We introduce SemEval-2026 Task 5 on "Rating Plausibility of Word Senses in Ambiguous Stories through Narrative Understanding". The dataset for this task consists of 4-5 sentence English short stories. In each story, one sentence includes a lexical ambiguity and different senses are to be judged in terms of plausibility on a Likert scale. The task is intentionally constructed to be challenging by stories only providing sparse contextual cues. We give an overview of well-performing, frequent and interesting approaches used by participating systems. From a total of 175 registered participants and 27 submitted system description papers, the best system achieved an "accuracy within standard deviation" score of 93.3%.

Word sense disambiguation is the task of selecting a word’s applicable word sense in a given context. However, ambiguous texts may lack the information necessary to disambiguate words completely, resulting in multiple word senses with varying degrees of plausibility. We design a dataset around this premise: Our samples consist of 4–5 sentence short stories, where the sentence with the word to be disambiguated is itself ambiguous and surrounding sentences only contain indirect clues towards the more plausible word sense. We collect annotations from humans who rate the plausibility of a given word sense on a scale from 1–5. In total, our dataset contains 19,701 human word sense annotations on 1,899 stories. We investigate the performance of large language models on our data and find that many poorly correlate with human judgments. We also find that fine-tuning on our data can increase performance.

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer’s stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.