The Writerslogic team participated in the CLEF 2026 SimpleText shared task, tackling both text simplification (Task 1) and complexity spotting (Task 2). For simplification, they built a multi‑candidate pipeline with GPT‑4o‑mini, selecting the best candidate via a reference‑free heuristic, and their Claude Sonnet 4 submission achieved a SARI of 47.43 and BLEU of 14.21, ranking third overall on the Task 1 leaderboard. For complexity spotting, they fine‑tuned a DeBERTa‑v3‑large NLI model on 350 K labeled pairs, achieving a macro F1 of 0.8081 (0.8085 in an ensemble) on binary over‑generation identification and 0.804 accuracy on multi‑class error classification, placing them second among unique teams.
By David L. Condrey
arXiv:2608. 07208v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing measures of how much a text is about a concept read the surface of the text: dictionary word shares, topic proportions, embedding similarities.
By Luc Hazenoot, Zhaochun Ren, Amirhossein Zohrehvand
The study examines how reading times differ between human-written texts and rewrites generated by large language models (LLMs). Using a RoBERTa-RT model trained on eye-tracking data, the authors compare predicted reading times for 496 paired articles and find that LLM rewrites are shorter overall but have higher predicted reading times per word. These differences correlate with linguistic changes such as longer, less frequent words, greater lexical diversity, and higher contextual predictability.
By Kamer Cekini, Elisabetta Biondi, Chiara Boldrini, Andrea Passarella, Marco Conti
STRUCTURALCOST is a self‑paced reading dataset comprising 475 participants and 40,800 observations that isolates the processing cost of long‑distance subject‑verb dependency resolution. The study replicates a known psycholinguistic finding at NLP scale: human reading times at the main verb increase with dependency length, driven by syntactic embedding beyond linear distance. Various language models—n‑gram, SSMs, and transformers—partially mirror this graded difficulty profile but consistently underestimate the integration cost humans incur, a gap that persists across architectures and model sizes.
By Nina Nusbaumer, Iria de-Dios-Flores, Corentin Bel, Christophe Pallier, Guillaume Wisniewski, Beno\^it Crabb\'e
arXiv:2606. 11198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems inject external knowledge to improve LLM outputs, yet the format of injected content -- distinct from its semantic relevance -- can independently distort the model's attention distribution.
By Yuqi Zhang, Di Zhang
arXiv:2609.38406v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Access to real-world information is often noisy and fragmented. Constructing a coherent narrative from such fragments requires models to reconstruct mi...
By Eftekhar Hossain, John Salvador, Santu Karmaker
arXiv:2609.37405v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for software engineering tasks that require understanding existing source code, including behavior...
By Ali Mohammadi Esfahani, Nafiseh Kahani, Samuel A. Ajila
arXiv:2603.04419v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Vision-language models produce different object and use descriptions under different persona prompts, but low overlap alone does not identify...
By Murad Farzulla
The paper investigates how large language models handle domain-specific jargon, comparing a general-purpose Llama‑3.1 with a version fine‑tuned on medical data. Two new medical jargon benchmarks reveal that the general model actually outperforms the fine‑tuned variant, and interpretability tools show the fine‑tuned model over‑emphasizes a few components linked to jargon predictions. Reweighting these components narrows the performance gap, and some jargon‑sensitive components also aid materials‑science tasks, indicating a partially domain‑agnostic representation of specialized terminology.
By Darin Keng, Zhewei Sun
arXiv:2608. 11138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways.
By Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon, Ilyong Yoon
The paper investigates the intrinsic dimension (ID) of large language model (LLM) representations as an indicator of linguistic complexity. By comparing ID across model layers for coordination vs. subordination, right‑branching vs. center‑embedding, and unambiguous vs. ambiguous attachment, the authors find consistent ID differences that align with established complexity contrasts. Experiments across six LLMs, including representational similarity and layer pruning analyses, confirm that more complex phenomena produce higher ID profiles, with peaks occurring at different layers for each contrast.
By Marco Baroni, Emily Cheng, Iria de-Dios-Flores, Francesca Franzon
arXiv:2606. 10327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems must judge interdependent discourse elements (e.
By Ali Keramati, Mark Warschauer