China

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science simulations. While their performance on reasoning and optimization tasks has been extensively evaluated, less attention has been paid to their ability to simulate the variability and adaptability of human decision-making. We propose a process-oriented evaluation framework with progressive interventions (Intrinsicality, Instruction, and Imitation) to examine how LLM agents adapt under different levels of external guidance and human-derived noise. We validate the framework on two classic economics tasks: irrationality in the second-price auction and decision bias in the newsvendor problem, demonstrating behavior gaps between LLMs and humans. We find that LLMs, by default, converge on stable and conservative strategies that diverge from observed human behaviors. Risk-framed instructions impact LLM behavior predictably but do not replicate human-like diversity. Incorporating human data through in-context learning narrows the gap but fails to capture the strategic variability of human subjects. These results highlight a persistent alignment gap in behavioral fidelity, suggesting that future LLM evaluations should consider more process-level realism. We present a process-oriented approach for assessing LLMs in dynamic decision-making tasks, offering guidance for their responsible application in synthetic data generation and social science research.

EMNLP 2025

Noise, Adaptation, and Strategy: Assessing LLM Fidelity in Decision-Making

human factors in nlp

behavior modeling

social science

## 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

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.

poster

## 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*

Celebrate 30 Years of EMNLP! 
EMNLP 2025 will be held in Suzhou, China from November 5th to November 9th, 2025.

Although small Large Language models (sLLMs) have been widely deployed in practical applications, little attention has been paid to their value-reasoning abilities, particularly in terms of reasoning reliability. To address this gap, we propose a systematic evaluation framework for assessing the Value-Reasoning Reliability of sLLMs. We define Value-Reasoning Reliability as comprising: (1) Output consistency under identical prompts, (2) Output Robustness under semantically equivalent prompts, (3) Maintaining stable value reasoning in the face of attacks, and (4) Consistency of value reasoning in open-ended value expression tasks. Our framework includes three core tasks: Repetition Consistency task, Interaction Stability task, and Open-ended Expression Consistency task. We further incorporate self-reported confidence scores to evaluate the model’s value reasoning reliability from two perspectives: the model’s self-awareness of its values, and its value-based decision-making. Our findings show that models vary significantly in their stability when responding to value-related questions. Moreover, we observe considerable output randomness, which is not always correlated with the self-reported confidence or expressed value preferences. This suggests that current models lack a reliable internal mechanism for stable value reasoning when addressing value-sensitive queries.

Investigating Value-Reasoning Reliability in Small Large Language Models

Explanations are an important tool for gaining insights into model behavior, calibrating user trust, and ensuring compliance. Past few years have seen a flurry of methods for generating explanations, many of which involve computing model gradients or solving specially designed optimization problems. Owing to the remarkable reasoning abilities of LLMs, *self-explanation*, ie, prompting the model to explain its outputs has recently emerged as a new paradigm. We study a specific type of self-explanations, *self-generated counterfactual explanations* (SCEs). We design tests for measuring the efficacy of LLMs in generating SCEs. Analysis over various LLM families, sizes, temperatures, and datasets reveals that LLMs often struggle to generate SCEs. When they do, their prediction often does not agree with their own counterfactual reasoning.

Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable tools across various applications, making it more important than ever to ensure the quality and the trustworthiness of their outputs. This has led to growing interest in uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for assessing the reliability of LLM outputs. Many existing UQ techniques rely on token probabilities, which inadvertently introduces a bias with respect to the length of the output. While some methods attempt to account for this, we demonstrate that such biases persist even in length-normalized approaches. To address the problem, here we propose UNCERTAINTY-LINE (Length-INvariant Estimation), a simple debiasing procedure that regresses uncertainty scores on output length and uses the residuals as corrected, length-invariant estimates. Our method is post-hoc, model-agnostic, and applicable to a range of UQ measures. Through extensive evaluation on machine translation, summarization, and question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that UNCERTAINTY-LINE consistently improves over even nominally length-normalized UQ methods uncertainty estimates across multiple metrics and models.

UNCERTAINTY-LINE: Length-Invariant Estimation of Uncertainty for Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot conversation summarization, but often exhibit positional bias—tending to overemphasize content from the beginning or end of a conversation while neglecting the middle. To address this issue, we introduce PoSum-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating positional bias in conversational summarization, featuring diverse English and French conversational datasets spanning formal meetings, casual conversations, and customer service interactions. We propose a novel semantic similarity-based sentence-level metric to quantify the direction and magnitude of positional bias in model-generated summaries, enabling systematic and reference-free evaluation across conversation positions, languages, and conversational contexts. Our benchmark and methodology thus provide the first systematic, cross-lingual framework for reference-free evaluation of positional bias in conversational summarization, laying the groundwork for developing more balanced and unbiased summarization models.

PoSum-Bench: Benchmarking Position Bias in LLM-based Conversational Summarization

Dialects represent a significant component of human culture and are found across all regions of the world. In Germany, more than 40% of the population speaks a regional dialect (Adler and Hansen, 2022). However, despite cultural importance, individuals speaking dialects often face negative societal stereotypes. We examine whether such stereotypes are mirrored by large language models (LLMs). We draw on the sociolinguistic literature on dialect perception to analyze traits commonly associated with dialect speakers. Based on these traits, we assess the dialect naming bias and dialect usage bias expressed by LLMs in two tasks: association task and decision task. To assess a model’s dialect usage bias, we construct a novel evaluation corpus that pairs sentences from seven regional German dialects (e.g., Alemannic and Bavarian) with their standard German counterparts. We find that: (1) in the association task, all evaluated LLMs exhibit significant dialect naming and dialect usage bias against German dialect speakers, reflected in negative adjective associations; (2) all models reproduce these dialect naming and dialect usage biases in their decision making; and (3) contrary to prior work showing minimal bias with explicit demographic mentions, we find that explicitly labeling linguistic demographics—German dialect speakers—amplifies bias more than implicit cues like dialect usage.

Large Language Models Discriminate Against Speakers of German Dialects

Attention-based language models typically rely on the softmax function to convert attention logits into probability distributions. However, this mechanism can lead to *attention entropy collapse*, where attention is focused on a single token, causing training instability. In this work, we identify the high *variance sensitivity* of softmax as a primary cause of this collapse. We show that *entropy-stable* attention mechanisms, which either control or are insensitive to the variance of attention logits, can prevent entropy collapse and enable more stable training. We provide empirical evidence of this effect in both large language models (LLMs) and a small Transformer model composed solely of self-attention and support our findings with theoretical analysis. Moreover, we identify that the concentration of attention probabilities increases the probability matrix norm, leading to a gradient exploding.

Variance Sensitivity Induces Attention Entropy Collapse and Instability in Transformers

Language models are often evaluated with scalar metrics like accuracy, but such measures fail to capture how models internally represent ambiguity, especially when human annotators disagree. We propose a topological perspective to analyze how fine-tuned models encode ambiguity and more generally instances. Applied to RoBERTa-Large on the MD-Offense dataset, Mapper, a tool from topological data analysis, reveals that fine-tuning restructures embedding space into modular, non-convex regions aligned with model predictions, even for highly ambiguous cases. Over 98% of connected components exhibit geq 90\% prediction purity, yet alignment with ground-truth labels drops in ambiguous data, surfacing a hidden tension between structural confidence and label uncertainty. Unlike traditional tool such as PCA or UMAP, Mapper captures this geometry directly uncovering decision regions, boundary collapses, and overconfident clusters. Our findings position Mapper as a powerful diagnostic tool for understanding how models resolve ambiguity. Beyond visualization, it also enables topological metrics that may inform proactive modeling strategies in subjective NLP tasks.

When Annotators Disagree, Topology Explains: Mapper, a Topological Tool for Exploring Text Embedding Geometry and Ambiguity

Misinformation remains one of the most significant issues in the digital age. While automated fact-checking has emerged as a viable solution, most current systems are limited to evaluating factual accuracy. However, the detrimental effect of misinformation transcends simple falsehoods; it takes advantage of how individuals perceive, interpret, and emotionally react to information. This underscores the need to move beyond factuality and adopt more human-centered detection frameworks. In this survey, we explore the evolving interplay between traditional fact-checking approaches and psychological concepts such as cognitive biases, social dynamics, and emotional responses. By analyzing state-of-the-art misinformation detection systems through the lens of human psychology and behavior, we reveal critical limitations of current methods and identify opportunities for improvement. Additionally, we outline future research directions aimed at creating more robust and adaptive frameworks, such as neuro-behavioural models that integrate technological factors with the complexities of human cognition and social influence. These approaches offer promising pathways to more effectively detect and mitigate the societal harms of misinformation.

The Psychology of Falsehood: A Human-Centric Survey of Misinformation Detection

The misuse of large language models (LLMs), such as academic plagiarism, has driven the development of detectors to identify LLM-generated texts. To bypass these detectors, paraphrase attacks have emerged to purposely rewrite these texts to evade detection. Despite the success, existing methods require substantial data and computational budgets to train a specialized paraphraser, and their attack efficacy greatly reduces when faced with advanced detection algorithms. To address this, we propose \textbf{Co}ntrastive \textbf{P}araphrase \textbf{A}ttack (CoPA), a training-free method that effectively deceives text detectors using off-the-shelf LLMs. The first step is to carefully craft instructions that encourage LLMs to produce more human-like texts. Nonetheless, we observe that the inherent statistical biases of LLMs can still result in some generated texts carrying certain machine-like attributes that can be captured by detectors. To overcome this, CoPA constructs an auxiliary machine-like word distribution as a contrast to the human-like distribution generated by the LLM. By subtracting the machine-like patterns from the human-like distribution during the decoding process, CoPA is able to produce sentences that are less discernible by text detectors. Our theoretical analysis suggests the superiority of the proposed attack. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of CoPA in fooling text detectors across various scenarios.

Your Language Model Can Secretly Write Like Humans: Contrastive Paraphrase Attacks on LLM-Generated Text Detectors

Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate grammatically well-formed text, but how do they encode their syntactic knowledge internally? While prior work has focused largely on binary grammatical contrasts, in this work, we study the representation and control of two multidimensional hierarchical grammar phenomena—verb tense and aspect—and for each, identify distinct, orthogonal directions in residual space using linear discriminant analysis. Next, we demonstrate causal control over both grammatical features through concept steering across three generation tasks. Then, we use these identified features in a case study to investigate factors influencing effective steering in multi-token generation. We find that steering strength, location, and duration are crucial parameters for reducing undesirable side effects such as topic shift and degeneration. Our findings suggest that models encode tense and aspect in structurally organized, human-like ways, but effective control of such features during generation is sensitive to multiple factors and requires manual tuning or automated optimization.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

Investigating Value-Reasoning Reliability in Small Large Language Models

Similar lecture

Will LLMs Sink or Swim? Exploring Decision-Making Under Pressure