The history of the Korean language is characterized by a discrepancy between its spoken and written forms and a pivotal shift from Chinese characters to the Hangul alphabet. However, this linguistic evolution has remained largely unexplored in NLP due to a lack of accessible historical corpora. To address this gap, we introduce the Open Korean Historical Corpus, a large-scale, openly licensed dataset spanning 1,300 years and 6 languages, as well as under-represented writing systems like Korean-style Sinitic (Idu) and Hanja-Hangul mixed script. This corpus contains 18 million documents and 5 billion tokens from 19 sources, ranging from the 7th century to 2025. We leverage this resource to quantitatively analyze major linguistic shifts: (1) Idu usage peaked in the 1860s before declining sharply; (2) the transition from Hanja to Hangul was a rapid transformation starting around 1890; and (3) North Korea ' s lexical divergence causes modern tokenizers to produce up to 51 times higher out-of-vocabulary rates. This work provides a foundational resource for quantitative diachronic analysis by capturing the history of the Korean language. Moreover, it can serve as a pre-training corpus for large language models, potentially improving their understanding of Sino-Korean vocabulary in modern Hangul as well as archaic writing systems.

The capability of in-context learning (ICL) enables large language models (LLMs) to perform novel tasks without parameter updates by conditioning on a few input-output examples. However, collecting high-quality examples for new or challenging tasks can be costly and labor-intensive. In this work, we propose a cost-efficient two-stage pipeline that reduces reliance on LLMs for data labeling. Our approach first leverages readily available cross-task examples to prompt an LLM and pseudo-label a small set of target task instances. We then introduce a graph-based label propagation method that spreads label information to the remaining target examples without additional LLM queries. The resulting fully pseudo-labeled dataset is used to construct in-task demonstrations for ICL. This pipeline combines the flexibility of cross-task supervision with the scalability of LLM-free propagation. Experiments across five tasks demonstrate that our method achieves strong performance while lowering labeling costs.

As Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our lives, their inherent social biases remain a pressing concern. Detecting and evaluating these biases can be challenging because they are often implicit rather than explicit in nature, so developing evaluation methods that assess the implicit knowledge representations of LLMs is essential. We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs based on simulating semantic priming within LLM-generated word association networks. Our prompt-based approach taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias. Unlike most prompt-based evaluation methods, our method enables direct comparisons between various LLMs and humans, providing a valuable point of reference and offering new insights into the alignment of LLMs with human cognition. To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party. Our results reveal both convergences and divergences between LLM and human biases, providing new perspectives on the potential risks of using LLMs. Our methodology contributes to a systematic, scalable, and generalizable framework for evaluating and comparing biases across multiple LLMs and humans, advancing the goal of transparent and socially responsible language technologies.

Hallucination remains one of the key obstacles to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs), particularly in real-world applications. Among various mitigation strategies, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and reasoning enhancement have emerged as two of the most effective and widely adopted approaches, marking a shift from merely suppressing hallucinations to balancing creativity and reliability. However, their synergistic potential and underlying mechanisms for hallucination mitigation have not yet been systematically examined. This survey adopts an application-oriented perspective of capability enhancement to analyze how RAG, reasoning enhancement, and their integration in Agentic Systems mitigate hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy distinguishing knowledge-based and logic-based hallucinations, systematically examine how RAG and reasoning address each, and present a unified framework supported by real-world applications, evaluations, and benchmarks.

Personalized text generation requires models not only to produce coherent text but also to align with a target user's style, tone, and topical focus. Existing retrieval-augmented approaches such as LaMP and PGraphRAG enrich profiles with user and neighbor histories, but they stop at generation and often yield outputs that drift in tone, topic, or style. We present PerFine, a unified, training-free critique-refine framework that enhances personalization through iterative, profile-grounded feedback. In each iteration, an LLM generator produces a draft conditioned on the retrieved profile, and a critic LLM - also conditioned on the same profile - provides structured feedback on tone, vocabulary, sentence structure, and topicality. The generator then revises, while a novel knockout strategy retains the stronger draft across iterations. We further study additional inference-time strategies such as Best-of-N and Topic Extraction to balance quality and efficiency. Across Yelp, Goodreads, and Amazon datasets, PerFine consistently improves personalization over PGraphRAG, with GEval gains of +7-13%, steady improvements over 3-5 refinement iterations, and scalability with increasing critic size. These results highlight that post-hoc, profile-aware feedback offers a powerful paradigm for personalized LLM generation that is both training-free and model-agnostic.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in vision-language tasks such as reasoning segmentation, where models generate segmentation masks based on textual queries. While prior work has primarily focused on perturbing image inputs, semantically equivalent textual paraphrases-crucial in real-world applications where users express the same intent in varied ways-remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel adversarial paraphrasing task: generating grammatically correct paraphrases that preserve the original query meaning while degrading segmentation performance. To evaluate the quality of adversarial paraphrases, we develop a comprehensive automatic evaluation protocol validated with human studies. Furthermore, we introduce SPARTA-a black-box, sentence-level optimization method that operates in the low-dimensional semantic latent space of a text autoencoder, guided by reinforcement learning. SPARTA achieves significantly higher success rates, outperforming prior methods by up to 2x on both the ReasonSeg and LLMSeg-40k datasets. We use SPARTA and competitive baselines to assess the robustness of advanced reasoning segmentation models. We reveal that they remain vulnerable to adversarial paraphrasing-even under strict semantic and grammatical constraints. All code and data will be released publicly upon acceptance.

Since real-world legal experiments are often costly or infeasible, simulating legal societies with Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems provides an effective alternative for verifying and developing legal theory, as well as supporting legal administration. Large Language Models (LLMs), with their world knowledge and role-playing capabilities, are strong candidates to serve as the foundation for legal society simulation. However, the application of LLMs to simulate legal systems remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce Law in Silico, an LLM-based agent framework for simulating legal scenarios with individual decision-making and institutional mechanisms of legislation, adjudication, and enforcement. Our experiments, which compare simulated crime rates with real-world data, demonstrate that LLM-based agents can largely reproduce macro-level crime trends and provide insights that align with real-world observations. At the same time, micro-level simulations reveal that a well-functioning, transparent, and adaptive legal system offers better protection of the rights of vulnerable individuals.

Large language models are increasingly used for Islamic guidance, but risk misquoting texts, misapplying jurisprudence, or producing culturally inconsistent responses. We pilot an evaluation of GPT-4o, Ansari AI, and Fanar on prompts from authentic Islamic blogs. Our dual-agent framework uses a quantitative agent for citation verification and six-dimensional scoring (e.g., Structure, Islamic Consistency, Citations) and a qualitative agent for five-dimensional side-by-side comparison (e.g., Tone, Depth, Originality). GPT-4o scored highest in Islamic Accuracy (3.93) and Citation (3.38), Ansari AI followed (3.68, 3.32), and Fanar lagged (2.76, 1.82). Despite relatively strong performance, models still fall short in reliably producing accurate Islamic content and citations -- a paramount requirement in faith-sensitive writing. GPT-4o had the highest mean quantitative score (3.90/5), while Ansari AI led qualitative pairwise wins (116/200). Fanar, though trailing, introduces innovations for Islamic and Arabic contexts. This study underscores the need for community-driven benchmarks centering Muslim perspectives, offering an early step toward more reliable AI in Islamic knowledge and other high-stakes domains such as medicine, law, and journalism.

Evaluating reasoning ability in Large Language Models (LLMs) is important for advancing artificial intelligence, as it transcends mere linguistic task performance. It involves understanding whether these models truly understand information, perform inferences, and are able to draw conclusions in a logical and valid way. This study compare logical and abstract reasoning skills of several LLMs - including GPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Llama, Mistral, Perplexity, and Sabi a - using a set of eight custom-designed reasoning questions. The LLM results are benchmarked against human performance on the same tasks, revealing significant differences and indicating areas where LLMs struggle with deduction.

The effectiveness of instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) is often limited in low-resource linguistic settings due to a lack of high-quality training data. We introduce LuxIT, a novel, monolingual instruction tuning dataset for Luxembourgish developed to mitigate this challenge. We synthesize the dataset from a corpus of native Luxembourgish texts, utilizing DeepSeek-R1-0528, chosen for its shown proficiency in Luxembourgish. Following generation, we apply a quality assurance process, employing an LLM-as-a-judge approach. To investigate the practical utility of the dataset, we fine-tune several smaller-scale LLMs on LuxIT. Subsequent benchmarking against their base models on Luxembourgish language proficiency examinations, however, yields mixed results, with performance varying significantly across different models. LuxIT represents a critical contribution to Luxembourgish natural language processing and offers a replicable monolingual methodology, though our findings highlight the need for further research to optimize its application.