Jonas Becker

Jonas Becker, Jan Philip Wahle, Terry Ruas et al.

The growing prominence of large language models, such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT, has led to increased concerns over academic integrity due to the potential for machine-generated content and paraphrasing. Although studies have explored the detection of human- and machine-paraphrased content, the comparison between these types of content remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of various datasets commonly employed for paraphrase detection tasks and evaluate an array of detection methods. Our findings highlight the strengths and limitations of different detection methods in terms of performance on individual datasets, revealing a lack of suitable machine-generated datasets that can be aligned with human expectations. Our main finding is that human-authored paraphrases exceed machine-generated ones in terms of difficulty, diversity, and similarity implying that automatically generated texts are not yet on par with human-level performance. Transformers emerged as the most effective method across datasets with TF-IDF excelling on semantically diverse corpora. Additionally, we identify four datasets as the most diverse and challenging for paraphrase detection.

Jonas Becker, Liang-Chih Yu, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad et al.

Stance detection is an established task that classifies an author's attitude toward a specific target into categories such as Favor, Neutral, and Against. Beyond categorical stance labels, we leverage a long-established affective science framework to model stance along real-valued dimensions of valence (negative-positive) and arousal (calm-active). This dimensional approach captures nuanced affective states underlying stance expressions, enabling fine-grained stance analysis. To this end, we introduce DimStance, the first dimensional stance resource with valence-arousal (VA) annotations. This resource comprises 11,746 target aspects in 7,365 texts across five languages (English, German, Chinese, Nigerian Pidgin, and Swahili) and two domains (politics and environmental protection). To facilitate the evaluation of stance VA prediction, we formulate the dimensional stance regression task, analyze cross-lingual VA patterns, and benchmark pretrained and large language models under regression and prompting settings. Results show competitive performance of fine-tuned LLM regressors, persistent challenges in low-resource languages, and limitations of token-based generation. DimStance provides a foundation for multilingual, emotion-aware, stance analysis and benchmarking.

Lung-Hao Lee, Liang-Chih Yu, Natalia Loukashevich et al.

Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) focuses on extracting sentiment at a fine-grained aspect level and has been widely applied across real-world domains. However, existing ABSA research relies on coarse-grained categorical labels (e.g., positive, negative), which limits its ability to capture nuanced affective states. To address this limitation, we adopt a dimensional approach that represents sentiment with continuous valence-arousal (VA) scores, enabling fine-grained analysis at both the aspect and sentiment levels. To this end, we introduce DimABSA, the first multilingual, dimensional ABSA resource annotated with both traditional ABSA elements (aspect terms, aspect categories, and opinion terms) and newly introduced VA scores. This resource contains 76,958 aspect instances across 42,590 sentences, spanning six languages and four domains. We further introduce three subtasks that combine VA scores with different ABSA elements, providing a bridge from traditional ABSA to dimensional ABSA. Given that these subtasks involve both categorical and continuous outputs, we propose a new unified metric, continuous F1 (cF1), which incorporates VA prediction error into standard F1. We provide a comprehensive benchmark using both prompted and fine-tuned large language models across all subtasks. Our results show that DimABSA is a challenging benchmark and provides a foundation for advancing multilingual dimensional ABSA.

Baraa Hikal, Jonas Becker, Bela Gipp

This paper describes LogSigma, our system for SemEval-2026 Task 3: Dimensional Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (DimABSA). Unlike traditional Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA), which predicts discrete sentiment labels, DimABSA requires predicting continuous Valence and Arousal (VA) scores on a 1-9 scale. A central challenge is that Valence and Arousal differ in prediction difficulty across languages and domains. We address this using learned homoscedastic uncertainty, where the model learns task-specific log-variance parameters to automatically balance each regression objective during training. Combined with language-specific encoders and multi-seed ensembling, LogSigma achieves 1st place on five datasets across both tracks. The learned variance weights vary substantially across languages due to differing Valence-Arousal difficulty profiles-from 0.66x for German to 2.18x for English-demonstrating that optimal task balancing is language-dependent and cannot be determined a priori.

Jonas Becker, Lars Benedikt Kaesberg, Niklas Bauer et al.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has demonstrated the ability to augment collective intelligence by scaling test-time compute and leveraging expertise. Current frameworks for multi-agent debate are often designed towards tool use, lack integrated evaluation, or provide limited configurability of agent personas, response generators, discussion paradigms, and decision protocols. We introduce MALLM (Multi-Agent Large Language Models), an open-source framework that enables systematic analysis of MAD components. MALLM offers more than 144 unique configurations of MAD, including (1) agent personas (e.g., Expert, Personality), (2) response generators (e.g., Critical, Reasoning), (3) discussion paradigms (e.g., Memory, Relay), and (4) decision protocols (e.g., Voting, Consensus). MALLM uses simple configuration files to define a debate. Furthermore, MALLM can load any textual Hugging Face dataset (e.g., MMLU-Pro, WinoGrande) and provides an evaluation pipeline for easy comparison of MAD configurations. MALLM enables researchers to systematically configure, run, and evaluate debates for their problems, facilitating the understanding of the components and their interplay.

Lars Benedikt Kaesberg, Jonas Becker, Jan Philip Wahle et al.

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. The decision-making protocol stands out as it can highly impact final model answers, depending on how decisions are reached. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because many studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making influences different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time - the decision protocol - to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and measure differences in knowledge and reasoning tasks. Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks compared to other decision protocols. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduce it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.

Jonas Becker, Jan Philip Wahle, Bela Gipp et al.

Text generation has become more accessible than ever, and the increasing interest in these systems, especially those using large language models, has spurred an increasing number of related publications. We provide a systematic literature review comprising 244 selected papers between 2017 and 2024. This review categorizes works in text generation into five main tasks: open-ended text generation, summarization, translation, paraphrasing, and question answering. For each task, we review their relevant characteristics, sub-tasks, and specific challenges (e.g., missing datasets for multi-document summarization, coherence in story generation, and complex reasoning for question answering). Additionally, we assess current approaches for evaluating text generation systems and ascertain problems with current metrics. Our investigation shows nine prominent challenges common to all tasks and sub-tasks in recent text generation publications: bias, reasoning, hallucinations, misuse, privacy, interpretability, transparency, datasets, and computing. We provide a detailed analysis of these challenges, their potential solutions, and which gaps still require further engagement from the community. This systematic literature review targets two main audiences: early career researchers in natural language processing looking for an overview of the field and promising research directions, as well as experienced researchers seeking a detailed view of tasks, evaluation methodologies, open challenges, and recent mitigation strategies.

Jonas Becker

In an era where single large language models have dominated the landscape of artificial intelligence for years, multi-agent systems arise as new protagonists in conversational task-solving. While previous studies have showcased their potential in reasoning tasks and creative endeavors, an analysis of their limitations concerning the conversational paradigms and the impact of individual agents is missing. It remains unascertained how multi-agent discussions perform across tasks of varying complexity and how the structure of these conversations influences the process. To fill that gap, this work systematically evaluates multi-agent systems across various discussion paradigms, assessing their strengths and weaknesses in both generative tasks and question-answering tasks. Alongside the experiments, I propose a taxonomy of 20 multi-agent research studies from 2022 to 2024, followed by the introduction of a framework for deploying multi-agent LLMs in conversational task-solving. I demonstrate that while multi-agent systems excel in complex reasoning tasks, outperforming a single model by leveraging expert personas, they fail on basic tasks. Concretely, I identify three challenges that arise: 1) While longer discussions enhance reasoning, agents fail to maintain conformity to strict task requirements, which leads to problem drift, making shorter conversations more effective for basic tasks. 2) Prolonged discussions risk alignment collapse, raising new safety concerns for these systems. 3) I showcase discussion monopolization through long generations, posing the problem of fairness in decision-making for tasks like summarization. This work uncovers both the potential and challenges that arise with multi-agent interaction and varying conversational paradigms, providing insights into how future research could improve the efficiency, performance, and safety of multi-agent LLMs.

Jonas Becker, Lars Benedikt Kaesberg, Andreas Stephan et al.

Multi-agent debate - multiple instances of large language models discussing problems in turn-based interaction - has shown promise for solving knowledge and reasoning tasks. However, these methods show limitations when solving complex problems that require longer reasoning chains. We analyze how multi-agent debate over multiple turns drifts away from the initial problem, thus harming task performance. We define this phenomenon as problem drift and quantify its presence across ten tasks (i.e., three generative, three knowledge, three reasoning, and one instruction-following task). To identify the reasons for this issue, eight human experts analyze 170 multi-agent discussions suffering from problem drift. We find the most common issues related to this drift are the lack of progress (35% of cases), low-quality feedback (26% of cases), and a lack of clarity (25% of cases). To address problem drift, we propose DRIFTJudge, an LLM-as-a-judge method, to detect problem drift at test-time. We also propose DRIFTPolicy, a method that mitigates problem drift cases to improve task performance. Our study is a step toward understanding a key limitation of multi-agent debate, highlighting why longer debates can harm task performance and how problem drift could be addressed.

Liang-Chih Yu, Jonas Becker, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad et al.

We present the SemEval-2026 shared task on Dimensional Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (DimABSA), which improves traditional ABSA by modeling sentiment along valence-arousal (VA) dimensions rather than using categorical polarity labels. To extend ABSA beyond consumer reviews to public-issue discourse (e.g., political, energy, and climate issues), we introduce an additional task, Dimensional Stance Analysis (DimStance), which treats stance targets as aspects and reformulates stance detection as regression in the VA space. The task consists of two tracks: Track A (DimABSA) and Track B (DimStance). Track A includes three subtasks: (1) dimensional aspect sentiment regression, (2) dimensional aspect sentiment triplet extraction, and (3) dimensional aspect sentiment quadruplet extraction, while Track B includes only the regression subtask for stance targets. We also introduce a continuous F1 (cF1) metric to jointly evaluate structured extraction and VA regression. The task attracted more than 400 participants, resulting in 112 final submissions and 42 system description papers. We report baseline results, discuss top-performing systems, and analyze key design choices to provide insights into dimensional sentiment analysis at the aspect and stance-target levels. All resources are available on our GitHub repository.