United States

Standardized math assessments require expensive human pilot studies to establish the difficulty of test items. We investigate the predictive value of open-source large language models (LLMs) for evaluating the difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for real-world students. We show that, while LLMs are poor direct judges of problem difficulty, simulation-based approaches with LLMs yield promising results under the right conditions. Under the proposed approach, we simulate a &quot;classroom&quot; of 4th, 8th, or 12th grade students by prompting the LLM to role-play students of varying proficiency levels. We use the outcomes of these simulations to fit Item Response Theory (IRT) models, comparing learned difficulty parameters for items to their real-world difficulties, as determined by item-level statistics furnished by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We observe correlations as high as 0.75, 0.76, and 0.82 for grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively. In our simulations, we experiment with different &quot;classroom sizes,&quot; showing tradeoffs between computation size and accuracy. We find that role-plays with named students improves predictions (compared to student ids), and stratifying names across gender and race further improves predictions. Our results show that LLMs with relatively weaker mathematical abilities (Gemma) actually yield better real-world difficulty predictions than mathematically stronger models (Llama and Qwen), further underscoring the suitability of open-source models for the task.

ACL 2026

Take Out Your Calculators: Estimating the Real Difficulty of Question Items with LLM Student Simulations

## 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.

Standardized math assessments require expensive human pilot studies to establish the difficulty of test items. We investigate the predictive value of open-source large language models (LLMs) for evaluating the difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for real-world students. We show that, while LLMs are poor direct judges of problem difficulty, simulation-based approaches with LLMs yield promising results under the right conditions. Under the proposed approach, we simulate a "classroom" of 4th, 8th, or 12th grade students by prompting the LLM to role-play students of varying proficiency levels. We use the outcomes of these simulations to fit Item Response Theory (IRT) models, comparing learned difficulty parameters for items to their real-world difficulties, as determined by item-level statistics furnished by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We observe correlations as high as 0.75, 0.76, and 0.82 for grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively. In our simulations, we experiment with different "classroom sizes," showing tradeoffs between computation size and accuracy. We find that role-plays with named students improves predictions (compared to student ids), and stratifying names across gender and race further improves predictions. Our results show that LLMs with relatively weaker mathematical abilities (Gemma) actually yield better real-world difficulty predictions than mathematically stronger models (Llama and Qwen), further underscoring the suitability of open-source models for the task.

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.

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.

Visually Grounded Document Question Answering often lacks robust, end-to-end solutions capable of handling complex, multi-answer queries without reliance on ad-hoc processing. In this work, we propose two turnkey LLM architectures to address this gap. We first introduce a single-head architecture where coordinates are represented as special tokens within the unified vocabulary. While structurally robust, this approach suffers from the limitations of discrete supervision; to address this, we propose a novel ``softening token'' method that enables differentiable Mean-Squared-Error loss over token probabilities. Although this significantly improves visual grounding, the spatial precision remains bound by discretization. Consequently, we propose a second solution: a dual-head architecture that alternates between text generation and regression-based bounding box prediction. This method offers high spatial precision via a regression head, further stabilized by our introduction of an Intersection-over-Union loss. Finally, by combining the single head model's structural robustness with the high precision of the dual head model, we propose an ensemble method that yields significant performance gains beyond each of individual components.

Switching Heads and Softening Tokens: Turnkey Solutions to Visually Grounded Document QA

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to interact with and execute tasks in dynamic environments. However, a critical yet overlooked limitation of these agents is that they, by default, assume a stationary context, failing to account for the real-world time elapsed between messages. We refer to this as "temporal blindness". This limitation hinders decisions about when to invoke tools, leading agents to either over-rely on stale context and skip needed tool calls, or under-rely on it and redundantly repeat tool calls. To study this challenge, we constructed TicToc, a diverse dataset of multi-turn user–agent message trajectories across 76 scenarios, spanning dynamic environments with high, medium, and low time sensitivity. We collected human preferences between "calling a tool" and "directly answering" on each sample, and evaluated how well LLM tool-calling decisions align with human preferences under varying amounts of elapsed time. Our analysis reveals that existing models display poor alignment with human temporal perception, with no models achieving a normalized alignment rate better than 65% when given time stamp information. We also show that naive, prompt-based alignment techniques have limited effectiveness for most models, but specific post-training alignment can be a viable way to align multi-turn LLM tool use with human temporal perception. Our data and findings provide a first step toward understanding and mitigating temporal blindness, offering insights to foster the development of more time-aware and human-aligned agents.

Your LLM Agents are Temporally Blind: The Misalignment Between Tool Use Decisions and Human Time Perception

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly adopted as autonomous agents in interactive environments, yet their ability to proactively address safety hazards remains insufficient. We introduce SafetyALFRED, built upon the embodied agent benchmark ALFRED, augmented with six categories of real-world kitchen hazards. While existing safety evaluations focus on hazard recognition through disembodied question answering (QA) settings, we evaluate eleven state-of-the-art models from the Qwen, Gemma, and Gemini families on not only hazard recognition, but also active risk mitigation through embodied task planning. Our experimental results reveal a significant alignment gap: while models can accurately recognize hazards in QA settings, average mitigation success rates for these hazards are low in comparison. Our findings demonstrate that static evaluations through QA are insufficient for physical safety, advocating for a paradigm shift toward benchmarks that prioritize multi-step corrective actions in embodied context.

SafetyALFRED: Evaluating Safety-Conscious Planning of Vision Language Models

AI-driven automated scoring systems offer scalable and efficient means of evaluating complex student-generated responses. Yet, despite increasing demand for transparency and interpretability, the field has yet to develop a widely accepted solution for interpretable automated scoring to be used in large-scale real-world assessments. This work takes a principled approach to address this challenge. We analyze the needs and potential benefits of interpretable automated scoring for various assessment stakeholder groups and develop four principles of interpretability -- (F)aithfulness, (G)roundedness, (T)raceability, and (I)nterchangeability (FGTI) -- targeted at those needs. To illustrate the feasibility of implementing these principles, we develop the AnalyticScore framework as a baseline reference framework. When applied to the domain of text-based constructed-response scoring, AnalyticScore outperforms many uninterpretable scoring methods in terms of scoring accuracy and is, on average, within 0.06 QWK of the uninterpretable SOTA across 10 items from the ASAP-SAS dataset. By comparing against human annotators conducting the same featurization task, we further demonstrate that the featurization behavior of AnalyticScore aligns well with that of humans.

Interpretability from the Ground Up: Stakeholder-Centric Design of Automated Scoring in Educational Assessments

LLM-based evaluation systems (LLM judges) have emerged as a scalable alternative to expensive human evaluations. Although LLM judges demonstrate 70-80% agreement with human evaluators, their robustness under semantically equivalent prompt variations remains underexplored. Through systematic evaluation of 8 models across 4 NLG tasks using 10 semantically equivalent paraphrases per prompt (~115000 evaluations), we identify a critical accuracy-robustness gap: attribute verifiability affects the robustness more than model choice, with factually verifiable attributes achieving 0.71 accuracy versus 0.19 for subjective attributes. Our investigations discover three key insights: 1) Task structure characteristics influence the robustness and in turn accuracy, 2) Attribute verifiability as the strongest predictor-factually verifiable attribute achieve 0.71 accuracy versus 0.19 for subjective attributes, 3) No single winning model-smallest model (Llama-3.1-8B) exhibits second-best performance, while the strongest model (Llama-4) from the same family significantly lag behind, thus demonstrating that general capability improvements do not necessarily result in evaluation robustness. With these findings, we propose a diagnostic framework grounded in attribute verifiability that enables principled decisions about evaluation automation. Our work establishes new standards for assessing LLM judge reliability beyond simple accuracy metrics.

All Prompts Are Created Equal? Evaluating Robustness of LLM Judges Against Non-Adversarial Prompt Variations

Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable of answering questions, but they are often unaware of their own knowledge boundary, i.e., knowing what they know and what they don't know. As a result, they can generate factually incorrect responses on topics they do not have enough knowledge of, commonly known as hallucination. Rather than hallucinating, a language model should be more honest and respond with "I don't know" when it does not have enough knowledge about a topic. Many methods have been proposed to improve LLM honesty, but their evaluations lack robustness, as they do not take into account the knowledge that the LLM has ingested during its pretraining. In this paper, we propose a more robust evaluation benchmark dataset for LLM honesty by utilizing Pythia, a truly open LLM with publicly available pretraining data. In addition, we also propose a novel method for harnessing the pretraining data to build a more honest LLM.

 Parametric Knowledge is Not All You Need: Toward Honest Large Language Models via Retrieval of Pretraining Data

Short-form news videos increasingly shape public perception through strategic framing, yet existing verification methods largely overlook the communicative intent underlying such content. By emphasizing surface semantics, current models struggle to separate stylistic presentation from factual evidence, which leads to shortcut learning and brittle generalization. To address this limitation, we propose the Origin–Objective–Means (OOM) framework, a theory-grounded representation of communicative intent that captures creator stance, audience need activation, and communication strategy. We validate OOM through large-scale human annotation, revealing distinct and consistent lexical and structural patterns across intent dimensions. Building on this representation, we operationalize intent as an explicit semantic condition rather than a prediction target. Concretely, we introduce Intent-Guided Prompting (IGP) to condition LLM reasoning and intent-conditioned multimodal detection framework (ICMD), which injects intent into multimodal detectors via feature-wise modulation. Experiments on FakeSV and FakeTT show that modeling intent as an intermediate condition consistently improves accuracy and robustness across diverse vision–language backbones, while substantially reducing reliance on spurious stylistic correlations.

From What Is Said to Why It Is Framed: Intent-Aware News Video Understanding

Curiosity serves as a fundamental construct in human cognition.
Inspired by curiosity, reinforcement learning with intrinsic rewards for large language models (LLMs) has shown substantial potential.
However, it remains unclear whether existing curiosity-driven methods genuinely reflect curiosity-like behaviors in LLMs, and to what extent psychological notions of curiosity can be transferred to these models. In this work, we propose a psychology-inspired framework to evaluate and leverage curiosity in LLMs.
We adapt the Five-Dimensional Curiosity scale Revised (5DCR) to LLMs and combine questionnaire-based self reports with behavioral study.
We find that although LLMs can exhibit curiosity-like behavioral patterns resembling those of humans, such patterns do not reflect an intrinsic trait of curiosity.
Building on this insight, we design a curiosity-driven thinking pipeline to examine the functional role of human-like curious behaviors. Experiments show that instructing LLMs to emulate curious strategies leads to better performance on selected downstream tasks, indicating that mimicking curious behaviors holds promise for reasoning enhancement.

Why Did Apple Fall: Evaluating Curiosity in Large Language Models

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) aims to standardize the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) with external tools, yet existing research primarily evaluates functional capabilities while treating the underlying protocol as an opaque black box. This oversight obscures critical inefficiencies in token flows and latency distributed across MCP’s decoupled Host-Client-Server architecture. In this paper, we introduce ProMCP, an end-to-end profiling and instrumentation framework that decomposes the MCP workflow into a six-stage communication pipeline, enabling granular attribution of computational costs. We evaluate widely varying deployment topologies—from air-gapped local models to commercial off-the-shelf (OTS) clients—across 20 servers and 169 tools from MCP-Bench and MCP-Universe. Our analysis reveals a distinct inversion in performance bottlenecks: topologies with customized clients devote 56–72% of total tokens and 60–67% of latency to planning and schema injection, whereas OTS clients concentrate over 85% of latency in final answer synthesis. Crucially, actual tool execution constitutes a negligible fraction of the total cost across all configurations. These findings establish a quantitative baseline for protocol overhead and demonstrate that future optimization must target schema orchestration and transport efficiency rather than tool execution speed. The code is available at: https://github.com/ResponsibleAILab/ProMCP.

ProMCP: Profiling Token Flows and Latency Costs in Model Context Protocol–Based LLM Agents

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a central paradigm for post-training large language models (LLMs), particularly for complex reasoning tasks, yet it often suffers from exploration collapse: policies prematurely concentrate on a small set of dominant reasoning patterns, improving pass@1 while limiting rollout-level diversity and gains in pass@k. We argue that this failure stems from regularizing local token behavior rather than diversity over sets of solutions. To address this, we propose Uniqueness-Aware Reinforcement Learning, a rollout-level objective that explicitly rewards correct solutions that exhibit rare high-level strategies. Our method uses an LLM-based judge to cluster rollouts for the same problem according to their high-level solution strategies, ignoring superficial variations, and reweights policy advantages inversely with cluster size. As a result, correct but novel strategies receive higher rewards than redundant ones. Across mathematics, physics, and medical reasoning benchmarks, our approach consistently improves pass@k across large sampling budgets and increases the area under the pass@k curve (AUC@K) without sacrificing pass@1, while sustaining exploration and uncovering more diverse solution strategies at scale. Code is in Software part under submission page.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

Switching Heads and Softening Tokens: Turnkey Solutions to Visually Grounded Document QA

Similar lecture

SMART: Simulated Students Aligned with Item Response Theory for Question Difficulty Prediction