Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on metaphor detection and interpretation tasks, yet it remains unclear what such behavioral success actually reveals about metaphor processing. We present a diagnostic analysis that examines the limits of behavioral evidence by probing three complementary dimensions: semantic attribute alignment, lexical invariance, and syntactic sensitivity. Using geometric probing, we assess whether model-generated interpretations align with reference semantic attributes; through context-varying substitution, we analyze the stability of lexical associations between metaphorical and literal expressions; and via controlled syntactic perturbations, we examine sensitivity in metaphor detection. Our analysis reveals that LLM-generated interpretations can exhibit semantic drift relative to reference attributes; stable lexical anchors persist across contextual conditions, potentially supporting conventional metaphors while biasing novel metaphors requiring contextual integration; and detection performance is sensitive to syntactic irregularities. These findings suggest that strong behavioral performance may reflect heterogeneous underlying signals, highlighting the need for caution when interpreting metaphor benchmarks as evidence of robust, integrated semantic understanding.

Idioms are difficult to transfer across languages due to their non-compositionality and weak surface-form grounding, making literal mappings unreliable. We present G-IdiomAlign, a gloss-pivoted benchmark where each idiom is anchored by an English gloss from Wiktionary. We further construct a high-confidence reference alignment set for reproducible evaluation. G-IdiomAlign supports two protocols: (1) a controlled Multiple-Choice Idiom Equivalence with typed distractors for error attribution; and (2) a Gloss-Contrastive Generation contrasting No-gloss and With-gloss inputs to isolate the effect of an explicit semantic pivot. Across diverse LLMs, a bias to literal translation is a dominant failure mode, especially when the target is a low-resource language. Glosses consistently improve Gloss-Contrastive Generation under an embedding-based semantic proxy, but performance remains modest, indicating substantial headroom in the open output space. Subsequent analysis on Qwen3-8B further suggests that cross-condition differences are concentrated more in attention heads than in layers, while better With-gloss generations coincide with stronger gloss anchoring.

The rapid development of advanced large language models (LLMs) has made AI-generated text indistinguishable from human-written text. Previous work on detecting AI-generated text has made effective progress, but has not involved modern Chinese poetry. Due to the distinctive characteristics of modern Chinese poetry, it is difficult to identify whether a poem originated from humans or AI. The proliferation of AI-generated modern Chinese poetry has significantly disrupted the poetry ecosystem. Based on the urgency of identifying AI-generated poetry in the real Chinese world, this paper proposes a novel benchmark for detecting LLMs-generated modern Chinese poetry. We first construct a high-quality dataset, which includes both 800 poems written by six professional poets and 41,600 poems generated by four mainstream LLMs. Subsequently, we conduct systematic performance assessments of six detectors on this dataset. Experimental results demonstrate that current detectors cannot be used as reliable tools to detect modern Chinese poems generated by LLMs. The most difficult poetic features to detect are intrinsic qualities, especially style. The detection results verify the effectiveness and necessity of our proposed benchmark. Our work lays a foundation for future detection of AI-generated poetry.