conference organizers

Abstract: Since late 2022, a Limitations section has become mandatory at many top-tier NLP conferences. The growing number of accepted papers at these venues has resulted in a vast corpus of self-reported limitations that cannot all be manually reviewed, yet remains systematically unanalyzed. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a large-scale analysis of the Limitations sections from ACL and EMNLP papers published between 2020 and 2025 to understand what researchers disclose about their own work. To do so, we implement a novel human-AI framework for iterative hybrid qualitative coding. This framework enables us to investigate trends in self-reported limitations over time, their correlations with specific paper attributes, and the writing patterns that recur around these disclosures. Our findings offer a critical reflection on the diverse reported challenges as well as the self-reporting practices of researchers in the NLP community.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences, yet novelty remains a persistent weak point. Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score, making it difficult to diagnose which dimension a model misjudges or whether its evidence is faithful. We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis. The benchmark contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, drawn from two expert sources: ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. Instances are independently labeled along three dimensions: task, problem, and method, capturing application goals, technical challenges, and solution approaches. We propose a cascading diagnostic pipeline that verifies per-dimension correctness, evidence grounding, and logical support. Evaluation of 18 LLMs shows hallucination rates ranging from 0% to 39% across dimensions, and among non-hallucinated correct-positive judgments, over 70% cite evidence fails to logically support the stated reason. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves 43-72% Verified F1 across dimensions, while most models retain less than half of their raw F1 after faithfulness verification. These results suggest that current LLMs remain far from reliable scientific novelty assessment, particularly when correctness is conditioned on faithful evidence grounding.

Abstract: Selective AI conferences have recently begun enforcing ethics flags and related review requirements, with the goal being to steer research towards safer and more responsible practices before publication. But do these requirements actually steer research as intended? In this paper, we show that authors more often revise how projects are presented following ethics flags than redirect their underlying research agendas. We first study the longitudinal effects of ethics flags by following rejected and withdrawn ICLR submissions with ethics flags into later public resubmissions, tracking manuscript changes after the ICLR review ends, when the original reviewers no longer oversee the project. We qualitatively code these resubmissions into five categories based on what changed after review and find that in 83% of 446 cases, authors leave the flagged concern unaddressed or revise the paper without changing the implicated methods or procedures. Then, we ask: if authors rarely change the research in response to ethics flags, what do they change instead? To answer this, we manually read reviews and rebuttals from 25 cases and directly interview authors about their rebuttal processes and resubmission decisions. We find that authors often concede concerns during rebuttal when reviewers can update their assessments, but drop those concessions after rejection when they do not regard the criticism as a sound reason to change the research. Interview participants describe publication changes as separate from changes to research direction, calling review an "editorial process" that shapes "what stories get seen" and, in another case, saying peer reviews are "mostly to filter out papers." Authors more readily change what they publish than what they study or build; we therefore recommend policy changes, especially disclosure of prior ethics flags upon resubmission so accountability carries over.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape communication, learning, work, creativity, and decision-making, yet social-science research on these developments remains fragmented. We map this emerging field using a curated corpus of 198 papers reviewed in full and a field-scale corpus of 47,719 published papers from five bibliographic databases. Combining sentence embeddings, K-means clustering, within-cluster Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), author and LLM classifications, and structural topic modeling, we identify three domains: LLM as Social Minds, examining socially interpretable model behavior; LLM Societies, examining collective dynamics among interacting model-based agents; and LLM-Human Interactions, examining how people perceive, use, and are affected by LLMs. These domains contain 13 subcategories spanning reasoning, personality and bias, behavioral games, collective intelligence, simulation, trust, work, creativity, and education. In the curated corpus, the three-domain solution is highly stable under resampling (adjusted Rand index = 0.952), and K-means assignments agree with author full-text classifications for 77.78% of papers. At field scale, 13 of 15 topics map onto the taxonomy, while K-means and structural-topic-model domains agree for 73.83% of overlapping papers. LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 78.02% of domain-mapped topic mass, but venue analysis reveals a contrasting pattern: Social Minds and LLM Societies together account for 66.37% of highly cited papers in leading conference venues, whereas LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 76.81% in the corresponding journal subset. The resulting taxonomy provides a reproducible framework for understanding how model behavior, agent interaction, and institutional context jointly shape the social consequences of LLMs.