Difficult and unfamiliar concepts often hinder comprehension for lay audiences, especially in technical and educational domains. This motivates the usage of large language models (LLMs) for the process of text simplification (TS). In this work, we propose an iterative refinement framework that aims to simplify definitions by carefully handling complex terminology and domain-specific expressions. The obtained definition is reprocessed based on the critique, making refinements in successive iterations. We emphasize the use of small language models (SLMs) due to their faster response times and cost-efficient deployment. Human evaluations of the definitions produced at each refinement stage indicate consistent improvements in our specified evaluation criteria. We evaluate both LLM-as-a-judge score and human assessments along with automated metrics like BERTScore, BLEU-4, which provided supporting evidence for the effectiveness of our approach. Our work highlights the use of LLMs mimicking human-like feedback system in a TS task catering to a reader’s specific cognitive needs. Thus, we find that an iterative, critique-driven method can be an effective strategy for the simplification of dense or technical texts, particularly in domains where jargon impedes understanding.

Sarcasm is a specific form of ironic speech which can often be hard to understand for language models due to its nuanced nature. Recent improvements in the ability of such models to detect and generate sarcasm motivate us to try a new approach to help language models perceive sarcasm as a speech style, through a human cognitive perspective. In this work, we propose a multi-hop Chain of Thought (CoT) methodology to understand the context of an utterance that follows a dialogue and to perform bidirectional style transfer on that utterance, leveraging the Theory of Mind. We use small language models (SLMs) due to their cost-efficiency and fast response-time. The generated utterances are evaluated using both LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluation, suitable to the open-ended and stylistic nature of the generations. Along with these, we also evaluate scores of automated metrics such as DialogRPT, BLEU and SBERT; drawing valuable insights from them that support our evidence. Based on this, we find that our cognitive approach to sarcasm is an effective way for language models to stylistically understand and generate sarcasm with better authenticity.

Legal documents are characterized by theirlength, intricacy, and dense use of jargon, making efficacious summarisation both paramountand challenging. Existing zero-shot methodologies in small language models struggle tosimplify this jargon and are prone to punts andhallucinations with longer prompts. This paperintroduces the Rhetorical Role-based Extract-Explain-Abstract (EEA) Framework, a novelthree-stage methodology for summarisation ofIndian legal documents in low-resource settings. The approach begins by segmenting legaltexts using rhetorical roles, such as facts, issues and arguments, through a domain-specificphrase corpus and extraction based on TF-IDF.In the explanation stage, the segmented output is enriched with logical connections to ensure coherence and legal fidelity. The final abstraction phase condenses these interlinked segments into cogent, high-level summaries thatpreserve critical legal reasoning. Experimentson Indian legal datasets show that the EEAframework typically outperforms in ROUGE,BERTScore, Flesch Reading Ease, Age of Acquisition, SummaC and human evaluations. Wealso employ InLegalBERTScore as a metric tocapture domain specific semantics of Indianlegal documents.