China

Existing alignment methods for preference optimization of large language models (LLMs) aim to enhance model performance by utilizing pairs of positive and negative samples. However, due to the limited capacity of models in scoring or generating responses, the quality of positive and negative samples may become similar during training, which complicates optimization for preference learning. To address this issue, we introduce SeaPO, a Strategic Error Amplification method that leverages multiple error types to introduce specific error patterns into the model Preference Optimization. This strategy ensures that negative samples are more erroneous than positive samples and preference-based training is employed to mitigate the occurrence of these errors, thereby enhancing model performance. Evaluations across five capability dimensions and different model scales (1.5B to 14B) demonstrate that the generated data significantly improved overall model performance, particularly in terms of truthfulness, with improvements of 5–10 percentage points observed. Further analysis reveals that task performance varies depending on the error types introduced. Injecting the most common error types improves performance in related tasks, while a mix of error types leads to a broader performance enhancement: most tasks show stable improvements, while a few tasks exhibit significant gains. The code and scripts are as follows: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SeaPO-4002.

EMNLP 2025

SeaPO: Strategic Error Amplification for Robust Preference Optimization of Large Language Models

error amplification

preference optimization

model alignment

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."<br>

*Message from the General Chair, Dirk Hovy*

[**Link to Conference Handbook**](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1johU5QqVVYO4RfH7QcIORr7qrVBdzdwC/view?usp=sharing)





<br>

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

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for downstream tasks often leads to catastrophic forgetting, notably degrading the safety of originally aligned models. While some existing methods attempt to restore safety by incorporating additional safety data, the quality of such data typically falls short of that used in the original alignment process. Moreover, these high-quality safety datasets are generally inaccessible, making it difficult to fully recover the model's original safety. We ask: How can we preserve safety while improving downstream task performance without additional safety data? We show that simply merging the weights of pre- and post-fine-tuned models effectively mitigates safety degradation while enhancing performance. Experiments across different downstream tasks and models validate the method’s practicality and effectiveness.

Safeguard Fine-Tuned LLMs Through Pre- and Post-Tuning Model Merging

Recent advances in chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting have demonstrated the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform multi-step reasoning. While prior work focuses on improving CoT generation quality or attributing token-level importance, we propose a novel framework to structurally analyze the latent dynamics of CoT trajectories for interpretability. Our method segments generated CoT into discrete reasoning steps, abstracts each step into a spectral embedding based on the eigenvalues of token-level Gram matrices, and clusters these embeddings into semantically meaningful latent states. We model the global evolution of reasoning as a first-order Markov chain over latent clusters, yielding interpretable transition structures. Through t-SNE visualizations and Monte Carlo rollouts, we uncover consistent trajectories across tasks and models, supporting the hypothesis that LLM reasoning follows globally coherent yet abstract paths.

Explainable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: An Empirical Analysis on State-Aware Reasoning Dynamics

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is widely used to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences, it typically assumes homogeneous preferences across users, overlooking diverse human values and minority viewpoints. Although personalized preference learning addresses this by tailoring separate preferences for individual users, the field lacks standardized methods to assess its effectiveness. We present a multi-faceted evaluation framework that measures not only performance but also fairness, unintended effects, and adaptability across varying levels of preference divergence. Through extensive experiments comparing eight personalization methods across three preference datasets, we demonstrate that performance differences between methods could reach 36% when users strongly disagree, and personalization can introduce up to 20% safety misalignment. These findings highlight the critical need for holistic evaluation approaches to advance the development of more effective and inclusive preference learning systems.

When Personalization Meets Reality: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Personalized Preference Learning

In modern dialogue systems, the ability to implicitly infer user backgrounds from conversations and leverage this information for personalized assistance is crucial. However, the scarcity of high-quality data remains a fundamental challenge to evaluating and improving this capability. Traditional dataset construction methods are labor-intensive, resource-demanding, and raise privacy concerns. To address these issues, we propose a novel approach for automatic synthetic data generation and introduce the **I**mplicit **P**ersonalized **Dialog**ue (**IP-Dialog**) benchmark along with a training dataset, covering 10 tasks and 12 user attribute types. Additionally, we develop a systematic evaluation framework with four metrics to assess both attribute awareness and reasoning capabilities. We further propose five causal graphs to elucidate models' reasoning pathways during implicit personalization. Extensive experiments yield insightful observations and prove the reliability of our dataset.

IP-Dialog: Evaluating Implicit Personalization in Dialogue Systems with Synthetic Data

The increasing autonomy of LLM agents in handling sensitive communications, accelerated by Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Agent-to-Agent (A2A) frameworks, creates urgent privacy challenges. While recent work reveals significant gaps between LLMs' privacy Q&A performance and their agent behavior, existing benchmarks remain limited to static, simplified scenarios. We present PrivacyChecker, a model-agnostic, contextual integrity based mitigation approach that effectively reduces privacy leakage from 36.08% to 7.30% on DeepSeek-R1 and from 33.06% to 8.32% on GPT-4o, all while preserving task helpfulness. We also introduce PrivacyLens-Live, transforming static benchmarks into dynamic MCP and A2A environments that reveal substantially higher privacy risks in practical. Our modular mitigation approach integrates seamlessly into agent protocols through three deployment strategies, providing practical privacy protection for the emerging agentic ecosystem. Our data and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PrivacyChecker-232F/.

Privacy in Action: Towards Realistic Privacy Mitigation and Evaluation for LLM-Powered Agents

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks simulate real-world human interactions by engaging large language models (LLMs) in iterative dialogues, exposing critical safety vulnerabilities. However, existing methods often struggle to balance semantic coherence with attack effectiveness, resulting in either benign semantic drift or ineffective detection evasion. To address this challenge, we propose Reasoning-Augmented Conversation (RACE), a novel multi-turn jailbreak framework that reformulates harmful queries into benign reasoning tasks and leverages LLMs’ strong reasoning capabilities to compromise safety alignment. Specifically, we introduce an attack state machine framework to systematically model problem translation and iterative reasoning, ensuring coherent query generation across multiple turns. Building on this framework, we design gain-guided exploration, self-play, and rejection feedback modules to preserve attack semantics, enhance effectiveness, and sustain reasoning-driven attack progression. Extensive experiments on multiple LLMs demonstrate that RACE achieves state-of-the-art attack effectiveness in complex conversational scenarios, with attack success rates (ASRs) increasing by up to 96%. Notably, our approach achieves average ASR of 83.3% against leading commercial models, including Gemini 2.0 Flashing Thinking and OpenAI o1, underscoring its potency.

Reasoning-Augmented Conversation for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models

Large Language Models are increasingly used in applications requiring objective assessment, which could be compromised by political bias. Many studies found preferences for left-leaning positions in LLMs, but downstream effects on tasks like fact-checking remain underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate political bias through exchanging words with euphemisms or dysphemisms in German claims. We construct minimal pairs of factually equivalent claims that differ in political connotation, to assess the consistency of LLMs in classifying them as true or false. We evaluate six LLMs and find that, more than political leaning, the presence of judgmental words significantly influences truthfulness assessment. While a few models show tendencies of political bias, this is not mitigated by explicitly calling for objectivism in prompts. Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.

PolBiX: Detecting LLMs' Political Bias in Fact-Checking through X-phemisms

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist in subjective decision-making (e.g., moral reasoning, advice), it is critical to understand whose preferences they align with—and why. While prior work uses aggregate human judgments, demographic variation and its linguistic drivers remain underexplored. We present a comprehensive analysis of how demographic background and empathy level correlate with preferences for LLM-generated dilemma responses, alongside a systematic study of predictive linguistic features (e.g., agency, emotional tone). Our findings reveal significant demographic divides and identify markers (e.g., power verbs, tentative phrasing) that predict group-level differences. These results underscore the need for demographically informed LLM evaluation.

Your Mileage May Vary: How Empathy and Demographics Shape Human Preferences in LLM Responses

LLM-as-Judge has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to provide reward signals in trainings. While recent work has explored multi-agent extensions such as multi-agent debate and meta-judging to enhance evaluation quality, the question of how intrinsic biases manifest in these settings remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias. We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge. **Our results show that debate framework amplifies biases sharply after the initial debate, and this increased bias is sustained in subsequent rounds, while meta-judge approaches exhibit greater resistance.** We further investigate the incorporation of PINE, a leading single-agent debiasing method, as a bias-free agent within these systems. **The results reveal that this bias-free agent effectively reduces biases in debate settings but provides less benefit in meta-judge scenarios.** Our work provides a comprehensive study of bias behavior in multi-agent LLM-as-Judge systems and highlights the need for targeted bias mitigation strategies in collaborative evaluation settings.

Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplification and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge

We critically assess the efficacy of the current SOTA in hallucination detection and find that its performance on the RAGTruth dataset is largely driven by a spurious correlation with data. Controlling for this effect, state-of-the-art performs no better than supervised linear probes, while requiring extensive hyperparameter tuning across datasets. Out-of-distribution generalization is currently out of reach, with all of the analyzed methods performing close to random. We propose a set of guidelines for hallucination detection and its evaluation.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

Safeguard Fine-Tuned LLMs Through Pre- and Post-Tuning Model Merging