Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Steering Large Language Models with Register Analysis for Arbitrary Style Transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that prompting LLMs to describe a style exemplar through Biber's register analysis, rather than through free-form style descriptors, yields rewrites with comparable style strength and substantially better meaning…

desk verdict A new register-analysis prompting method whose meaning-preservation win over STYLL is confounded by a dropped neutral-paraphrase step; the idea is solid, the central claim needs an ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00679 v2 pith:RTJNTNVR submitted 2025-05-01 cs.CL

Xinchen Yang , Marine Carpuat This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords styletransferlargelanguagemodelsregisteranalysisBibermultidimensionalpromptengineeringmeaningpreservationauthorshipimitationtextsimplification
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

This paper asks whether an LLM can be steered to imitate an arbitrary style shown by example. It proposes prompting the model to analyze the style exemplar through Biber's multidimensional register analysis before rewriting the input, instead of asking it to invent open-ended style descriptors. On authorship imitation, formality transfer, and medical-text simplification, the register-guided prompts achieve comparable or better style strength than the open-ended baseline and a large gain in meaning preservation. The authors argue this shows that constraining style descriptions to a register vocabulary decouples stylistic change from content change more cleanly than unrestricted descriptors. If true, users could get faithful arbitrary style rewrites by providing only a style exemplar, without needing to phrase any stylistic request.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Biber's multidimensional register analysis, a corpus-linguistic framework that characterizes a text's style along functional dimensions of linguistic variation, such as involved versus informational production, rather than through free-form adjectives. The prompting pipeline has three steps: ask the LLM to analyze the target exemplar, or contrast it with the input, in terms of Biber's register dimensions; ask it to list comma-separated adjectives describing the target style on that basis; then rewrite the input to be more like those descriptors. Register analysis does the steering: it supplies a fixed, shareable vocabulary that the model is assumed to have seen in training, so the generated descriptors stay in register space and are less likely to drift into tone or intent shifts that alter meaning.

What would settle it

Measure the correlation between the descriptors a model generates under the register-guided prompt and the target text's own Biber MDA coordinates computed by the paper's procedure; if the descriptors do not move with the target's position on Biber's dimensions, or if a model whose pretraining demonstrably excludes Biber's framework still shows the same meaning-preservation gain, the central claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, example-based arbitrary style transfer—rewriting one text to match the style of a supplied exemplar—can be steered by asking the LLM first to analyze the exemplar using Biber's multidimensional register analysis, then to compress that analysis into adjective descriptors, and finally to rewrite the input using those descriptors. Across authorship imitation on Reddit posts, formality transfer on GYAFC, and medical-text simplification on Cochrane, this prompting approach, in two variants (with and without explicit contrast between input and target), lands on or near the Pareto frontier of style strength versus meaning preservation. It preserves meaning far better than the open-ended descriptor baseline while matching or exceeding that baseline's style strength. The authors interpret this as evidence that constraining style descriptions to a register space separates style from content better than unconstrained stylistic adjectives.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that LLMs have internalized Biber's register-analysis framework during pre-training and can convert it into accurate style descriptors; if a model cannot do this, the prompts yield generic or misplaced descriptors and the measured meaning-preservation advantage would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, example-based style transfer no longer requires users to articulate style; supplying an exemplar suffices.
  • The same prompting strategy can be applied zero-shot to low-resource styles such as authorship, formality, and simplification without fine-tuning.
  • The contrastive variant, which compares input and target styles, helps when the target style is relative to the input, while target-only analysis suffices when the target style is absolute.
  • Constraining descriptors to register space reduces target content copying and unintended meaning alteration compared with open-ended descriptors.
  • The style-strength and meaning-preservation trade-off can be shifted: the register-guided systems often reach the Pareto frontier where the open-ended baseline does not.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that Biber's cross-linguistic validity makes the same prompting recipe a candidate for multilingual style transfer, but only English tasks are evaluated.
  • The descriptor-generation stage could serve as a lightweight audit signal: monitoring whether descriptors stay in register space might predict meaning preservation, though the paper does not test that link.
  • Because the method depends on the model's pretraining exposure to Biber's framework, portability to models with different training curricula is an open empirical question rather than an established result.
  • A testable extension would be to use the register descriptors as control variables, holding them fixed while varying the input, to isolate how much of the meaning-preservation gain comes from the descriptor vocabulary versus the prompting structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a prompting method for example-based arbitrary style transfer in which an LLM is first asked to analyze the target exemplar using Biber's multidimensional register analysis (MDA), then to generate style descriptors from that analysis, and finally to rewrite the source text to match those descriptors. Two variants are evaluated: RG (register analysis only) and RG-Contrastive (register analysis plus an explicit contrast between input and target). Experiments are conducted on authorship imitation (MUD), formality transfer (GYAFC), and text simplification (Cochrane) using Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and, for MUD, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. The reported results show that the RG variants preserve meaning substantially better than the STYLL baseline on MIS and ROUGE-1, with similar or mixed style-transfer strength, and the paper concludes that register-guided prompting yields better decoupling of style and content.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would offer a simple, low-cost improvement over existing prompting strategies for example-based arbitrary style transfer, with a concrete linguistic theory as the source of style descriptors. The paper has several strengths: full prompts are given in Appendix A, complete per-metric results are reported in Appendix E, two model sizes are tested, and the qualitative examples in Table 9 are informative. These are good reproducibility practices and make the main comparison easy to audit. However, the key comparison against STYLL is confounded, and the style-strength evaluation partly relies on a metric aligned with the method itself. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Appendix A (Table 4)] The comparison between the RG variants and STYLL does not isolate the contribution of Biber's register analysis. In the Appendix A prompts, STYLL first rewrites the source into a "simple neutral style" and then applies style descriptors to that neutral paraphrase, whereas RG and RG-Contrastive skip the neutralization step and rewrite the source text directly in the final step. The large meaning-preservation gains attributed to register analysis (e.g., MIS 0.536–0.578 for RG vs. 0.189–0.284 for STYLL on MUD in Table 6; MIS 0.482–0.580 vs. 0.279–0.355 on GYAFC in Table 7; ROUGE-1 0.397–0.399 vs. 0.371 in Table 8) could therefore be caused by the absence of the neutral-paraphrase step rather than by the use of Biber dimensions. The "Simple" baseline is not an adequate control because it differs in both descriptor generation and pipeline length. A STYLL variant that skips the neutralization step, or an RG variant that includes it, is needed before the paper can claim that register analysis itself reduces meaning alteration.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 2, Appendix E] The Pareto analysis in Fig. 2 measures style-transfer strength with a Biber MDA representation that the authors fit themselves, in the same framework that the prompts instruct the model to use. This is a partially self-referential evaluation: RG variants are told to follow Biber's dimensions, so a Biber-based ``Towards'' score will tend to reward them for following the instruction rather than for mimicking the target style in an independent sense. The paper should present the Pareto analysis using an independent style representation, or at least include the StyleCAV-based ``Towards'' scores in the main trade-off plots. The Appendix E results show that on StyleCAV, the direction of the style-strength comparison is often reversed (e.g., MUD Random Llama-3.2: Simple has StyleCAV Towards 0.731 vs. RG-C 0.473 and RG 0.530), so the current headline about ``enhanced style transfer strength'' is not supported by all metrics.
  3. [§1 modeling hypothesis] The paper's motivating assumption is that LLMs have internalized Biber's register analysis during pretraining, because the framework is widely available online. This assumption is plausible but untested. If the model does not reliably map examples onto Biber's dimensions, the descriptors could become generic or misdirected, and the advantage over open-ended descriptor extraction could disappear. I recommend adding a small analysis that quantifies how often the LLM produces register descriptors that are sensible for the target (e.g., by comparing descriptor distributions across datasets with known register properties), or a robustness check using a different register framework. This would strengthen the causal story behind the method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the first paragraph: "example-based abitrary TST" should be "example-based arbitrary TST."
  2. [Section 3] In the description of the two variants, "an ablation of with the first variant" should read "an ablation of the first variant" or similar.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption lists "editing-quality (SARI↓)" but SARI is a higher-is-better metric; the arrow should be SARI↑.
  4. [Table 7] The fourth block header is labeled "FRI2F" but should be "FRF2I" to match the formal-to-informal direction; the same label is repeated from the third block.
  5. [Appendix A, Table 4] In the STYLL prompt template, the placeholder "[neural paraphrase]" appears to be a typo for "[neutral paraphrase]".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the empirical comparison is self-contained, and the Biber-aligned evaluation axis does not reduce to the prompting method by construction.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical prompting comparison rather than a derivation, so the circularity patterns (fitted parameter renamed as prediction, uniqueness theorem imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation, etc.) largely do not apply. The central intervention is a prompt scaffold: the LLM is asked to analyze the target exemplar using Biber's register dimensions and then rewrite the source. The headline Pareto analysis uses Biber MDA 'Towards' as one style-strength axis (Section 4.2, Fig 2), and this axis is conceptually aligned with the prompt; however, the Biber MDA representation is constructed externally from train/validation corpora following Grieve (2023), is applied identically to all systems, and is not fitted to the RG outputs. The method's success is not forced by the metric: on Cochrane, both RG variants miss the Pareto frontier (Section 5), and independent style signals (StyleCAV, LUAR, task-specific classifiers, FKGL/ARI) and independent meaning metrics (MIS, SBERT, METEOR, ROUGE, BLEU) are reported. The STYLL baseline differs by including an extra neutral-paraphrase first step (Appendix A, Table 4), which is a possible confound for the meaning-preservation comparison, but a confound is not a circular reduction: the RG pipeline does not define or fit the evaluation outcome to the Biber axis. The only self-citations (Agrawal & Carpuat 2024; Bao & Carpuat 2024) support standard metric choices (SARI correlation and COLA-based fluency evaluation) and are not load-bearing for the main claim. No equation-level equivalence or fitted-input-as-prediction step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method adds no trainable parameters; it is zero-shot prompting. The ledger records the data-fit evaluation model (Biber MDA), the hand-chosen exemplar construction (K=16), and domain assumptions about LLM training exposure, the validity of Biber's dimensions, and the reliability of automatic metrics. The central claim is not parameterized by a fitted constant, so circularity is moderate rather than extreme.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-task Biber MDA representation = Dimension scores fit on validation/train splits of each task
    Used to compute the Biber-Towards style strength metric in Fig 2 and appendix tables; fit to corpus data following Grieve (2023), so the headline style metric depends on a data-fit model.
  • Target concatenation size K = 16
    MUD and GYAFC target exemplars are formed by concatenating 16 texts; the choice is by hand and could affect descriptor quality and output length.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLMs have been exposed to Biber's register analysis during pre-training
    Explicitly stated as modeling hypothesis in Section 1; not verified by an experiment.
  • domain assumption Biber's MDA dimensions capture salient style variation in online texts
    Section 1 and 2 cite Biber's cross-linguistic evidence; assumed to transfer to LLM prompting.
  • domain assumption Style descriptors generated in the intermediate step determine the direction of style transfer
    Section 6 descriptor analysis and the prompt design assume descriptors are faithful steering signals; not directly tested by ablating descriptor quality.
  • domain assumption Automatic metrics (LUAR, StyleCAV, MIS, readability formulas) are valid for measuring the stated claims
    No human evaluation; metrics are standard but each has known failure modes, e.g., target overlap can inflate style scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Steering Large Language Models with Register Analysis for Arbitrary Style Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTJNTNVR

@misc{pith2026250500679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Steering Large Language Models with Register Analysis for Arbitrary Style Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTJNTNVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00679}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in rewriting text across various styles. However, effectively leveraging this ability for example-based arbitrary style transfer, where an input text is rewritten to match the style of a given exemplar, remains an open challenge. A key question is how to describe the style of the exemplar to guide LLMs toward high-quality rewrites. In this work, we propose a prompting method based on register analysis to guide LLMs to perform this task. Empirical evaluations across multiple style transfer tasks show that our prompting approach enhances style transfer strength while preserving meaning more effectively than existing prompting strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Prompting pipeline for RG-Contrastive and RG, respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Style–meaning trade-offs across tasks: MUD, Cochrane, and GYAFC (both direc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top 15 style descriptors by frequency by generated rewriting system (RG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the procedure of building Biber’s MDA representation from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_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. Unveiling Unicode's Unseen Underpinnings in Undermining Authorship Attribution

    cs.CR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes integrating Unicode steganography into adversarial stylometry to undermine authorship attribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Do text simplification systems preserve meaning? a human evaluation via reading comprehension

    Sweta Agrawal and Marine Carpuat. Do text simplification systems preserve meaning? a human evaluation via reading comprehension. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12: 0 432--448, 2024. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00653. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.tacl-1.24/

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00653 2024

  3. [3]

    ASSET : A dataset for tuning and evaluation of sentence simplification models with multiple rewriting transformations

    Fernando Alva-Manchego, Louis Martin, Antoine Bordes, Carolina Scarton, Beno \^i t Sagot, and Lucia Specia. ASSET : A dataset for tuning and evaluation of sentence simplification models with multiple rewriting transformations. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault (eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Associatio...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.4 2020

  4. [4]

    Computational forensic authorship analysis: Promises and pitfalls

    Shlomo Argamon. Computational forensic authorship analysis: Promises and pitfalls. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 5 0 (2): 0 7--37, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    APPDIA: A Discourse-aware Transformer-based Style Transfer Model for Offensive Social Media Conversations

    Katherine Atwell, Sabit Hassan, and Malihe Alikhani. Appdia: A discourse-aware transformer-based style transfer model for offensive social media conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08207, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    A large-scale computational study of content preservation measures for text style transfer and paraphrase generation

    Nikolay Babakov, David Dale, Varvara Logacheva, and Alexander Panchenko. A large-scale computational study of content preservation measures for text style transfer and paraphrase generation. In Samuel Louvan, Andrea Madotto, and Brielen Madureira (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Resea...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-srw.23 2022

  7. [7]

    METEOR : An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR : An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Jade Goldstein, Alon Lavie, Chin-Yew Lin, and Clare Voss (eds.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization , pp.\ 65--72, Ann Arbor, Michigan,...

    2005

  8. [8]

    K eep it P rivate: Unsupervised privatization of online text

    Calvin Bao and Marine Carpuat. K eep it P rivate: Unsupervised privatization of online text. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard (eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp.\ 8678--8693, Mexico City, Mexico, Jun...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.480 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Variation across speech and writing by douglas biber

    Douglas Biber. Variation across speech and writing by douglas biber. 1988. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59969234

    1988

  2. [10]

    Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison

    Douglas Biber. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press google schola, 2: 0 171--197, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Register, Genre, and Style

    Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Register Variation on the Web

    Douglas Biber and Jesse Egbert. Register Variation on the Web. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Who wrote the 15th book of oz? an application of multivariate analysis to authorship attribution

    Jos \'e Nilo G Binongo. Who wrote the 15th book of oz? an application of multivariate analysis to authorship attribution. Chance, 16 0 (2): 0 9--17, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffr...

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinso...

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence

    Malcolm Coulthard, Alison Johnson, and David Wright. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Investigating english style

    David Crystal and Derek Davy. Investigating english style. 1969. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59347243

    1969

  10. [18]

    Formalstyler: Gpt based model for formal style transfer based on formality and meaning preservation

    Mariano de Rivero, Cristhiam Tirado, and Willy Ugarte. Formalstyler: Gpt based model for formal style transfer based on formality and meaning preservation. In KDIR, pp.\ 48--56, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Detecting text formality: A study of text classification approaches

    Daryna Dementieva, Nikolay Babakov, and Alexander Panchenko. Detecting text formality: A study of text classification approaches. In Ruslan Mitkov and Galia Angelova (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pp....

    2023

  12. [20]

    Paragraph-level simplification of medical texts

    Ashwin Devaraj, Iain Marshall, Byron Wallace, and Junyi Jessy Li. Paragraph-level simplification of medical texts. In Kristina Toutanova, Anna Rumshisky, Luke Zettlemoyer, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Iz Beltagy, Steven Bethard, Ryan Cotterell, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Yichao Zhou (eds.)...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Styleremix: Interpretable authorship obfuscation via distillation and perturbation of style elements

    Jillian Fisher, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Mitchell Gordon, Zaid Harchaoui, and Yejin Choi. Styleremix: Interpretable authorship obfuscation via distillation and perturbation of style elements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15666, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis

    Jack Grieve. Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19 0 (1): 0 47--77, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective

    Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. (No Title), 1989

    1989

  16. [24]

    Tinystyler: Efficient few-shot text style transfer with authorship embeddings

    Zachary Horvitz, Ajay Patel, Kanishk Singh, Chris Callison-Burch, Kathleen McKeown, and Zhou Yu. Tinystyler: Efficient few-shot text style transfer with authorship embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15586, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aggarwal, and Aston Zhang

    Zhiqiang Hu, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Charu C. Aggarwal, and Aston Zhang. Text style transfer: A review and experimental evaluation, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.12742

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shakespearizing modern language using copy-enriched sequence-to-sequence models, 2017

    Harsh Jhamtani, Varun Gangal, Eduard Hovy, and Eric Nyberg. Shakespearizing modern language using copy-enriched sequence-to-sequence models, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01161

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deep learning for text style transfer: A survey

    Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Zhiting Hu, Olga Vechtomova, and Rada Mihalcea. Deep learning for text style transfer: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 48 0 (1): 0 155--205, March 2022. doi:10.1162/coli_a_00426. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.cl-1.6/

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    A deep metric learning approach to account linking, 2021

    Aleem Khan, Elizabeth Fleming, Noah Schofield, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews. A deep metric learning approach to account linking, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07263

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel

    JP Kincaid. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Chief of Naval Technical Training, 1975

    1975

  22. [30]

    Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation, 2020

    Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05700

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. Keep it simple: Unsupervised simplification of multi-paragraph text. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli (eds.), Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computation...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

    Chin-Yew Lin. ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pp.\ 74--81, Barcelona, Spain, July 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013/

    2004

  25. [33]

    Content preserving text generation with attribute controls

    Lajanugen Logeswaran, Honglak Lee, and Samy Bengio. Content preserving text generation with attribute controls. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Llama-3.2-3b-instruct, 2024

    Meta AI . Llama-3.2-3b-instruct, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct

    2024

  27. [35]

    Evaluating style transfer for text

    Remi Mir, Bjarke Felbo, Nick Obradovich, and Iyad Rahwan. Evaluating style transfer for text. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human L...

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Textattack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in nlp

    John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. Textattack: A framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in nlp. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System D...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Text detoxification as style transfer in english and hindi

    Sourabrata Mukherjee, Akanksha Bansal, Atul Kr Ojha, John P McCrae, and Ond r ej Du s ek. Text detoxification as style transfer in english and hindi. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07767, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022

  31. [39]

    B leu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. B leu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Pierre Isabelle, Eugene Charniak, and Dekang Lin (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp...

    2002

  32. [40]

    Low-resource authorship style transfer: Can non-famous authors be imitated?, 2024

    Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, and Chris Callison-Burch. Low-resource authorship style transfer: Can non-famous authors be imitated?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08986

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1 0 (8): 0 9, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Dear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer

    Sudha Rao and Joel Tetreault. Dear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In Marilyn Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent (eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associ...

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models

    Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Ass...

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Sentence- BERT : Sentence embeddings using S iamese BERT -networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence- BERT : Sentence embeddings using S iamese BERT -networks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Internationa...

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Rivera-Soto, Olivia Elizabeth Miano, Juanita Ordonez, Barry Y

    Rafael A. Rivera-Soto, Olivia Elizabeth Miano, Juanita Ordonez, Barry Y. Chen, Aleem Khan, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews. Learning universal authorship representations. In Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih (eds.), Proceedings of th...

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    The non-traditional case for the authorship of the twelve disputed federalist papers: A monument built on sand

    Joseph Rudman. The non-traditional case for the authorship of the twelve disputed federalist papers: A monument built on sand. In Proceedings of ACH/ALLC, volume 2005, 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    The New Oxford Shakespeare: Modern Critical Edition: The Complete Works

    William Shakespeare. The New Oxford Shakespeare: Modern Critical Edition: The Complete Works. Oxford University Press, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Automated readability index, volume 66

    Edgar A Smith and RJ Senter. Automated readability index, volume 66. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Aerospace Medical Division, Air …, 1967

    1967

  41. [49]

    Multiple-attribute text style transfer

    Sandeep Subramanian, Guillaume Lample, Eric Michael Smith, Ludovic Denoyer, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Y-Lan Boureau. Multiple-attribute text style transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00552, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Prompt-and-rerank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models

    Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, and Dan Jurafsky. Prompt-and-rerank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Me...

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion

    Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan. The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion. Oxford University Press, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Transferring multiple text styles using cyclegan with supervised style latent space

    Lorenzo Puppi Vecchi, Eliane CF Maffezzolli, and Emerson Cabrera Paraiso. Transferring multiple text styles using cyclegan with supervised style latent space. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp.\ 1--6. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Neural network acceptability judgments

    Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7: 0 625--641, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Same author or just same topic? towards content-independent style representations

    Anna Wegmann, Marijn Schraagen, and Dong Nguyen. Same author or just same topic? towards content-independent style representations. In Spandana Gella, He He, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Burcu Can, Eleonora Giunchiglia, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Sewon Min, Maximilian Mozes, Xiang Lo...

    2022

  49. [57]

    Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M

    Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01652

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Paraphrasing for style

    Wei Xu, Alan Ritter, Bill Dolan, Ralph Grishman, and Colin Cherry. Paraphrasing for style. In COLING, pp.\ 2899--2914, 2012

    2012

  51. [59]

    Optimizing statistical machine translation for text simplification

    Wei Xu, Courtney Napoles, Ellie Pavlick, Quanze Chen, and Chris Callison-Burch. Optimizing statistical machine translation for text simplification. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4: 0 401--415, 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  53. [61]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  54. [62]

    He didn't do any of that

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.