Austria

Steering methods for language models (LMs) have gained traction as lightweight alternatives to fine-tuning, enabling targeted modifications to model activations. However, prior studies primarily report results on a few models, leaving critical gaps in understanding the robustness of these methods. In this work, we systematically examine three prominent steering methods---DoLa, function vectors, and task vectors. In contrast to the original studies, which evaluated a handful of models, we test up to 36 models belonging to 14 families with sizes ranging from 1.5B to 70B parameters. Our experiments reveal substantial variability in the effectiveness of the steering approaches, with a large number of models showing no improvement and at times degradation in steering performance. Our analysis reveals fundamental flaws in the assumptions underlying these methods, challenging their reliability as scalable steering solutions.

ACL 2025

Steering off Course: Reliability Challenges in Steering Language Models

model steering

robustness

reliability

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

ACL 2026

The 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2026) will take place in San Diego, California, from July 2 - 7, 2026.

technical paper

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s 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.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

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 2025". 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 need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

The rapid expansion of Large Language Models (LLMs) and natural language processing datasets has made exhaustive benchmark evaluations computationally prohibitive. Inspired by high-stakes competitions like the International Mathematical Olympiad-where a few well-chosen problems suffice to differentiate top performers—we present SubLIME, which reduces evaluation costs by 80% to 99% while preserving ranking fidelity. It trains a Rank Correlation Prediction (RCP) model that combines limited performance data from only 5-20 anchor LLMs with dataset intrinsic metrics - Difficulty, Quality, and Distributional Dispersion-to predict how closely a candidate subset reflects full-benchmark rankings. Guided by these predictions, SubLIME selects a ``winning'' subset (1-20% of full set data) for evaluating new LLMs, preserving global rankings significant better than other data-efficient methods across ten diverse benchmarks.

SubLIME: Subset Selection via Rank Correlation Prediction for Data-Efficient LLM Evaluation

In generative commonsense reasoning tasks such as CommonGen, generative large language models (LLMs) compose sentences that include all given concepts. However, when focusing on instruction-following capabilities, if a prompt specifies a concept order, LLMs must generate sentences that adhere to the specified order. To address this, we propose Ordered CommonGen, a benchmark designed to evaluate the compositional generalization and instruction-following abilities of LLMs. This benchmark measures ordered coverage to assess whether concepts are generated in the specified order, enabling a simultaneous evaluation of both abilities. We conducted a comprehensive analysis using 36 LLMs and found that, while LLMs generally understand the intent of instructions, biases toward specific concept order patterns often lead to low-diversity outputs or identical results even when the concept order is altered. Moreover, even the most instruction-compliant LLM achieved only about 75% ordered coverage, highlighting the need for improvements in both instruction-following and compositional generalization capabilities.

Revisiting Compositional Generalization Capability of Large Language Models Considering Instruction Following Ability

A core aspect of compositionality, systematicity is a desirable property in ML models as it enables strong generalization to novel contexts. This has led to numerous studies proposing benchmarks to assess systematic generalization, as well as models and training regimes designed to enhance it. Many of these efforts are framed as addressing the challenge posed by Fodor and Pylyshyn. However, while they argue for systematicity of representations, existing benchmarks and models primarily focus on the systematicity of behaviour. We emphasize the crucial nature of this distinction. Furthermore, building on Hadley's (1994) taxonomy of systematic generalization, we analyze the extent to which behavioural systematicity is tested by key benchmarks in the literature across language and vision. Finally, we highlight ways of assessing systematicity of representations in ML models as practiced in the field of mechanistic interpretability.

Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Preference Optimization (PO) are key processes for aligning Language Models (LMs) with human preferences post pre-training. While SFT excels in efficiency and PO in effectiveness, they are often combined sequentially without integrating their optimization objectives. This approach ignores the opportunities to bridge their paradigm gap and take the strengths from both. In this paper, we interpret SFT and PO with two sub-processes — *Preference Estimation* and *Transition Optimization* — defined at token level within the Markov Decision Process (MDP). This modeling shows that SFT is only a special case of PO with inferior estimation and optimization. PO estimates the model's preference by its entire generation, while SFT only scores model's subsequent predicted tokens based on prior tokens from ground truth answer. These priors deviates from model's distribution, hindering the preference estimation and transition optimization. Building on this view, we introduce **Intuitive Fine-Tuning (IFT)** to integrate SFT and PO into a single process. Through a temporal residual connection, IFT brings better estimation and optimization by capturing LMs' intuitive sense of its entire answers. But it solely relies on a single policy and the same volume of non-preference-labeled data as SFT. Our experiments show that IFT performs comparably or even superiorly to SFT and some typical PO methods across several tasks, particularly those requires generation, reasoning, and fact-following abilities. An explainable Frozen Lake game further validates the effectiveness of IFT for getting competitive policy.

Intuitive Fine-Tuning: Towards Simplifying Alignment into a Single Process

Large language models (LLMs) require alignment to effectively and safely follow user instructions. This process necessitates training an aligned version for every base model, resulting in significant computational overhead. In this work, we propose NUDGING, a simple, training-free algorithm that aligns any base model at inference time using a small aligned model. NUDGING is motivated by recent findings that alignment primarily alters the model’s behavior on a small subset of stylistic tokens (e.g., discourse markers). We find that base models are significantly more uncertain when generating these tokens. Building on this insight, NUDGING employs a small aligned model to generate nudging tokens to guide the base model’s output during decoding when the base model’s uncertainty is high, with only a minor additional inference overhead. We evaluate NUDGING across 3 model families on a diverse range of open-instruction tasks. Without any training, nudging a large base model with a 7×-14× smaller aligned model achieves zero-shot performance comparable to, and sometimes surpassing, that of large aligned models. By operating at the token level, NUDGING enables off-the-shelf collaboration between model families. For instance, nudging Gemma-2-27b with Llama-27b-chat outperforms Llama-2-70b-chat on various tasks. Overall, our work offers a modular and cost-efficient solution to LLM alignment. Our code and demo are available at: https://fywalter.github.io/nudging/.

Nudging: Inference-time Alignment of LLMs via Guided Decoding

Large language models (LLMs) may exhibit unintended or undesirable behaviors. Recent works have concentrated on aligning LLMs to mitigate harmful outputs. Despite these efforts, some anomalies indicate that even a well-conducted alignment process can be easily circumvented, whether intentionally or accidentally. Does alignment fine-tuning yield have robust effects on models, or are its impacts merely superficial? In this work, we make the first exploration of this phenomenon from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Empirically, we demonstrate the \textit{elasticity} of post-alignment models, i.e., the tendency to revert to the behavior distribution formed during the pre-training phase upon further fine-tuning. Leveraging compression theory, we formally deduce that fine-tuning disproportionately undermines alignment relative to pre-training, potentially by orders of magnitude. We validate the presence of elasticity through experiments on models of varying types and scales. Specifically, we find that model performance declines rapidly before reverting to the pre-training distribution, after which the rate of decline drops significantly. Furthermore, we further reveal that elasticity positively correlates with the increased model size and the expansion of pre-training data. Our findings underscore the need to address the inherent elasticity of LLMs to mitigate their resistance to alignment.

Language Models Resist Alignment: Evidence From Data Compression

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly central to AI applications worldwide, necessitating robust multilingual safety alignment to ensure secure deployment across diverse linguistic contexts. Existing preference learning methods for safety alignment, such as RLHF and DPO, are primarily monolingual and struggle with noisy multilingual data. To address these limitations, we introduce \textbf{\underline{Mul}}tilingual reward ga\textbf{\underline{P}} \textbf{\underline{O}}ptimization (\textbf{MPO}), a novel approach that leverages the well-aligned safety capabilities of the dominant language (\textit{e.g.}, English) to improve safety alignment across multiple languages. MPO directly minimizes the reward gap difference between the dominant language and target languages, effectively transferring safety capabilities while preserving the original strengths of the dominant language. Extensive experiments on three LLMs, LLaMA-3.1, Gemma-2 and Qwen2.5, validate MPO’s efficacy in multilingual safety alignment without degrading general multilingual utility.

MPO: Multilingual Safety Alignment via Reward Gap Optimization

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

Unintended Harms of Value-Aligned LLMs: Psychological and Empirical Insights

Moral reasoning is a complex cognitive process shaped by individual experiences and cultural contexts and presents unique challenges for computational analysis. While natural language processing (NLP) offers promising tools for studying this phenomenon, current research lacks cohesion, employing discordant datasets and tasks that examine isolated aspects of moral reasoning. We bridge this gap with UniMoral, a unified dataset integrating psychologically grounded and social-media-derived moral dilemmas annotated with labels for action choices, ethical principles, contributing factors, and consequences, alongside annotators’ moral and cultural profiles. Recognizing the cultural relativity of moral reasoning, UniMoral spans six languages, Arabic, Chinese, English, Hindi, Russian, and Spanish, capturing diverse socio-cultural contexts. We demonstrate UniMoral's utility through a benchmark evaluations of three large language models (LLMs) across four tasks: action prediction, moral typology classification, factor attribution analysis, and consequence generation. Key findings reveal that while implicitly embedded moral contexts enhance the moral reasoning capability of LLMs, there remains a critical need for increasingly specialized approaches to further advance moral reasoning in these models.

Are Rules Meant to be Broken? Understanding Multilingual Moral Reasoning as a Computational Pipeline with UniMoral

Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., referring to girls as ``terrorists'' may be less harmful than referring to Muslim people as such). Thus, in contrast to most fairness work, we study fairness through the perspective of treating people differently --- when it is contextually appropriate to. We first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires separate interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension to fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

SubLIME: Subset Selection via Rank Correlation Prediction for Data-Efficient LLM Evaluation

Similar lecture

Compositional Steering of Large Language Models with Steering Tokens