language models

fact-checking

summarization

## Welcome to EMNLP 2024! 
We are excited to welcome you to one of the most prominent conferences in the field of Natural Language Processing. This year, EMNLP 2024 is being held in a hybrid format,
offering both virtual and in-person participation in beautiful Miami. Due to a record-breaking number of submissions, we've expanded the total number of accepted papers to accommodate more cutting-edge research from around the globe.
### [Conference Handbook](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WPROgxjLAC96AJL7Ugy0tEnYm7dkrbHt/view?usp=sharing)

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.emnlp.org/registration/).** The EMNLP 2024 event page on Underline will be open to public one week prior to the event.

Please register!

EMNLP 2024

EMNLP 2024 will take place in Miami, Florida from Nov 12th to Nov 16th, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency Miami Hote and on Underline for remote participants.

poster

### Welcome to IJCNLP-AACL 2025! 
 It is a great honor to host this joint conference in Mumbai, India, from December 20 to 24, 2025. The joint conferences of IJCNLP and AACL are organized with alternating leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. The event is run by the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) in odd years, and by AACL in even years, while it is organized solely by ACL when the annual ACL meeting is held in the region. This year, the conference is primarily organized by AFNLP. 
*Kentaro Inui
MBZUAI, UAE
General Chair, IJCNLP-AACL 2025* 
Read full message and download the Conference Handbook [**here**](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTwxkAqSqI-GAoJC3wE1zZt5VP1Y8GX0/view?usp=sharing).

The 14th IJCNLP & 4th AACL will be held in Mumbai, India from December 20th to December 24th, 2025.

The rapid development of large reasoning models (LRMs), such as OpenAI-o3 and DeepSeek-R1, has led to significant improvements in complex reasoning over non-reasoning large language models~(LLMs). However, their enhanced capabilities, combined with the open-source access of models like DeepSeek-R1, raise serious safety concerns, particularly regarding their potential for misuse. In this work, we present a comprehensive safety assessment of these reasoning models, leveraging established safety benchmarks to evaluate their compliance with safety regulations. Furthermore, we investigate their susceptibility to adversarial attacks, such as jailbreaking and prompt injection, to assess their robustness in real-world applications. Through our multi-faceted analysis, we uncover four key findings: (1) There is a significant safety gap between the open-source reasoning models and the o3-mini model, on both safety benchmark and attack, suggesting more safety effort on open LRMs is needed. (2) The distilled reasoning model shows poorer safety performance compared to its safety-aligned base models. (3) The stronger the model's reasoning ability, the greater the potential harm it may cause when answering unsafe questions. (4) The thinking process in R1 models poses greater safety concerns than their final answers. Our study provides insights into the security implications of reasoning models and highlights the need for further advancements in R1 models' safety to close the gap.

The Hidden Risks of Large Reasoning Models: A Safety Assessment of R1

Spatial Reasoning is an important component of human cognition and is an area in which the latest Vision-language models (VLMs) show signs of difficulty. The current analysis papers often use image captioning tasks and visual question answering. In this work, we propose using the Referring Expression Comprehension task instead as a platform for the evaluation of spatial reasoning by VLMs. This platform provides the opportunity for a deeper analysis of spatial comprehension and grounding abilities when there is 1) ambiguity in object detection, 2) complex spatial expressions with a longer sentence structure and multiple spatial relations, and 3) expressions with negation (‘not’). In our analysis, we use task-specific architectures as well as large VLMs and highlight their strengths and weaknesses in dealing with these specific situations. While all these models face challenges with the task at hand, the relative behaviors depend on the underlying models and the specific categories of spatial semantics (topological, directional, proximal, etc.). Our results highlight these challenges and behaviors and provide insight into research gaps and future directions.

Referring Expressions as a Lens into Spatial Language Grounding in Vision-Language Models

Visually rich documents (VRDs) challenge retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with layout-dependent semantics, brittle OCR, and evidence spread across complex figures and structured tables. This survey examines how Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are being used to make VRD retrieval practical for RAG. We organize the literature into three roles: *Modality-Unifying Captioners*, *Multimodal Embedders*, and *End-to-End Representers*. We compare these roles along retrieval granularity, information fidelity, latency and index size, and compatibility with reranking and grounding. We also outline key trade-offs and offer some practical guidance on when to favor each role.
Finally, we identify promising directions for future research, including adaptive retrieval units, model size reduction, and the development of evaluation methods.

Roles of MLLMs in Visually Rich Document Retrieval for RAG: A Survey

In recent years, dense retrieval has been the focus of information retrieval (IR) research. While effective, dense retrieval produces uninterpretable dense vectors, and suffers from the drawback of large index size. Learned sparse retrieval (LSR) has emerged as promising alternative, achieving competitive retrieval performance while also being able to leverage the classical inverted index data structure for efficient retrieval. However, limited works have explored scaling LSR beyond BERT scale. In this work, we identify two challenges in training large language models (LLM) for LSR: (1) training instability during the early stage of contrastive training; (2) suboptimal performance due to pre-trained LLM's unidirectional attention. To address these challenges, we propose two corresponding techniques: (1) a lightweight adaptation training phase to eliminate training instability; (2) two model variants to enable bidirectional information. With these techniques, we are able to train LSR models with 8B scale LLM, and achieve competitive retrieval performance with reduced index size. Furthermore, we are among the first to analyze the performance-efficiency tradeoff of LLM-based LSR model through the lens of model quantization. Our findings provide insights into adapting LLMs for efficient retrieval modeling.

CSPLADE: Learned Sparse Retrieval with Causal Language Models

Session-based recommendation systems have attracted growing interest for their ability to provide personalized recommendations based on users' in-session behaviors. While ID-based methods have shown strong performance, they often struggle with long-tail items and overlook valuable textual information. To incorporate text information, various approaches have been proposed, generally employing a naive fusion framework. Interestingly, this approach often fails to outperform the best single-modality baseline. Further exploration indicates a potential imbalance issue in the naive fusion method, where the ID tends to dominate the training and the text is undertrained. This issue indicates that the naive fusion method might not be as effective in combining ID and text as once believed. To address this, we propose AlterRec, an alternative training framework that separates the optimization of ID and text to avoid the imbalance issue. AlterRec also designs an effective strategy to enhance the interaction between the two modalities, facilitating mutual interaction and more effective text integration. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AlterRec in session-based recommendation.

Enhancing ID and Text Fusion via Alternative Training in Session-based Recommendation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated efficacy in various linguistic applications, including question answering and controlled text generation. However, studies into their ability to switch between opposite styles of responses in professional domains remain underexplored. This study introduces a novel approach, named ProSwitch, which enables a language model to switch between professional and non-professional answers, by tuning and evaluating through the guidance of domain and style knowledge. ProSwitch unfolds in three phases: LLM-augmented preparation to collect domain knowledge and QA pairs, instruction tuning to optimize LLMs with multiple levels of knowledge, and comprehensive evaluation to assess both style discrimination and reference-based quality of the generated text. Comparative analysis of ProSwitch against general and specialized LLMs reveals that our approach outperforms baselines in switching between professional and non-professional responses.

ProSwitch: Knowledge-Guided Instruction Tuning to Switch Between Professional and Non-Professional Responses

Multi-hop Question Generation (QG) effectively evaluates reasoning but remains confined to text; Video Question Generation (VideoQG) is limited to zero-hop questions over single segments. To address this, we introduce VideoChain, a novel Multi-hop Video Question Generation (MVQG) framework designed to generate questions that require reasoning across multiple, temporally separated video segments. VideoChain features a modular architecture built on a modified BART backbone enhanced with video embeddings, capturing textual and visual dependencies. Using the TVQA+ dataset, we automatically construct the large-scale MVQ-60 dataset by merging zero-hop QA pairs, ensuring scalability and diversity. Evaluations show VideoChain's strong performance across standard generation metrics: ROUGE-L (0.6454), ROUGE-1 (0.6854), BLEU-1 (0.6711), BERTScore-F1 (0.7967), and semantic similarity (0.8110). These results highlight the model’s ability to generate coherent, contextually grounded, and reasoning-intensive questions. To facilitate future research, we publicly release our code and dataset.

VideoChain: A Transformer-Based Framework for Multi-hop Video Question Generation

State‐of‐the‐art Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve high pass@1 on general benchmarks like HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) but underperform on specialized suites such as ParEval (Nichols et al., 2024). Is this due to LLMs missing domain knowledge or insufficient prompt detail is given? To answer this, we introduce PartialOrderEval, which augments any code generation benchmark with a partial order of prompts from minimal to maximally detailed. Applying it to HumanEval and both serial and OpenMP subsets of ParEval, we measure how pass@1 scales with prompt specificity. Our experiments with Llama‐3.x and Qwen2.5‐Coder demonstrate varying degrees of prompt sensitivity across different tasks, and a qualitative analysis highlights explicit I/O specifications, edge‐case handling, and stepwise breakdowns as the key drivers of prompt detail improvement.

More Than a Score: Probing the Impact of Prompt Specificity on LLM Code Generation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved mathematical problem-solving. Among various techniques, paraphrasing problem statements has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance model understanding and accuracy.

We define twelve paraphrasing types grounded in mathematics education theory and analyze their impact on LLM performance across different configurations. To automate selection, we propose a Paraphrase Type Selector that predicts effective paraphrases for each problem.

Experiments on MATH-500, SVAMP, and AIME shows consistent performance gain from paraphrased problems. On MATH-500 with LLaMA 3.1-8B, combining the original with the best five paraphrased problems improves accuracy by +8.4%, with the selector achieving an additional +1.33% gain.

An Analysis of the Impact of Problem Paraphrasing on LLM-Based Mathematical Problem Solving

Causal probing aims to analyze foundation models by examining how intervening on their representation of various latent properties impacts their outputs. Recent works have cast doubt on the theoretical basis of several leading causal probing methods, but it has been unclear how to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of these methods in practice. To address this, we define two key causal probing desiderata: *completeness* (how thoroughly the representation of the target property has been transformed) and *selectivity* (how little non-targeted properties have been impacted). We find that there is an inherent tradeoff between the two, which we define as *reliability*, their harmonic mean. We introduce an empirical analysis framework to measure and evaluate these quantities, allowing us to make the first direct comparisons between different families of leading causal probing methods (e.g., linear vs. nonlinear, or concept removal vs. counterfactual interventions). We find that: (1) all methods show a clear tradeoff between completeness and selectivity; (2) more complete and reliable methods have a greater impact on LLM behavior; and (3) nonlinear interventions are almost always more reliable than linear interventions.

Our project webpage is available at: [https://ahdavies6.github.io/causal_probing_reliability/](https://ahdavies6.github.io/causal_probing_reliability/)

Downloads

Next from IJCNLP-AACL 2025

The Hidden Risks of Large Reasoning Models: A Safety Assessment of R1

Similar lecture

Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs