China

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.

EMNLP 2025

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

knowledge tracing/discovering/inducing

calibration/uncertainty

probing

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.

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.

Representation-based Broad Hallucination Detectors Fail to Generalize Out of Distribution

Jailbreak attacks pose persistent threats to large language models (LLMs). Current safety alignment methods have attempted to address these issues, but they experience two significant limitations: insufficient safety alignment depth and unrobust internal defense mechanisms. These limitations make them vulnerable to adversarial attacks such as prefilling and refusal direction manipulation. We introduce DeepRefusal, a robust safety alignment framework that overcomes these issues. DeepRefusal forces the model to dynamically rebuild its refusal mechanisms from jailbreak states. This is achieved by probabilistically ablating the refusal direction across layers and token depths during fine-tuning. Our method not only defends against prefilling and refusal direction attacks but also demonstrates strong resilience against other unseen jailbreak strategies. Extensive evaluations on four open-source LLM families and six representative attacks show that DeepRefusal reduces attack success rates by approximately 95%, while maintaining model capabilities with minimal performance degradation.

Beyond Surface Alignment: Rebuilding LLMs Safety Mechanism via Probabilistically Ablating Refusal Direction

The rapid proliferation of large language models and multimodal generative models has raised concerns about their potential vulnerabilities to a wide range of real-world safety risks. However, a critical gap persists in systematic assessment, alongside the lack of evaluation frameworks to keep pace with the breadth and variability of real-world risk factors. In this paper, we introduce TroGEN, an automated jailbreak prompt generation framework that assesses these vulnerabilities by deriving scenario-driven jailbreak prompts using an adversarial agent. Moving beyond labor-intensive dataset construction, TroGEN features an extensible design that covers broad range of risks, supports plug-and-play jailbreak strategies, and adapts seamlessly to multimodal settings. Experimental results demonstrate that TroGEN effectively uncovers safety weaknesses, revealing susceptibilities to adversarial attacks that conceal malicious intent beneath an apparently benign facade, like a Trojan horse. Furthermore, such stealthy attacks exhibit resilience even against existing jailbreak defense methods.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

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