United States

Formulaic criteria for proportional analogies, which capture relational mappings between two ratios of terms, are mainly confined to the formal level. As analogy datasets grow more complex, especially in evaluating the cognitive abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), assessing parallelism in them becomes increasingly challenging and often requires human annotation. In this work, we propose AnaScore, an automatic metric for evaluating the strength of semantic parallelism in sentence analogies. AnaScore systematically provides formalized explanations for shared relational patterns at the level of conceptual knowledge. We apply AnaScore to annotate several existing datasets, considering different directions of the relations, and uncover artifacts in data construction. Our experiments with various LLMs demonstrate the efficacy of the AnaScore metric in capturing the inherent quality of analogical relationships, showing a positive correlation between analogy quality and model performance. Thanks to this metric, we clearly demonstrate that formally explainable examples are more beneficial for analogical reasoning, while ambiguous analogies with no clear criterion tend to hinder inference.

NAACL 2025

AnaScore: Understanding Semantic Parallelism in Proportional Analogies

evaluation of datasets

sentence analogy

analogical reasoning

automatic metric

poster

### Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Welcome to the 2025 meeting of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics! I am proud to help organize the first NAACL conference to carry the new name of our organization, one that emphasizes inclusion for all of the Americas. I am also pleased to welcome you to Albuquerque, New Mexico, a state whose unique blend of cultural influences will make for an excellent backdrop for NAACL 2025, especially with this year’s special theme on NLP in a Multicultural World. 
**[Continue reading...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jX-qGhqVSZZCIrAnJaz798pflu5Irrdn/view?usp=sharing)**

*- Colin Cherry, Google, NAACL 2025 General Chair* 

[![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/b087f8a4dc5816d6e1a6514e59c59ac3.png)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T96GzPqObXrMln2BMByCSXTSizjTg69P/view?usp=sharing)

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

To access NAACL 2025 event page you are required to register. Please follow [**this link**](https://2025.naacl.org/registration/registration/) to register. Access will depend on your registration type.

Please register!

Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Recommendation explanation systems have become increasingly vital with the widespread adoption of recommender systems. However, existing recommendation explanation evaluation benchmarks suffer from limited item diversity, impractical user profiling requirements, and unreliable and unscalable evaluation protocols. We present ALERT, a model-agnostic recommendation explanation evaluation benchmark. The benchmark comprises three main contributions: 1) a diverse dataset encompassing 15 Amazon e-commerce categories with 2,761 user-item interactions, incorporating implicit preferences through purchase histories; 2) two novel LLM-powered automatic evaluators that enable scalable and human-preference aligned evaluation of explanations; and 3) a robust divide-and-aggregate approach that synthesizes multiple LLM judgments, achieving 70% concordance with expert human evaluation and substantially outperforming existing methods. ALERT facilitates comprehensive evaluation of recommendation explanations across diverse domains, advancing the development of more effective explanation systems.

ALERT: An LLM-powered Benchmark for Automatic Evaluation of Recommendation Explanations

As LLMs become increasingly prevalent, it is interesting to consider how ``creative'' these models can be. From cognitive science, creativity consists of at least two key characteristics: *convergent* thinking (purposefulness to achieve a given goal) and *divergent* thinking (adaptability to explore new environments or constraints) [runco2003critical]. In this work, we introduce a framework for quantifying LLM creativity that incorporates the two design ingredients: (1) We introduce DENIAL PROMPTING which pushes LLMs to develop more creative solutions to a given problem by incrementally imposing new constraints on the previous solution, compelling LLMs to adopt new strategies. (2) We define NEOGAUGE, a metric that quantifies both convergent and divergent thinking in the generated creative responses by LLMs. We test the proposed framework on Codeforces problems, which serve as both a natural dataset for coding tasks and a collection of prior human solutions. We quantify NEOGAUGE for various proprietary and open-source models and find that even the most creative model, GPT-4, still falls short of demonstrating human-like creativity. We also experiment with advanced reasoning strategies (MCTS, self-correction, etc.) and observe no significant improvement in creativity. As a by-product of our analysis, we release NEOCODER dataset for reproducing our results on future models.

Benchmarking Language Model Creativity: A Case Study on Code Generation

The integration of tools has extended the capabilities of language models (LMs) beyond vanilla text generation to versatile scenarios. However, tool-augmented language models (TaLMs) often assume `perfect' information access and tool availability, which may not hold in the real world. To systematically study TaLMs imperfections, we introduce the FAIL-TaLMs benchmark, featuring two major failures: under-specified user queries and non-available tools. FAIL-TaLMS contains 1,749 examples using 906 tools across 21 categories, including single- and multi-tool usage. We evaluate top-performing proprietary and open-source models, and find all current models except for Claude struggle to recognize missing tools or information. Further, to study possible mitigation of the failures, we enable real-time human interaction, named the Ask-and-Help method, to provide missing information or replace non-functional tools. While Ask-and-Help can help models solve tasks more correctly when queries are under-specified, it brings minimal benefit when complex tools are broken.

Benchmarking Failures in Tool-Augmented Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. However, despite these achievements, current evaluations are mostly limited to specific mathematical topics, and it remains unclear whether LLMs are genuinely engaging in reasoning. To address these gaps, we present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions across a wide array of mathematical subjects, each paired with a detailed hierarchical chain of topics. Upon assessing different LLMs using the MaTT benchmark, we find that GPT-4 achieved a mere 54% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario. Interestingly, even when employing Chain-of-Thought prompting, we observe mostly no notable improvement. Moreover, LLMs accuracy dramatically reduced by up to 24.2 percentage point when the questions were presented without providing choices. Further detailed analysis of the LLMs' performance across a range of topics showed significant discrepancy even for closely related subtopics within the same general mathematical area. In an effort to pinpoint the reasons behind LLMs performances, we conducted a manual evaluation of the completeness and correctness of the explanations generated by GPT-4 when choices were available. Surprisingly, we find that in only 53.3% of the instances where the model provided a correct answer, the accompanying explanations were deemed complete and accurate, i.e., the model engaged in genuine reasoning.

LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs

Leveraging external tools is a key feature for modern Language Models (LMs) to expand their capabilities and integrate them into existing systems. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on the accuracy of tool calling—whether the correct tool is called with the correct parameters—and less on evaluating when LMs should (not) call tools. We develop a new benchmark, When2Call, which evaluates tool-calling decision-making: when to generate a tool call, when to ask follow-up questions and when to admit the question can't be answered with the tools provided. We find that state-of-the-art tool-calling LMs show significant room for improvement on When2Call, indicating the importance of this benchmark. We also develop a training set for When2Call and leverage the multiple-choice nature of the benchmark to develop a preference optimization training regime, which shows considerably more improvement than traditional fine-tuning. We release the benchmark and training data as well as evaluation scripts.

When2Call: When (not) to Call Tools

One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and lower quality examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART Filtering on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether we are using SMART Filtering to make new benchmarks more challenging, or to revitalize older, human generated datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.

Improving Model Evaluation using SMART Filtering of Benchmark Datasets

Recent advancements in large language models (LLM) capable of processing extremely long texts highlight the need for a dedicated evaluation benchmark to assess their long-context capabilities. However, existing methods, like the needle-in-a-haystack test, do not effectively assess whether these models fully utilize contextual information, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation techniques. To thoroughly examine the effectiveness of existing benchmarks, we introduce a new metric called information coverage (IC), which quantifies the proportion of the input context necessary for answering queries. Our findings indicate that current benchmarks exhibit low IC; although the input context may be extensive, the actual usable context is often limited. To address this, we present ETHIC, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' ability to leverage the entire context. Our benchmark comprises 1,986 test instances spanning four long-context tasks with high IC scores in the domains of books, debates, medicine, and law. Our evaluations reveal significant performance drops in contemporary LLMs, highlighting a critical challenge in managing long contexts. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/ETHIC.

ETHIC: Evaluating Large Language Models on Long-Context Tasks with High Information Coverage

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns regarding their safety. While many studies have focused on English, the safety of LLMs in Arabic, with its linguistic and cultural complexities, remains under-explored. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. In particular, we present an Arab-region-specific safety evaluation dataset consisting of 5,799 questions, including direct attacks, indirect attacks, and harmless requests with sensitive words, adapted to reflect the socio-cultural context of the Arab world. To uncover the impact of different stances in handling sensitive and controversial topics, we propose a dual-perspective evaluation framework. It assesses the LLM responses from both governmental and opposition viewpoints. Experiments over five leading Arabic-centric and multilingual LLMs reveal substantial disparities in their safety performance. This reinforces the need for culturally specific datasets to ensure the responsible deployment of LLMs.

Arabic Dataset for LLM Safeguard Evaluation

In real-world settings, vision language models (VLMs) should robustly handle naturalistic, noisy visual content as well as domain-specific language and concepts. For example, K-12 educators using digital learning platforms may need to examine and provide feedback across many images of students' math work. To assess the potential of VLMs to support educators in settings like this one, we introduce DrawEduMath, an English-language dataset of 2,030 images of students' handwritten responses to K-12 math problems. Teachers provided detailed annotations, including free-form descriptions of each image and 11,661 question-answer (QA) pairs. These annotations capture a wealth of pedagogical insights, ranging from students' problem-solving strategies to the composition of their drawings, diagrams, and writing. We evaluate VLMs on teachers' QA pairs, as well as 44,362 synthetic QA pairs derived from teachers' descriptions using language models (LMs). We show that even state-of-the-art VLMs leave much room for improvement on DrawEduMath questions. We also find that synthetic QAs, though imperfect, can yield similar model rankings as teacher-written QAs. We release DrawEduMath to support the evaluation of VLMs' abilities to reason mathematically over images gathered with educational contexts in mind.

DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Images

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has increased the volume of machine-generated texts (MGTs) and blurred text authorship in various domains. However, most existing MGT benchmarks include single-author texts (human-written and machine-generated). This conventional design fails to capture more practical multi-author scenarios, where the user refines the LLM response for natural flow, coherence, and factual correctness. Our paper introduces the Benchmark of Expert-edited Machine-generated Outputs (Beemo), which includes 6.5k texts written by humans, generated by ten instruction-finetuned LLMs, and edited by experts for various use cases, ranging from creative writing to summarization. Beemo additionally comprises 13.1k machine-generated and LLM-edited texts, allowing for diverse MGT detection evaluation across various edit types. We document Beemo's creation protocol and present the results of benchmarking 33 configurations of MGT detectors in different experimental setups. We find that expert-based editing evades MGT detection, while LLM-edited texts are unlikely to be recognized as human-written. Beemo and all materials are publicly available.

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2025

ALERT: An LLM-powered Benchmark for Automatic Evaluation of Recommendation Explanations

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES