United States

This paper introduces ChatbotManip, a novel dataset for studying manipulation in Chatbots. It contains simulated generated conversations between a chatbot and a (simulated) user, where the chatbot is explicitly asked to showcase manipulation tactics, persuade the user towards some goal, or simply be helpful. We consider a diverse set of chatbot manipulation contexts, from consumer and personal advice to citizen advice and controversial proposition argumentation. Each conversation is annotated by human annotators for both general manipulation and specific manipulation tactics. Our research reveals three key findings. First, Large Language Models (LLMs) can be manipulative when explicitly instructed, with annotators identifying manipulation in approximately 84% of such conversations. Second, even when only instructed to be ``persuasive&#39;&#39; without explicit manipulation prompts, LLMs frequently default to controversial manipulative strategies, particularly Gaslighting and Fear Enhancement. Third, zero-shot larger models such as Gemini 2.5 pro have the best performance in detecting manipulation (of the models tested), with more work required to fine-tune smaller open source models for real-world on-device oversight. Our work provides important insights for AI safety research and highlights the need of addressing manipulation risks as LLMs are increasingly deployed in consumer-facing applications.

ACL 2026

ChatbotManip: a Dataset to Facilitate Evaluation and Oversight of Manipulative Chatbot Behaviour

manipulation

persuasion

language models

### 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!

NAACL 2025

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

This paper introduces ChatbotManip, a novel dataset for studying manipulation in Chatbots. It contains simulated generated conversations between a chatbot and a (simulated) user, where the chatbot is explicitly asked to showcase manipulation tactics, persuade the user towards some goal, or simply be helpful. We consider a diverse set of chatbot manipulation contexts, from consumer and personal advice to citizen advice and controversial proposition argumentation. Each conversation is annotated by human annotators for both general manipulation and specific manipulation tactics. Our research reveals three key findings. First, Large Language Models (LLMs) can be manipulative when explicitly instructed, with annotators identifying manipulation in approximately 84% of such conversations. Second, even when only instructed to be ``persuasive'' without explicit manipulation prompts, LLMs frequently default to controversial manipulative strategies, particularly Gaslighting and Fear Enhancement. Third, zero-shot larger models such as Gemini 2.5 pro have the best performance in detecting manipulation (of the models tested), with more work required to fine-tune smaller open source models for real-world on-device oversight. Our work provides important insights for AI safety research and highlights the need of addressing manipulation risks as LLMs are increasingly deployed in consumer-facing applications.

workshop paper

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.

The fairness-accuracy trade-off is a key challenge in NLP tasks. Current work focuses on finding a single optimal solution to balance the two objectives, which is limited considering the diverse solutions on the Pareto front.
This work intends to provide controllable trade-offs according to the user's preference of the two objectives, which is defined as a reference vector. 
To achieve this goal, we apply multi-objective optimization (MOO), which can find solutions from various regions of the Pareto front. 
However, it is challenging to precisely control the trade-off due to the stochasticity of the training process and the high dimensional gradient vectors.
Thus, we propose Controllable Pareto Trade-off (CPT) that can effectively train models to perform different trade-offs according to users' preferences.
CPT 1) stabilizes the fairness update with a moving average of stochastic gradients to determine the update direction, and 2) prunes the gradients by only keeping the gradients of the critical parameters. 
We evaluate CPT on hate speech detection and occupation classification tasks. Experiments show that CPT can achieve a higher-quality set of solutions on the Pareto front than the baseline methods. It also exhibits better controllability and can precisely follow the human-defined reference vectors.

Controllable Pareto Trade-off between Fairness and Accuracy

As the influence of LLMs expands, it is imperative to gain insight into their decisions. One way to do that is to develop probes that detect the presence or absence of a broad set of concepts within the embeddings computed in an LLM - which is what we might say a model is ``thinking" about. Such probes should be low-cost and easily applicable to any LLM, so that monitoring for many concepts is possible during normal operation.

In this paper, we take the first steps towards developing the capability of creating many such probes by defining and executing examples of the key tasks needed: first, the careful delineation of a concept through the creation of a dataset with the concept both present and then absent. Then, the training and testing of a set of linear probes to detect the concept on any layer of an LLM, including an exploration of the complexity of the probe needed. Finally, we show that such probes can track concepts across larger contexts. This is done with four separate concepts and three different LLMs. When this process is scaled to many more concepts, it will create the ability to easily monitor new models.

What are They Thinking? Delineation, Probing and Tracking of Concepts in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rarely static and are frequently updated in practice. A growing body of alignment research has shown that models initially deemed ``aligned'' can exhibit misaligned behavior after fine-tuning, such as forgetting jailbreak safety features or re-surfacing knowledge that was intended to be forgotten. These works typically assume that the initial model is aligned based on static black-box evaluation, i.e., the absence of undesired responses to a fixed set of queries. In contrast, we formalize model alignment in both the static and post-update settings and uncover a fundamental limitation of black-box evaluation. We theoretically show that, due to overparameterization, static alignment provides no guarantee of post-update alignment for \emph{any} update dataset. Moreover, we prove that static black-box probing cannot distinguish a model that is genuinely post-update robust from one that conceals an arbitrary amount of adversarial behavior, which can be activated by even a single benign gradient update. We further validate these findings empirically in LLMs across three core alignment domains: privacy, jailbreak safety, and behavioral honesty. We demonstrate the existence of LLMs that pass all standard black-box alignment tests, yet become severely misaligned after a single benign update. Finally, we show that the capacity to hide such latent adversarial behavior increases with model scale, confirming our theoretical prediction that post-update misalignment grows with the number of parameters. Together, our results highlight the inadequacy of static evaluation protocols and emphasize the urgent need for post-update--robust alignment evaluation

Hair-Trigger Alignment: Black-Box Evaluation Cannot Guarantee Post-Update Alignment

Trustworthy legal AI requires training data that is expert-verified and grounded in statutory provisions, as fluent generation alone cannot guarantee legally sound and verifiable outputs. However, Korean legal datasets offer no such foundation. To fill this gap, we introduce KoLegalQA, a large-scale Korean legal question–answer corpus designed to promote trustworthy and explanation-based and verifiable reasoning in real-world legal consultation scenarios. The dataset comprises 19,266 consultations collected from government-operated services, with all response authored or verified by licensed legal professionals. Unlike prior resources, KoLegalQA provides explicit statutory references and clause-level summaries, enabling systematic evaluation of transparency, citation-faithfulness, and evidential support in legal language models. We benchmark six Korean-capable LLMs using both automated evaluation (G-Eval) and human assessment across multiple criteria, including legal correctness, reasoning quality, and citation relevance. Experimental results show that fine-tuning on KoLegalQA significantly enhances statute-aligned response generation and mitigates hallucinated claims. We present this resource as a practical benchmark for advancing safe and verifiable legal NLP research. Dataset, code, and evaluation scripts will be publicly released to support reproducible and trustworthy Korean legal NLP research.

KoLegalQA: A Korean Legal QA Dataset for Trustworthy and Explanation-Grounded Legal AI

Retrieval-augmented generation systems serving multiple users under role-based access control face a trustworthiness gap: semantic retrieval operates on embedding similarity rather than authorization predicates and can introduce unauthorized content into a model’s context window before any filter intervenes. We formalize this as a pipeline ordering problem and introduce Authorization-First Retrieval (AFR), an architectural invariant requiring that authorization constrain the retrieval candidate set before any learned component consumes retrieved content. We reduce authorization correctness to the classical noninterference property and prove AFR is necessary whenever the processing model violates noninterference—a condition our experiments confirm empirically. Evaluation on a controlled corpus of 247 chunks across 232 documents with 431 base queries spanning 12 enterprise roles and 9 domains (584 total queries including negation exploitation and parametric probes) shows that retrieve-then-filter pipelines expose unauthorized context in 86.1% of queries, while AFR eliminates structural leaks by construction. 

Cross-model experiments with Gemini 2.0 Flash and GPT-4o-mini reveal that structural exposure is an architectural property independent of the underlying model, whereas behavioral defenses fail at model-dependent rates, producing answer leakage of 41.3% and 29.5% respectively under retrieve-then-filter. A negation exploitation study demonstrates consistent disclosure vulnerabilities across framing types, while a metadata-tag freshness ablation shows that conditional authorization mechanisms degrade under realistic policy staleness. Stress tests across retrieval depths and chunking granularities confirm AFR’s robustness. Our results demonstrate that behavioral guardrails and metadata tagging cannot reliably enforce least privilege in RAG pipelines, while authorization-first architectures provide a verifiable and model-independent security guarantee.

Authorization-First Retrieval: Enforcing Least Privilege in Multi-Agent RAG Systems

This paper investigates privacy jailbreaking in large language models (LLMs) via \textit{steering}, examining whether targeted manipulation of internal activations can circumvent the alignment mechanisms and alter model behaviour on privacy-sensitive queries, such as those concerning sexual orientation of public figures. Our approach begins by identifying attention heads predictive of refusal behaviour for a given private attribute, using lightweight linear probes trained on labels provided by a privacy evaluator. We then apply steering to a carefully selected subset of these heads, guided by the probe outputs, to induce positive responses from the model. Empirical results demonstrate that these steered responses frequently reveal the target attribute, as well as additional personal information about the data subject, including life events, relationships, and biographical details. Evaluations across three LLMs show that steering achieves disclosure rates of at least $80\%$ with several responses containing real personal information. This controlled study highlights a concrete privacy risk: personal information memorised during pre-training can be extracted through targeted activation-level interventions, without reliance on computationally intensive adversarial prompting techniques.

PII Jailbreaking in LLMs via Activation Steering Reveals Personal Information Leakage

Suppressing overt coercion in strategic LLM negotiators can trigger a channel substitution failure mode: a deceptive bypass where influence shifts into preference hallucinations that misrepresent the agent's own priorities while remaining surface-compliant. While $K$-Level reasoning improves negotiation utility by modeling recursive opponent beliefs, it frequently elicits coercive and toxic behaviors that undermine real-world deployability. To address this, we propose an Observer--Planner--Actor architecture featuring a Modular Appraisal Gate that (i) dynamically estimates the opponent's cognitive level and (ii) filters hostile drafts via an LLM-as-a-judge. In randomized interventions on the CaSiNo dataset, our gated agent successfully eliminates toxicity ($0\%$) and reduces coercion from $35\%$ to $6\%$ compared to a strong static-$K$ baseline. However, this safety comes with an alignment tax in utility. More critically, blocking explicit coercion is accompanied by a compensatory shift: preference hallucinations increase as a surface-compliant channel of influence that is not directly targeted by output-level safety filters. These empirical results demonstrate that surface-level output filtering alone is insufficient to align utility-driven strategic agents.

Coercion Suppression Increases Preference Hallucinations via a Deceptive Bypass in $K$-Level Negotiation Agents

Evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook intersectional and culturally specific biases, particularly in underrepresented multilingual regions like South Asia. This work addresses these gaps by conducting a multilingual and intersectional analysis of LLM outputs across 10 Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, identifying how cultural stigmas influenced by purdah and patriarchy are reinforced in generative tasks. We construct a culturally grounded bias lexicon capturing previously unexplored intersectional dimensions including gender, religion, marital status, and number of children. We use our lexicon to quantify intersectional bias and the effectiveness of self-debiasing in open-ended generations (e.g., storytelling, hobbies, and to-do lists), where bias manifests subtly and remains largely unexamined in multilingual contexts. Finally, we evaluate two self-debiasing strategies (simple and complex prompts) to measure their effectiveness in reducing culturally specific bias in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. Our approach offers a nuanced lens into cultural bias by introducing a novel bias lexicon and evaluation framework that extends beyond Eurocentric or small-scale multilingual settings.

Purdah and Patriarchy: Evaluating and Mitigating South Asian Biases in Open-Ended Multilingual LLM Generations

Long-context language models assemble prompts from heterogeneous sources, and deployed systems implicitly trust the model to use the correct span of context. We show that this assumption is often violated: irrelevant spans can silently shape outputs, producing errors that are neither fabrication nor omission but misattributed grounding—claims supported by the wrong part of the input context. Unlike intrinsic hallucination (contradicting the source) or extrinsic hallucination (introducing unsupported claims), misattributed grounding uses real evidence from an incorrect span, making it invisible to standard source-blind faithfulness metrics.

We formalize this phenomenon as Ghost Context and introduce a causal mask-and-rerun attribution protocol to measure it. Across a 272-case corpus spanning multiple interference scenarios, we evaluate three widely used models and report two complementary signals: strict Ghost Context Rate (GCR), which captures verifiable factual misattribution, and open-ended influence, which captures broader contextual shaping effects. Under realistic contextual conflict, strict GCR spikes substantially: temporal contradictions trigger misattributed grounding in 38.3% of cases. Across all scenarios, open-ended distractor influence occurs in 20.4% of evaluations.

Importantly, Ghost Context is not only detectable but also remediable. Masking the single highest-attributed distractor span resolves 95.5% of detected errors (Fix@1) with 2.4% collateral damage and zero false positives on negative controls. We also introduce Contextual Invariance Rate (CIR) as a system-level robustness metric measuring invariance to irrelevant context.

Our findings show that contextual conflict—common in retrieval-augmented generation and agent systems—can systematically degrade reliability, but also reveal that Ghost Context errors are causally localizable and cheaply correctable. We release the evaluation corpus, detection pipeline, and experimental results to support further research on trustworthy long-context language model evaluation.

Ghost Context: Measuring Cross-Context Interference in Long-Context Language Models

Alignment has become a critical step towards enabling large language model (LLM) safety guardrails which ensure models provide helpful and harmless responses, while refusing malicious and harmful requests. However, two separate lines of recent work--unalignment via fine-tuning, i.e., jailbreak-tuning (JT), and weight orthogonalization (WO)--have shown that LLM guardrails may be circumvented, such that LLMs obey harmful requests which they would normally refuse. Despite the safety implications of such unalignment procedures, a comprehensive analysis directly contrasting these methods is currently lacking, as is a study of these methods' impact on malicious LLM capabilities and reasoning models. Using both JT and WO, we study the impact of unaligning six popular LLMs--three reasoning LLMs of various sizes and their instruction-tuned analogues--across harmful safety tasks. Compared to JT, we show that WO produces models which are more effective at adversarially attacking LLMs--in particular, WO reasoning LLMs excel at such adversarial attacks. Interestingly, while increasing adversarial attack efficacy, we show that WO does not drastically increase hallucination rates. This is in stark contrast to JT, which may more than double the hallucination rate of both reasoning and instruction-tuned models alike. Finally, we show that off-the-shelf supervised fine-tuning effectively limits the adversarial attack abilities enabled by WO, without drastically increasing hallucination rates.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

Controllable Pareto Trade-off between Fairness and Accuracy

Similar lecture

SELF-PERCEPT: Detecting Multi-Person Mental Manipulation in Conversations

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from ACL 2026

Controllable Pareto Trade-off between Fairness and Accuracy

Similar lecture

SELF-PERCEPT: Detecting Multi-Person Mental Manipulation in Conversations

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Downloads