Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Style Transfer for Text

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1904.02295 v1 pith:WO2HHUJ7 submitted 2019-04-04 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationstyletransferaspectsdistanceevaluatinghumaninterest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Research in the area of style transfer for text is currently bottlenecked by a lack of standard evaluation practices. This paper aims to alleviate this issue by experimentally identifying best practices with a Yelp sentiment dataset. We specify three aspects of interest (style transfer intensity, content preservation, and naturalness) and show how to obtain more reliable measures of them from human evaluation than in previous work. We propose a set of metrics for automated evaluation and demonstrate that they are more strongly correlated and in agreement with human judgment: direction-corrected Earth Mover's Distance, Word Mover's Distance on style-masked texts, and adversarial classification for the respective aspects. We also show that the three examined models exhibit tradeoffs between aspects of interest, demonstrating the importance of evaluating style transfer models at specific points of their tradeoff plots. We release software with our evaluation metrics to facilitate research.

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. Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM Judgments

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The DBG metric measures LLM self-preference bias as the gap between a judge model's own win rate and the win rate assigned by an ensemble of gold judges.

Pith tools