United States

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, we
present a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?

This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with &quot;deficiency&quot; labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) &quot;LLMs as Reviewers&quot;, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) &quot;LLMs as Metareviewers&quot;, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

EMNLP 2024

LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing

academia

domain-specific

language models

#### *Message from the General Chair, Aline Villavicencio*
I’m delighted and honoured to welcome you to the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2026), taking place in the beautiful city of Rabat, in Morocco, in March 24-29, 2026. EACL is the flagship European conference of the Association and EACL 2026 proudly continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity. I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers whose dedication, generosity, and tireless efforts have made this conference possible.
For the first time EACL is being hosted in the African continent. This is an important milestone for our community, and we are grateful to our Moroccan hosts for enabling this historic moment by bringing this edition of EACL to Rabat. We are also delighted that the Second Arabic NLP School is co-located with EACL. We hope attendees enjoy this wonderful opportunity to strengthen ties with the Computational Linguistics communities across the African continent. *[Read full message](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14NlmHvwM6fPJuMmOvVh7K0vtQbEyv3SZ/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://underline.io/events/522/reception','_blank')">Go to Workshops and Tutorials Program</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 EACL 2026". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you are required to register.
Please complete your registration to continue.

We recommend reading [**the registration information**](https://2026.eacl.org/registration/) first.

**Online Registration Form**: https://acl.swoogo.com/eacl2026

Registration Required

EACL 2026

Welcome to the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL). EACL 2026 will be held in Rabat, Morocco, from March 24–29, 2026. 

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, we
present a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?

This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

technical paper

## Welcome to EMNLP 2024! 
We are excited to welcome you to one of the most prominent conferences in the field of Natural Language Processing. This year, EMNLP 2024 is being held in a hybrid format,
offering both virtual and in-person participation in beautiful Miami. Due to a record-breaking number of submissions, we've expanded the total number of accepted papers to accommodate more cutting-edge research from around the globe.
### [Conference Handbook](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WPROgxjLAC96AJL7Ugy0tEnYm7dkrbHt/view?usp=sharing)

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.emnlp.org/registration/).** The EMNLP 2024 event page on Underline will be open to public one week prior to the event.

Please register!

EMNLP 2024 will take place in Miami, Florida from Nov 12th to Nov 16th, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency Miami Hote and on Underline for remote participants.

The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) are the topic of a growing body of research in AI and cognitive science. In this paper, we probe the extent to which twenty-nine LLMs are able to distinguish logically correct inferences from logically fallacious ones. We focus on inference patterns involving conditionals (e.g., '*If* Ann has a queen, *then* Bob has a jack') and epistemic modals (e.g., 'Ann *might* have an ace', 'Bob *must* have a king'). These inferences have been of special interest to logicians, philosophers, and linguists, since they play a central role in the fundamental human ability to reason about distal possibilities. Assessing LLMs on these inferences is thus highly relevant to the question of how much the reasoning abilities of LLMs match those of humans. All the LLMs we tested make some basic mistakes with conditionals or modals, though zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting helps them make fewer mistakes. Even the best performing LLMs make basic errors in modal reasoning, display logically inconsistent judgments across inference patterns involving epistemic modals and conditionals, and give answers about complex conditional inferences that do not match reported human judgments. These results highlight gaps in basic logical reasoning in today's LLMs.

Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically shipped with tokenizers that *deterministically* encode text into so-called *canonical* token sequences, to which the LLMs assign probability values.
One common assumption is that the probability of a piece of text is the probability of its canonical token sequence.
However, the tokenization of a string is not unique: e.g., the Llama2 tokenizer encodes `Tokens` as `[Tok,ens]`, but `[Tok,en,s]` also represents the same text.
In this paper, we study non-canonical tokenizations.
We prove that, given a string, it is computationally hard to find the most likely tokenization for an autoregressive LLM, as well as to compute the marginal probability over all possible tokenizations.
We then show how the marginal is, in most cases, indistinguishable from the canonical probability.
Surprisingly, we then empirically demonstrate the existence of a significant amount of signal hidden within tokenization space.
Notably, by simply aggregating the probabilities of non-canonical tokenizations, we achieve improvements across a range of LLM evaluation benchmarks for a variety of architectures, including transformers and state space models.

Where is the signal in tokenization space?

This paper investigates Who's Harry Potter (WHP), a pioneering yet insufficiently understood method for LLM unlearning. We explore it in two steps. First, we introduce a new task of LLM targeted unlearning, where given an unlearning target (e.g., a person) and some unlearning documents, we aim to unlearn only the information about the target, rather than everything in the unlearning documents. We further argue that a successful unlearning should satisfy criteria such as not outputting gibberish, not fabricating facts about the unlearning target, and not releasing factual information under jailbreak attacks. Second, we construct a causal intervention framework for targeted unlearning, where the knowledge of the unlearning target is modeled as a confounder between LLM input and output, and the unlearning process as a deconfounding process. This framework justifies and extends WHP, deriving a simple unlearning algorithm that includes WHP as a special case. Experiments on existing and new datasets show that our approach, without explicitly optimizing for the aforementioned criteria, achieves competitive performance in all of them.

Revisiting Who’s Harry Potter: Towards Targeted Unlearning from a Causal Intervention Perspective

The task of condensing large chunks of textual information into concise and structured tables has gained attention recently due to the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their potential benefit for downstream tasks, such as text summarization and text mining. Previous approaches often generate tables that directly replicate information from the text, limiting their applicability in broader contexts, as text-to-table generation in real-life scenarios necessitates information extraction, reasoning, and integration. However, there is a lack of both datasets and methodologies towards this task. In this paper, we introduce LiveSum, a new benchmark dataset created for generating summary tables of competitions based on real-time commentary texts. We evaluate the performances of state-of-the-art LLMs on this task in both fine-tuning and zero-shot settings, and additionally propose a novel pipeline called $T^3$
(Text-Tuple-Table) to improve their performances. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that LLMs still struggle with this task even after fine-tuning, while our approach can offer substantial performance gains without explicit training. Further analyses demonstrate that our method exhibits strong generalization abilities, surpassing previous approaches on several other text-to-table datasets. Our code
and data can be found at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/LiveSum.

Text-Tuple-Table: Towards Information Integration in Text-to-Table Generation via Global Tuple Extraction

Entity Linking (EL) is the process of associating ambiguous textual mentions to specific entities in a knowledge base.
Traditional EL methods heavily rely on large datasets to enhance their performance, a dependency that becomes problematic in the context of few-shot entity linking, where only a limited number of examples are available for training. 
To address this challenge, we present OneNet, an innovative framework that utilizes the few-shot learning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) without the need for fine-tuning. To the best of our knowledge, this marks a pioneering approach to applying LLMs to few-shot entity linking tasks. OneNet is structured around three key components prompted by LLMs: (1) an entity reduction processor that simplifies inputs by summarizing and filtering out irrelevant entities, (2) a dual-perspective entity linker that combines contextual cues and prior knowledge for precise entity linking, and (3) an entity consensus judger that employs a unique consistency algorithm to alleviate the hallucination in the entity linking reasoning.
Comprehensive evaluations across seven benchmark datasets reveal that OneNet outperforms current state-of-the-art entity linking methods.

OneNet: A Fine-Tuning Free Framework for Few-Shot Entity Linking via Large Language Model Prompting

We study LLMs' ability to extrapolate the behavior of various dynamical systems, including stochastic, chaotic, continuous, and discrete systems, whose evolution is governed by principles of physical interest. Our results show that LLaMA-2, a language model trained on text, achieves accurate predictions of dynamical system time series without fine-tuning or prompt engineering. Moreover, the accuracy of the learned physical rules increases with the length of the input context window, revealing an in-context version of a neural scaling law. Along the way, we present a flexible and efficient algorithm for extracting probability density functions of multi-digit numbers directly from LLMs.

LLMs learn governing principles of dynamical systems, revealing an in-context neural scaling law

The task of text-to-table receives widespread attention, yet its importance and difficulty are underestimated. Existing works use simple datasets similar to table-to-text tasks and employ methods that ignore domain structures. As a bridge between raw text and statistical analysis, the text-to-table task often deals with complex semi-structured texts that refer to specific domain topics in the real world with entities and events, especially from those of social sciences. In this paper, we analyze the limitations of benchmark datasets and methods used in the text-to-table literature and redefine the text-to-table task to improve its compatibility with long text-processing tasks. Based on this redefinition, we propose a new dataset called CPL (Chinese Private Lending), which consists of judgments from China and is derived from a real-world legal academic project. We further propose TKGT (Text-KG-Table), a two stages domain-aware pipeline, which firstly generates domain knowledge graphs (KGs) classes semi-automatically from raw text with the mixed information extraction (Mixed-IE) method, then adopts the hybrid retrieval augmented generation (Hybird-RAG) method to transform it to tables for downstream needs under the guidance of KGs classes. Experiment results show that TKGT achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on both traditional datasets and the CPL. Our data and main code are available at https://github.com/jiangpw41/TKGT.

TKGT: Redefinition and A New Way of Text-to-Table Tasks Based on Real World Demands and Knowledge Graphs Augmented LLMs

End-to-end neural Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are notoriously difficult to understand. This has given rise to numerous efforts towards model explainability in recent years. One desideratum of model explanation is faithfulness, i.e. an explanation should accurately represent the reasoning process behind the modelâs prediction. In this survey, we review over 110 model explanation methods in NLP through the lens of faithfulness. We first discuss the definition and evaluation of faithfulness, as well as its significance for explainability. We then introduce recent advances in faithful explanation, grouping existing approaches into five categories: similarity methods, analysis of model-internal structures, backpropagation-based methods, counterfactual intervention, and self-explanatory models. For each category, we synthesize its representative studies, strengths, and weaknesses. Finally, we summarize their common virtues and remaining challenges, and reflect on future work directions towards faithful explainability in NLP.

Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey

Understanding the abilities of LLMs to reason about natural language plans, such as instructional text and recipes, is critical to reliably using them in decision-making systems. A fundamental aspect of plans is the temporal order in which their steps need to be executed, which reflects the underlying causal dependencies between them. We introduce CaT-Bench, a benchmark of Step Order Prediction questions, which test whether a step must necessarily occur before or after another in cooking recipe plans. We use this to evaluate how well frontier LLMs understand causal and temporal dependencies. We find that SOTA LLMs are underwhelming (best zero-shot is only 0.59 in F1), and are biased towards predicting dependence more often, perhaps relying on temporal order of steps as a heuristic. While prompting for explanations and using few-shot examples improve performance, the best F1 result is only 0.73. Further, human evaluation of explanations along with answer correctness show that, on average, humans do not agree with model reasoning. Surprisingly, we also find that explaining after answering leads to better performance than normal chain-of-thought prompting, and LLM answers are not consistent across questions about the same step pairs. Overall, results show that LLMs' ability to detect dependence between steps has significant room for improvement.

CaT-Bench: Benchmarking Language Model Understanding of Causal and Temporal Dependencies in Plans

Recent rapid progress in the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has been driven in large part by innovations in architectures and algorithms for developing large scale artificial neural networks. As a consequence, it’s natural to ask what role abstract principles of intelligence — such as Bayes’ rule — might play in developing intelligent machines. In this talk, I will argue that there is a new way in which Bayes can be used in the context of AI, more akin to how it is used in cognitive science: providing an abstract description of how agents should solve certain problems and hence a tool for understanding their behavior. This new role is motivated in large part by the fact that we have succeeded in creating intelligent systems that we do not fully understand, making the problem for the machine learning researcher more closely parallel that of the cognitive scientist. I will talk about how this perspective can help us think about making machines with better informed priors about the world and give us insight into their behavior by directly creating cognitive models of neural networks.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2024

Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Similar lecture

Decision-Making with Deliberation: Meta-reviewing as a Document-grounded Dialogue