United States

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model&#39;s internal knowledge.

ACL 2026

Sycophants in the Courtroom: Are LLMs Fragile to Juridical Authority and Evolving Legal Standards?

### Welcome!
The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. Our Virtual Poster Sessions will take place online Thursday, August 22, 2024.

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.aclweb.org/registration). **

If you have already registered, please check your inbox for an email from Underline granting you access to ACL 2024 content.

Please register!

ACL 2024

The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. More information will be announced soon.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

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.

Surveys provide valuable insights into public opinion and behavior, but their execution is costly and slow. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a scalable, low-cost substitute for human respondents, but their outputs are often biased and yield invalid estimates. We study the interplay between synthesis methods that use LLMs to generate survey responses and rectification methods that debias population estimates, and explore how human responses are best allocated between them. Using two panel surveys with questions on nutrition, politics, and economics, we find that synthesis alone introduces substantial bias (24–86%), whereas combining it with rectification reduces bias below 5% and increases effective sample size by up to 14%. Overall, we challenge the common practice of using all human responses for fine-tuning, showing that under a fixed budget, allocating most to rectification results in far more effective estimation.

Valid Survey Simulations with Limited Human Data: The Roles of Prompting, Fine-Tuning, and Rectification

Language plays a critical role in Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, yet the linguistic characteristics of the datasets used to train and evaluate these systems remain poorly documented. In this work, we present a systematic dataset audit of several widely used VLA corpora, aiming to characterize what kinds of instructions these datasets actually contain and how much linguistic variety they provide. We quantify instruction language along complementary dimensions—including lexical variety, duplication and overlap, semantic similarity, and syntactic complexity. Our analysis shows that many datasets rely on highly repetitive, template-like commands with limited structural variation, yielding a narrow distribution of instruction forms. We position these findings as descriptive documentation of the language signal available in current VLA training and evaluation data, intended to support more detailed dataset reporting, more principled dataset selection, and targeted curation or augmentation strategies that broaden language coverage.

Limited Linguistic Diversity in Embodied AI Datasets

Large language models encode extensive world knowledge valuable for zero-shot named entity recognition. However, their causal attention mechanism, where tokens attend only to preceding context, prevents effective token classification when disambiguation requires future context. Existing approaches use LLMs generatively, prompting them to list entities or produce structured outputs, but suffer from slow autoregressive decoding, hallucinated entities, and formatting errors. We propose Just Pass Twice (JPT), a simple yet effective method that enables causal LLMs to perform discriminative token classification with full bidirectional context. Our key insight is that concatenating the input to itself lets each token in the second pass attend to the complete sentence, requiring no architectural modifications. We combine these representations with definition-guided entity embeddings for flexible zero-shot generalization. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on zero-shot NER benchmarks, surpassing the previous best method by +7.9 F1 on average across CrossNER and MIT benchmarks, being over 20× faster than comparable generative methods.

Just Pass Twice: Efficient Token Classification with LLMs for Zero-Shot NER

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel as conversational agents. However, these capabilities can be weaponized to automate social engineering attacks that gradually build rapport to compromise the online safety of users. To understand this, researchers have simulated LLM-based attacks in controlled settings. However, the existing simulators focus on just Personal Identifiable Information (PII) requests within the chat. Thus, to represent a complete attack scenario, we introduce PhishSim, an outcome-driven LLM-based phishing simulator that verifies compromise by simulating a victim completing an external action step, such as submitting credentials on a malicious platform. This enables the generation of diverse, multi-turn attack trajectories. Building on these trajectories, we position PhishGate as a practical mitigation baseline for outcome-grounded conversational phishing: a real-time multi-agent risk scorer that detects manipulation tactics and estimates the severity of ongoing chats. For ambiguous cases, it invokes RAG-supported consistency checks. Evaluating four state-of-the-art LLM backends in a real-time setting, we find that PhishGate improves dialogue-level detection over a real-time baseline. Our results highlight both the promise and brittleness of LLM-based real-time phishing defense, providing an outcome-grounded testbed for studying conversational compromise.

From Trust to Compromise: Outcome-Verified LLM Phishing Simulation and Real-Time Defense

Critique-guided reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for training LLM agents by augmenting sparse outcome rewards with natural-language feedback. However, current methods often rely on static or offline critic models, which fail to adapt as the policy evolves. In on-policy RL, the agent's trajectory distribution and error patterns shift over time, causing stationary critics to become stale and providing feedback of diminishing utility. To address this, we introduce ECHO (Evolving Critic for Hindsight-Guided Optimization), a framework that jointly optimizes the policy and critic through a synchronized co-evolutionary loop. ECHO utilizes a cascaded rollout mechanism where the critic generates multiple diagnoses for an initial trajectory, followed by policy refinement to enable group-structured advantage estimation. We address the challenge of learning plateaus via a saturation-aware gain shaping objective, which rewards the critic for inducing incremental improvements in high-performing trajectories. By employing synchronized dual-track GRPO updates, ECHO ensures the critic's feedback stays synchronized with the evolving policy. Experimental results show that ECHO yields more stable training and higher long-horizon task success across open-world environments.

No More Stale Feedback: Co-Evolving Critics for Open-World Agent Learning

Current evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) agents primarily emphasize task completion, often overlooking resource efficiency and adaptability. This neglects a crucial capability: agents’ ability to devise and adjust cost-optimal plans in response to changing environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce **CostBench**, a scalable, cost-centric benchmark designed to evaluate agents’ economic reasoning and replanning abilities. Situated in the travel-planning domain, CostBench comprises tasks solvable via multiple sequences of atomic and composite tools with diverse, customizable costs. It also supports four types of dynamic blocking events, such as tool failures and cost changes, to simulate real-world unpredictability and necessitate agents to adapt in real time. Evaluating leading open-sourced and proprietary models on CostBench reveals a substantial gap in cost-aware planning: agents frequently fail to identify cost-optimal solutions in static settings, with even *GPT-5* achieving less than 75% exact match rate on the hardest tasks, and performance further drops significantly under dynamic conditions. By diagnosing these weaknesses, CostBench lays the groundwork for developing future agents that are both economically rational and robust.

CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agents

Language is a process that changes over time as new vocabulary emerges, word meanings shift, and narratives progress. Despite this fact, most Large Language Models are trained on corpora that lack explicit temporal information, which inhibits their ability to model the language process. In this work, we introduce the Temporal Language Model 1 (TLM-1), a BERT style transformer encoder that models that language process by jointly learning to predict document contents and classify document publication dates. We also introduce a Bayesian framework for querying TLM-1 that disentangles its temporal dynamics from several sources of anachronism. Using this query framework, we demonstrate that TLM-1 effectively surfaces several sociolinguistic trends in contemporary American English and accurately detects semantic changes in word meanings. Furthermore, we perform a mechanistic analysis of TLM-1's time token embeddings, and find that they learn a curve whose geometry recovers the ordinal progression of time. We take the existence of this curve as evidence that TLM-1 is effectively learning to reconstruct temporal language dynamics.

A Model of the Language Process

While multimodal large language models can describe visual content, their ability to generate executable procedures remains underexplored. CrochetBench presented in this paper evaluates this shift from describing to doing through fine-grained procedural reasoning in crochet: models must recognize stitches, select structurally appropriate instructions, and generate compilable procedures. We adopt the CrochetPARADE DSL as our intermediate representation, enabling structural validation and functional evaluation via execution. The benchmark covers tasks including stitch classification, instruction grounding, and both natural language and image-to-DSL translation. Across all tasks, performance sharply decreases as the evaluation shifts from surface-level similarity to executable correctness, revealing limitations in long-range symbolic reasoning and 3D-aware procedural synthesis. Our proposed CrochetBench offers a new lens for assessing procedural competence in multimodal models and highlights the gap between surface-level understanding and executable precision in real-world creative domains. Code is available at https://github.com/Peiyu-Georgia-Li/crochetBench.

CrochetBench: Can Vision-Language Models Move from Describing to Doing in Crochet Domain?

LLMs have been widely used in planning, either as planners to generate action sequences end-to-end, or as formalizers to represent the planning domain and problem in a formal language that can derive plans deterministically. However, both lines of work rely on standard benchmarks that include only generic and simplistic environmental specifications, leading to potential overestimation of the planning ability of LLMs and safety concerns in downstream tasks. We bridge this gap by augmenting widely used planning benchmarks with manually annotated, fine-grained, and rich natural language constraints spanning four formally defined categories. Over 4 state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, 4 formal languages, and 4 datasets, we show that the introduction of one-sentence constraints consistently halves performance, indicating current LLMs' lack of robustness and an avenue for future research.

Language Model as Planner and Formalizer under Constraints

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into various domains, making knowledge editing techniques crucial yet potentially hazardous. Current editing methods primarily target atomic facts, overlooking the significant risks associated with manipulating ``factual opinions'', e.g., documented stances of public figures on societal issues. Such manipulation could reshape public images, influence elections, and alter societal views. To systematically assess this threat, we introduce the Factual Opinion Editing with Evidence (FOE) benchmark, which encompasses 261 public figures, 19 issue categories, and 2,178 complete opinion records. Our evaluations demonstrate that current editing techniques struggle significantly with factual opinions, often achieving only superficial changes while failing to preserve consistency between the edited opinion and the supporting evidence generated by the model. To address this limitation, we further propose a simple yet effective Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method that achieves opinion–evidence alignment without relying on explicit instructions. Together, our benchmark and method provide a foundation for understanding the emerging security implications of factual opinion editing in LLMs.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

Valid Survey Simulations with Limited Human Data: The Roles of Prompting, Fine-Tuning, and Rectification

Similar lecture

Leveraging Large Language Models for Learning Complex Legal Concepts through Storytelling