Negation is a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that poses ongoing challenges for Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in tasks requiring deep semantic understanding. Current benchmarks often treat negation as a minor detail within broader tasks, such as natural language inference. Consequently, there is a lack of benchmarks specifically designed to evaluate comprehension of negation. In this work, we introduce *Thunder-NUBench* — a novel benchmark explicitly created to assess sentence-level understanding of negation in LLMs. Thunder-NUBench goes beyond identifying surface-level cues by contrasting standard negation with structurally diverse alternatives, such as local negation, contradiction, and paraphrase. This benchmark includes manually created sentence-negation pairs and a multiple-choice dataset, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of models’ understanding of negation.

Recent trends in LLMs development clearly show growing interest in the use and application of sovereign LLMs. The global debate over sovereign LLMs highlights the need for governments to develop their LLMs, tailored to their unique socio-cultural and historical contexts. However, there remains a shortage of frameworks and datasets to verify two critical questions: (1) how well these models align with users’ socio-cultural backgrounds, and (2) whether they maintain safety and technical robustness without exposing users to potential harms and risks. To address this gap, we construct a new dataset and introduce an analytic framework for extracting and evaluating the socio-cultural elements of sovereign LLMs, alongside assessments of their technical robustness. Our experimental results demonstrate that while sovereign LLMs play a meaningful role in supporting low-resource languages, they do not always meet the popular claim that these models serve their target users well. We also show that pursuing this untested claim may lead to underestimating critical quality attributes such as safety. Our study suggests that advancing sovereign LLMs requires a more extensive evaluation that incorporates a broader range of well-grounded and practical criteria.

To ensure a balance between open access to justice and personal data protection, the South Korean judiciary mandates the de-identification of court judgments before they can be publicly disclosed. However, the current de-identification process is inadequate for handling court judgments at scale while adhering to strict legal requirements. Additionally, the legal definitions and categorizations of personal identifiers are vague and not well-suited for technical solutions. To tackle these challenges, we propose a de-identification framework called Thunder-DeID, which aligns with relevant laws and practices. Specifically, we (i) construct and release the first Korean legal dataset containing annotated judgments along with corresponding lists of entity mentions, (ii) introduce a systematic categorization of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and (iii) develop an end-to-end deep neural network (DNN)-based de-identification pipeline. Our experimental results demonstrate that our model achieves state-of-the-art performance in the de-identification of court judgments.