United States

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&#39;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.

ACL 2026

Understanding LLM Reasoning for Abstractive Summarization

## 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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree, Disagree, Explain: Decomposing Human Label Variation in NLI through the Lens of Explanations

Multilingual retrieval-augmented generation (mRAG) is often implemented within a fixed retrieval space, typically via query or document translation or multilingual embedding vector representations. However, this approach may be inadequate for culturally grounded queries, in which retrieval-condition misalignment may occur. Even strong retrievers and generators may struggle to produce culturally relevant answers when sourcing evidence from inappropriate linguistic or regional contexts. To this end, we introduce CORAL (COntext-aware Retrieval with Agentic Loop, an adaptive retrieval methodology for mRAG that enables iterative refinement of both the retrieval space (corpora) and the retrieval probe (query) based on the quality of the evidence. The overall process includes: (1) selecting corpora, (2) retrieving documents, (3) critiquing evidence for relevance and cultural alignment, and (4) checking sufficiency. If the retrieved documents are insufficient to answer the query correctly, the system (5) reselects corpora and rewrites the query. Across two cultural QA benchmarks, CORAL achieves up to a 3.58%p accuracy improvement on low-resource languages relative to the strongest baselines.

CORAL: Adaptive Retrieval Loop for Culturally-Aligned Multilingual RAG

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning abilities for planning long-horizon, real-world tasks, yet existing agent benchmarks focus on task completion while neglecting time efficiency in parallel and asynchronous operations. To address this, we present ParaCook, a benchmark for time-efficient collaborative planning. Inspired by the Overcooked game, ParaCook provides an environment for various challenging interaction planning of multi-agent systems that are instantiated as cooking tasks, with a simplified action space to isolate the core challenge of strategic parallel planning. Through a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that current approaches achieve suboptimal plans, which struggle with parallel actions or coordination. Our analysis also reveals LLMs' potential on abstract tasks where they can focus on high-level parallel optimization. ParaCook provides a scalable evaluation framework with adjustable complexity, establishing a foundation for developing and assessing time efficiency-aware multi-agent planning.

ParaCook: On Time-Efficient Planning for Multi-Agent Systems

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances code generation by incorporating retrieved code examples into prompts, but the resulting long-context inputs impose substantial memory and computational overhead. Existing prompt compression techniques are largely designed for natural language and fail to account for the structural and semantic properties of code, while also lacking fine-grained control over compression ratios. We propose CodePromptZip, a code-aware prompt compression framework for RAG that enables precise length control while preserving critical information. Motivated by type-aware ablation studies, CodePromptZip leverages static analysis to rank code tokens by information gain and applies a dynamic compression strategy to retain the most informative tokens under a given budget. For incomplete or unparsable code snippets, CodePromptZip employs a language-model-based compressor trained on analyzable samples and augmented with a copy mechanism to preserve key tokens. Extensive experiments on three code-related tasks demonstrate that CodePromptZip consistently outperforms entropy-based and distillation-based baselines, achieving improvements of 23.4%, 28.7%, and 8.7%, respectively, while providing accurate control over compression ratios.

CODEPROMPTZIP: Code-specific Prompt Compression for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Coding Tasks with LMs

Automated code generation remains a persistent challenge in software engineering, as conventional multi-agent frameworks are often constrained by static planning, isolated execution, high computational overhead, and limited adaptability to complex tasks. This paper introduces CollabCoder, a novel Plan-Code Co-Evolution framework that improves code generation through dynamic multi-agent collaboration. The core idea is to design a collaborative decision-making process between the plan module and the code module to decide which module should be executed for the debugging process. Extensive experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that CollabCoder consistently improves code quality and robustness across tasks. Importantly, CollabCoder achieves performance comparable to or exceeding current state-of-the-art methods while reducing computational overhead, with efficiency gains becoming more pronounced as benchmark difficulty increases. On the more challenging LiveCodeBench and xCodeEval benchmarks, our approach improves performance by 11-20% over strong baselines while reducing the number of API calls by an average of 4-10 per execution.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

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

Similar lecture

Beyond Paraphrasing: Analyzing Summarization Abstractiveness and Reasoning