United States

Agentic Test-Time Scaling (TTS) has delivered state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on complex software engineering tasks such as code generation and bug fixing. However, its practical adoption remains limited due to significant computational overhead, primarily driven by two key challenges: (1) the high cost associated with deploying excessively large ensembles, and (2) the lack of a reliable mechanism for selecting the optimal candidate solution—ultimately constraining the performance gains that can be realized. To address these challenges, we propose Entropy-Guided Stepwise Scaling (EGSS), a novel TTS framework that dynamically balances efficiency and effectiveness through entropy-guided adaptive search and robust test-suite augmentation.
Extensive experiments on SWE-Bench-Verified demonstrate that EGSS consistently boosts performance by 5–10% across all evaluated models. Specifically, it increases the resolved ratio of Kimi-K2-Intruct from 63.2% to 72.2%, and GLM-4.6 from 65.8% to 74.6%. Furthermore, when paired with GLM-4.6, EGSS achieves new state-of-the-art among open-source large language models. In addition to these accuracy improvements, EGSS reduces inference-time token usage by over 28% compared to existing TTS methods, achieving simultaneous gains in both effectiveness and computational efficiency.

ACL 2026

EGSS: Entropy-guided Stepwise Scaling for Reliable Software Engineering

## 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." 

*Message from the General Chair, Dirk Hovy*

EMNLP 2025

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

poster

It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2026), held in San Diego, California, USA, July 2–7, 2026. ACL 2026 continues our fields 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.

It is exciting to see the many developments in the field reflected at our conference, such as the advancement of large language models (born out of our community) into many application directions. This is not without challenges, partly due to unsolved problems, and partly due to misuse of the technology. All this is reflected well at ACL 2026. The conference also reflects that the field is not only about advancing technology, but also the science of fundamentally understanding language and how it is use by many different speaker communities. 
[Full Message from General Chair Philipp Koehn](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QiJFOmMjvDgsDo3i1XzlQnImxe3RU_Cy/view?usp=sharing) 
<html><button style="display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; white-space: nowrap; border-radius: 9999px; font-weight: bold; background: #7c3aed; color: white; font-family: 'Space Grotesk', sans-serif; height: 40px; font-size: 16px; padding: 0 20px; border: none; cursor: pointer" onclick="window.open('https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QiJFOmMjvDgsDo3i1XzlQnImxe3RU_Cy/view?usp=sharing')">Conference Handbook</button></html>

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 2026". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

To access this event page, you are required to register.
Please complete your registration to continue.

We recommend reading [**the registration information**](https://2026.aclweb.org/registration/) first.

**Online Registration Form**: https://acl.swoogo.com/acl2026

Registration Required

The 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2026) will take place in San Diego, California, from July 2 - 7, 2026.

Medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks implicitly assume that large language models (LLMs) should always commit to an answer. However, in clinical practice, uncertainty is pervasive and abstaining is often the safest action. We introduce MedQAbstain, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate medical abstention under uncertainty. MedQAbstain repurposes standard medical MCQA datasets by removing the gold answer and introducing an explicit "I abstain" option, framed as a safety-critical decision with clinical consequences. The benchmark supports systematic analysis across abstention regimes, distractor complexity, and input modalities, and elicits self-reported model confidence to study calibration. Across all settings, we find that state-of-the-art LLMs systematically overcommit, rarely abstaining even when the question itself is hidden. These results reveal a fundamental mismatch between LLM behavior and clinical norms, highlighting abstention as a critical but overlooked dimension of medical decision-making evaluation.

LLMs (Almost) Never Abstain Under Medical Uncertainty

Sequential knowledge editing in large language models often causes catastrophic collapse of the model's general abilities, especially for parameter-modifying methods. Existing approaches mitigate this issue through heuristic constraints on parameter updates, the mechanisms underlying such degradation remain insufficiently understood. In this work, we present a systematic spectral analysis of sequential knowledge editing and show that a model’s general abilities are closely associated with dominant singular directions of pretrained weight matrices. These directions are highly sensitive to perturbations and are progressively disrupted by repeated edits, closely tracking the collapse in both editing efficacy and general performance. Building on this insight, we propose REVIVE, a plug-and-play framework that prevents model collapse by explicitly preserving this dominant subspace. REVIVE analyzes parameter updates in the spectral basis of the original weights and filters out components that would interfere with the dominant subspace. Extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks show that REVIVE consistently improves editing efficacy while substantially preserving general abilities under long-horizon sequential editing, including extreme settings with up to 20,000 edits.

 Spectral Characterization and Mitigation of Sequential Knowledge Editing Collapse

Existing long-horizon memory benchmarks mostly use multi-turn dialogues or synthetic user histories, which makes retrieval performance an imperfect proxy for person understanding. We present Knowme-Bench, a publicly releasable benchmark built from long-form autobiographical narratives, where actions, context, and inner thoughts provide dense evidence for inferring stable motivations and decision principles. Knowme-Bench reconstructs each narrative into a flashback-aware, time-anchored stream and evaluates models with evidence-linked questions spanning factual recall, subjective state attribution, and principle-level reasoning. Across diverse narrative sources, retrieval-augmented systems mainly improve factual accuracy, while errors persist on temporally grounded explanations and higher-level inferences, highlighting the need for memory mechanisms beyond retrieval.

KnowMe-Bench: Benchmarking Person Understanding for Lifelong Digital Companions

As Large Language Model (LLM) alignment evolves from simple completions to complex, highly sophisticated generation, Reward Models are increasingly shifting toward rubric-guided evaluation to mitigate surface-level biases. However, the community lacks a unified benchmark to assess this evaluation paradigm, as existing benchmarks lack both the discriminative complexity and the ground-truth rubric annotations required for rigorous analysis. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricBench, a curated benchmark with 1,147 pairwise comparisons specifically designed to assess the reliability of rubric-based evaluation. Our construction employs a multi-dimensional filtration pipeline to target hard samples featuring nuanced input complexity and misleading surface bias, augmenting each with expert-annotated, atomic rubrics derived strictly from instructions. Comprehensive experiments reveal a substantial capability gap between human-annotated and model-generated rubrics, indicating that even state-of-the-art models struggle to autonomously specify valid evaluation criteria, lagging considerably behind human-guided performance.

RubricBench: Aligning Model-Generated Rubrics with Human Standards

Large language models (LLMs) excel at general-purpose tasks, yet adapting their responses to individual users remains challenging. Retrieval augmentation provides a lightweight alternative to fine-tuning by conditioning LLMs on user history records, and existing approaches typically select these records based on semantic relevance. We argue that relevance serves as an unreliable proxy for utility: a record may be semantically similar to a query yet fail to improve generation quality or even degrade it due to redundancy or conflicting information. To bridge this gap, we propose PURPLE, a contextual bandit framework that oPtimizes UseR Profiles for LLM pErsonalization. In contrast to a greedy selection of the most relevant records, PURPLE treats profile construction as an order-sensitive generation process and utilizes a Plackett-Luce ranking model to capture complex inter-record dependencies. By training with semantically rich feedback provided by the likelihood of the reference response, our method aligns retrieval directly with generation quality. Extensive experiments on nine personalization tasks demonstrate that PURPLE consistently outperforms strong heuristic and retrieval-augmented baselines in both effectiveness and efficiency, establishing a principled and scalable solution for optimizing user profiles.

 Optimizing User Profiles via Contextual Bandits for Retrieval-Augmented LLM Personalization

Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization remains a significant challenge, particularly for long documents, where conventional metrics struggle with input length limitations and long-range dependencies. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of six widely used reference-free factuality metrics, originally proposed for short-form summarization, in the long-document setting. We probe metric robustness through seven factuality-preserving perturbations applied to summaries, namely paraphrasing, simplification, synonym replacement, logically equivalent negations, vocabulary reduction, compression, and source text insertion, and further analyze their sensitivity to retrieval context and claim information density. Across three long-form benchmark datasets spanning science fiction, legal, and scientific domains, our results reveal that existing short-form metrics produce inconsistent scores for semantically equivalent summaries and exhibit declining reliability for information-dense claims whose content is semantically similar to many parts of the source document. While expanding the retrieval context improves stability in some domains, no metric consistently maintains factual alignment under long-context conditions. Finally, our results highlight concrete directions for improving factuality evaluation, including multi-span reasoning, context-aware calibration, and training on meaning-preserving variations to enhance robustness in long-form summarization.

Stress Testing Factual Consistency Metrics for Long-Document Summarization

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in utilizing external tools. In practice, however, LLMs are often exposed to tools that are irrelevant to the user's query, in which case the desired behavior is to refrain from invocations. In this work, we identify a widespread yet overlooked mechanistic flaw in tool refusal, which we term structural alignment bias: Even when a tool fails to serve the user's goal, LLMs still tend to invoke it whenever query attributes can be validly assigned to tool parameters. To systematically study this bias, we introduce SABEval, a new dataset that decouples structural alignment from semantic relevance. Our analysis shows that structural alignment bias induces severe tool-invocation errors in LLMs, yet remains largely unaccounted for in existing evaluations. To investigate the internal mechanisms underlying this bias, we propose Contrastive Attention Attribution, which reveals two competing pathways for semantic checking and structural matching. The relative strength of these pathways drives LLMs' tool invocation decisions. Based on these findings, we further introduce a rebalancing strategy that effectively mitigates structural alignment bias, as demonstrated by extensive experiments, without degrading general tool-use capabilities.

 Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations

Scaling laws have enabled predictable compute allocation for pre-training and for RL in reasoning tasks. However, research on retrieval reinforcement generation (RAG) remains insufficient and there is a lack of fundamental understanding of the interaction between retrieval quality and reinforcement learning computation. We present the first systematic study of RL scaling for RAG across three knowledge-intensive benchmarks. We introduce the Retrieval Bottleneck Hypothesis and derive sigmoidal scaling laws showing that retrieval quality, not RL compute, determines the asymptotic performance ceiling. Our analysis reveals three principles: (1) retrieval quality bounds achievable performance, with improving retrieval yielding larger gains than algorithmic innovations; (2) design choices (training objectives, rewards, off-policy methods) primarily modulate compute efficiency, with secondary effects on the ceiling that are substantially smaller than retrieval quality improvements; and (3) stable configurations enable extrapolation with 3.1% error at 4x compute. We further uncover RAG-specific dynamics: optimal document count increases with training, and RL algorithm effectiveness depends critically on retrieval quality. These insights yield RAG-ScaleRL, achieving strong performance on knowledge-intensive benchmarks while providing the predictable scaling long available for pre-training but previously absent in RAG-RL.

 The Retrieval Bottleneck: Scaling Laws for Reinforcement Learning in RAG

Summarizing deeply nested discussion threads requires handling interleaved replies, quotes, and overlapping topics, which standard LLM summarizers struggle to capture reliably. We introduce $ThreadSumm$, a multi-stage LLM framework that treats thread summarization as a hierarchical reasoning problem over explicit aspect and content unit representations. Our method first performs content planning via LLM-based extraction of discourse aspects and Atomic Content Units, then applies sentence ordering to construct thread-aware sequences that surface multiple viewpoints rather than a single linear strand. On top of these interpretable units, $ThreadSumm$ employs a Tree of Thoughts search that generates and scores multiple paragraph candidates, jointly optimizing coherence and coverage within a unified search space. With this multi-proposal and iterative refinement design, we show improved performance in generating logically structured summaries compared to existing baselines, while achieving higher aspect retention and opinion coverage in nested discussions.

ThreadSumm: Summarization of Nested Discourse Threads Using Tree of Thoughts

LLMs are ubiquitous in modern NLP, and while their applicability extends to texts produced for democratic activities such as online deliberations or large-scale citizen consultations, ethical questions have been raised for their usage as analysis tools. We continue this line of research with two main goals: (a) to develop resources that can help standardize citizen contributions in public forums at the \textbf{pragmatic level}, and make them easier to use in topic modeling and political analysis; (b) to study how well this standardization can reliably be performed by small, open-weights LLMs, \emph{i.e.} models that can be run locally and transparently with limited resources. Accordingly, we introduce \textbf{Corpus Clarification} as a preprocessing framework for large-scale consultation data that transforms noisy, multi-topic contributions into structured, self-contained argumentative units ready for downstream analysis. We present \textbf{GDN-CC}, a manually-curated dataset of 1,231 contributions to the French \textit{Grand Débat National}, comprising 2,285 argumentative units annotated for argumentative structure and manually clarified. 
We then show that finetuned Small Language Models match or outperform LLMs on reproducing these annotations, and measure their usability for an opinion clustering task. We finally release \textbf{GDN-CC-large}, an automatically annotated corpus of 240k contributions, the largest annotated democratic consultation dataset to date.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

LLMs (Almost) Never Abstain Under Medical Uncertainty

Similar lecture

Faster and Better LLMs via Latency-Aware Test-Time Scaling