Plain language summaries (PLSs) are essential for facilitating effective communication between clinicians and patients by making complex medical information easier for laypeople to understand and act upon. Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in automating PLS generation, but their effectiveness in supporting health information comprehension remains unclear. Prior evaluations have generally relied on automated scores that do not measure understandability directly, or subjective Likert-scale ratings from convenience samples with limited generalizability. To address these gaps, we conducted a large-scale crowdsourced evaluation of LLM-generated PLSs using Amazon Mechanical Turk with 150 participants. We assessed PLS quality through subjective Likert-scale ratings focusing on simplicity, informativeness, coherence, and faithfulness; and objective multiple-choice comprehension and recall measures of reader understanding. Additionally, we examined the alignment between 10 automated evaluation metrics and human judgments. Our findings indicate that while LLMs can generate PLSs that appear indistinguishable from human-written ones in subjective evaluations, human-written PLSs lead to significantly better comprehension. Furthermore, automated evaluation metrics fail to reflect human judgment, calling into question their suitability for evaluating PLSs. This is the first study to systematically evaluate LLM-generated PLSs based on both reader preferences and comprehension outcomes. Our findings highlight the need for evaluation frameworks that move beyond surface-level quality and for generation methods that explicitly optimize for layperson comprehension.

Gaussian processes are notorious for scaling cubically with the size of the training set, preventing application to very large regression problems. Computation-aware Gaussian processes (CAGPs) tackle this scaling issue by exploiting probabilistic linear solvers to reduce complexity, widening the posterior with additional computational uncertainty due to reduced computation. However, the most commonly used CAGP framework results in (sometimes dramatically) conservative uncertainty quantification, making the posterior unrealistic in practice. In this work, we prove that if the utilised probabilistic linear solver is calibrated, in a rigorous statistical sense, then so too is the induced CAGP. We thus propose a new CAGP framework, CAGP-GS, based on using Gauss-Seidel iterations for the underlying probabilistic linear solver. CAGP-GS performs favourably compared to existing approaches when the test set is low-dimensional and few iterations are performed. We test the calibratedness on a synthetic problem, and compare the performance to existing approaches on a large-scale global temperature regression problem.

Logic reasoning has been critically needed in problem-solving and decision-making. Although Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated capabilities of handling multiple reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense reasoning), their ability to reason complex mathematical problems, specifically propositional logic, remains largely underexplored. This lack of exploration can be attributed to the limited availability of annotated corpora. Here, we present a well-labeled propositional logic corpus, LogicPrpBank, containing 7093 Propositional Logic Statements (PLSs) across six mathematical subjects, to study a brand-new task of reasoning logical implication and equivalence. We benchmark LogicPrpBank with widely-used LMs to show that our corpus offers a useful resource for this challenging task and there is ample room for model improvement.