In this paper we present our submission for the NorSID Shared Task as part of the 2025 VarDial Workshop, consisting of three tasks: Intent Detection, Slot Filling and Dialect Identification, evaluated using data in different dialects of the Norwegian language. For Intent Detection and Slot Filling, we have fine-tuned a multitask model in a cross-lingual setting, to leverage the xSID dataset available in 17 languages. In the case of Dialect Identification, our final submission consists of a model fine-tuned on the provided development set, which has obtained the highest scores within our experiments. Our final results on the test set show that our models do not drop in performance compared to the development set, likely due to the domain-specificity of the dataset and the similar distribution of both subsets. Finally, we also report an in-depth analysis of the provided datasets and their artifacts, as well as other sets of experiments that have been carried out but did not yield the best results. Additionally, we present an analysis on the reasons why some methods have been more successful than others; mainly the impact of the combination of languages and domain-specificity of the training data on the results.

In the context of the CALAMITA Challenge, we investigate the physical commonsense reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and introduce a methodology to assess their low-level understanding of the physical world. To this end, we use a test set designed to evaluate physical commonsense reasoning in LLMs for the Italian language. We present a tiered dataset, named the Graded Italian Annotated dataset (GITA), which is written and annotated by a professional linguist. This dataset enables us to focus on three distinct levels of commonsense understanding. Our benchmark aims to evaluate three specific tasks: identifying plausible and implausible stories within our dataset, identifying the conflict that generates an implausible story, and identifying the physical states that make a story implausible. We perform these tasks using LLAMA3, and Gemma. Our findings reveal that, although the models may excel at high-level classification tasks, their reasoning is inconsistent and unverifiable, as they fail to capture intermediate evidence.