Thunder-KoNUBench: A Corpus-Aligned Benchmark for Korean Negation Understanding

Large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on static benchmarks, even though natural language constantly evolves through newly emerging words and meanings. Existing Korean benchmarks are centered on established vocabulary and therefore provide limited coverage of such recent lexical change, and their English-oriented design makes it difficult to assess the typological properties of Korean, in which content words combine productively with functional morphemes. In this paper, we introduce KoNeoBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' understanding of Korean neologisms. KoNeoBench is built on 1,785 Korean neologisms attested in online news since 2020 and curated through expert lexicographic review. Each entry provides usage examples, word-formation analyses, and dictionary-style definitions. Based on this resource, we define four tasks and report results on recent models, together with a human baseline. Our experiments show that current LLMs exhibit clear limitations in recovering source components, distinguishing semantic categories, and generating accurate definitions. These results reveal specific aspects of recent Korean lexical change that remain challenging for current LLMs. KoNeoBench is available at https://github.com/bcmilab/ko-neobench/ .

Negation is a common and important semantic feature in natural language, yet Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle when negation is involved in natural language understanding tasks. Commonsense knowledge, on the other hand, despite being a well-studied topic, lacks investigations involving negation. In this work, we show that commonsense knowledge with negation is challenging for models to understand. We present a novel approach to automatically augment existing commonsense knowledge corpora with negation, yielding two new corpora containing over 2M triples with if-then relations. In addition, pre-training LLMs on our corpora benefits negation understanding.

We study how Large Language Models (LLMs) process negation mechanistically. First, we establish that even though open-weight models often provide wrong answers to questions involving negation, they do possess internal components that process negation correctly. Their poor accuracy is due to late-layer attention behavior that promotes simple shortcuts; ablating those attention modules greatly improves accuracy on negation-related questions. Second, we uncover how models process negation. We consider two hypotheses: models could use attention heads that attend to the phrase being negated and suppress related concepts, or they could directly construct a representation of the entire negative phrase (e.g., representing "not gas" as a vector that promotes liquids and solids). We apply a range of observational and causal interpretability techniques on Mistral-7B and Llama-3.1-8B to show that models implement both mechanisms, with the "constructive" mechanism being more prominent. Combined, our work deepens the understanding of LLMs' internals, highlighting construction-dominant computations and the coexistence of competing mechanisms within LLMs.