Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SiTSE: Sinhala Text Simplification Dataset and Evaluation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that sequentially fine-tuning a multilingual model on translation, English simplification, and then Sinhala simplification enables zero-resource Sinhala text simplification that outperforms earlier zero-resource baselines.

desk verdict The SiTSE dataset is a genuine resource and the ITTL recipe is worth a look, but the paper's headline result is vulnerable because the test sentences and the translation auxiliary data come from the same corpus, and the paper never says the test set was excluded. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01293 v1 pith:OLFKWM63 submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CL

Surangika Ranathunga , Rumesh Sirithunga , Himashi Rathnayake , Lahiru De Silva , Thamindu Aluthwala , Saman Peramuna , Ravi Shekhar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords textsimplificationSinhalalow-resourceNLPintermediatetasktransferlearningsequence-to-sequencemodelsmT5BARTSARI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces SiTSE, the first sentence-level text simplification benchmark for Sinhala, built from 1,000 complex government sentences each paired with three human-written simplifications. Using it purely as a test set, the authors ask whether a multilingual sequence-to-sequence model can simplify Sinhala with no Sinhala simplification training data at all. They report that sequentially fine-tuning the model on related tasks—Sinhala translation, paraphrasing, and English simplification—before a synthetic Sinhala simplification step outperforms the previously proposed zero-resource baselines. The best configuration reaches a SARI score of 39.95 on mT5 and is favored in human evaluation, suggesting that task transfer can substitute for missing simplification corpora in a low-resource language.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a sequential fine-tuning recipe applied to pre-trained multilingual encoder-decoder models, mT5-base and mBART50: the model is fine-tuned in stages on auxiliary sequence-to-sequence tasks (Sinhala translation, Sinhala paraphrasing, and English-to-Sinhala simplification) and then on a synthetic Sinhala simplification corpus translated from English. The SiTSE dataset, with its three human references per complex sentence, supplies the held-out evaluation; the ordering and composition of the auxiliary task sequence is the independent variable that determines whether transfer happens.

What would settle it

Search the 56,000-sentence auxiliary translation corpus for exact or near-duplicate matches with the 1,000 SiTSE complex sentences; if any overlap exists, retrain the best ITTL configuration on the non-overlapping remainder and check whether its SARI advantage over the simpler baseline disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that intermediate task transfer learning (ITTL) outperforms the previously proposed zero-resource methods for text simplification in Sinhala. Concretely, the authors claim that fine-tuning a multilingual encoder-decoder model first on translation, then on English simplification, then on a machine-translated Sinhala simplification corpus yields both the highest SARI score (39.95 with mT5) and the best human ratings of adequacy and fluency among the tested systems. They further claim that translation is the most useful auxiliary task to run first, while adding paraphrasing as a third task gives no noticeable gain. The implication, on the paper's own terms, is that zero-resource simplification is achievable for Sinhala by reusing existing sequence-to-sequence data rather than waiting for a large native simplification corpus.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the 1,000 test sentences were never seen during any fine-tuning step, but the paper does not report excluding them from the auxiliary corpora that come from the same government-document source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A low-resource language that has access to a parallel corpus and a high-resource simplification dataset can build a workable simplification system without any native simplification training data.
  • Task ordering is not neutral: starting the auxiliary sequence with translation yields the best results, whereas concatenating all three auxiliary tasks does not improve over two.
  • The SiTSE benchmark, with three references per sentence and simplification dominated by sentence splitting, gives other researchers a fixed Sinhala test set and a target similar to HSplit.
  • Automatic scores and human error analysis diverge in places, so claims about simplification quality for Sinhala should be checked with human evaluation rather than SARI alone.
  • The reported insensitivity to translation language and corpus size suggests the transfer effect comes from the task itself, not from the scale of the auxiliary data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the evaluation sentences and the auxiliary translation corpus are drawn from the same government-document corpus and no overlap filtering is reported, part of the observed gain could come from the test sentences appearing in fine-tuning; a disjoint test set is the clean way to settle this.
  • Beyond the paper: the uniformly low human simplicity scores relative to adequacy and fluency suggest the models mostly split and rearrange sentences rather than replace difficult vocabulary, so a lexical-substitution component is a natural next step.
  • Beyond the paper: the same sequential recipe is likely portable to other under-resourced languages with modest parallel data, but the high near-exact-copy rates imply the outputs will be conservative unless copying is directly penalized.
  • Beyond the paper: the dataset itself, by including three human simplifications and two added error categories, offers a testbed for reference-free and learned metrics that are presently unavailable for Sinhala.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SiTSE, a human-curated Sinhala sentence-level text simplification evaluation dataset containing 1,000 complex sentences from official government documents, each with three simplified references. It frames Sinhala text simplification as a zero-resource sequence-to-sequence task and evaluates mT5 and mBART under several regimes: unfine-tuned multilingual models, zero-shot transfer from English simplification data, paraphrase mining (TS-Mining), a pivot-based baseline, and intermediate-task transfer learning (ITTL) with auxiliary tasks including translation, paraphrasing, and English simplification, applied singly or in sequence. The best reported automatic result is the Trans→En-simp→Si-simp ITTL strategy on mT5 with SARI 39.95 (Table 3), and human evaluations on 50 sentences per model also favor the ITTL models. The paper additionally proposes two new error-analysis categories and discusses the limits of existing automatic metrics for simplification.

Significance. If the central empirical claim holds, the paper makes two contributions: a reusable, manually curated Sinhala simplification evaluation resource with multiple references, and evidence that sequential fine-tuning on related sequence-to-sequence tasks can provide a viable route to simplification in a language with no parallel simplification data. The authors provide public code and data, and the dataset's three-reference design is a genuine asset. The paper is also valuable for its frank discussion of the challenges that SARI and BERTScore face in low-resource simplification evaluation. However, the validity of the headline claim is currently contingent on resolving a potentially serious test-set/auxiliary-corpus overlap and on adding statistical support for the reported differences.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §5] The SiTSE test sentences are selected from the Sinhala side of the Fernando et al. [26] English-Sinhala-Tamil parallel corpus (§3), and the Trans auxiliary task uses 56,000 sentence pairs from the same corpus (§5). The paper never states that the 1,000 test sentences were excluded from the translation fine-tuning data, nor does it report any overlap check. If any test sentence (or a close paraphrase) appears in the Trans training data, the Trans→... ITTL models have been fine-tuned on the exact input strings they are later asked to simplify, while the Si-simp, TS-Mining, and Pivot baselines have not seen those sentences. This would directly confound the abstract's central claim that ITTL outperforms previously proposed zero-resource methods. The authors should either verify non-overlap (e.g., by releasing the overlap computation), remove overlapping sentences from the auxiliary data, or re-run the evaluation on a clean test set drawn from a source not used in any auxiliary task, and then report the comparison again.
  2. [§6.1, §5.1, Table 3] All automatic results are single-run point estimates with no error bars, significance tests, or multiple seeds. Several of the differences that motivate the conclusions are small (e.g., SARI 39.95 vs. 39.17 for Trans→En-simp→Si-simp vs. Trans→Si-simp on mT5, Table 3), and the human evaluation uses only 50 randomly selected sentences per model with no reported inter-annotator agreement or significance testing. As presented, the claim that ITTL 'outperforms' the baselines is not statistically supported. The authors should report means and standard deviations over several seeds, run paired significance tests (e.g., bootstrap) for SARI and BERTScore, and provide agreement metrics and significance tests for the human ratings.
  3. [§3, §7, Appendix D] The paper states that the 1,000-sentence dataset was used entirely for testing, leaving nothing for model training (§7), but it does not describe any held-out validation set or a model-selection protocol. Appendix D reports hyperparameters, yet there is no indication of how training steps, checkpoints, or hyperparameter choices were made without looking at the test set. If the test set was used to guide early stopping or hyperparameter selection, this is an additional form of test-set leakage. The authors should specify a development protocol that does not use the evaluation sentences (e.g., a small held-out subset of the auxiliary data, or fixed training schedules) and state explicitly that no test-set information was used to make modeling decisions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] The mT5 BERTScore for the sqPLMs baseline is reported as 15.21, which is inconsistent with the statement in §6.1 that BERTScore is 'more than 81' for all models except Si Zero-Shot-TS and Pivot; this appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected or clarified.
  2. [Table 3] The table layout is very hard to read: the 'Avg. sent length' column is not clearly distinguished from the SARI and BERTScore columns, and the mBART/mT5 sub-headers are ambiguous in the rendered text. Please reformat the table so that each model x metric cell is unambiguous.
  3. [§4.2, Abstract] The term 'zero-resource' is used to describe a setup that still relies on 56,000 translation pairs, 7,000 mined paraphrases, and a machine-translated version of Newsela; the paper should define the term precisely (e.g., 'no parallel complex-simple Sinhala data') to avoid the misleading implication that no external data are used.
  4. [§6.2.1, Table 5] The text says the best average human score is obtained when all auxiliary tasks are sequenced, but the difference between the best and second-best average scores is only 0.01 (3.76 vs. 3.75 in Table 5); this wording should be tempered, especially since the authors themselves note the gain is insignificant.
  5. [§5.1] Please clarify whether the same 50 sentences were used for human evaluation across all models and whether the evaluators were aware of which model produced each output; these details are important for interpreting the human comparison.
  6. [General] The ACM reference block lists the submission date as 'December 2018' while the arXiv version is dated December 2024; update the date and venue information to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

SiTSE test sentences and the 56k translation auxiliary pairs come from the same Fernando et al. corpus, with no reported exclusion, so the ITTL 'prediction' is partially at risk of being evaluated on training inputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Data Selection) and Section 5 (Experiment Setup)]
    "Our data source is the Sinhala side of the English-Sinhala-Tamil parallel corpus prepared by Fernando et al. [26]. ... Three of the authors manually reviewed the corpus and selected 1,000 complex sentences with rare words and large sentence lengths. ... For the translation task, we used the SiTa corpus with 56,000 parallel Sinhala-Tamil-English sentence pairs extracted from official government documents of Sri Lanka [26]."

    The 1,000 SiTSE test sentences are hand-picked from the Fernando et al. corpus, and the translation auxiliary task used in the winning Trans→En-simp→Si-simp model is trained on 56,000 sentence pairs from that same corpus. The paper does not report removing the 1,000 test sentences from the 56,000 pairs; the Section 7 limitation says only that SiTSE itself was not used for training. If the test sentences are present in the translation fine-tuning data, the ITTL model has been fine-tuned on the exact source strings on which it is later evaluated, so its SARI gain over TS-Mining and Pivot, which never saw those strings, can reflect source-side memorization rather than intermediate-task transfer.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison of sequence-to-sequence models, not a formal derivation, so most of the reasoning—ITTL definitions, fine-tuning recipes, and SARI/BERTScore computation—is self-contained and independently checkable. The one load-bearing step that approaches circularity is the overlap between the evaluation set and the auxiliary translation training data: Section 3 selects the 1,000 SiTSE complex sentences from the Fernando et al. [26] corpus, and Section 5 trains the translation auxiliary task on 56,000 pairs 'extracted from official government documents of Sri Lanka [26]'—the same corpus—without any stated exclusion of the test sentences. Since the best ITTL configuration begins with the translation task, a model that has seen the test source sentences during translation fine-tuning could trivially produce more fluent Sinhala on those inputs, inflating adequacy, fluency, and SARI components relative to baselines that never saw the test inputs. This is a partial circularity in the evaluation, not a mathematical derivation of a result from its own assumptions. No self-citation uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggling is present; references to the authors' prior work are ordinary dataset and method citations. The paper is also honest about the small dataset and the difficulty of metric choice. Because the overlap is strongly suggested by the shared corpus and the missing exclusion report, but not explicitly proven, the circularity score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on several unstated or weakly stated assumptions: the pretrained models generalize to Sinhala, Google-translated Newsela provides a valid simplification signal, the auxiliary translation corpus does not overlap with the test set, and the automatic/human metrics are meaningful. The overlap assumption is the most serious because both datasets originate from the same Fernando et al. corpus.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption mT5 and mBART multilingual checkpoints provide meaningful representations for Sinhala generation tasks.
    The entire approach relies on these pretrained models transferring to Sinhala despite low representation; cited prior work suggests this, but it is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Google-translated Newsela data into Sinhala provides a usable simplification training signal.
    Synthetic training data is created by translating an English simplification corpus; assumes simplification transformations survive translation.
  • domain assumption The SiTa auxiliary translation corpus and the SiTSE test sentences are disjoint.
    Both derive from the same Fernando et al. parallel corpus; the paper never states that the 1,000 test sentences were excluded from the 56k-pair translation training set.
  • domain assumption SARI and BERTScore are adequate automatic metrics for Sinhala simplification.
    The authors use these metrics while acknowledging their limitations for low-resource TS; no Sinhala-specific metric exists.
  • domain assumption The 1,000 government-document sentences are representative of complex Sinhala text.
    Only one domain is sampled; results may not generalize to other text types.
  • domain assumption Human annotations are high-quality and consistent.
    Annotators are native speakers with pilots and feedback, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SiTSE: Sinhala Text Simplification Dataset and Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLFKWM63

@misc{pith2026241201293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SiTSE: Sinhala Text Simplification Dataset and Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLFKWM63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01293}
}
read the original abstract

Text Simplification is a task that has been minimally explored for low-resource languages. Consequently, there are only a few manually curated datasets. In this paper, we present a human curated sentence-level text simplification dataset for the Sinhala language. Our evaluation dataset contains 1,000 complex sentences and corresponding 3,000 simplified sentences produced by three different human annotators. We model the text simplification task as a zero-shot and zero resource sequence-to-sequence (seq-seq) task on the multilingual language models mT5 and mBART. We exploit auxiliary data from related seq-seq tasks and explore the possibility of using intermediate task transfer learning (ITTL). Our analysis shows that ITTL outperforms the previously proposed zero-resource methods for text simplification. Our findings also highlight the challenges in evaluating text simplification systems, and support the calls for improved metrics for measuring the quality of automated text simplification systems that would suit low-resource languages as well. Our code and data are publicly available: https://github.com/brainsharks-fyp17/Sinhala-Text-Simplification-Dataset-and-Evaluation

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01293 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sample sentence from SiTSE dataset with English translations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ITTL with (a) a single intermediate task and (b) a sequence of intermediate tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual representation of the number of occurrences of each error type that exist in model outputs and human-curated data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample sentences generated from three models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Sinhala Transliteration: A Comparative Analysis Between Rule-based and Seq2Seq Approaches

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning M2M100 on 9,000 parallel examples yields a Singlish-to-Sinhala transliterator that strongly outperforms a rule-based baseline on held-out shared-task test sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [26]

    Aloka Fernando, Surangika Ranathunga, and Gihan Dias. 2020. Data Augmentation and Terminology Integration for Domain-Specific Sinhala- English-Tamil Statistical Machine Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02821 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Sweta Agrawal and Marine Carpuat. 2019. Controlling Text Complexity in Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) . 1549–1564

    2019

  3. [2]

    Fernando Alva-Manchego, Joachim Bingel, Gustavo Paetzold, Carolina Scarton, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Learning how to simplify from explicit labeling of complex-simplified text pairs. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 295–305

    2017

  4. [3]

    Fernando Alva-Manchego, Louis Martin, Antoine Bordes, Carolina Scarton, Benoît Sagot, and Lucia Specia. 2020. ASSET: A Dataset for Tuning and Evaluation of Sentence Simplification Models with Multiple Rewriting Transformations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguis...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.424 2020

  5. [4]

    Fernando Alva-Manchego, Carolina Scarton, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Data-Driven Sentence Simplification: Survey and Benchmark. Computational Linguistics 46, 1 (2020), 135–187. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00370

    doi:10.1162/coli_a_00370 2020

  6. [5]

    Fernando Alva-Manchego, Carolina Scarton, and Lucia Specia. 2021. The (Un)Suitability of Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Text Simplification. Computational Linguistics 47, 4 (Dec. 2021), 861–889. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00418

    doi:10.1162/coli_a_00418 2021

  7. [6]

    Yusra Anees and Sadaf Abdul Rauf. 2021. Automatic Sentence Simplification in Low Resource Settings for Urdu. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for Positive Impact . 60–70. Manuscript submitted to ACM 14 Ranathunga, et al

    2021

  8. [7]

    Alessio Palmero Aprosio, Sara Tonelli, Marco Turchi, Matteo Negri, and Mattia A Di Gangi. 2019. Neural Text Simplification in Low-Resource Conditions Using Weak Supervision. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods for Optimizing and Evaluating Neural Language Generation . 37–44

    2019

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2020. Translation Artifacts in Cross-lingual Transfer Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) . 7674–7684

    2020

  2. [9]

    Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. 2019. Massively Multilingual Sentence Embeddings for Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer and Beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7 (2019), 597–610

    2019

  3. [10]

    Seyed Ali Bahrainian, Jonathan Dou, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2024. Text Simplification via Adaptive Teaching. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024. 6574–6584

    2024

  4. [11]

    Alessia Battisti, Dominik Pfütze, Andreas Säuberli, Marek Kostrzewa, and Sarah Ebling. 2020. A Corpus for Automatic Readability Assessment and Text Simplification of German. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . 3302–3311

    2020

  5. [12]

    Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, and Pascal Vincent. 2000. A neural probabilistic language model. Advances in neural information processing systems 13 (2000)

    2000

  6. [13]

    Stefan Bott and Horacio Saggion. 2011. An Unsupervised Alignment Algorithm for Text Simplification Corpus Construction. ACL HLT 2011 (2011), 20

    2011

  7. [14]

    Laetitia Brouwers, Delphine Bernhard, Anne-Laure Ligozat, and Thomas François. 2014. Syntactic Sentence Simplification for French. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Predicting and Improving Text Readability for Target Reader Populations (PITR) . 47–56

    2014

  8. [15]

    Dominique Brunato, Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta, and Giulia Venturi. 2016. Paccss-it: A parallel corpus of complex-simple sentences for automatic text simplification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 351–361

    2016

  9. [16]

    Dominique Brunato, Felice Dell’Orletta, Giulia Venturi, and Simonetta Montemagni. 2015. Design and annotation of the first Italian corpus for text simplification. In Proceedings of The 9th Linguistic Annotation Workshop . 31–41

    2015

  10. [17]

    Helena M Caseli, Tiago F Pereira, Lucia Specia, Thiago AS Pardo, Caroline Gasperin, and Sandra Maria Aluísio. 2009. Building a Brazilian Portuguese parallel corpus of original and simplified texts. Advances in Computational Linguistics, Research in Computer Science 41 (2009), 59–70

    2009

  11. [18]

    Liam Cripwell, Joël Legrand, and Claire Gardent. 2023. Simplicity Level Estimate (SLE): A Learned Reference-Less Metric for Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 12053–12059

    2023

  12. [19]

    Scott A Crossley, Max M Louwerse, Philip M McCarthy, and Danielle S McNamara. 2007. A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal 91, 1 (2007), 15–30

    2007

  13. [20]

    Nisansa de Silva. 2021. Survey on publicly available Sinhala Natural Language Processing tools and research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02358v10 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Jacob Devlin. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Vinura Dhananjaya, Piyumal Demotte, Surangika Ranathunga, and Sanath Jayasena. 2022. BERTifying Sinhala-A Comprehensive Analysis of Pre-trained Language Models for Sinhala Text Classification. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . 7377–7385

    2022

  16. [23]

    Vinura Dhananjaya, Surangika Ranathunga, and Sanath Jayasena. 2024. Lexicon-based fine-tuning of multilingual language models for low-resource language sentiment analysis. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Yue Dong, Zichao Li, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2019. EditNTS: An Neural Programmer-Interpreter Model for Sentence Simplification through Explicit Editing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 3393–3402

    2019

  18. [25]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Núria Gala, Anaïs Tack, Ludivine Javourey-Drevet, Thomas François, and Johannes C Ziegler. 2020. Alector: A parallel corpus of simplified French texts with alignments of misreadings by poor and dyslexic readers. In Language Resources and Evaluation for Language Technologies (LREC)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Cristina Garbacea, Mengtian Guo, Samuel Carton, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2021. Explainable Prediction of Text Complexity: The Missing Preliminaries for Text Simplification. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Internat...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Isao Goto, Hideki Tanaka, and Tadashi Kumano. 2015. Japanese news simplification: tak design, data set construction, and analysis of simplified text. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XV: Papers

    2015

  22. [30]

    Han Guo, Ramakanth Pasunuru, and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Dynamic Multi-Level Multi-Task Learning for Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics . 462–476

    2018

  23. [31]

    Sebastian Joseph, Kathryn Kazanas, Keziah Reina, Vishnesh Ramanathan, Wei Xu, Byron C Wallace, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2023. Multilingual Simplification of Medical Texts. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 16662–16692

    2023

  24. [32]

    David Kauchak. 2013. Improving text simplification language modeling using unsimplified text data. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) . 1537–1546

    2013

  25. [33]

    Tannon Kew, Alison Chi, Laura Vásquez-Rodríguez, Sweta Agrawal, Dennis Aumiller, Fernando Alva-Manchego, and Matthew Shardlow. 2023. BLESS: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lang...

    2023

  26. [34]

    David Klaper, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2013. Building a German/Simple German Parallel Corpus for Automatic Text Simplification. ACL 2013 (2013), 11

    2013

  27. [35]

    Sigrid Klerke and Anders Søgaard. 2012. DSim, a Danish parallel corpus for text simplification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) . 4015–4018

    2012

  28. [36]

    Reno Kriz, João Sedoc, Marianna Apidianaki, Carolina Zheng, Gaurav Kumar, Eleni Miltsakaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2019. Complexity-Weighted Loss and Diverse Reranking for Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the As...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Jeongwon Kwak, Hyeryun Park, Kyungmo Kim, and Jinwook Choi. 2023. Context and Literacy Aware Learnable Metric for Text Simplification. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM) . 175–180

    2023

  30. [38]

    En-Shiun Lee, Sarubi Thillainathan, Shravan Nayak, Surangika Ranathunga, David Adelani, Ruisi Su, and Arya D McCarthy. 2022. Pre-Trained Multilingual Sequence-to-Sequence Models: A Hope for Low-Resource Language Translation?. In Findings of the Association for Computational Li...

    2022

  31. [39]

    M Lewis. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yinhan Liu. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 8 (11 2020), 726–742. htt...

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Mounica Maddela, Fernando Alva-Manchego, and Wei Xu. 2021. Controllable Text Simplification with Explicit Paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies . Associati...

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Mounica Maddela, Yao Dou, David Heineman, and Wei Xu. 2023. LENS: A Learnable Evaluation Metric for Text Simplification. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 16383–16408

    2023

  36. [44]

    Jonathan Mallinson and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Controllable sentence simplification: Employing syntactic and lexical constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.04387 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jonathan Mallinson, Rico Sennrich, and Mirella Lapata. 2020. Zero-Shot Crosslingual Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) . 5109–5126

    2020

  38. [46]

    Louis Martin, Éric de la Clergerie, Benoît Sagot, and Antoine Bordes. 2020. Controllable Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 4689–4698. https://aclantholo...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Louis Martin, Angela Fan, Éric Villemonte De La Clergerie, Antoine Bordes, and Benoît Sagot. 2022. MUSS: Multilingual Unsupervised Sentence Simplification by Mining Paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference . 1651–1664

    2022

  40. [48]

    Jana M Mason and Janet R Kendall. 1978. Facilitating Reading Comprehension through Text Structure Manipulation. Technical Report No. 92. (1978)

    1978

  41. [49]

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Martina Miliani, Serena Auriemma, Fernando Alva-Manchego, and Alessandro Lenci. 2022. Neural readability pairwise ranking for sentences in Italian administrative language. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Sneha Mondal, Ritika Ritika, Ashish Agrawal, Preethi Jyothi, and Aravindan Raghuveer. 2024. DIMSIM: Distilled Multilingual Critics for Indic Text Simplification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 . 16093–16109

    2024

  44. [52]

    Akifumi Nakamachi, Tomoyuki Kajiwara, and Yuki Arase. 2020. Text Simplification with Reinforcement Learning Using Supervised Rewards on Grammaticality, Meaning Preservation, and Simplicity. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Shashi Narayan and Claire Gardent. 2016. Unsupervised Sentence Simplification Using Deep Semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Natural Language Generation conference . 111–120

    2016

  46. [54]

    Shravan Nayak, Surangika Ranathunga, Sarubi Thillainathan, Rikki Hung, Anthony Rinaldi, Yining Wang, Jonah Mackey, Andrew Ho, and En- Shiun Annie Lee. 2023. Leveraging Auxiliary Domain Parallel Data in Intermediate Task Fine-tuning for Low-resource Translation. arXiv preprint ...

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Daiki Nishihara, Tomoyuki Kajiwara, and Yuki Arase. 2019. Controllable text simplification with lexical constraint loss. In Proceedings of the 57th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Student research workshop . 260–266

    2019

  48. [56]

    Sergiu Nisioi, Sanja Štajner, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Liviu P Dinu. 2017. Exploring neural text simplification models. In Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 2: Short papers) . 85–91

    2017

  49. [57]

    Kashyapa Niyarepola, Dineth Athapaththu, Savindu Ekanayake, and Surangika Ranathunga. 2022. Math Word Problem Generation with Multilingual Language Models. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Natural Language Generation . 144–155. Manuscript submitted to ACM...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computationa...

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. InProceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphi...

    2002

  52. [60]

    Jason Phang, Iacer Calixto, Phu Mon Htut, Yada Pruksachatkun, Haokun Liu, Clara Vania, Katharina Kann, and Samuel Bowman. 2020. English Intermediate-Task Training Improves Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer Too. InProceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of ...

    2020

  53. [61]

    Jason Phang, Thibault Févry, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Sentence encoders on stilts: Supplementary training on intermediate labeled-data tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01088 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al . [n. d.]. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. ([n. d.])

  55. [63]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21, 140 (2020), 1–67

    2020

  56. [64]

    Surangika Ranathunga and Nisansa De Silva. 2022. Some Languages are More Equal than Others: Probing Deeper into the Linguistic Disparity in the NLP World. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the ...

    2022

  57. [65]

    Surangika Ranathunga, Nisansa De Silva, Velayuthan Menan, Aloka Fernando, and Charitha Rathnayake. 2024. Quality Does Matter: A Detailed Look at the Quality and Utility of Web-Mined Parallel Corpora. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Associat...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Luz Rello, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Laura Dempere-Marco, and Horacio Saggion. 2013. Frequent words improve readability and short words improve understandability for people with dyslexia. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . Springer, 203–219

    2013

  59. [67]

    Michael Ryan, Tarek Naous, and Wei Xu. 2023. Revisiting non-English Text Simplification: A Unified Multilingual Benchmark. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 4898–4927

    2023

  60. [68]

    Andreas Säuberli, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2020. Benchmarking Data-driven Automatic Text Simplification for German. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Tools and Resources to Empower People with REAding DIfficulties (READI) . 41–48

    2020

  61. [69]

    Carolina Scarton, Gustavo Paetzold, and Lucia Specia. 2018. Simpa: A sentence-level simplification corpus for the public administration domain. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Carolina Scarton and Lucia Specia. 2018. Learning simplifications for specific target audiences. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) . 712–718

    2018

  63. [71]

    Schreiner

    Lane Schwartz, Emily Chen, Benjamin Hunt, and Sylvia L.R. Schreiner. 2019. Bootstrapping a Neural Morphological Analyzer for St. Lawrence Island Yupik from a Finite-State Transducer. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Use of Computational Methods in the Study of Endange...

    2019

  64. [72]

    Advaith Siddharthan, Ani Nenkova, and Kathleen McKeown. 2004. Syntactic simplification for improving content selection in multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics . 896–es

    2004

  65. [73]

    Lucia Specia. 2010. Translating from complex to simplified sentences. In Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language: 9th International Conference, PROPOR 2010, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, April 27-30, 2010. Proceedings 9 . Springer, 30–39

    2010

  66. [74]

    Regina Stodden, Omar Momen, and Laura Kallmeyer. 2023. DEplain: A German Parallel Corpus with Intralingual Translations into Plain Language for Sentence and Document Simplification. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Elior Sulem, Omri Abend, and Ari Rappoport. 2018. BLEU is Not Suitable for the Evaluation of Text Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, Belgium, 738–744. ...

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Elior Sulem, Omri Abend, and Ari Rappoport. 2018. Simple and Effective Text Simplification Using Semantic and Neural Methods. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 162–173

    2018

  69. [77]

    Sai Surya, Abhijit Mishra, Anirban Laha, Parag Jain, and Karthik Sankaranarayanan. 2019. Unsupervised Neural Text Simplification. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 2058–2068

    2019

  70. [78]

    Sotaro Takeshita, Tommaso Green, Niklas Friedrich, Kai Eckert, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2022. X-SCITLDR: cross-lingual extreme summarization of scholarly documents. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries . 1–12

    2022

  71. [79]

    Sarubi Thillainathan, Surangika Ranathunga, and Sanath Jayasena. 2021. Fine-tuning self-supervised multilingual sequence-to-sequence models for extremely low-resource NMT. In 2021 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon) . IEEE, 432–437

    2021

  72. [80]

    Sara Tonelli, Alessio Palmero Aprosio, and Francesca Saltori. 2016. SIMPITIKI: a Simplification corpus for Italian

    2016

  73. [81]

    Sowmya Vajjala and Ivana Lučić. 2018. OneStopEnglish corpus: A new corpus for automatic readability assessment and text simplification. In Proceedings of the thirteenth workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications . 297–304

    2018

  74. [82]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017). Manuscript submitted to ACM SiTSE: Sinhala Text Simplification Dataset and Evaluation 17

    2017

  75. [83]

    Tu Vu, Baotian Hu, Tsendsuren Munkhdalai, and Hong Yu. 2018. Sentence Simplification with Memory-Augmented Neural Networks. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume ...

    2018

  76. [84]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020

  77. [85]

    Kristian Woodsend and Mirella Lapata. 2011. Learning to simplify sentences with quasi-synchronous grammar and integer programming. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 409–420

    2011

  78. [86]

    Wei Xu, Chris Callison-Burch, and Courtney Napoles. 2015. Problems in Current Text Simplification Research: New Data Can Help. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3 (2015), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00139

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Wei Xu, Courtney Napoles, Ellie Pavlick, Quanze Chen, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2016. Optimizing Statistical Machine Translation for Text Simplification. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4 (2016), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00107

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A Massively Multilingual Pre-trained Text-to-Text Transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association...

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT. In International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id=SkeHuCVFDr

    2020

  82. [90]

    Xingxing Zhang and Mirella Lapata. 2017. Sentence Simplification with Deep Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 584–594

    2017

  83. [91]

    Yaoyuan Zhang, Zhenxu Ye, Yansong Feng, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2017. A constrained sequence-to-sequence neural model for sentence simplification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02312 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Sanqiang Zhao, Rui Meng, Daqing He, Andi Saptono, and Bambang Parmanto. 2018. Integrating Transformer and Paraphrase Rules for Sentence Simplification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 3164–3173

    2018

  85. [93]

    Xinran Zhao, Esin Durmus, and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2023. Towards reference-free text simplification evaluation with a BERT siamese network architecture. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 . 13250–13264

    2023

  86. [94]

    Yanbin Zhao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, and Kai Yu. 2020. Semi-supervised text simplification with back-translation and asymmetric denoising autoencoders. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 34. 9668–9675

    2020

  87. [95]

    Zhemin Zhu, Delphine Bernhard, and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. A monolingual tree-based translation model for sentence simplification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010) . 1353–1361. Manuscript submitted to ACM 18 Ranathung...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.