Personalizing jargon detection and explanation is essential for making technical documents accessible to readers with diverse disciplinary backgrounds. However, tailoring models to individual users typically requires substantial annotation efforts and computational resources due to user-specific finetuning. To address this, we present a systematic study of personalized jargon detection, focusing on methods that are both efficient and scalable for real-world deployment. We explore two personalization strategies: (1) lightweight finetuning using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on open-source models, and (2) personalized prompting, which tailors model behavior at inference time without retraining. To reflect realistic constraints, we also investigate semi-supervised approaches that combine limited annotated data with self-supervised learning from users’ publications. Our personalized LoRA model outperforms GPT-4 with contextual prompting by 21.4% in F1 score and exceeds the best performing oracle baseline by 8.3%. Remarkably, our method achieves comparable performance using only 10% of the annotated training data, demonstrating its practicality for resource-constrained settings. Our study systematically explores efficient, low-resource personalization of jargon detection using open-source language models, offering a practical path toward scalable, user-adaptive NLP systems.

KV cache compression is commonly evaluated by final-answer accuracy, implicitly assuming that preserving the answer also preserves the reasoning that supports it. We test this assumption for large reasoning models and show that it can fail: under compression, answer-level cues and evidential support can remain differentially recoverable. We study this failure with a controlled fixed-trace replay protocol, which holds reasoning content fixed and isolates whether compression preserves usable information from an already available trace. We evaluate ten token-eviction KV compression methods and one quantization method on three models across mathematical reasoning, scientific QA, clinical calculation, and long-context retrieval. We measure final accuracy, answer-chain consistency, and perturbation faithfulness. Across tasks, token-eviction methods can preserve competitive final-answer accuracy while substantially degrading chain support or perturbation faithfulness. We call this the answer-evidence gap. A coverage-preserving quantization control is substantially less affected, suggesting that the failure is tied less to KV memory reduction itself than to losing access to parts of the reasoning trace.

Evaluating multi-paragraph clinical question answering (QA) systems is resource-intensive and challenging: accurate judgments require medical expertise and achieving consistent human judgments over multi-paragraph text is difficult. We introduce CQA-Eval, an evaluation framework and set of evaluation recommendations for limited-resource and high-expertise settings. Based on physician annotations of 300 real patient questions answered by physicians and LLMs, we compare coarse answer-level versus fine-grained sentence-level evaluation over the dimensions of correctness, relevance, and risk disclosure. We find that inter-annotator agreement (IAA) varies by dimension: fine-grained annotation improves agreement on correctness, coarse improves agreement on relevance, and judgments on communicates-risks remain inconsistent. Additionally, annotating only a small subset of sentences can provide reliability comparable to coarse annotations, reducing cost and effort. Data and code available at https://github.com/federicabologna/cqa-eval under a CC-BY license.

While there has been significant development of models for Plain Language Summarization (PLS), evaluation remains a challenge. PLS lacks a dedicated assessment metric, and the suitability of text generation evaluation metrics is unclear due to the unique transformations involved (e.g., adding background explanations, removing jargon). To address these questions, our study introduces a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate metrics for PLS. We identify four PLS criteria from previous work—informativeness, simplification, coherence, and faithfulness—and define a set of perturbations corresponding to these criteria that sensitive metrics should be able to detect. We apply these perturbations to extractive hypotheses for two PLS datasets to form our testbed. Using APPLS, we assess performance of 14 metrics, including automated scores, lexical features, and LLM prompt-based evaluations. Our analysis reveals that while some current metrics show sensitivity to specific criteria, no single method captures all four criteria simultaneously. We therefore recommend a suite of automated metrics be used to capture PLS quality along all relevant criteria. This work contributes the first meta-evaluation testbed for PLS and a comprehensive evaluation of existing metrics.