Legal text generated by large language models (LLMs) can usually achieve reasonable factual accuracy, but it frequently fails to adhere to the specialised stylistic norms and linguistic conventions of legal writing. In order to improve stylistic quality, a crucial first step is to establish a reliable evaluation method. However, having legal experts manually develop such a metric is impractical, as the implicit stylistic requirements in legal writing practice are difficult to formalise into explicit rubrics. Meanwhile, existing automatic evaluation methods also fall short: reference-based metrics conflate semantic accuracy with stylistic fidelity, and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations suffer from opacity and inconsistency. To address these challenges, we introduce CLASE (Chinese LegAlese Stylistic Evaluation), a hybrid evaluation method that focuses on the stylistic performance of legal text. The method incorporates a hybrid scoring mechanism that combines 1) linguistic feature-based scores and 2) experience-guided LLM-as-a-judge scores. Both the feature coefficients and the LLM scoring experiences are learned from contrastive pairs of authentic legal documents and their LLM-restored counterparts. This hybrid design captures both surface-level features and implicit stylistic norms in a transparent, reference-free manner. Experiments on 200 Chinese legal documents show that CLASE achieves substantially higher alignment with human judgments than traditional metrics and pure LLM-as-a-judge methods. Beyond improved alignment, CLASE provides interpretable score breakdowns and suggestions for improvements, offering a scalable and practical solution for professional stylistic evaluation in legal text generation (Code and data for CLASE is available at: https://github.com/rexera/CLASE).

While LLMs demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities and multi-agent applicability, their tendency to “overthink” and “groupthink” pose intriguing parallels to human cognitive limitations. Inspired by this observation, we conduct an exploratory simulation to investigate whether LLMs are wise enough to be thinkers of philosophical reflection. We design two frameworks, Philosopher and Symposium, which simulate self- and group-reflection for multi-persona in hybrid table reasoning tasks. Through experiments across four benchmarks, we discover that while introducing varied perspectives might help, LLMs tend to under-perform simpler end-to-end approaches. We reveal from close reading five emergent behaviors which strikingly resemble human cognitive closure-seeking behaviors, and identify a consistent pattern of “overthinking threshold” across all tasks, where collaborative reasoning often reaches a critical point of diminishing returns. This study sheds light on a fundamental challenge shared by both human and machine intelligence: the delicate balance between deliberation and decisiveness.

Puns, as a unique form of linguistic creativity, present significant challenges in cross-lingual translation, particularly between linguistically distant languages like Chinese and English, where it’s often considered a “mission impossible”. We introduce Pun2Pun, a novel benchmark for quantitatively evaluating pun translation between Chinese and English while preserving both linguistic mechanisms and humorous effects. We propose the adaptation of Constant-Variable Optimization (CVO) Model for translation strategy and concomitant Overlap (Ovl) metric for translation quality assessment. Our approach provides a robust quantitative evaluation framework to assess models’ complex linguistic and cultural reasoning capabilities in pun translation. Through extensive experiments on both textual and visual puns, we demonstrate that our translation strategy model significantly improves performance, particularly for better-performing models. Our findings reveal exciting potentials and current limitations of LLMs in preserving sophisticated humor across linguistic and cultural boundaries.