United States

Turkish idiomatic light verb constructions (LVCs) are challenging for multiword expression processing because they often share the same surface form as fully literal verb–object combinations while functioning as a single, partially idiomatic predicate. We frame Turkish LVC detection as a binary classification task (literal ditransitive vs. LVC) and evaluate on a manually created controlled set (N=147) with matched negatives: out-of-domain random sentences and in-domain literal controls (NLVC), alongside LVC positives. We compare a supervised Turkish encoder baseline (BERTurk with a classifier head) to three instruction-tuned LLMs from different families under zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting, and analyze how demonstrations shift error profiles. In zero-shot, LLMs perform well on negatives but show very low LVC recall. One-shot prompting sharply improves LVC detection but can induce strong, model-specific biases (over- vs. under-predicting LVC). A richer master few-shot prompt improves calibration and yields robust overall performance for GPT-OSS-20B and Qwen 2.5. Overall, the results highlight substantial prompt sensitivity in Turkish metalinguistic classification: the supervised baseline remains competitive, while prompted LLMs can match or exceed it on LVCs with carefully constructed demonstrations. We will release code, prompts, and evaluation materials to support reproducibility.

ACL 2026

Supervision versus Demonstration-Based In-Context Learning for Multiword Expression Classification

### Welcome to CogSci Conference 2025!

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was a hybrid meeting held in San Francisco. 

<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/amvr/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>

#### About

The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.

#### Our History 

* **Society Creation**<br>
The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit professional organization in Massachusetts in 1979. The organizing committee included Roger Schank, Allan Collins, Donald Norman, and a number of other scholars from psychology, linguistics, computer science, and philosophy. 
<br><br>
* **Conference Creation**<br>
The first conference on cognitive science was held at La Jolla, California in August, 1979, and has occurred annually since then. The proceedings of each conference are published, and those from most years are available through Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The annual proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference represent a major source of information on new work and new ideas in the scientific study of thinking. In 1990, the Society, with help from an anonymous donor, established the David Marr Prize for the best student paper at each annual meeting.
<br><br>
* **Journal Creation**<br>
The Journal, Cognitive Science, began publication in 1976, and is now published by Wiley-Blackwell. The Executive Editor is currently Richard P. Cooper of Birkbeck, University of London, and there are 18 Associate Editors and a 30-member editorial board. It serves as the premier outlet for research reports that intersect two or more disciplines. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society. The Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society voted in late 2006 to found a new journal, Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS). The Editor in Chief is Wayne Gray, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The journal seeks to fill a niche not occupied by Cognitive Science Journal or other cognitive science journals. Membership in the Society includes a subscription to Cognitive Science and TopiCS. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society.
<br><br>

#### Code of Conduct

By attending the CogSci 2025 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s **[Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ChPuihLy6jE_BWqfO7J2KKgX35JW2zsM/view?usp=sharing)**.
<br><br>


You need to log in with the email address you registered with. 

Login credentials were sent to you from Underline -  subject line "Welcome to the CogSci 2025 Conference". Please be sure to check your spam/promotional inbox  if you do not see an email confirmation right away.





Please log in to join this event.

To access the site, please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/).

If you are registered and feel like you are seeing this message by mistake, please make sure you are logged in with the same email that you registered with. 

Please register!

CogSci 2025

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

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. <br>
[Full Message from General Chair Philipp Koehn](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QiJFOmMjvDgsDo3i1XzlQnImxe3RU_Cy/view?usp=sharing) <br><br><br>
<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>
<br><br><br><br>

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. <br>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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, yet reliably estimating when their outputs should be trusted remains an open challenge. Existing uncertainty estimation approaches---such as calibration, token-level probabilities, or semantic entropy---typically require access to model internals, additional supervision, or computationally intensive pipelines. We propose answer instability, defined as the variability of a model's final answer across repeated stochastic generations of the same prompt, as a simple, label-free, and black-box uncertainty signal. Evaluated across three task types — reasoning, multiple-choice QA, and constraint-following — using four LLMs and 520 prompt-model pairs, our approach achieves performance competitive with semantic entropy while requiring no semantic similarity model. Our results show that instability strongly correlates with prediction errors and reliably discriminates correct from incorrect outputs. We further demonstrate its utility for selective prediction and targeted repair, improving reliability without access to internal probabilities or additional training.

When Models Hesitate: Answer Instability as a Label-Free Uncertainty Signal for LLMs

Learning reward functions from preference feedback is a widely used strategy for aligning intelligent systems with human intent, but its effectiveness heavily relies on the representation used to describe candidate outcomes. In perceptual domains such as visual aesthetics and robot appearance, hand-engineered features often fail to capture the latent attributes underlying subjective judgments. We propose **HARP**, a representation-based preference learning framework that infers reward functions directly over learned latent embeddings using pairwise comparisons and Bayesian updates, interpreting preference learning as identifying a preference-aligned direction in representation space. By operating in a continuous representation space, HARP enables preference learning without manual feature design. We evaluate HARP on a robot image preference task with simulated oracle users, comparing learned representations to principled hand-engineered features under identical query strategies. Results show more stable convergence and improved top-$k$ preference recovery, highlighting the importance of representation choice in perceptual preference learning.

HARP: Representation-Based Preference Learning for Perceptual Data

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement typically arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, failing to account for variance in human responses. This amplifies the reproducibility crisis in AI evaluation. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment

In-person cognitive assessments are structured clinical conversations that provide important cues about patients' cognition but are difficult to analyze at scale. Existing datasets do not capture both speaker roles and Dialogue-Acts in this setting, limiting progress in modeling conversational structure. We introduce a dataset of anonymized cognitive assessment transcripts annotated with speaker roles and Dialogue-Act labels. We evaluate large language models on two tasks: dialogue-act classification and patient utterance generation. Our results show that while few-shot prompting improves performance, models still struggle to capture fine-grained pragmatic intent and produce clinically consistent responses. These findings highlight a gap between fluent text generation and true dialogue understanding in clinical settings.

Understanding Clinical Cognitive Dialogues Using Large Language Models

Deploying machine learning models in real-world domain-specific scenarios is challenged by the scarcity of expert annotations and by data drift, where the statistical properties of incoming data continuously evolve. Active Learning (AL) iteratively improves compact models with expert annotations but suffers from recurring cold-start degradation, while LLMs provide strong off-the-shelf performance yet cannot leverage newly accumulated labels, raising the question: how can we better leverage LLMs to assist the active learning process? Through an empirical study on five legal and biomedical datasets, we reveal a complementary temporal dynamic: LLMs excel during early and post-drift stages, while AL-assisted compact models eventually surpass them as annotations accumulate. Motivated by this finding, we propose an ensemble system that combines an LLM, an AL-assisted compact model, and an automatic switch module that routes predictions to the better-performing model in real time. Evaluated under simulated data drift on two mental health datasets, our system achieves 96--98% switch accuracy and consistently outperforms either model used alone.

LLMs for Now, Fine-Tuning for Later: An Ensemble Approach to Data Drift in Domain-Specific Tasks

Large language model (LLM) agents that invoke external tools must make sequences of interdependent decisions, yet existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods treat each step in isolation, ignoring how confidence evolves and compounds across a full task trajectory. We propose a framework for trajectory-level confidence analysis in the tool-use agent setting. The thesis pursues three aims: (1) estimating action-level confidence by adapting step-wise UQ to the heterogeneous think-act-observe cycles of tool-using agents; (2) aggregating the diverse action space into semantically coherent action types to enable meaningful trajectory-level analysis; and (3) discovering temporal patterns in the resulting confidence trajectories that reliably predict task success or failure. We ground the work in standard tool-use benchmarks and expect the framework to expose early warning signals for agent failure and offer interpretable diagnostic tools for understanding when and why LLM agents lose confidence, with improved calibration of multi-step agentic pipelines as a secondary benefit.

Thesis Proposal: When Does an Agent Know It Is Lost? Confidence Trajectory Analysis for Tool-Using LLMs

Crowdsourced annotators and Large Language Models (LLMs) offer complementary, cost-effective ways to obtain labeled data, yet ensuring high label quality remains challenging. We observe that task features influence the accuracy of humans and LLMs, while real-world constraints, such as per-annotator assignment limits, further complicate allocation. Prior work typically addresses either task features or constraints, but not both. We present an integrated framework that (i) estimates per-task accuracy from task features using a \textit{learning from crowds} model and (ii) incorporate these estimations into a linear programming that assigns tasks under practical constraints. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves the comparable accuracy to baseline methods while satisfying the given constraints.

Task Assignment meets Annotator Modeling: Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation with Constraints

We propose Dynamic Meta-Metrics (DMM), a framework for machine translation evaluation that learns source-sentence conditioned combinations of existing metrics. Rather than relying on a single static ensemble or language-specific weighting, DMM adapts the metric combination based on properties of the source segment. We study hard conditioning, which fits an interpretable combiner per cluster, and an exploratory soft-conditioned extension whose weights vary continuously with source-cluster responsibilities. We evaluate DMM on the WMT Metrics Shared Task data across multiple language pairs using pairwise agreement measures at the system and segment levels. Across settings, MLP-based combinations outperform linear and Gaussian process-based ensembles, and introducing soft conditioning yields gains over linear models.

Dynamic Meta-Metrics: Source-Sentence Conditioned Weighting for MT Evaluation

Speech-based screening for mild cognitive impairment offers a highly accessible way to detect early cognitive decline. While most existing work focuses on English, cross-linguistic research is emerging to examine how cognitive decline manifests across languages. Studies on the Interspeech'24 TAUKADIAL dataset, comprising English and Chinese speech recordings, consistently report higher classification performance on Chinese, yet the cause of this cross-lingual discrepancy remains unexplored. We examine this gap using Gemini 2.5 Pro, a multimodal large language model, using zero-shot and in-context-learning (ICL) paradigms. We hypothesize that this disparity is rooted in language typology: in tonal languages like Chinese, pitch encodes lexical meaning in every syllable (tone), whereas in non-tonal languages like English, pitch carries no lexical function. To test this, we pitch-flattened audio from TAUKADIAL and compared how classification performance changed across both languages. We found that Chinese classification degraded significantly under both zero-shot and ICL conditions (-4.78 and -5.92 UAR, respectively), while English performance increased (+0.11 and +2.98 UAR), implicating tonal pitch as the cross-lingual advantage. These findings suggest language typology should inform the design of audio-based cognitive screening tools, with raw audio preferred for tonal languages and text for non-tonal languages, a distinction critical for developing equitable cross-linguistic screening.

Tonal Salience in Cognitive Decline: In-Context MCI Detection with Multimodal LLMs

Tool-using LLM agents are typically compared by accuracy alone, despite deployments being constrained by inference cost. We present a budgeted evaluation of common strategies for improving ReAct-style tool agents (multi-sample aggregation, iterative self-correction, and post-hoc answer revision) using Pareto analysis of cumulative accuracy versus token budget on three benchmarks (HotPotQA, FEVER, GSM8K) with Gemini-2.5-Flash. All experiments use three random seeds ($N{=}500$ per seed); budgeted curves are computed post hoc from per-instance token logs. In our offline evaluation, Reflexion attains the highest accuracy, but its reported token costs are optimistic lower bounds because retries are stopped using ground-truth feedback; deployment costs would be higher. Sampling-based approaches often spend 3--5$\times$ more tokens for comparatively small gains on tool-heavy tasks. GSM8K, a pure-math benchmark with minimal tool interaction, shows dramatically larger gains from all methods, suggesting that the efficiency penalty of repeated tool trajectories is a key factor in tool-heavy settings. We provide a compute-aware evaluation protocol (frontier analysis and marginal-cost metrics) and practical guidance for choosing agent designs under different budget regimes.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

When Models Hesitate: Answer Instability as a Label-Free Uncertainty Signal for LLMs

Similar lecture

Investigating representations of time in light verb constructions during verb comprehension

.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 ACL 2026

When Models Hesitate: Answer Instability as a Label-Free Uncertainty Signal for LLMs

Similar lecture

Investigating representations of time in light verb constructions during verb comprehension

Downloads