Implementing Long Text Style Transfer with LLMs through Dual-Layered Sentence and Paragraph Structure Extraction and Mapping

Xiaotie Deng; Yusen Wu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Implementing Long Text Style Transfer with LLMs through Dual-Layered Sentence and Paragraph Structure Extraction and Mapping

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Zero-shot long-text style transfer improves when rewrites follow both sentence- and paragraph-level templates.

desk verdict A sensible two-level template pipeline for zero-shot long-text style transfer, but the headline gain over direct prompting rests on a self-referential style metric that does not establish the claimed advantage. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07888 v1 pith:TEUWSA2W submitted 2025-05-11 cs.CL cs.AI

Yusen Wu , Xiaotie Deng This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords textstyletransferlong-textgenerationzero-shotlearningtemplate-basedrewritingparagraphstructurediscoursecoherencelargelanguagemodels

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 argues that zero-shot style transfer of long text fails when style is treated as a sentence-level property, because paragraph-level rhetorical structure is itself part of the style. It proposes a two-phase framework that first extracts reusable sentence templates and paragraph templates from reference texts, then rewrites each source sentence under both the best-matching sentence template and the best-matching paragraph template. On a 500-sample academic-writing evaluation, the full method averages 6.90 on style consistency, content preservation, and expression quality, against 6.70 for direct prompt-based rewriting. The implication, if the result holds, is that coherent long-text style transfer is reachable without parallel corpora or LLM fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of template repositories $\Gamma_s$ and $\Gamma_p$, built and used by the same encoder $\pi_{\mathrm{enc}}$. Sentence embeddings are clustered with a density-based algorithm (DBSCAN) into prototypical sentence templates; paragraph embeddings, formed by encoding the sequence of sentence embeddings, become paragraph templates whose addition is gated by a distance threshold. At rewrite time, Eq. (2) selects $\tau_s^i = \arg\max_{\tau \in \Gamma_s} \mathrm{sim}(e_i^{\mathrm{src}}, \tau)$ for each sentence and Eq. (3) selects the paragraph template $\tau_p^* = \arg\min_{\tau_p \in \Gamma_p} \|e_p^{\mathrm{src}}-\tau_p\|$; the generator then rewrites each sentence under this triple conditioning, and a refinement step adjusts transitions and discourse markers to fit the paragraph template. This mechanism is what lets the method decouple local expression from global structure.

What would settle it

Have independent human annotators rate style consistency on the 500 test outputs without access to $\pi_{\mathrm{enc}}$, and compare StructuredRewritten against DirectPrompt; if the advantage disappears, the reported 6.90 versus 6.70 gap depends on the shared encoder rather than on genuine style transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that effective long-text style transfer needs style modeling at two granularities at once, and that this can be done zero-shot by treating style as a set of reusable structural templates. The paper introduces ZeroStylus, whose first phase embeds sentences from reference texts, clusters them into a sentence template repository $\Gamma_s$, and encodes whole paragraphs into a paragraph template repository $\Gamma_p$; the second phase matches each source sentence to its nearest sentence template and the source paragraph to its nearest paragraph template, then generates and refines the rewritten paragraph under both constraints. The authors report that this dual-layer design yields an average tri-axial rating of 6.90, above 6.70 for direct prompting and 6.62 for the sentence-template-only ablation, with adversarial comparisons showing that adding paragraph-level structure mainly improves content preservation. The paper states that the full method keeps the stylization strength of template-only rewriting while retaining the semantic coherence of direct prompting.

Load-bearing premise

The framework and its headline score rest on a single encoder: the same text-embedding model retrieves matching templates and then measures style consistency, so if that model does not actually capture paragraph-level style, both the rewriting signal and the reported score fail together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Zero-shot long-text style transfer becomes feasible without parallel corpora or fine-tuning, since the only resources are reference texts and an LLM used at inference time.
Sentence-level transfer methods should be expected to lose inter-sentence coherence on long inputs; adding a paragraph-level template recovers much of that loss, mainly in content preservation.
The template repository is incremental: new paragraph templates enter only when their embedding is farther than a threshold, so style updates could be applied by adding a subset of new references rather than reprocessing an entire corpus.
Length-constrained, segment-by-segment rewriting is part of the method's defense against style drift, so the framework should scale to documents longer than a single LLM context window.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the same encoder guides template retrieval and scores style consistency, the headline advantage may be inflated by shared representational biases; a human-judged style rating on the same outputs would test whether the 6.90 versus 6.70 gap is genuine style transfer or template overlap.
The decoupling of sentence and paragraph templates suggests a cheap update path for personal writing assistants: swapping in a new author's paragraph templates should restyle a document's organization while reusing generic sentence patterns, which is testable without retraining.
A natural stress test is length: if the paragraph template is doing the work, the advantage over direct prompting should grow as paragraphs get longer and richer in discourse structure; if it does not, the mechanism is mostly sentence-level after all.
The recipe may transfer to other long-form style tasks, such as dialogue persona or document-level formality, by replacing paragraph templates with turn-level or section-level structural templates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I've read through ZeroStylus, the long-text style transfer paper. The core idea—extract sentence- and paragraph-level templates from reference texts and use them to condition LLM rewriting—is sensible and clearly presented. That is the real contribution: a concrete two-level template repository with DBSCAN clustering and distance-based matching, addressing a genuine problem (style drift in long documents). The method is zero-shot and needs no parallel data, which is practically useful. The ablation structure is also reasonable, isolating the effect of paragraph templates.

The elephant in the room is the evaluation. The headline 6.90 vs 6.70 gain over DirectPrompt is driven almost entirely by the style consistency axis (7.39 vs 6.42). That axis is computed as embedding similarity using the same encoder (πenc) that selects the templates in Eqs. (2)-(3). The method is explicitly designed to pull output embeddings toward reference template centroids, so a similarity score computed with that same encoder will reward exactly that behavior. There is no human calibration of πenc, no independent style metric, and no significance test on the 0.20 difference. Meanwhile content preservation and expression quality actually drop slightly relative to DirectPrompt, which undercuts the average-gain interpretation. This is a load-bearing flaw: the paper claims the full pipeline outperforms direct prompting, but the evidence is a self-referential metric.

Other soft spots: the 'adversarial evaluation' is really pairwise LLM-as-judge, not adversarial in any technical sense; table labels are confused (Table 2/3 mix-ups); no code, prompts, or hyperparameters are released; and the authors themselves note the lack of dedicated long-text style benchmarks. The content-preservation ablation (57% vs 43% win rate for StructuredRewritten) uses BLEURT and keyword retention, which are at least partially independent, so that finding is more credible—but it still does not establish superiority over the direct baseline.

Overall, the paper is worth reading for the two-level template architecture and as a cautionary case of metric circularity. The idea deserves refinement, not burial. I would send it to peer review only if the venue insists on reproducible evidence; if I were the editor, I would ask for an independent style measure, significance testing, and artifact release before accepting it. In its current form, the load-bearing empirical claim is unverified.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ZeroStylus, a zero-shot, training-free framework for long-text style transfer. It builds two hierarchical template repositories from reference texts—sentence-level patterns and paragraph-level structural templates—and uses them to guide an LLM through template-matched sentence rewriting and paragraph-level coherence refinement. The authors evaluate on academic-paper style transfer using 500 samples and report an average tri-axial score of 6.90 for StructuredRewritten versus 6.70 for DirectPrompt, plus adversarial win-rate comparisons among ablations. The central claim is that the dual-layer template mechanism preserves paragraph-level semantic coherence while retaining sentence-level stylistic strength, outperforming direct prompting and sentence-only variants.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the paper would make a useful contribution: it addresses a real gap—style drift in long-text transfer—and does so with an interpretable, modular pipeline that avoids parallel corpora and fine-tuning. The method is transparently specified, uses public datasets, and includes ablation-style comparisons against several baseline categories. The authors also candidly acknowledge the lack of dedicated long-text style benchmarks. However, the current evaluation does not establish the headline improvement: the style-consistency metric is computed with the same encoder that drives template retrieval, the reported gain is concentrated in that metric, and key ablation tables are internally inconsistent. These issues affect the central empirical assertion, so the manuscript is not yet acceptable in its present form.

major comments (4)

[Experiments: Benchmarking Style Transfer Quality; Methods, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The style-consistency axis x is defined as paragraph-level embedding similarity between output and reference texts computed via πenc, and the same πenc is used in Phase 2.1 to select sentence and paragraph templates (Eqs. (2)-(3)) and in Phase 2.3 to align the output with the retrieved paragraph template. A method explicitly conditioned to move source embeddings toward reference-template centroids will therefore score higher on x regardless of whether human readers perceive the target style. The observed overall advantage of StructuredRewritten over DirectPrompt (6.90 vs 6.70) is driven entirely by x (7.39 vs 6.42), while y (7.04 vs 7.34) and z (6.26 vs 6.34) are lower. The paper offers no validation that πenc similarities correspond to human judgments of style. Please provide an independent style-consistency assessment (e.g., human ratings or a held-out encoder/classifier not used in generation) and report confidence intervals or significance tests for all axes.
[Adversarial Evaluation: Table 3 and Result text] The adversarial evidence for paragraph-level structural encoding is internally inconsistent. Table 3's caption says 'between SentencePattern and StructuredRewritten,' but the table header row says 'TemplateOnly vs StructuredRewritten.' The accompanying text claims that StructuredRewritten improves semantic preservation with a '57% vs 43% win rate,' yet the Content Preservation (Y) row in Table 3 shows 46, 39, and 44, which averages to 43%, not 57%; the 57% figure actually appears in Table 2's Style Consistency row. Please correct the captions/headers, clarify which method's win rate is reported in each table, and reconcile the text with the numbers, since this paragraph is a load-bearing part of the ablation argument.
[Experiments: Result, Table 1] The qualitative summary overstates what Table 1 shows. The text says StructuredRewritten 'preserves TemplateOnly's stylization strength,' but its Style Consistency X score is 7.39, below TemplateOnly's 7.62; it also says the method 'maintains DirectPrompt's paragraph-level semantic coherence,' but its Content Preservation Y is 7.04, below DirectPrompt's 7.34. The average gain of 0.20 therefore does not correspond to the described component-wise behavior. Either soften these claims or support them with significance testing of the per-axis differences.
[Adversarial Evaluation: Eq. (10) and Tables 2-3] All adversarial win rates are based on N1 = 100 samples (Eq. (10)) with a decision margin δ = 0.1, but no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported. Win rates of 52-55%, such as the X row in Table 3 (52, 54, 55), are within the range of plausible sampling noise at this sample size, so the conclusions drawn from these numbers—e.g., that the two-stage framework 'keeps close' in stylization strength or that paragraph-level encoding improves content preservation—are not yet statistically supported. Please report intervals or a formal test, and state the effective sample size after the δ threshold is applied.

minor comments (6)

[Methods, Eqs. (7)-(8)] In Eqs. (7)-(8), the symbol s(A,B)_M is used for two different preference scores; rename them, for example s_A^M and s_B^M, to avoid confusion.
[Methods, Eqs. (2)-(3)] Eq. (2) uses arg max over similarity while Eq. (3) uses arg min over distance; please state the sign convention (e.g., distance as negative similarity) or make both equations use the same convention.
[Experiments, Table 1] The Original and Style rows have no Average value; since the average is the headline metric, mark these as non-applicable or compute them for completeness.
[Methods, Figures 1-2] The text refers to 'as shown in 1' and 'as in 2'; please use 'Figure 1' and 'Figure 2' consistently.
[Discussions] There is a typo in the Discussion section: 'onfirming' should be 'confirming'.
[Experiments: Setup] The evaluation averages over GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 but reports only the mean; given that the same models serve as encoder, extractor, and generator, per-model breakdowns would help separate the method's effect from the model's effect.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Style-consistency metric uses the same encoder that selects and refines paragraph templates, so the headline 6.90 vs 6.70 gain reduces to a same-space objective/evaluation match.

self definitional [Experiments, 'Benchmarking Style Transfer Quality from Different Methods' (metric x); Methods, Phase 2.1 Eq. (3) and Phase 2.3 Eq. (5)]
"x quantifies style consistency via paragraph-level embedding similarity between output and reference texts (computed viaπenc), reflecting structural alignment to Γp. ... τ∗ p = arg min τp∈Γp ||esrc p −τp|| (3) ... The refinement module adjusts inter-sentence transitions, discourse markers, and referential consistency to align with the structural template τ∗ p."

The style-consistency axis x is defined as paragraph-level embedding similarity in πenc space to Γp, and the generator's paragraph template is selected in Eq. (3) by minimizing ||πenc(psrc) − τp||, with Eq. (5) then refining output to align with that same τ*p. So x measures proximity to the very template target the method is constructed to satisfy; the evaluation and the generation objective are the same πenc-space alignment. Table 1 shows the 6.90 vs 6.70 average advantage over DirectPrompt is carried entirely by X (7.39 vs 6.42), while Y (7.04 vs 7.34) and Z (6.26 vs 6.34) are lower. Consequently the headline superiority is a by-construction match, not an external demonstration of style transfer. Since Y and Z are independent, the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The template acquisition and matching pipeline is otherwise self-contained: sentence templates are clustered from reference embeddings, paragraph templates are thresholded in embedding space, and generation is LLM prompting conditioned on matched templates. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears; the citation to prior work by an author surname (Mai, Jiang, and Deng 2023) is used only as related-work positioning. The circular component is specifically the style-consistency metric x: it is defined as πenc paragraph-embedding similarity reflecting alignment to Γp, while Eqs. (3) and (5) select and refine output against the same πenc/Γp space. The paper provides no external calibration of πenc against human style judgments, and in Table 1 the overall win over DirectPrompt disappears when X is excluded. However, the Y-axis (BLEURT + keyword retention) and Z-axis (human/LLM preference) remain independent, and the adversarial evaluation's content-preservation win (~57% vs 43% in Table 3) gives non-circular evidence for the paragraph-level mechanism. The paper is therefore partially, not wholly, circular: score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are introduced. The method rests on several unverified assumptions about embeddings and LLM judges, and several hyperparameters are unreported. The sentence and paragraph template repositories are algorithmic constructs, not invented physical entities.

free parameters (5)

DBSCAN density parameters (eps, min_samples)
Not reported; determine sentence template clusters in Phase 1.1.
Paragraph template update threshold
The epsilon threshold in Section 1.2 controls when new paragraph templates enter the repository; value is unspecified.
Style intensity parameter alpha
Accepted as input in Methods but never used in experiments or equations; its role is unclear.
Decision margin delta in win-rate aggregation = 0.1
Threshold for declaring a winner in adversarial evaluation, Eq. 10; arbitrarily chosen and only affects evaluation.
Reference length ratio sigma = 3.0
Experiment setup setting total reference length relative to source; a design choice rather than a fitted model parameter.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The style decomposition in Eq. 1 (section modules plus rhetorical structures plus disciplinary conventions) adequately characterizes academic style.
Presented as a formal characterization but no evidence is given that this decomposition is complete or unique.
domain assumption Embedding space pi_enc encodes sentence-level and paragraph-level stylistic and rhetorical structure.
Used in Phase 1 clustering, Phase 2 matching (Eqs. 2-3), and evaluation metric x; if false, generation and evaluation fail together.
domain assumption Paragraph-level embeddings capture inter-sentence discourse patterns.
Section 1.2 aggregates sentence embeddings into ep and compares them to template centroids; no independent validation is given.
domain assumption LLM judges (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Llama-4) give reliable preference judgments for style transfer outputs.
Expression quality and adversarial win rates rely on LLM-as-judge with position-bias mitigation, but no correlation with human annotations or inter-annotator agreement is reported.
domain assumption Randomly selected reference articles by the same author represent a homogeneous target style.
Experiment setup randomly samples an author and a subset of articles; style is assumed consistent across that subset.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implementing Long Text Style Transfer with LLMs through Dual-Layered Sentence and Paragraph Structure Extraction and Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEUWSA2W

@misc{pith2026250507888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implementing Long Text Style Transfer with LLMs through Dual-Layered Sentence and Paragraph Structure Extraction and Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEUWSA2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07888}
}

read the original abstract

This paper addresses the challenge in long-text style transfer using zero-shot learning of large language models (LLMs), proposing a hierarchical framework that combines sentence-level stylistic adaptation with paragraph-level structural coherence. We argue that in the process of effective paragraph-style transfer, to preserve the consistency of original syntactic and semantic information, it is essential to perform style transfer not only at the sentence level but also to incorporate paragraph-level semantic considerations, while ensuring structural coherence across inter-sentential relationships. Our proposed framework, ZeroStylus, operates through two systematic phases: hierarchical template acquisition from reference texts and template-guided generation with multi-granular matching. The framework dynamically constructs sentence and paragraph template repositories, enabling context-aware transformations while preserving inter-sentence logical relationships. Experimental evaluations demonstrate significant improvements over baseline methods, with structured rewriting achieving 6.90 average score compared to 6.70 for direct prompting approaches in tri-axial metrics assessing style consistency, content preservation, and expression quality. Ablation studies validate the necessity of both template hierarchies during style transfer, showing higher content preservation win rate against sentence-only approaches through paragraph-level structural encoding, as well as direct prompting method through sentence-level pattern extraction and matching. The results establish new capabilities for coherent long-text style transfer without requiring parallel corpora or LLM fine-tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07888 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion
cs.CY 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.
The Evolution of Natural Language Processing: How Prompt Optimization and Language Models are Shaping the Future
cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

A review that categorizes 45 prompt optimization strategies into 11 classes and surveys their use across NLP tasks, models, and datasets, but with inconsistent counts and overlapping categories.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Agentic AI: From Foundations to Systems
cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A survey-style reference book mapping the full agentic-AI stack from transformer internals to production deployment, with no new research result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

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 word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

M.; and Ahmadi, A

Baghmolaei, R. M.; and Ahmadi, A. 2022. TET: Text emotion transfer. Knowl. Based Syst., 262: 110236

work page 2022
[4]

Chen, J. 2024. LMStyle Benchmark: Evaluating Text Style Transfer for Chatbots. arXiv:2403.08943

arXiv 2024
[5]

Chen, Z.; Du, W.; Zhang, W.; Liu, K.; Liu, J.; Zheng, M.; Zhuo, J.; Zhang, S.; Lin, D.; Chen, K.; and Zhao, F. 2024. T-Eval: Evaluating the Tool Utilization Capability of Large Language Models Step by Step. arXiv:2312.14033

arXiv 2024
[6]

Chen, Z.; and Moscholios, S. 2024. Using Prompts to Guide Large Language Models in Imitating a Real Person's Language Style. arXiv:2410.03848

arXiv 2024
[7]

DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2501.12948

arXiv 2025
[8]

E.; Lee, N.; Kim, S.; Moon, S.; Furuta, H.; Anumanchipalli, G.; Keutzer, K.; and Gholami, A

Erdogan, L. E.; Lee, N.; Kim, S.; Moon, S.; Furuta, H.; Anumanchipalli, G.; Keutzer, K.; and Gholami, A. 2025. Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks. arXiv:2503.09572

arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references

[9]

Farhangi, A.; Sui, N.; Hua, N.; Bai, H.; Huang, A.; and Guo, Z. 2022. Protoformer: Embedding Prototypes for Transformers, 447–458. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783031059339

2022
[10]

He, J.; Wang, X.; Neubig, G.; and Berg-Kirkpatrick, T. 2020. A Probabilistic Formulation of Unsupervised Text Style Transfer. arXiv:2002.03912

2020 arXiv
[11]

He, Y.; Huang, G.; Feng, P.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, H.; and E, W. 2025. PaSa: An LLM Agent for Comprehensive Academic Paper Search. arXiv:2501.10120

2025 arXiv
[12]

Hua, X.; and Wang, L. 2019. Sentence-Level Content Planning and Style Specification for Neural Text Generation. arXiv:1909.00734

2019 arXiv
[13]

Huang, X.; Liu, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Lian, D.; Wang, Y.; Tang, R.; and Chen, E. 2024. Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey. arXiv:2402.02716

2024 arXiv
[14]

Jin, D.; Jin, Z.; Hu, Z.; Vechtomova, O.; and Mihalcea, R. 2021. Deep Learning for Text Style Transfer: A Survey. arXiv:2011.00416

2021 arXiv
[15]

Kardas, M.; Czapla, P.; Stenetorp, P.; Ruder, S.; Riedel, S.; Taylor, R.; and Stojnic, R. 2020. AxCell: Automatic Extraction of Results from Machine Learning Papers. arXiv:2004.14356

2020 arXiv
[16]

Lai, W.; Hangya, V.; and Fraser, A. 2024. Style-Specific Neurons for Steering LLMs in Text Style Transfer. arXiv:2410.00593

2024 arXiv
[17]

Liang, C.; Feng, Z.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, W.; Xu, J.; Chen, Y.; and Wang, Y. 2024. Textualized Agent-Style Reasoning for Complex Tasks by Multiple Round LLM Generation. arXiv:2409.12411

2024 arXiv
[18]

K.; and Buehler, M

Lu, W.; Luu, R. K.; and Buehler, M. J. 2024. Fine-tuning large language models for domain adaptation: Exploration of training strategies, scaling, model merging and synergistic capabilities. arXiv:2409.03444

2024 arXiv
[19]

T.; Mou, L.; and Firdaus, M

Luo, G.; Han, Y. T.; Mou, L.; and Firdaus, M. 2023. Prompt-Based Editing for Text Style Transfer. arXiv:2301.11997

2023 arXiv
[20]

Mai, H.; Jiang, W.; and Deng, Z. 2023. Prefix-Tuning Based Unsupervised Text Style Transfer. arXiv:2310.14599

2023 arXiv
[21]

Mir, R.; Felbo, B.; Obradovich, N.; and Rahwan, I. 2019. Evaluating Style Transfer for Text. arXiv:1904.02295

2019 arXiv
[22]

Mukherjee, S.; and Dušek, O. 2024. Text Style Transfer: An Introductory Overview. arXiv:2407.14822

2024 arXiv
[23]

Niu, T.; and Bansal, M. 2018. Polite Dialogue Generation Without Parallel Data. arXiv:1805.03162

2018 arXiv
[24]

L.; and et al

OpenAI; Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; and et al. 2024. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303.08774

2024 arXiv
[25]

Pan, L.; Lan, Y.; Li, Y.; and Qian, W. 2024. Unsupervised Text Style Transfer via LLMs and Attention Masking with Multi-way Interactions. arXiv:2402.13647

2024 arXiv
[26]

Papineni, K.; Roukos, S.; Ward, T.; and Zhu, W.-J. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. ACL '02, 311–318. USA: Association for Computational Linguistics

2002
[27]

Rao, S.; and Tetreault, J. 2018. Dear Sir or Madam, May I introduce the GYAFC Dataset: Corpus, Benchmarks and Metrics for Formality Style Transfer. arXiv:1803.06535

2018 arXiv
[28]

Riley, P.; Constant, N.; Guo, M.; Kumar, G.; Uthus, D.; and Parekh, Z. 2021. TextSETTR: Few-Shot Text Style Extraction and Tunable Targeted Restyling. arXiv:2010.03802

2021 arXiv
[29]

Roy, S.; Shu, R.; Pappas, N.; Mansimov, E.; Zhang, Y.; Mansour, S.; and Roth, D. 2023. Conversation Style Transfer using Few-Shot Learning. arXiv:2302.08362

2023 arXiv
[30]

Shen, T.; Lei, T.; Barzilay, R.; and Jaakkola, T. 2017. Style Transfer from Non-Parallel Text by Cross-Alignment. arXiv:1705.09655

2017 arXiv
[31]

V.; Natarajan, A.; and Varma, V

Syed, B.; Verma, G.; Srinivasan, B. V.; Natarajan, A.; and Varma, V. 2020. Adapting Language Models for Non-Parallel Author-Stylized Rewriting. arXiv:1909.09962

2020 arXiv
[32]

Tan, Z.; Zeng, Q.; Tian, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yin, B.; and Jiang, M. 2025. Democratizing Large Language Models via Personalized Parameter-Efficient Fine-tuning. arXiv:2402.04401

2025 arXiv
[33]

Tao, Z.; Xi, D.; Li, Z.; Tang, L.; and Xu, W. 2024. CAT-LLM: Prompting Large Language Models with Text Style Definition for Chinese Article-style Transfer. arXiv:2401.05707

2024 arXiv
[34]

Toshevska, M.; and Gievska, S. 2022. A Review of Text Style Transfer Using Deep Learning. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 3(5): 669–684

2022
[35]

Toshevska, M.; and Gievska, S. 2025. LLM-Based Text Style Transfer: Have We Taken a Step Forward? IEEE Access, 13: 44707--44721

2025
[36]

Touvron, H.; Lavril, T.; Izacard, G.; Martinet, X.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Lacroix, T.; Rozière, B.; Goyal, N.; Hambro, E.; Azhar, F.; Rodriguez, A.; Joulin, A.; Grave, E.; and Lample, G. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models. arXiv:2302.13971

2023 arXiv
[37]

Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, X.; Xu, R.; tse Huang, J.; Yuan, S.; Guo, H.; Chen, J.; Wang, W.; Xiao, Y.; and Zhou, S. 2025. CoSER: Coordinating LLM-Based Persona Simulation of Established Roles. arXiv:2502.09082

2025
[38]

H.; Xia, F.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D

Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; hsin Chi, E. H.; Xia, F.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D. 2022. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. ArXiv, abs/2201.11903

2022 arXiv
[39]

Xi, Z.; Chen, W.; Guo, X.; He, W.; Ding, Y.; Hong, B.; Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Jin, S.; Zhou, E.; Zheng, R.; Fan, X.; Wang, X.; Xiong, L.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, W.; Jiang, C.; Zou, Y.; Liu, X.; Yin, Z.; Dou, S.; Weng, R.; Cheng, W.; Zhang, Q.; Qin, W.; Zheng, Y.; Qiu, X.; Huang, X.; an...

2023 arXiv
[40]

Zhang, C.; Cai, H.; Yuezhang; Li; Wu, Y.; Hou, L.; and Abdul-Mageed, M. 2024. Distilling Text Style Transfer With Self-Explanation From LLMs. arXiv:2403.01106

2024 arXiv
[41]

Zhang, F.; Zhu, D.; Ming, J.; Jin, Y.; Chai, D.; Yang, L.; Tian, H.; Fan, Z.; and Chen, K. 2025. DH-RAG: A Dynamic Historical Context-Powered Retrieval-Augmented Generation Method for Multi-Turn Dialogue. arXiv:2502.13847

2025 arXiv
[42]

Zhu, Y.; Lu, S.; Zheng, L.; Guo, J.; Zhang, W.; Wang, J.; and Yu, Y. 2018. Texygen: A Benchmarking Platform for Text Generation Models. arXiv:1802.01886

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

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 word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

M.; and Ahmadi, A

Baghmolaei, R. M.; and Ahmadi, A. 2022. TET: Text emotion transfer. Knowl. Based Syst., 262: 110236

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Chen, J. 2024. LMStyle Benchmark: Evaluating Text Style Transfer for Chatbots. arXiv:2403.08943

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Chen, Z.; Du, W.; Zhang, W.; Liu, K.; Liu, J.; Zheng, M.; Zhuo, J.; Zhang, S.; Lin, D.; Chen, K.; and Zhao, F. 2024. T-Eval: Evaluating the Tool Utilization Capability of Large Language Models Step by Step. arXiv:2312.14033

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Chen, Z.; and Moscholios, S. 2024. Using Prompts to Guide Large Language Models in Imitating a Real Person's Language Style. arXiv:2410.03848

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

DeepSeek-AI. 2025. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2501.12948

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

E.; Lee, N.; Kim, S.; Moon, S.; Furuta, H.; Anumanchipalli, G.; Keutzer, K.; and Gholami, A

Erdogan, L. E.; Lee, N.; Kim, S.; Moon, S.; Furuta, H.; Anumanchipalli, G.; Keutzer, K.; and Gholami, A. 2025. Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks. arXiv:2503.09572

arXiv 2025