As LLMs excel on standard reading comprehension benchmarks, attention is shifting toward evaluating their capacity for complex abstract reasoning and inference. Literature-based benchmarks, with their rich narrative and moral depth, provide a compelling framework for evaluating such deeper comprehension skills. Here, we present Morables, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature. The main task is structured as multiple-choice questions targeting moral inference, with carefully crafted distractors that challenge models to go beyond shallow, extractive question answering. To further stress-test model robustness, we introduce adversarial variants designed to surface LLM vulnerabilities and shortcuts due to issues such as data contamination. Our findings show that, while larger models outperform smaller ones, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation and often rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning. This brittleness results in significant self-contradiction, with the best models refuting their own answers in roughly 20% of cases depending on the framing of the moral choice. Interestingly, reasoning-enhanced models fail to bridge this gap, suggesting that scale - not reasoning ability - is the primary driver of performance.

Puns are a form of humorous wordplay that exploits polysemy and phonetic similarity. While LLMs have shown promise in detecting puns, we show in this paper that their understanding often remains shallow, lacking the nuanced grasp typical of human interpretation. By systematically analyzing and reformulating existing pun benchmarks, we demonstrate how subtle changes in puns are sufficient to mislead LLMs. Our contributions include comprehensive and nuanced pun detection benchmarks, human evaluation across recent LLMs, and an analysis of the robustness challenges these models face in processing puns.

The automatic categorization of support tickets is a fundamental tool for modern businesses. Such requests are most commonly composed of concise textual descriptions that are noisy and filled with technical jargon. In this paper, we test the effectiveness of pre-trained LMs for the classification of issues related to software bugs. First, we test several strategies to produce single, ticket-wise representations starting from their BERT-generated word embeddings. Then, we showcase a simple yet effective way to build a multi-level classifier for the categorization of documents with two hierarchically dependent labels. We experiment on a public bugs dataset and compare our results with standard BERT-based and traditional SVM classifiers. Our findings suggest that both embedding strategies and hierarchical label dependencies considerably impact classification accuracy.