United States

Framing theory posits that how information is presented shapes audience responses, but computational work has largely ignored audience reactions. While recent work has shown that article framing systematically shapes the content of reader responses, this paper asks: does framing also affect response quality? Analyzing 1M comments across 2.7K news articles, we operationalize quality as comment health. We find that article frames significantly predict comment health while controlling for topic, and that comments that adopt the article frame are healthier than those that depart from it. Further, unhealthy top-level comments tend to generate more unhealthy responses, independent of the frame being used in the comment. Our results establish a link between framing theory and discourse quality, laying the groundwork for downstream applications. We illustrate this potential with a pro-active frame-aware LLM- based system to mitigate unhealthy discourse.

ACL 2026

Article and Comment Frames Shape the Quality of Online Comments

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.

poster

Qualitative analysis is essential for studying complex social and behavioral phenomena, yet existing large language model (LLM) approaches face key limitations. Fully automated pipelines often compromise methodological rigor, while fully manual coding remains costly and labor-intensive. Although recent work emphasizes human–AI collaboration, existing multi-agent systems focus primarily on theme-level outputs, provide limited human oversight, and overlook fine-grained, data-level coding quality.

We introduce \textbf{CentaurTA}, an iterative, self-improving human–agent framework for scalable thematic analysis. CentaurTA places humans in the loop to oversee and guide analysis, using expert feedback as a persistent learning signal to drive prompt-level refinement. By combining structured human feedback with rubric-based evaluation, CentaurTA provides fine-grained supervision for both open coding and theme construction while preserving methodological rigor. Experiments across multiple datasets, baselines, and LLM families show that CentaurTA improves coding alignment and transparency, highlighting the central role of human feedback in reliable qualitative analysis. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Tom-Owl/CentaurTA.

CentaurTA: A Self-Improving Human-Agents Collaboration Framework for Thematic Analysis

The assessment of jailbreak attacks against large language models currently suffers from inconsistent evaluation criteria and methods, leading to unreliable estimates of attack success rates. We propose JailMeter, an evidence-based evaluation framework designed to more faithfully measure jailbreak effectiveness. Inspired by the Information Bottleneck theory, JailMeter applies dual-feedback optimization to filter jailbreak noise from model responses while preserving content relevant to the original malicious question. This process produces concise evidence for a rigorous assessment under which an attack is validated only when the response captures the malicious intent and delivers a complete answer, thereby signaling a substantive bypass of model safety alignment. We evaluate JailMeter on JailMeter-Eva, a challenging benchmark containing 330 human-labeled, non-rejected jailbreak instances. JailMeter achieves an accuracy of 97.27\%, substantially outperforming existing evaluation methods. To support large-scale evaluation, we further distill JailMeter into a small language model, JailMeter\textsubscript{SLM}, which maintains comparable reliability with significantly reduced computational costs. Code and dataset are available at \url{https://github.com/Magi2B0y/JailMeter}.

 JailMeter: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Framework for Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models

Task-agnostic backdoor attacks can contaminate pre-trained language models (PLMs) in a way that survives downstream adaptation, even under full fine-tuning, making it difficult for practitioners to trust third-party checkpoints. Existing defenses often rely on privileged assumptions (e.g., access to poisoned data or trigger/target knowledge), thereby limiting their applicability in realistic settings. We present DiSec, a robust and label-efficient purification framework that uses only clean auxiliary text and does not rely on downstream supervision or attack signatures. DiSec elicits model-internal signals from this clean data to separate suspicious parameter components that are inconsistent with benign behavior, and then flags anomalous structures by jointly leveraging complementary spectral and generative views of outliers. Finally, DiSec performs a structure-preserving repair via layer-local prototype-based mean correction, yielding an idempotent update that depends only on non-adversarial statistics. Across diverse downstream classification tasks and PLM backdoor strategies, DiSec substantially suppresses attack success while preserving clean-task utility, offering a practical path to securing fully fine-tuned PLMs before deployment. The codes are publicly available at https://github.com/das-sunanda/DiSec.

 DiSec: Mitigating Backdoors in Pre-trained Language Models via Disentanglement of Adversarial Weights for Secure Fine-Tuning

Reasoning has substantially improved Large Language Models (LLMs) on analytical tasks such as mathematics and code generation, but its value for abstractive summarization remains unclear. To address this gap, we adapt general reasoning strategies to the summarization setting and conduct a large-scale comparative study of 8 reasoning strategies and 3 Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) across 8 diverse datasets, evaluating both summary quality and factual faithfulness. Our results show that reasoning is not a universal solution and its effectiveness depends strongly on the strategy and the summarization setting. In particular, we find a trade-off between summary quality and factual faithfulness. Explicit reasoning strategies often improve reference-based quality, but may weaken factual grounding, whereas implicit reasoning in LRMs shows the opposite tendency. We further find that increasing an LRM's internal reasoning budget does not reliably improve summarization and can even reduce factual consistency. These findings suggest that, for summarization, more reasoning is not always better. Effective reasoning should preserve faithful compression rather than induce over-elaboration.

Understanding LLM Reasoning for Abstractive Summarization

Multimodal Emotion Recognition (MER) is critical for interpreting real-world interactions. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLM) have shown promise in MER, their internal decision-making mechanisms under modality conflict and missingness remain largely underexplored. In this paper, to systematically investigate these behaviors, we introduce EmoMM, a comprehensive benchmark featuring modality-aligned, conflict, and missing subsets. Through extensive evaluation, we uncover a Video Contribution Collapse (VCC) phenomenon, where MLLM marginalize video evidence due to high token redundancy and modality preferences. To address this, we propose Conflict-aware Head-level Attention Steering (CHASE), a lightweight mechanism that detects modality conflicts and performs inference-time attention steering, effectively mitigating decision bias without retraining the backbone. Experimental results demonstrate that CHASE consistently improves performance across various settings, significantly enhancing the reliability of MLLM in complex affective scenarios.

EmoMM: Benchmarking and Steering MLLM for Multimodal Emotion Recognition under Conflict and Missingness

As academic submissions grow, the traditional peer review process struggles to keep up, raising concerns about quality and fairness.
A trend of using large language models (LLMs) for assistance has emerged.
In this work, we take a critical step toward improving the quality of LLM-generated reviews.
We propose the $\texttt{PeerCheck}$ framework, which investigates LLM-human review differences ($\textbf{RQ1}$) and explores methods to increase LLM-human similarity ($\textbf{RQ2}$).
We first analyzed the human-written reviews with reviews generated by GPT-4o, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and DeepSeek-V3 and found that LLMs and humans focus on different terms, e.g., LLMs prioritize theory while humans emphasize methodology and experiments.
We further adopt prompt engineering, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and utilize retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to enhance the LLM-generated reviews towards human-level quality.
We find CoT significantly improves the human similarity of LLM reviews, while we also discover an unexpected ``RAG paradox,'' i.e., experiments with RAG produce different results for various LLMs and, in some cases, even reduce review quality.
Our comprehensive analysis of LLM-generated academic reviews illustrates both possibilities and limitations, contributing to a more effective, human-aligned review system.

Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

Reheat Nachos for Dinner? Evaluating AI Support for Cross-Cultural Communication of Neologisms

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for Islamic question answering, where ungrounded responses may carry serious religious consequences. Yet standard MCQ/MRC-style evaluations do not capture key real-world failure modes, notably free-form hallucinations and the ability to abstain when evidence is insufficient. To address this gap, we introduce IslamicFaithQA, a 3,810-item bilingual (Arabic/English) **generative** benchmark with atomic single-gold answers, which enables direct measurement of hallucination and abstention. We additionally developed an end-to-end grounded Islamic modeling suite consisting of *(i)* 25K Arabic text-grounded SFT reasoning pairs, *(ii)* 5K bilingual preference samples for reward-guided alignment, and *(iii)* a verse-level Qur'an retrieval corpus of $\sim$6k atomic *verses* (ayat). Building on these resources, we develop an agentic Quran-grounding framework (agentic RAG) that uses structured tool calls for iterative evidence seeking and answer revision. Experiments across Arabic-centric and multilingual LLMs show that retrieval improves correctness and that agentic RAG yields the largest gains beyond standard RAG, achieving state-of-the-art performance and stronger Arabic--English robustness even with a small model (i.e., Qwen3 4B). We made the datasets are publicly available (https://huggingface.co/datasets/QCRI/IslamicFaithQA).

From RAG to Agentic RAG for Faithful Islamic Question Answering

AI design characteristics and human personality traits each impact the quality and outcomes of human-AI interactions. However, their relative and joint impacts are underexplored in imperfectly cooperative scenarios, where people and AI only have partially aligned goals and objectives. This study compares a purely simulated dataset comprising 2,000 simulations and a parallel human subjects experiment involving 290 human participants to investigate these effects across two scenario categories: (1) hiring negotiations between human job candidates and AI hiring agents; and (2) human-AI transactions wherein AI agents may conceal information to maximize internal goals. We examine user Extraversion and Agreeableness alongside AI design characteristics, including Adaptability, Expertise, and chain-of-thought Transparency. Our causal discovery analysis extends performance-focused evaluations by integrating scenario-based outcomes, communication analysis, and questionnaire measures. Results reveal divergences between purely simulated and human study datasets, and between scenario types. In simulation experiments, personality traits and AI attributes were comparatively influential. Yet, with actual human subjects, AI attributes -- particularly transparency -- were much more impactful. We discuss how these divergences vary across different interaction contexts, offering crucial insights for the future of human-centered AI agents.

Imperfectly Cooperative Human-AI Interactions: Comparing the Impacts of Human and AI Attributes in Simulated and User Studies

Natural Language Inference (NLI) datasets often exhibit human label variation. To better understand these variations, explanation-based approaches analyze the underlying reasoning behind annotators’ decisions. One such approach is the LiTEx taxonomy, which categorizes free-text explanations in English into reasoning categories. However, previous work applying LiTEx has focused on within-label variation: cases where annotators agree on the NLI label but provide different explanations. This paper broadens the scope by examining how annotators may diverge not only in the reasoning category but also in the labeling. We use explanations as a lens to analyze variation in NLI annotations and to examine individual differences in reasoning. We apply LiTEx to two NLI datasets and align annotation variation from multiple aspects: NLI label agreement, explanation similarity, and taxonomy agreement, with an additional compounding factor of annotators’ selection bias. We observe instances where annotators disagree on the label but provide similar explanations, suggesting that surface-level disagreement may mask underlying agreement in interpretation. Moreover, our analysis reveals individual preferences in explanation strategies and label choices. These findings highlight that agreement in reasoning categories better reflects the semantic similarity of explanations than label agreement alone. Our findings underscore the richness of reasoning-based explanations and the need for caution in treating labels as ground truth.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

CentaurTA: A Self-Improving Human-Agents Collaboration Framework for Thematic Analysis

Similar lecture

Retain or Reframe? A Computational Framework for the Analysis of Framing in News Articles and Reader Comments