We introduce Personalized and Reliable Popular Science Writing, a novel task that requires adapting scientific explanations to audiences with different cognitive levels while preserving factual accuracy. However, improving personalization often introduces simplifications that increase the risk of hallucination and factual distortion. To address these challenges, we first construct a dataset of 39,134 entries and a reader-centric Personalized Science Communication Benchmark (PSCB) that jointly evaluates audience adaptation and factual accuracy. To reduce data and computational requirements while improving generalization across domains and audiences, we introduce DA-MoE, which explicitly decouples audience adaptation from domain knowledge through separate modeling. To enable robust verification and revision in evidence-scarce scenarios, a multi-agent fact-checking mechanism that augments limited evidence with role-specific agent debate and propagates confidence over a graph is proposed. Experiments on PSCB show that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Jailbreak attacks have been observed to largely fail against recent reasoning models enhanced by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, the underlying mechanism remains underexplored, and relying solely on reasoning capacity may raise security concerns. In this paper, we try to answer the question: Does CoT reasoning really reduce harmfulness from jailbreaking? Through rigorous theoretical analysis, we demonstrate that CoT reasoning has dual effects on jailbreaking harmfulness. Based on the theoretical insights, we propose a novel jailbreak method, FicDetail, whose practical performance validates our theoretical findings.