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.

Although negation is known to challenge large language models (LLMs), benchmarks for evaluating negation understanding—especially in Korean—are scarce. We conduct a corpus-based analysis of Korean negation and show that LLM performance degrades under negation. We then introduce Thunder-KoNUBench, a sentence-level negation understanding benchmark that reflects the empirical distribution of Korean negation phenomena. Evaluating 47 LLMs on Thunder-KoNUBench, we analyze the effects of model size and instruction tuning, and perform error analysis to better understand model behavior. We further show that fine-tuning on Thunder-KoNUBench improves negation understanding and broader contextual comprehension in Korean.

We present a Korean Benchmark Suite (KBS) comprising Ko-ARC, Ko-GSM8K, Ko-EQ-Bench, Ko-WinoGrande, Ko-LAMBADA, and Ko-IFEval, covering six capabilities across 9,396 items. The suite combines review, localization, direct Korean construction, and redesign for Korean, avoiding a translation-only approach to benchmark adaptation. We evaluate Korean-developed models, multilingual open models, and closed API models under protocols that account for model access, prompt format, and scoring differences. Results show that Korean benchmark scores depend on task construction, scoring rules, prompting, and model post-training. These findings suggest that Korean evaluation should report both final scores and the settings used to obtain them.