United States

Recently, AI-driven interactions with computing devices have advanced from basic prototype tools to sophisticated, LLM-based systems that emulate human-like operations in graphical user interfaces. We are now witnessing the emergence of Computer-Using Agents (CUAs), capable of autonomously performing tasks such as navigating desktop applications, web pages, and mobile apps. However, as these agents grow in capability, they also introduce novel safety and security risks. Vulnerabilities in LLM-driven reasoning, with the added complexity of integrating multiple software components and multimodal inputs, further complicate the security landscape. In this paper, we present a systematization of knowledge on the safety and security threats of CUAs. We conduct a comprehensive literature review and distill our findings along four research objectives: (i) define the CUA that suits safety analysis; (ii) categorize current safety threats among CUAs; (iii) propose a comprehensive taxonomy of existing defensive strategies; (iv) summarize prevailing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics used to assess the safety and performance of CUAs. Building on these insights, our work provides future researchers with a structured foundation for exploring unexplored vulnerabilities and offers practitioners actionable guidance in designing and deploying secure Computer-Using Agents.

ACL 2026

JARVIS or Ultron? A Survey on the Safety and Security Threats of Computer-Using Agents

## 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.

Human–AI collaboration in knowledge-intensive tasks such as fact-checking requires understanding model uncertainty in multi‑document reasoning amid conflicting/agreeing evidence. Yet, existing methods only express uncertainty as numbers or hedges without revealing which evidence conflicts cause the uncertainty, leaving users unable to resolve disagreements. We present CLUE (**C**onflict-&Agreement-aware **L**anguage-model **U**ncertainty **E**xplanations), a plug‑and‑play white‑box framework that, to our knowledge, is the first to generate natural‑language explanations of model uncertainty grounded in conflicting/agreeing evidence. CLUE (i) identifies span‑level claim–evidence and inter‑evidence relations that signal conflict or agreement without supervision, and (ii) uses these relations to steer explanation generation, articulating how they drive the model's uncertainty. Across three language models and two fact‑checking datasets, CLUE produces explanations that more faithfully track model uncertainty and better align with the model’s fact‑checking decisions than span‑agnostic explanation prompting; human raters also judge them more helpful, more informative, less redundant, and more logically consistent with the input. By explicitly tying uncertainty to evidence conflicts and agreements, CLUE supports practical fact‑checking and other tasks that require reasoning over complex, conflicting information.

Explaining Sources of Uncertainty in Automated Fact-Checking

Legal QA benchmarks have predominantly focused on case law, overlooking the unique challenges of statute-centric regulatory reasoning. In statutory domains, relevant evidence is distributed across hierarchically linked documents, creating a statutory retrieval gap where conventional retrievers fail and models often hallucinate under incomplete context. We introduce SearchFireSafety, a structure- and safety-aware benchmark for statute-centric legal QA. Instantiated on fire-safety regulations as a representative case, the benchmark evaluates whether models can retrieve hierarchically fragmented evidence and safely abstain when statutory context is insufficient. SearchFireSafety adopts a dual-track evaluation framework combining real-world questions that require citation-aware retrieval and synthetic partial-context scenarios that stress-test hallucination and refusal behavior. Experiments across multiple large language models show that graph-guided retrieval substantially improves performance, but also reveal a critical safety trade-off: domain-adapted models are more likely to hallucinate when key statutory evidence is missing. Our findings highlight the need for benchmarks that jointly evaluate hierarchical retrieval and model safety in statute-centric regulatory settings.

Evaluating Structure-Aware Retrieval and Safety in Statute-Centric Legal QA

We introduce SkMTEB, the first comprehensive MTEB-style text embedding benchmark for Slovak, a low-resource West Slavic language, comprising 31 datasets across 7 task types---nearly 4$\times$ the depth of existing multilingual benchmark coverage for Slovak. Our evaluation of 31 embedding models reveals that large instruction-tuned multilingual models achieve the strongest performance, while existing Slovak-specific models trained for NLU tasks transfer poorly to embedding tasks. To address the need for efficient, locally-deployable Slovak embeddings, we develop \texttt{e5-sk-small} (45M parameters) and \texttt{e5-sk-large} (365M) by applying vocabulary trimming and fine-tuning to Multilingual E5 models. Despite size reductions of up to 62\%, our open-source models achieve competitive performance with proprietary APIs while remaining locally deployable for semantic search and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We release the benchmark, models, datasets, and code openly, hoping our approach offers a replicable path for other under-resourced languages.

 SkMTEB: Slovak Massive Text Embedding Benchmark and Model Adaptation

Coreference resolution is typically evaluated using aggregate statistical metrics such as CoNLL-F1
, which measure structural overlap between predicted and gold clusters. While widely used, these metrics offer limited diagnostic insights, penalizing errors without revealing whether a system struggles with specific semantic categories, such as people, locations, or events, and making it difficult to interpret model capabilities or derive actionable improvements. We address this gap by introducing a semantically-enhanced evaluation framework for coreference resolution. Our approach overlays Concept and Named Entity Recognition (CNER) onto coreference outputs, assigning semantic labels to nominal mentions and propagating them to entire coreference clusters. This enables the computation of typed scores aimed at evaluating mention extraction and linking capabilities stratified by semantic class. Across our experiments on OntoNotes, LitBank, and PreCo, we show that our framework uncovers systematic weaknesses that remain obscured by aggregate metrics. Furthermore, we show that these diagnostics can be used to design targeted, low-cost data augmentation strategies, achieving measurable out-of-domain improvements.

 Interpretable Coreference Resolution Evaluation Using Explicit Semantics

Language models are increasingly deployed in interactive settings where users reason about facts over time rather than in isolation.
In such scenarios, correct behavior requires models to maintain and update implicit temporal assumptions established earlier in a conversation. We study this challenge through the lens of temporal scope stability: the ability to preserve, override, or transfer time-scoped factual context across dialogue turns. We introduce ChronoScope, a large-scale diagnostic benchmark designed to isolate temporal scope behavior in controlled multi-turn interactions, comprising over one million deterministically generated question chains grounded in Wikidata. ChronoScope evaluates whether models can correctly retain inferred temporal scope when follow-up questions omit explicit time references, spanning implicit carryover, explicit scope switching, cross-entity transfer, and longer temporal trajectories.
Through extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art language models, we find that temporal scope stability is frequently violated in controlled multi-turn settings, with models often drifting toward present-day assumptions despite correct underlying knowledge.
These failures intensify with interaction length and persist even under oracle context conditions, revealing a gap between single-turn factual accuracy and coherent temporal reasoning under sequential interaction.
We make our dataset and evaluation suite publicly available at \url{https://github.com/yashkumaratri/ChronoScope}.

 Evaluating Temporal Consistency in Multi-Turn Language Models

Logical vulnerabilities in software stem from flaws in program logic rather than memory safety, which can lead to critical security failures. Although existing automated program‐repair techniques primarily focus on repairing memory‐corruption vulnerabilities, they struggle with logical vulnerabilities because of their limited semantic understanding of the vulnerable code and its expected behavior. On the other hand, recent successes of large language models (LLMs) in understanding and repairing code are promising. However, no framework currently exists to analyze the capabilities and limitations of such techniques for logical vulnerabilities. We aim to systematically evaluate both traditional and LLM-based repair approaches for addressing real-world logical vulnerabilities. To facilitate our assessment, we created the first-ever dataset, LogicDS, comprising 122 logical vulnerabilities that reflect tangible security impact. We also developed a systematic framework, LogicEval, to evaluate patches for logical vulnerabilities. Evaluations suggest that compilation and testing failures are primarily driven by prompt sensitivity, loss of code context, and difficulty in patch localization.

 LogicEval: A Systematic Framework for Evaluating Automated Repair Techniques for Logical Vulnerabilities in Real-World Software

While annotated corpora are crucial in the field of natural language processing (NLP), those containing copyrighted material are difficult to exchange among researchers. Yet, such corpora are necessary to fully represent the diversity of data found in the wild in the context of NLP tasks. We tackle this issue by proposing a method to lawfully share the annotations of any sequential copyrighted corpus. The corpus creator shares the annotations in clear, along with a non-reversible hashed version of the source material. The corpus user must own the source material, and apply the same hash function to their own tokens, in order to match them to the shared annotations. Crucially, our method is robust to reasonable divergences in the version of the copyrighted data owned by the user. As an illustration, we present alignment experiments on different editions of novels. Our results show that our method is able to correctly correctly align 98.7 to 99.79% of tokens depending on the novel, provided the user version is sufficiently close to the corpus creator's version. We publicly release novelties-bookshare, a Python implementation of our method.

Overcoming Copyright Barriers in Corpus Distribution Through Non-Reversible Hashing

Code-switching, alternating between languages within a conversation, is natural for multilingual users, yet poses fundamental challenges for large language models (LLMs). When a user code-switches in their prompt to an LLM, they typically do not specify the expected language of the LLM response, and thus LLMs must infer the output language from contextual and pragmatic cues. We find that current LLMs systematically fail to align with this expectation, responding in undesired languages even when cues are clear to humans. We introduce OLA, a benchmark to evaluate LLMs' Output Language Alignment in code-switched interactions. OLA focuses on Korean--English code-switching and spans simple intra-sentential mixing to instruction–content mismatches. Even frontier models frequently misinterpret implicit language expectation, exhibiting a systematic bias toward non-English responses. We further show this bias generalizes beyond Korean to Chinese and Indonesian pairs. Models also show instability through mid-response switching and language intrusions. Chain-of-Thought prompting fails to resolve these errors, indicating weak pragmatic reasoning about output language. However, Code-Switching Aware DPO with minimal data (~1K examples) substantially reduces misalignment, suggesting these failures stem from insufficient alignment rather than fundamental limitations. Our results highlight the need to align multilingual LLMs with users' implicit expectations in real-world code-switched interactions.

OLA: Output Language Alignment in Code-Switched LLM Interactions

Modern evaluation of Legal QA systems is shifting from terminal accuracy toward process-aware analyses of model reasoning. We propose a diagnostic framework grounded in monotonic pedagogical scaffolding, where language models receive gold-standard, case-relevant information across stages aligned with the canonical legal framework FIRAC — Facts, Issue, Rules, Application, Conclusion. By strictly adding solution-relevant content at each step, we introduce a controlled monotonic intervention that allows for the evaluation of reasoning trajectories rather than isolated outcomes.

This longitudinal design enables the introduction of two transition-based diagnostics: Errors-to-Success (E2S) quantifies the guidance required to reach correctness, while Success-to-Errors (S2E) measures the fragility of that correctness under additional structure. These local patterns define a global robustness criterion termed Stable Accuracy, which credits a response only if the model maintains correctness throughout all scaffolding stages and enforces a higher bar for correctness by distinguishing sustained reasoning from transient patterns.

We instantiate the framework on 3,123 Brazilian Bar Exam questions paired with expert-annotated explanations. Our findings reveal model instability patterns hidden from accuracy-only metrics and demonstrate that terminal accuracy systematically overestimates legal reasoning competence. To test the robustness of our diagnostics, we also evaluate a majority-vote aggregation across multiple reasoning samples, finding that the observed instability patterns persist under this stronger inference setting. Furthermore, principal component analysis indicates that legal domains cluster into distinct regions, suggesting systematic differences in reasoning demands across domains. While focused on the legal domain, our evaluation protocol is generalizable to any task with a staged reasoning structure.

Monotonic Scaffolding as a Diagnostic Lens for Legal Reasoning in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) store and recall factual knowledge, yet the precise mechanism of how entity representations are transformed to enable specific attribute retrieval remains underexplored. In this work, we investigate this mechanism through the lens of an ``attribute-computation path''—a sequence of computational steps over the entity representation required to elicit a target attribute. We then propose an iterative patching protocol to identify a minimal subset of layers necessary for this computation. Applying our method to LLaMA 3.1 8B and Qwen 3 8B, we find that these paths are non-contiguous, often skipping layers, and that models possess multiple, functionally-equivalent paths for the same entity and fact, highlighting a high degree of redundancy in attribute computation. This implies that knowledge computation is highly distributed, potentially explaining the localization-editing mismatch and suggesting that knowledge storage and retrieval in LLMs is far from being well understood.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

Explaining Sources of Uncertainty in Automated Fact-Checking

Similar lecture

Is Safety Standard Same for Everyone? User-Specific Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models