cs.CLAug 31, 2026

Quantifying and Mitigating Korean Jamo-Level Typographical Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models

Authors: Seojin LeeHwanhee Lee

Organizations: Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

Korean introduces an additional typographical perturbation level not captured by ordinary character-level edit models: because syllable blocks are internally composed of sub-character units called jamo, keyboard-level errors can occur within a syllable, either producing a valid but semantically altered character or exposing raw jamo on the surface. Both outcomes disrupt sub-word tokenization and are not reliably corrected by existing grammatical error correction pipelines, leaving LLMs directly exposed to corrupted inputs. To quantify this vulnerability, we apply five jamo-level perturbation types to the KMMLU benchmark and evaluate four language models, finding that accuracy declines monotonically with perturbation intensity and that parameter scaling does not confer robustness against intra-syllabic noise. We further show that typo-corrupted inputs induce a distinct shift in internal representations that is not reducible to ordinary answer incorrectness, and that a simple linear probe trained on these representations detects unseen perturbation types with high AUROC. Motivated by this signal, we propose Typo-Aware Chain-of-Thought (TACoT), which routes inputs to chain-of-thought inference only when the probe detects a likely typo, recovering a substantial portion of the CoT accuracy gain at a fraction of the inference cost.

Explore similar work

May 13, 2026cs.CL

Edit-level Majority Voting Mitigates Over-Correction in LLM-based Grammatical Error Correction

Grammatical error correction using large language models often suffers from the over-correction issue. To mitigate this, we propose a training-free inference method that performs edit-level majority voting over multiple candidates generated by a single model, without requiring model modifications or additional training. Across nine benchmarks covering English, Czech, German, Ukrainian, Korean, Hindi, and Romanian, the proposed method outperforms both greedy and MBR decoding in most cases. Moreover, it yields stable correction quality regardless of the instruction prompts used. We release two repository supporting GEC datasets loading and LLM inference.
Takumi Goto, Yusuke Sakai, Taro Watanabe
Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

Should We Type or Talk to LLM Agents? A Comprehensive Study of Voice and Keyboard Input Perturbations

Human input reaches language models by typing or speaking, and each channel leaves a distinct signature: orthographic noise for keyboards; for voice, disfluency from conventional transcription and restructuring from AI-backed dictation tools. How do they impact an LLM's performance? In this paper we present HIVE (Human Input-Variation Engine), a suite of voice transcription perturbations and QWERTY keyboard perturbations. We use HIVE to evaluate how robust models are to these perturbations. We present seven findings. (i) Voice transcription perturbations lower accuracy across every instruction-tuned model we test, and it is the structure of the transcription rather than its fillers that carries the cost. (ii) QWERTY keyboard perturbations cost less, and a model absorbs a lot of them before accuracy falls away. (iii) Both trace back to one cause, how many of the question's tokens survive the perturbation: destroying a token is what hurts, while adding new ones alongside it costs little. (iv) The gap between the two channels appears only where the answer must be constructed or deduced; on multiple choice there is none. (v) The harm does not solely come from test-set contamination. (vi) It cannot be trained away with lightweight adaptation. (vii) A thinking budget recovers the keyboard channel almost entirely but leaves the spoken registers untouched, and compressed speech is worse with it.
Zizhao Hu, Nathan Elijah Segura, Mohammad Rostami +1
Jun 8, 2026cs.CL

How Far Can Prompting Go for Minimal-Edit Ukrainian Grammatical Error Correction?

Fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate in Ukrainian grammatical error correction (GEC), while API-accessed LLMs remain nearly untested on minimal-edit benchmarks. We evaluate 11 commercial LLMs from four providers and one open-source Ukrainian model on the UNLP 2023 GEC-only benchmark, comparing zero-shot, few-shot, minimal-edits, and LLM-assisted prompt optimization strategies. Our best configuration (Gemini 3.1-Pro) reaches F0.5=69.22, closing over 90% of the gap to fine-tuned SOTA (F0.5=73.14). For zero-shot prompts, only Claude models benefit from Ukrainian instructions. However, the best overall results for all models use Ukrainian minimal-edits prompts, whose language-specific rules require Ukrainian to express precisely. LLM-assisted prompt optimization on top of minimal-edits + few-shot achieves the highest score. Detailed minimal-edits instructions yield the largest gains for punctuation and case errors but cause the model to abandon several low-frequency categories. Delving into error analysis, we identify five recurring overcorrection patterns tied to Ukrainian-specific linguistic phenomena. Code, prompts, and outputs are publicly available.
Kateryna Karpo, Artem Chernodub