The well-known rhetorical framework, ABT (And, But, Therefore), mirrors natural human cognition in structuring an argument’s logical progression - apropos to academic communication. However, distilling the complexities of research into clear and concise prose requires careful sequencing of ideas and formulating clear connections between them. This presents a quiet inequitability for contributions from authors who struggle with English proficiency or academic writing conventions. We see this as impetus to introduce: Mondrian, a framework that identifies the key components of an abstract and reorients itself to properly reflect the ABT logical progression. The framework is composed of a deconstruction stage, reconstruction stage, and rephrasing. We introduce a novel metric for evaluating deviation from ABT structure, named EB-DTW, which accounts for both ordinality and a non-uniform distribution of importance in a sequence. Our overall approach aims to improve the comprehensibility of academic writing, particularly for non-native English speakers, along with a complementary metric. The effectiveness of Mondrian is tested with automatic metrics and extensive human evaluation, and demonstrated through impressive quantitative and qualitative results, with organization and overall coherence of an abstract improving by an average of 27.71% and 24.71%.

The reasoning, writing, text-editing, and retrieval capabilities of proprietary large language models (LLMs) have advanced rapidly, providing users with an ever-expanding set of functionalities. However, this growing utility has also led to a serious societal concern: the over-reliance on LLMs. In particular, users increasingly delegate tasks such as homework, assignments, or the processing of sensitive documents to LLMs without meaningful engagement. This form of over-reliance and misuse is emerging as a significant social issue. In order to mitigate these issues, we propose a method injecting imperceptible phantom tokens into documents, which causes LLMs to generate outputs that appear plausible to users but are in fact incorrect. Based on this technique, we introduce TrapDoc, a framework designed to deceive over-reliant LLM users. Through empirical evaluation, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on proprietary LLMs, comparing its impact against several baselines. TrapDoc serves as a strong foundation for promoting more responsible and thoughtful engagement with language models.