Kiwoong Park

Seogyeong Jeong, Kiwoong Park, Seyoung Song et al.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into in-vehicle conversational systems, identifying the optimal model remains challenging due to the lack of domain-specific evaluation standards tailored to real-world deployment requirements. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework for in-vehicle assistants, with a particular focus on Korean-language localization. Our empirical analysis reveals notable patterns in model behavior. First, fine-grained Korean honorific control remains unstable in current LLMs, indicating that precise speech-level realization must be explicitly evaluated in localization settings. Second, models exhibit weaker performance in strategic conversational metrics like clarification and proactivity. Our analysis suggests this stems from the inherent subjective complexity of these tasks, where our framework adopts a conservative evaluation stance to prioritize reliability. Together, our findings underscore that automotive AI must move beyond general competence toward precise linguistic tailoring and reliable, safety-oriented interaction management.

Eunsu Kim, Junyeong Park, Juhyun Oh et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in human-AI interactions, their social reasoning capabilities in interpersonal contexts are critical. We introduce SCRIPTS, a 1k-dialogue dataset in English and Korean, sourced from movie scripts. The task involves evaluating models' social reasoning capability to infer the interpersonal relationships (e.g., friends, sisters, lovers) between speakers in each dialogue. Each dialogue is annotated with probabilistic relational labels (Highly Likely, Less Likely, Unlikely) by native (or equivalent) Korean and English speakers from Korea and the U.S. Evaluating nine models on our task, current proprietary LLMs achieve around 75-80% on the English dataset, whereas their performance on Korean drops to 58-69%. More strikingly, models select Unlikely relationships in 10-25% of their responses. Furthermore, we find that thinking models and chain-of-thought prompting, effective for general reasoning, provide minimal benefits for social reasoning and occasionally amplify social biases. Our findings reveal significant limitations in current LLMs' social reasoning capabilities, highlighting the need for efforts to develop socially-aware language models.