POLY-SIM: Polyglot Speaker Identification with Missing Modality Grand Challenge 2026 Evaluation Plan

Multimodal speaker identification systems typically assume the availability of complete and homogeneous audio-visual modalities during both training and testing. However, in real-world applications, such assumptions often do not hold. Visual information may be missing due to occlusions, camera failures, or privacy constraints, while multilingual speakers introduce additional complexity due to linguistic variability across languages. These challenges significantly affect the robustness and generalization of multimodal speaker identification systems. The POLY-SIM Grand Challenge 2026 aims to advance research in multimodal speaker identification under missing-modality and cross-lingual conditions. Specifically, the Grand Challenge encourages the development of robust methods that can effectively leverage incomplete multimodal inputs while maintaining strong performance across different languages. This report presents the design and organization of the POLY-SIM Grand Challenge 2026, including the dataset, task formulation, evaluation protocol, and baseline model. By providing a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework, the challenge aims to foster progress toward more robust and practical multimodal speaker identification systems.

ClaimFlow: Tracing the Evolution of Scientific Claims in NLP

Scientific papers do more than report results $-$ they advance $\textit{claims}$ that later work supports, extends, or sometimes refutes. Yet existing methods for citation and claim analysis capture only fragments of this dialogue. In this work, we make these interactions explicit at the level of individual scientific claims. We introduce $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$, a claim-centric view of the NLP literature, built from $304$ ACL Anthology papers (1979$-$2025) that are manually annotated with $1{,}084$ claims and $832$ cross-paper claim relations, indicating whether a citing paper $\textit{supports}$, $\textit{extends}$, $\textit{qualifies}$, $\textit{refutes}$, or references a claim as $\textit{background}$. Using $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$, we define a new task $-$ $\textit{Claim Relation Classification}$ $-$ which requires models to infer the scientific stance toward a cited claim from the text and citation context. Evaluating strong neural models and large language models on this task, we report baseline performance of $0.78$ macro-F1, highlighting that claim-relation classification is feasible but challenging. We further apply our model to $\sim$$13k$ NLP papers to analyze how claims evolve across decades of NLP research. Our analysis reveals that $63.5$% claims are never reused; only $11.1$% are ever challenged; meanwhile, widely propagated claims are more often $\textit{reshaped}$ through qualification and extension than directly confirmed or refuted. Overall, $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$ offers a lens for examining how ideas shift and mature within NLP, and a foundation for assessing whether models can interpret scientific argumentation.

Beyond Outcome Verification: Verifiable Process Reward Models for Structured Reasoning

Recent work on reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown that large language models (LLMs) can be substantially improved using outcome-level verification signals, such as unit tests for code or exact-match checks for mathematics. In parallel, process supervision has long been explored as a way to shape the intermediate reasoning behaviour of LLMs, but existing approaches rely on neural judges to score chain-of-thought steps, leaving them vulnerable to opacity, bias, and reward hacking. To address this gap, we introduce Verifiable Process Reward Models (VPRMs), a reinforcement-learning framework in which intermediate reasoning steps are checked by deterministic, rule-based verifiers. We apply VPRMs to risk-of-bias assessment for medical evidence synthesis, a domain where guideline-defined criteria and rule-based decision paths enable programmatic verification of reasoning traces. Across multiple datasets, we find that VPRMs generate reasoning that adheres closely to domain rules and achieve substantially higher coherence between step-level decisions and final labels. Results show that VPRMs achieve up to 20% higher F1 than state-of-the-art models and 6.5% higher than verifiable outcome rewards, with substantial gains in evidence grounding and logical coherence.

Face-Voice Association with Inductive Bias for Maximum Class Separation

Face-voice association is widely studied in multimodal learning and is approached representing faces and voices with embeddings that are close for a same person and well separated from those of others. Previous work achieved this with loss functions. Recent advancements in classification have shown that the discriminative ability of embeddings can be strengthened by imposing maximum class separation as inductive bias. This technique has never been used in the domain of face-voice association, and this work aims at filling this gap. More specifically, we develop a method for face-voice association that imposes maximum class separation among multimodal representations of different speakers as an inductive bias. Through quantitative experiments we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, showing that it achieves SOTA performance on two task formulation of face-voice association. Furthermore, we carry out an ablation study to show that imposing inductive bias is most effective when combined with losses for inter-class orthogonality. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first that applies and demonstrates the effectiveness of maximum class separation as an inductive bias in multimodal learning; it hence paves the way to establish a new paradigm.

FactCorrector: A Graph-Inspired Approach to Long-Form Factuality Correction of Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in knowledge-intensive applications but often generate factually incorrect responses. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is correcting LLMs using feedback. Therefore, in this paper, we introduce FactCorrector, a new post-hoc correction method that adapts across domains without retraining and leverages structured feedback about the factuality of the original response to generate a correction. To support rigorous evaluations of factuality correction methods, we also develop the VELI5 benchmark, a novel dataset containing systematically injected factual errors and ground-truth corrections. Experiments on VELI5 and several popular long-form factuality datasets show that the FactCorrector approach significantly improves factual precision while preserving relevance, outperforming strong baselines. We release our code at https://ibm.biz/factcorrector.

Where Knowledge Collides: A Mechanistic Study of Intra-Memory Knowledge Conflict in Language Models

In language models (LMs), intra-memory knowledge conflict largely arises when inconsistent information about the same event is encoded within the model's parametric knowledge. While prior work has primarily focused on resolving conflicts between a model's internal knowledge and external resources through approaches such as fine-tuning or knowledge editing, the problem of localizing conflicts that originate during pre-training within the model's internal representations remain unexplored. In this work, we design a framework based on mechanistic interpretability methods to identify where and how conflicting knowledge from the pre-training data is encoded within LMs. Our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that specific internal components of a language model are responsible for encoding conflicting knowledge from pre-training, and we demonstrate how mechanistic interpretability methods can be leveraged to causally intervene in and control conflicting knowledge at inference time.

LLMs as Science Journalists: Supporting Early-stage Researchers in Communicating Their Science to the Public

The scientific community needs tools that help early-stage researchers effectively communicate their findings and innovations to the public. Although existing general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) can assist in this endeavor, they are not optimally aligned for it. To address this, we propose a framework for training LLMs to emulate the role of a science journalist that can be used by early-stage researchers to learn how to properly communicate their papers to the general public. We evaluate the usefulness of our trained LLM Journalists in leading conversations with both simulated and human researchers. %compared to the general-purpose ones. Our experiments indicate that LLMs trained using our framework ask more relevant questions that address the societal impact of research, prompting researchers to clarify and elaborate on their findings. In the user study, the majority of participants who interacted with our trained LLM Journalist appreciated it more than interacting with general-purpose LLMs.

MathBuddy: A Multimodal System for Affective Math Tutoring

The rapid adoption of LLM-based conversational systems is already transforming the landscape of educational technology. However, the current state-of-the-art learning models do not take into account the student's affective states. Multiple studies in educational psychology support the claim that positive or negative emotional states can impact a student's learning capabilities. To bridge this gap, we present MathBuddy, an emotionally aware LLM-powered Math Tutor, which dynamically models the student's emotions and maps them to relevant pedagogical strategies, making the tutor-student conversation a more empathetic one. The student's emotions are captured from the conversational text as well as from their facial expressions. The student's emotions are aggregated from both modalities to confidently prompt our LLM Tutor for an emotionally-aware response. We have effectively evaluated our model using automatic evaluation metrics across eight pedagogical dimensions and user studies. We report a massive 23 point performance gain using the win rate and a 3 point gain at an overall level using DAMR scores which strongly supports our hypothesis of improving LLM-based tutor's pedagogical abilities by modeling students' emotions.

Enhancing Study-Level Inference from Clinical Trial Papers via RL-based Numeric Reasoning

Systematic reviews in medicine play a critical role in evidence-based decision-making by aggregating findings from multiple studies. A central bottleneck in automating this process is extracting numeric evidence and determining study-level conclusions for specific outcomes and comparisons. Prior work has framed this problem as a textual inference task by retrieving relevant content fragments and inferring conclusions from them. However, such approaches often rely on shallow textual cues and fail to capture the underlying numeric reasoning behind expert assessments. In this work, we conceptualise the problem as one of quantitative reasoning. Rather than inferring conclusions from surface text, we extract structured numerical evidence (e.g., event counts or standard deviations) and apply domain knowledge informed logic to derive outcome-specific conclusions. We develop a numeric reasoning system composed of a numeric data extraction model and an effect estimate component, enabling more accurate and interpretable inference aligned with the domain expert principles. We train the numeric data extraction model using different strategies, including supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) with a new value reward model. When evaluated on the CochraneForest benchmark, our best-performing approach -- using RL to train a small-scale number extraction model -- yields up to a 21% absolute improvement in F1 score over retrieval-based systems and outperforms general-purpose LLMs of over 400B parameters by up to 9%. Our results demonstrate the promise of reasoning-driven approaches for automating systematic evidence synthesis.

A Position Paper on the Automatic Generation of Machine Learning Leaderboards

An important task in machine learning (ML) research is comparing prior work, which is often performed via ML leaderboards: a tabular overview of experiments with comparable conditions (e.g., same task, dataset, and metric). However, the growing volume of literature creates challenges in creating and maintaining these leaderboards. To ease this burden, researchers have developed methods to extract leaderboard entries from research papers for automated leaderboard curation. Yet, prior work varies in problem framing, complicating comparisons and limiting real-world applicability. In this position paper, we present the first overview of Automatic Leaderboard Generation (ALG) research, identifying fundamental differences in assumptions, scope, and output formats. We propose an ALG unified conceptual framework to standardise how the ALG task is defined. We offer ALG benchmarking guidelines, including recommendations for datasets and metrics that promote fair, reproducible evaluation. Lastly, we outline challenges and new directions for ALG, such as, advocating for broader coverage by including all reported results and richer metadata.