Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Reading with Intent -- Neutralizing Intent

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rewriting sarcastic context to neutral tone restores LLM question-answering accuracy to non-sarcastic levels.

desk verdict A useful, honest extension of the Reading with Intent line whose headline effect is plausible but not yet proven, because fact preservation in the one-way neutralization step is never directly checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03475 v1 pith:QFXCIYVR submitted 2025-01-07 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Benjamin Reichman , Adar Avsian , Larry Heck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords readingwithintentemotiontranslationsarcasmneutralizationretrieval-augmentedgenerationquestionansweringstyletransfersyntheticdatasetLoRAfine-tuning
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 claims that the emotional tone of retrieved context, especially sarcasm, degrades LLM question answering, and that this degradation can be removed by rewriting the context to a neutral tone without changing its facts. To make that move work, the authors construct a synthetic parallel corpus in which Wikipedia-style passages are rewritten into eleven emotions by five different LLMs, then fine-tune a single 8-billion-parameter model with LoRA to translate any passage from one emotion to another. Applied to sarcastic reading-comprehension datasets, neutralizing the passages improves accuracy by about 2.8 percent on fully sarcastic context and restores performance to the non-sarcastic baseline. On datasets where some sarcastic passages are also factually distorted, neutralization leaves accuracy essentially unchanged, indicating that tone is only part of the problem. If correct, the work provides a cheap, model-agnostic preprocessing fix for one failure mode of retrieval-augmented generation on internet text.

What carries the argument

The central object is the emotion-translator: a Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model fine-tuned with rank-8 LoRA on a synthetic parallel bitext where each passage is rewritten into eleven emotions or linguistic tropes: anger, condescension, disgust, envy, excitement, fear, happiness, humor, sadness, sarcasm, and surprise. Training pairs are prefixed with a prompt specifying the source emotion and the target emotion, and ten percent of examples map an emotion to itself as regularization. In the Reading with Intent pipeline, the translator takes sarcastic passages tagged by the intent-tagging system and rewrites them to neutral tone while retaining facts, and the downstream QA LLM then reads only the neutralized passages. The synthetic data-generation design, in which each passage is randomly assigned to one of five LLMs for each emotion, is what makes the parallel corpus diverse enough for the translator to generalize.

What would settle it

Compare answer-bearing fact spans in the original NQ-FS sarcastic passages with their neutralized versions: if neutralization removes, adds, or reverses facts that determine the ground-truth answer, the reported comprehension gains are an artifact of changed content rather than tone. A concrete version is to run the same QA models on neutralized passages produced by a human editor with no knowledge of the question and check whether the 2.8 percent improvement survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Rewriting sarcastic retrieved context into neutral tone makes LLMs answer questions as accurately as when the context was never sarcastic. On the NQ-FS dataset, which contains fully sarcastic but factually accurate passages, neutralization improves QA accuracy by 2.8 percent on average across Llama-2-7B, Llama-2-70B, Qwen2-7B, and Qwen2-72B, and brings scores back to the original NQ no-sarcasm numbers. The same neutralization leaves NQ-PSM and NQ-PSA, which mix sarcasm with fact-distorted passages, nearly unchanged at -0.35 percent and +0.07 percent respectively, showing that sarcasm distorts comprehension through tone rather than through the deception signal carried by factual distortion. Human evaluations on round-trip translation of human-written emotional text from Go Emotions and SARC find that the fine-tuned translator preserves emotion and factual content better than a zero-shot LLM, including on emotions not present in the synthetic training set.

Load-bearing premise

The neutralization step keeps the facts of sarcastic passages intact; this was checked on human-written text via round-trip translation, not on the one-way neutralized NQ-FS, NQ-PSM, and NQ-PSA passages used in the accuracy numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Neutralizing tone before QA can recover essentially all of the accuracy lost to sarcastic context, without retraining the downstream model.
  • The approach degrades gracefully when sarcasm coincides with factual distortion, implying that neutralization should be paired with fact-checking or trust signals rather than used alone.
  • Round-trip translation with human evaluation offers a template for validating style and emotion transformations when parallel ground truth is unavailable.
  • Because the translator generalizes to three held-out emotions, embarrassment, nervousness, and relief, emotion translation may be trainable from a modest set of categorical emotions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Neutralization could be deployed as a preprocessing layer in RAG systems that retrieve from social media, reviews, or forums where sarcasm is frequent; the paper does not test this directly but its datasets imitate that setting.
  • The roughly one percent additional gain from the fine-tuned translator over zero-shot neutralization suggests that task-specific fine-tuning on synthetic emotional bitext is worth the cost for tone normalization.
  • A natural extension is to make neutralization conditional on the downstream question, or to preserve emotional intensity while changing emotion type, which the paper's limitation section notes is not currently controlled.
  • The unchanged performance on fact-distorted sarcastic passages hints that sarcasm can serve as a weak deception signal; a testable follow-up is whether preserving a marker of possible deception while removing tone improves robustness.
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 extends the Reading with Intent task, which studies how emotional tones in retrieved passages affect LLM question answering, from a single sarcasm trope to 11 emotions. The authors construct a large synthetic dataset by transforming Wikipedia-derived NQ retrieval passages into 11 emotional styles using five different LLMs, analyze its distributional properties, and fine-tune Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with LoRA on this bitext corpus to train an emotion-translator. They evaluate the translator via BLEU and Amazon Mechanical Turk round-trip translation on human-written GoEmotions and SARC texts, reporting that the fine-tuned model reconstructs emotions and factual content better than a zero-shot baseline. They then apply the translator to neutralize sarcastic contexts in the NQ-FS, NQ-PSM, and NQ-PSA datasets, reporting an average 2.8% accuracy improvement on the factually accurate NQ-FS set across four reader LLMs, while neutralization leaves NQ-PSM and NQ-PSA largely unchanged. The paper concludes that neutralization helps LLMs handle sarcastic-but-factual context but is not sufficient for factually distorted sarcasm.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is a useful contribution to robust RAG: internet-retrieved contexts are not Wikipedia-like in tone, and a dedicated emotion-translator that strips sarcasm while preserving facts would be a practical preprocessing tool. The strengths include the scale of the synthetic dataset (3.6M passages across 11 emotions), the multi-LLM generation strategy that demonstrably reduces distributional shift (Figure 2), and the human evaluation design that tests generalization to unseen emotions (embarrassment, nervousness, relief) on out-of-distribution human text. The paper also honestly reports the null results on NQ-PSM and NQ-PSA. The main risk is that the load-bearing fact-preservation property of the one-way neutralization step is not directly validated on the benchmark passages, which the authors themselves partially acknowledge; this is addressable with additional experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 1] The claim that neutralizing NQ-FS 'restores the performance to the model's performance on the original NQ dataset' is not supported for two of the four LLMs. Qwen2-7B scores 43.5% with emotion-translator neutralization versus 44.1% on original NQ, and Qwen2-72B scores 48.9% versus 49.2%. The 2.8% average improvement should be reported with the per-model deltas and with some measure of variance; as presented, there are no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and the reader cannot tell whether the improvement is stable across evaluation seeds or passage samples.
  2. [Section 6.2, Figure 6 and Table 3] Factual preservation is validated only on round-trip translations of human-written GoEmotions/SARC text, not on the one-way neutralization of the NQ-FS, NQ-PSM, and NQ-PSA passages that are used in Section 6.1. The paper asserts in Section 6 that neutralization 'would effect the emotion of the text but not the factual content,' but the provided evidence does not directly test this for the benchmark passages. The QA accuracy in Table 1 is a weak proxy for fact preservation because with 10 retrieved passages, a corrupted neutralized passage can be masked by other passages or by the LLM's parametric knowledge. The example in Table 3 itself illustrates the risk: the sarcastic 'only $1999.99' becomes 'a steal ... a bargain' after round-trip, changing the evaluative implication. A direct fact-preservation audit of the one-way neutralized NQ passages (e.g., human or automated comparison of atomic facts against the original non-sarcastic passage) is needed to establish that the 2.8% gain is a sarcasm-comprehension effect rather than a content-editing artifact.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6.1] The abstract's 'about 3%' headline improvement is misleading without qualification: the improvement is confined to the NQ-FS dataset, while NQ-PSM and NQ-PSA show roughly zero net change (-0.35% and +0.07%). The body text reports this correctly, but the abstract should state that neutralization helps only for factually accurate sarcastic contexts, or report the dataset-specific numbers. In addition, the claim that the fine-tuned emotion-translator 'boosts performance by 1.05%' across datasets and models is an average over heterogeneous conditions and is not accompanied by a variance estimate or a breakdown that would show whether the gain is consistent beyond the NQ-FS rows.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, Introduction] There is a typo: 'the authors focused on a single linguistic tope' should be 'trope.'
  2. [Section 6, first paragraph] 'This translation would effect the emotion' should be 'affect'; similar wording appears in the Section 6.1 discussion.
  3. [Section 6.2] The evaluation section lists four questions at the start but then describes experiments organized around three criteria (back-translation reconstruction, emotion recognition, factual fidelity). The mapping between the four questions and the presented figures and tables is unclear; the authors should align them explicitly.
  4. [Section 6.2, Figure 6 caption] The caption says 'Human evaluation of the factual reconstruction ... as compared to an un-fine-tuned LLM,' but the accompanying text notes that raters could also select 'both models preserve factual fidelity equally well'; the caption should mention the three-way choice.
  5. [Section 5, training details] The sentence '10,000 sentence with 10 parallel versions of each sentence were used' mixes singular and plural and should be rephrased; also specify whether the 10,000 sentences are sampled from the full 3.6M-passage corpus and how the 90%/10% self-mapping split is applied per sentence.
  6. [Table 2] The BLEU table reports a single average score for the base model and the translator, but the text says the average is 'across all emotions in the Go Emotions dataset'; including per-emotion BLEU scores would make the comparison more informative, especially given the acknowledged limitations of BLEU for many-to-many style transfer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutralization improvement is a measured benchmark result, and the emotion-translator is validated on external human-authored text; the only self-citation is transparent and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claim (Section 6.1, Table 1) is an empirical comparison between the Reading with Intent baseline and the same system with passages neutralized by a fine-tuned emotion-translator on the NQ-FS, NQ-PSM, and NQ-PSA datasets. The 2.8% NQ-FS improvement is reported from the measured table, not predicted from a fitted parameter. The emotion-translator (Section 5) is a LoRA fine-tune of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct trained on a synthetically generated parallel emotion corpus, and its fidelity is assessed in Section 6.2 on out-of-distribution human-written text from GoEmotions and SARC via round-trip translation with human pairwise evaluations. This is external validation, not a self-defined equivalence. The self-citation to Reichman et al. (2024) supplies the NQ-FS/PSM/PSA benchmarks and the Reading with Intent prompt and intent-tagging system, but both are held fixed across the compared conditions, so the citation does not force the neutralization outcome. The one-way fact-preservation assumption for the NQ-FS neutralizations is asserted in Section 6 ('This translation would effect the emotion of the text but not the factual content') and only indirectly supported by Section 6.2's round-trip human-text evaluation; that is a validity and missing-support limitation, not a circular reduction by equation or by definition. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Overall circularity is negligible.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claims rest on hand-picked emotion categories, unevaluated hyperparameters, and several domain assumptions about the validity of synthetic data and the benchmark. No new physical or formal entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Emotion taxonomy (11 categories) = anger, condescension, disgust, envy, excitement, fear, happiness, humor, sadness, sarcasm, surprise
    The set of emotions is hand-picked in Section 3 without justification or ablation; the choice determines the synthetic dataset and the translator's behavior.
  • Training set size = 10,000 sentences, 10 parallel versions each
    Section 5 states 10,000 sentences with 10 parallel versions were used, but no ablation shows how this size affects the translator.
  • Self-mapping ratio = 90/10
    Section 5 uses 10% self-mapping examples to preserve tone; the ratio is chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • LoRA rank, learning rate, epochs = rank 8, lr 2e-5, 5 epochs
    Section 5 sets these hyperparameters without ablations or justification beyond efficiency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Synthetic passages generated by five LLMs faithfully represent the 11 target emotions
    Section 3 relies on qualitative review of generated outputs but provides no quantitative validation of emotional fidelity.
  • domain assumption Round-trip translation (translate to emotion, then back) is a valid proxy for evaluating emotion translation quality
    Section 6.2 uses back-translation because no parallel emotion bitext exists for human text; this assumes the round-trip preserves the signal of interest.
  • domain assumption The Reading with Intent datasets (NQ-FS, NQ-PSM, NQ-PSA) from prior work are reliable benchmarks
    The paper uses these datasets without reproducing or auditing them; the benchmark construction is taken from Reichman et al. 2024.
  • domain assumption Neutralizing a passage preserves its factual content
    The method assumes the emotion-translator does not introduce or remove facts when changing tone; this is tested only via human eval on round-trip translation, not on the neutralized passages used in the main experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reading with Intent -- Neutralizing Intent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFXCIYVR

@misc{pith2026250103475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reading with Intent -- Neutralizing Intent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFXCIYVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03475}
}
abstract

Queries to large language models (LLMs) can be divided into two parts: the instruction/question and the accompanying context. The context for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems in most benchmarks comes from Wikipedia or Wikipedia-like texts which are written in a neutral and factual tone. However, when RAG systems retrieve internet-based content, they encounter text with diverse tones and linguistic styles, introducing challenges for downstream tasks. The Reading with Intent task addresses this issue by evaluating how varying tones in context passages affect model performance. Building on prior work that focused on sarcasm, we extend this paradigm by constructing a dataset where context passages are transformed to $11$ distinct emotions using a better synthetic data generation approach. Using this dataset, we train an emotion translation model to systematically adapt passages to specified emotional tones. The human evaluation shows that the LLM fine-tuned to become the emotion-translator benefited from the synthetically generated data. Finally, the emotion-translator is used in the Reading with Intent task to transform the passages to a neutral tone. By neutralizing the passages, it mitigates the challenges posed by sarcastic passages and improves overall results on this task by about $3\%$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Synthetic data generation process. 3 Dataset Creation An LLM query can typically be divided into two parts: the object and the context. The object of the query is the question or instruction provided to the LLM—the “raison d’être” of the query. The context comprises supplementary text that aids the LLM in producing a more accurate and relevant response to the object of the query. The goal of the created dataset is t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The KL-Divergences between the unigram, bigrams, and trigrams of the original and synthetic datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The average length of the passages from each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human evaluation of the factual reconstruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Human evaluation of the emotional recon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interface for the human evaluation of emotions between the original text and the emotion-translator text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interface for the human evaluation of emotions and factuality between the zero-shot LLM and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Do, Yan Xu, and Pascale Fung

    Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, Quyet V. Do, Yan Xu, and Pascale Fung. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.ijcnlp-main.45 A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of C hat GPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity . In Proceedings of the 13th ...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Debanjan Ghosh, Smaranda Muresan, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.711 R \^ 3: Reverse, retrieve, and rank for sarcasm generation with commonsense knowledge . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7976--7986, Online. Association for Computational...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.711 2020

  3. [3]

    Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 15696--15707. PMLR

    2023

  4. [4]

    Mikhail Khodak, Nikunj Saunshi, and Kiran Vodrahalli. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/L18-1102 A large self-annotated corpus for sarcasm . In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC 2018) , Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00276 Natural questions: A benchma...

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 2019

  6. [6]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459--9474

    2020

  7. [7]

    Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Chris Brockett, Bill Dolan, and Ming-Ting Sun. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1325 Domain adaptive text style transfer . 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), pages ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1325 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiangnan Li, Hongliang Pan, Zheng Lin, Peng Fu, and Weiping Wang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2021.3120601 Sarcasm detection with commonsense knowledge . IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3192--3201

    arXiv 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Chenwei Lou, Bin Liang, Lin Gui, Yulan He, Yixue Dang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235792313 Affective dependency graph for sarcasm detection . Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Informat...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Walaa Medhat, Ahmed Hassan, and Hoda Korashy. 2014. Sentiment analysis algorithms and applications: A survey. Ain Shams engineering journal, 5(4):1093--1113

    2014

  3. [11]

    Remi Mir, Bjarke Felbo, Nick Obradovich, and Iyad Rahwan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1049 Evaluating style transfer for text . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Techn...

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Silviu Oprea and Walid Magdy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.118 i S arcasm: A dataset of intended sarcasm . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1279--1289, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Silviu Oprea, Steven Wilson, and Walid Magdy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-demo.38 Chandler: An explainable sarcastic response generator . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 33...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    ai overview

    Kyle Orland. 2024. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/googles-ai-overview-can-give-false-misleading-and-dangerous-answers/ Google’s “ai overview” can give false, misleading, and dangerous answers . ArsTechnica

    2024

  7. [15]

    Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, and Prateek Vij

    Soujanya Poria, E. Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, and Prateek Vij. 2016. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:138716 A deeper look into sarcastic tweets using deep convolutional neural networks . In International Conference on Computational Linguistics

    2016

  8. [16]

    Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yulia Tsvetkov, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alan W Black. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1080 Style transfer through back-translation . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Rudy Prabowo and Mike Thelwall. 2009. Sentiment analysis: A combined approach. Journal of Informetrics, 3(2):143--157

    2009

  10. [18]

    Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Xurui Zhang, Mukai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.374 Mind the style of text! adversarial and backdoor attacks based on text style transfer . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Method...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Benjamin Reichman, Kartik Talamadupula, Toshish Jawale, and Larry Heck. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11189 Reading with intent . Preprint, arXiv:2408.11189

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.94 A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Jaakkola

    Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. 2017. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7296803 Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment . ArXiv, abs/1705.09655

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kristina Terech. 2024. https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/google-explains-why-ai-overviews-couldnt-understand-a-joke-and-told-users-to-eat-one-rock-a-day-and-promises-itll-get-better Google explains why ai overviews couldn’t understand a joke and told ...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ramesh Wadawadagi and Veerappa Pagi. 2020. Sentiment analysis with deep neural networks: comparative study and performance assessment. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(8):6155--6195

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kexin Wang, Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07577 Gpl: Generative pseudo labeling for unsupervised domain adaptation of dense retrieval . arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07577

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mayur Wankhade, Annavarapu Chandra Sekhara Rao, and Chaitanya Kulkarni. 2022. A survey on sentiment analysis methods, applications, and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(7):5731--5780

    2022

  18. [26]

    Xing, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick

    Zichao Yang, Zhiting Hu, Chris Dyer, Eric P. Xing, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2018. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44061800 Unsupervised text style transfer using language models as discriminators . ArXiv, abs/1805.11749

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  20. [28]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.