mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Quantifying and Mitigating Korean Jamo-Level Typographical Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models

arXiv 2608.30229 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Korean introduces an additional typographical perturbation level not captured by ordinary character-level edit models: because syllable blocks are internally composed of sub-character units called jamo, keyboard-level errors can occur within a syllable, either producing a valid but semantically altered character or exposing raw jamo on the surface. Both outcomes disrupt sub-word tokenization and are not reliably corrected by existing grammatical error correction pipelines, leaving LLMs directly exposed to corrupted inputs. To quantify this vulnerability, we apply five jamo-level perturbation types to the KMMLU benchmark and evaluate four language models, finding that accuracy declines monotonically with perturbation intensity and that parameter scaling does not confer robustness against intra-syllabic noise. We further show that typo-corrupted inputs induce a distinct shift in internal representations that is not reducible to ordinary answer incorrectness, and that a simple linear probe trained on these representations detects unseen perturbation types with high AUROC. Motivated by this signal, we propose Typo-Aware Chain-of-Thought (TACoT), which routes inputs to chain-of-thought inference only when the probe detects a likely typo, recovering a substantial portion of the CoT accuracy gain at a fraction of the inference cost.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

Builds on

11 of 22 references.

References · 11

  1. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  2. 2023PromptRobust: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Adversarial Promptscited by 218
  3. 2024KMMLU: Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding in Koreancited by 91
  4. 2021ChineseBERT: Chinese Pretraining Enhanced by Glyph and Pinyin Informationcited by 65
  5. 2020SpellGCN: Incorporating Phonological and Visual Similarities into Language Models for Chinese Spelling Checkcited by 57
  6. 2023HAE-RAE Bench: Evaluation of Korean Knowledge in Language Modelscited by 47
  7. 2025Understand, Solve and Translate: Bridging the Multilingual Mathematical Reasoning Gapcited by 41
  8. 2024Reasoning Robustness of LLMs to Adversarial Typographical Errorscited by 31
  9. 2022Towards standardizing Korean Grammatical Error Correction: Datasets and Annotationcited by 13
  10. 2025Evaluating Robustness of Large Language Models Against Multilingual Typographical Errorscited by 9
  11. 2025KoGEC : Korean Grammatical Error Correction with Pre-trained Translation Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026How Tokenization Limits Phonological Knowledge Representation in Language Models and How to Improve Them
  2. 2026Thunder-KoNUBench: A Corpus-Aligned Benchmark for Korean Negation Understanding
  3. 2026Optimizing Korean-Centric LLMs via Token Pruning
  4. 2026IndicJR: A Judge-Free Benchmark of Jailbreak Robustness in South Asian Languages
  5. 2026Should We Type or Talk to LLM Agents? A Comprehensive Study of Voice and Keyboard Input Perturbations
  6. 2026Latent Undertow: How Ordinary Typos Break Probes
  7. 2023Evaluating Concurrent Robustness of Language Models Across Diverse Challenge Sets
  8. 2025KORMo: Korean Open Reasoning Model for Everyone