China

Existing reasoning datasets saturate and fail to test abstract, multi-step problems, especially pathfinding and complex rule constraint satisfaction. We introduce SPaRC (Spatial Pathfinding Reasoning Challenge), a dataset of 1,000 2D grid pathfinding puzzles to evaluate spatial and rule-based reasoning, requiring step-by-step planning with arithmetic and geometric rules. Humans achieve near-perfect accuracy (98.0%; 94.5% on hard puzzles), while the best reasoning models, such as o4-mini, struggle (15.8%; 1.1% on hard puzzles). Models often generate invalid paths (&gt;50% of puzzles for o4-mini), and reasoning tokens reveal they make errors in navigation and spatial logic. Unlike humans, who take longer on hard puzzles, models fail to scale test-time compute with difficulty. Allowing models to make multiple solution attempts improves accuracy, suggesting potential for better spatial reasoning with improved training and efficient test-time scaling methods. SPaRC can be used as a window into models&#39; spatial reasoning limitations and drive research toward new methods that excel in abstract, multi-step problem-solving.

EMNLP 2025

SPaRC: A Spatial Pathfinding Reasoning Challenge

Existing reasoning datasets saturate and fail to test abstract, multi-step problems, especially pathfinding and complex rule constraint satisfaction. We introduce SPaRC (Spatial Pathfinding Reasoning Challenge), a dataset of 1,000 2D grid pathfinding puzzles to evaluate spatial and rule-based reasoning, requiring step-by-step planning with arithmetic and geometric rules. Humans achieve near-perfect accuracy (98.0%; 94.5% on hard puzzles), while the best reasoning models, such as o4-mini, struggle (15.8%; 1.1% on hard puzzles). Models often generate invalid paths (>50% of puzzles for o4-mini), and reasoning tokens reveal they make errors in navigation and spatial logic. Unlike humans, who take longer on hard puzzles, models fail to scale test-time compute with difficulty. Allowing models to make multiple solution attempts improves accuracy, suggesting potential for better spatial reasoning with improved training and efficient test-time scaling methods. SPaRC can be used as a window into models' spatial reasoning limitations and drive research toward new methods that excel in abstract, multi-step problem-solving.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable advancements in specialized fields such as finance, law, and medicine. However, in cybersecurity, we have noticed a lack of open-source datasets, with a particular lack of high-quality cybersecurity pretraining corpora, even though much research indicates that LLMs acquire their knowledge during pretraining. To address this, we present a comprehensive suite of datasets covering all major training stages, including pretraining, instruction fine-tuning, and reasoning distillation with cybersecurity-specific self-reflection data. Extensive ablation studies demonstrate their effectiveness on public cybersecurity benchmarks. In particular, continued pre-training on our dataset yields a **15.9%** improvement in the aggregate score, while reasoning distillation leads to a **15.8%** gain in security certification (CISSP). We will release all datasets and trained cybersecurity LLMs under the ODC-BY and MIT licenses to encourage further research in the community.

Primus: A Pioneering Collection of Open-Source Datasets for Cybersecurity LLM Training

Automatic evaluation of generative tasks with large language models faces challenges due to ambiguous criteria. Although automatic checklist generation is a potentially promising approach, its usefulness remains underexplored. We investigate whether checklists should be used for all questions or selectively, generate them via six methods, evaluate effectiveness across eight model sizes, and identify checklist items correlated with human evaluations. Through experiments on pairwise comparison and direct scoring tasks, we find that selective checklist use tends to improve evaluation performance in pairwise settings, while its benefits are less consistent in direct scoring. Our analysis also shows that even checklist items with low correlation to human scores often reflect human-written criteria, indicating potential inconsistencies in human evaluation. These findings highlight the need to more clearly define objective evaluation criteria to guide both human and automatic evaluations.

Are Checklists Really Useful for Automatic Evaluation of Generative Tasks?

Training data plays a crucial role in Large Language Models (LLM) scaling, yet high quality data is of limited supply. Synthetic data techniques offer a potential path toward sidestepping these limitations. We conduct a large-scale empirical investigation (>1000 LLMs with >100k GPU hours) using a unified protocol and scaling laws, comparing natural web data, diverse synthetic types (rephrased text, generated textbooks), and mixtures of natural and synthetic data. Specifically, we found pre-training on rephrased synthetic data textitalone is not faster than pre-training on natural web texts; while pre-training on 1/3 rephrased synthetic data mixed with 2/3 natural web texts can speed up 5-10x (to reach the same validation loss) at larger data budgets. Pre-training on textbook-style synthetic data textitalone results in notably higher loss on many downstream domains especially at small data budgets. ``Good'' ratios of synthetic data in training data mixtures depend on the model size and data budget, empirically converging to 30% for rephrased synthetic data. Larger generator models do not necessarily yield better pre-training data than 8B-param models. Our work demystifies synthetic data in pre-training, validates its conditional benefits, and offers practical guidance.

Demystifying Synthetic Data in LLM Pre-training: A Systematic Study of Scaling Laws, Benefits, and Pitfalls

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on medical benchmarks, yet their ability to perform medical calculations—an essential aspect of clinical decision-making—remains underexplored and poorly evaluated. Existing benchmarks often assess only the final answer with a wide numerical tolerance, overlooking systematic reasoning failures and potentially causing serious clinical misjudgments. In this work, we revisit medical calculation evaluation with a stronger focus on clinical trustworthiness. First, we clean and restructure the MedCalc-Bench dataset and propose a new step-by-step evaluation pipeline that independently assesses formula selection, entity extraction, and arithmetic computation. Under this granular framework, the accuracy of GPT-4o drop from 62.7% to 43.6%, revealing errors masked by prior evaluations. Second, we introduce an automatic error analysis framework that generates structured attribution for each failure mode. Human evaluation confirms its alignment with expert judgment, enabling scalable and explainable diagnostics. Finally, we propose a modular agentic pipeline, MedRaC, that combines retrieval-augmented generation and Python-based code execution. Without any fine-tuning, MedRaC improves the accuracy of different LLMs by 16.35% to 53.19%. Our work highlights the limitations of current benchmark practices and proposes a more clinically faithful methodology. By enabling transparent and transferable reasoning evaluation, we move closer to making LLM-based systems trustworthy for real-world medical applications.

From Scores to Steps: Diagnosing and Improving LLM Performance in Evidence-Based Medical Calculations

The evaluation of LLMs' creativity represents a crucial research domain, though challenges such as data contamination and costly human assessments often impede progress. Drawing inspiration from human creativity assessment, we propose PACE, asking LLMs to generate Parallel Chains of Associations to Evaluate their creativity. PACE minimizes the risk of data contamination and offers a straightforward, highly efficient evaluation, as evidenced by its strong correlation with Arena Creative Writing (Spearman's ρ = 0.739, p < 0.001) on various proprietary and open-source models. A comparative analysis of associative creativity between LLMs and humans reveals that while high-performing LLMs achieve scores comparable to average human performance, top-performing humans consistently outperform LLMs. Furthermore, linguistic analysis reveals that both humans and LLMs exhibit a trend of decreasing concreteness in their associations, and humans demonstrating a greater diversity of associative patterns.

Deep Associations, High Creativity: A Simple yet Effective Metric for Evaluating Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance on math word problems, yet they have been shown to struggle with meta-reasoning tasks such as identifying errors in student solutions. In this work, we investigate the challenge of locating the first error step in stepwise solutions using two error reasoning datasets: VtG and PRM800K. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to locate the first error step in student solutions even when given access to the reference solution. To that end, we propose an approach that generates an intermediate corrected student solution, aligning more closely with the original student's solution, which helps improve performance.

LLMs cannot spot math errors, even when allowed to peek into the solution

Information alignment evaluators are vital for various NLG evaluation tasks and trustworthy LLM deployment, reducing hallucinations and enhancing user trust. Current fine-grained methods, like FactScore, verify facts individually but neglect inter-fact dependencies, enabling subtle vulnerabilities. In this work, we introduce MontageLie, a challenging benchmark that constructs deceptive narratives by “montaging” truthful statements without introducing explicit hallucinations. We demonstrate that both coarse-grained LLM-based evaluators and current fine-grained frameworks are susceptible to this attack, with AUC-ROC scores falling below 65%. To enable more robust fine-grained evaluation, we propose DoveScore, a novel framework that jointly verifies factual accuracy and event-order consistency. By modeling inter-fact relationships, DoveScore outperforms existing fine-grained methods by over 8%, providing a more robust solution for long-form text alignment evaluation.

Long-Form Information Alignment Evaluation Beyond Atomic Facts

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for evaluating natural language generation (NLG), but the lack of reliability limits its deployment in high-risk applications. It has been very common to use LLMs to directly evaluate LLM-generated content while uncertainty quantification for rating evaluation remains underexplored. This work presents the first analysis framework to offer interval evaluations in LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous confidence intervals from a single evaluation run and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. Extensive experiments and analysis across evaluators and conformal prediction methods show that our framework yields narrow intervals with reliable coverage, enabling more trustworthy evaluation for downstream decision making.

Analyzing Uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge: Interval Evaluations with Conformal Prediction

Recent progress in large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent collaboration highlights the power of structured communication in enabling collective intelligence. However, existing methods largely rely on static or graph-based inter-agent topologies, lacking the potential adaptability and flexibility in communication. In this work, we propose a new framework that rethinks multi-agent coordination through a sequential structure rather than a graph structure, offering a significantly larger topology space for multi-agent communication. Our method focuses on two key directions: (1) Next-Agent Prediction, which selects the most suitable agent role at each step, and (2) Next-Context Selection (NCS), which enables each agent to selectively access relevant information from any previous step. Together, these components construct task-adaptive communication pipelines that support both role flexibility and global information flow. Extensive evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves superior performance while substantially reducing communication overhead.

AnyMAC: Cascading Flexible Multi-Agent Collaboration via Next-Agent Prediction

As people increasingly use AI systems in work and daily life, feedback mechanisms that help them use AI responsibly are urgently needed, particularly in settings where users are not equipped to assess the quality of AI predictions. We study a realistic Machine Translation (MT) scenario where monolingual users decide whether to share an MT output, first without and then with quality feedback. We compare four types of quality feedback: explicit feedback that directly give users an assessment of translation quality using 1) error highlights and 2) LLM explanations, and implicit feedback that helps users compare MT inputs and outputs through 3) backtranslation and 4) question–answer (QA) tables. We find that all feedback types, except error highlights, significantly improve both decision accuracy and appropriate reliance. Notably, implicit feedback, especially QA tables, yields significantly greater gains than explicit feedback in terms of decision accuracy, appropriate reliance, and user perceptions -- receiving the highest ratings for helpfulness and trust, and the lowest for mental burden.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2025

Primus: A Pioneering Collection of Open-Source Datasets for Cybersecurity LLM Training

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES