Explicit knowledge conflicts, where retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, have become increasingly prevalent as Large Language Models (LLMs) integrate diverse data sources. The core challenge lies in the complexity of entangled narratives and the heterogeneity of conflict cases, which impose excessive demands on the reasoning capabilities of standard models. To address this, we propose Knowledge Conflict Reasoning (KCR), a framework that adjudicates conflicts by structuring the underlying logic. KCR first disentangles conflicting contexts into distinct sets of reasoning traces, utilizing both textual and graph-based representations, to simplify comprehension. It then employs a Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) paradigm, guiding the model to internalize a reasoning process that maximizes logical consistency while actively suppressing spurious reasoning paths derived from contradictory contexts. Extensive experiments demonstrate that KCR yields substantial improvements: a KCR-enhanced 7B model surpasses the performance of baselines equipped with top-tier closed-source models such as GPT-4o and GPT-5.1.

Pun generation seeks to creatively modify linguistic elements in text to produce humour or evoke double meanings. It also aims to preserve coherence and contextual appropriateness, making it useful in creative writing and entertainment across various media and contexts. This field has been widely studied in computational linguistics, while there are currently no surveys that specifically focus on pun generation. To bridge this gap, this paper provides a comprehensive review of pun generation datasets and methods across different stages, including traditional approaches, deep learning techniques, and pre-trained language models. Additionally, we summarise both automated and human evaluation metrics used to assess the quality of pun generation. Finally, we discuss the research challenges and propose promising directions for future work.

A summary structure is inherent to certain types of texts according to the Genre Theory of Linguistics. Such structures aid readers in efficiently locating information within summaries. However, most existing automatic summarization methods overlook the importance of summary structure, resulting in summaries that emphasize the most prominent information while omitting essential details from other sections. While a few summarizers recognize the importance of summary structure, they rely heavily on the predefined labels of summary structures in the source document and ground truth summaries. To address these shortcomings, we developed a Structured Knowledge-Guided Summarization (SKGSum) and its variant, SKGSum-W, which do not require structure labels. Instead, these methods rely on a set of automatically extracted summary points to generate summaries. We evaluate the proposed methods using three real-world datasets. The results indicate that our methods not only improve the quality of summaries, in terms of ROUGE and BERTScore, but also broaden the types of documents that can be effectively summarized.

Adversarial attack aims to perturb input sequences and mislead a trained model for false predictions. To enhance the model robustness, defensing methods are accordingly employed by either data augmentation (involving adversarial samples) or model enhancement (modifying the training loss and/or model architecture). In contrast to previous work, this paper revisits the masked language modeling (MLM) and presents a simple yet efficient algorithm against adversarial attacks, termed [MASK] insertion for defensing (MI4D). Specifically, MI4D simply inserts [MASK] tokens to input sequences during training and inference, maximizing the intersection of the new convex hull (MI4D creates) with the original one (the clean input forms). As neither additional adversarial samples nor the model modification is required, MI4D is as computationally efficient as traditional fine-tuning. Comprehensive experiments have been conducted using three benchmark datasets and four attacking methods. MI4D yields a significant improvement (on average) of the accuracy between 3.2 and 11.1 absolute points when compared with six state-of-the-art defensing baselines.