As MT quality increases, interest in enhanced post-editing features such as QE-derived error highlights is growing, yet evidence for their usefulness remains limited. In this work, we explore the usefulness of LLM-derived error highlights and correction suggestions based on automatic post-editing (APE). We conduct a study where professional translators (En-Nl) post-edit translations using APE error highlights and correction suggestions. While no condition yielded productivity or quality gains compared to regular PE, APE highlights were better received than QE-derived highlights, and correction suggestions improved overall user experience.

Verbal humor involves reasoning through complex conversational contexts. Although LLMs have achieved strong performance on English humor datasets, their ability to interpret humor in Hindi remains unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate Hindi humor for which we extract dialogues from humorous video clips. We use a pipeline that transforms video content into detailed textual streams, including dialogue transcripts and scene descriptions, allowing reasoning over inputs exceeding 2,000 words. We test various LLMs, from efficient edge models (Qwen-2.5-7B, Qwen-3-7B, Gemma-3-27B) to Indic-focused models (Sarvam-M-24B) and large frontier models (Llama-3.1-70B, Gemini-2.0-Flash). Our findings show a concave performance pattern in long-context understanding, with reasoning quality peaking at moderate lengths (250–750 words) and declining at higher context lengths. We also show that standard metrics overstate pragmatic competence. While increasing model size generally improves performance, we also observe distinct failures in smaller LLMs due to instructional and linguistic issues, necessitating diversity metrics to capture hallucinations. Smaller, Hindi-focused models can compete with much larger generalist models. Importantly, our evaluation reveals that conversational humor is a challenge for even specialized models, making HinS a valuable benchmark for advancing research in Hindi Long-Context Humor Reasoning.

In language models, the choice between believing the prompt and believing the weights is made by a handful of identifiable attention heads. Instruction tuning changes how models behave under conflict, but whether it rewires the underlying circuit or merely gates/reweights already present components, remains unknown. We provide the first mechanistic base-vs-instruct comparison of conflict-resolution circuits, across three families (Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen-2.5-3B, Gemma-3-4B). Five independent methods, node and edge attribution, superposition role analysis, causal ablation, and path patching, converge on gating, with the same heads, in the same late-layers, are found to be reweighted rather than replaced with a high node overlap (0.60–0.82). Behaviorally, tuning shifts models toward parametric memory, making instruct models reject a terse counterfactual context far more than base ones, the opposite of a naive user-following expectation. Yet this added skepticism is a factor of framing since it disappears when the same false claim is delivered as a coherent, evidential passage. The robustness that instruction tuning buys against terse injection is therefore real but narrow. More broadly, we believe that because the conflict circuit is preserved rather than rebuilt, interpretability and control tools calibrated on base models should transfer directly to their deployed instruct siblings.