Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Encode, Tag, Realize: High-Precision Text Editing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Casting text generation as a tagging task with KEEP, DELETE, and a few hundred insertable phrases lets a small model match or beat much larger sequence-to-sequence generators while running up to 100x faster.

desk verdict Practical editing-as-tagging paper with real speed and low-data gains, but the low-data advantage is partly an artifact of building the phrase vocabulary on the full validation set. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01187 v1 pith:XU4CEQCK submitted 2019-09-03 cs.CL

Eric Malmi , Sebastian Krause , Sascha Rothe , Daniil Mirylenka , Aliaksei Severyn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords texteditingsequencetaggingBERTgenerationsentencefusionsplittinggrammaticalerrorcorrectiondataefficiency
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

LaserTagger argues that many text-generation tasks, such as sentence fusion, splitting, abstractive summarization, and grammar correction, do not need a model that writes text from scratch. Instead, the output can be reconstructed from the input by deciding for each source token whether to keep it, delete it, and whether to insert one of a few hundred frequent phrases. Cast this way, generation becomes a sequence-tagging problem with a tiny output vocabulary, and the paper shows that a BERT encoder plus a one-layer autoregressive Transformer decoder matches or beats strong sequence-to-sequence baselines, especially when training data is scarce. The tagger also runs up to two orders of magnitude faster at inference, and its outputs are largely immune to word-level hallucinations because every output word comes from the input or from a fixed phrase list. The price is coverage: with 500 phrases, only 31 to 89 percent of training targets can be exactly reconstructed depending on the task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the editing tag: a pair of a base tag (KEEP or DELETE) and an added phrase drawn from a frequency-selected vocabulary of up to 500 n-grams, with task-specific tags like SWAP for sentence reordering. The tag sequence is predicted by a BERT-base encoder feeding a single-layer autoregressive Transformer decoder that consumes the previous tag embedding and the current encoder activation, avoiding full encoder-decoder cross-attention. A greedy alignment algorithm converts training targets into tag sequences by matching source tokens to target tokens and inserting vocabulary phrases only when needed; the vocabulary size bounds what the model can ever output.

What would settle it

Train both LaserTagger and the BERT-based sequence-to-sequence baseline on the same 1,000-example subset of DiscoFuse; if the baseline matches or exceeds LaserTagger's Exact score, the paper's central data-efficiency claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that text editing, not text generation, is the right framing for tasks where input and output share most of their tokens. LaserTagger defines a small tag vocabulary: each token receives a base tag (KEEP or DELETE) and optionally an added phrase from a precomputed set of at most 500 frequent n-grams, plus task-specific tags such as SWAP for sentence fusion. A model combining a pretrained BERT encoder with a one-layer autoregressive Transformer decoder predicts the tag sequence, and a deterministic realizer converts tags to text. On the four tasks studied, the tagger achieves new state-of-the-art scores on sentence fusion and abstractive summarization, matches the best seq2seq systems on splitting, and sharply outperforms a BERT-based seq2seq baseline on low-resource grammar correction. The paper also shows the tagger degrades gracefully when training data is cut to hundreds or dozens of examples, and that the feed-forward variant is over 100 times faster than the baseline at inference.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the target text can be reconstructed from the source using only KEEP, DELETE, and phrases from a fixed vocabulary, but on the splitting and grammar-correction tasks that vocabulary covers only 31% and 40% of training targets, respectively.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On sentence fusion and abstractive summarization, LaserTagger sets a new state of the art, so future systems on those datasets must be compared against an editing-based tagger rather than only against sequence-to-sequence generators.
  • The strong low-resource results imply that editing tags are a viable way to build text-generation systems for languages or domains with only hundreds of labeled examples.
  • The two-orders-of-magnitude inference speedup makes the tagger practical for real-time applications where sequence-to-sequence models are too slow, at a small accuracy cost in the feed-forward variant.
  • Because output words come from the input or from a fixed list, the tagger cannot produce imaginary words and rarely repeats phrases, shifting the error profile toward misplaced deletions and insertions.
  • The reported gold-coverage percentages (85%, 31%, 89%, and 40% for the four tasks) set an upper bound on exact-match accuracy, so improving the phrase vocabulary is the direct lever for higher performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, is to treat the phrase vocabulary as part of the model rather than a fixed precomputed set; learning insertions from a small copy-augmented vocabulary could lift the 31% and 40% coverage ceilings on splitting and grammar correction.
  • The coverage numbers themselves could serve as a diagnostic for task difficulty: tasks with high coverage are almost pure deletion-plus-paste problems, suggesting that inexpensive extractive or rule-based baselines should be tried before training a generator.
  • The SWAP tag shows that a small set of task-specific operations (swap, pronominalize, move-span) could extend the same architecture to handle reordering and coreference, which are the main failure modes the paper identifies.
  • If the autoregressive decoder's gain over feedforward tagging comes from modeling tag-order dependencies, then structured prediction losses such as conditional random fields or a lightweight transformer with causal masking could close the remaining gap without adding much latency.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LaserTagger, a sequence-tagging approach that frames text generation as text editing using KEEP and DELETE operations combined with insertion of phrases from a precomputed vocabulary. The model uses a BERT encoder with either a feedforward or an autoregressive Transformer decoder for tag prediction. The phrase vocabulary is built from the most frequent phrases needed to align source-target pairs, and training examples whose targets cannot be reconstructed with the chosen vocabulary are filtered out. The method is evaluated on sentence fusion (DfWiki), split and rephrase (WikiSplit), abstractive summarization (Toutanova et al., 2016), and low-resource grammatical error correction (BEA-2019). The authors report new state-of-the-art results on three of the four tasks, comparable quality to strong seq2seq baselines when data are plentiful, better quality when data are scarce, and up to two orders of magnitude faster inference.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it demonstrates that a constrained edit-based generator can rival or beat sequence-to-sequence models on tasks with high input-output overlap, while offering dramatic speedups and a qualitatively different error profile. The explicit separation of tagging from realization, the small output vocabulary, and the qualitative analysis of hallucination and repetition are useful and interesting. The paper is clearly written and the method is straightforward to reproduce in principle. However, the evidence for the two central claims—data efficiency and state-of-the-art summarization—is weakened by the experimental design and baseline choices described below. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the overall approach, but they need to be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Fig. 5a, footnote 4] The data-efficiency claim is confounded by the use of the 46K-example validation set to build the 500-phrase vocabulary for all training-subset sizes. For the 450- and 4,500-example conditions, the tagger receives a phrase vocabulary derived from a much larger in-domain corpus than the training subset. The footnote's argument that 'the tagger will never predict a phrase it has not seen in the training data' does not address the more important effect: the vocabulary determines which training targets can be converted into tag sequences at all. A vocabulary derived from the 450-example training subset would cover fewer targets, filter out more examples, and change the effective training distribution. The seq2seq baseline has no equivalent task-specific prior beyond BERT pretraining, so the gap in Fig. 5a may be partly an artifact of this asymmetric setup rather than an intrinsic property of the tagging approach. Please re-run the dataset-size experiment with the vocabulary constructed from each training subset (or at least from the training partition only) and report the corresponding coverage and performance; if the advantage disappears, the data-efficiency claim should be revised.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 4] The abstractive summarization state-of-the-art claim is not well supported. The comparison baselines are from 2008-2015 (Clarke and Lapata, 2008; Cohn and Lapata, 2008; Rush et al., 2015; Filippova et al., 2015), and the paper's own seq2seq BERT baseline is dramatically worse than the tagger on all metrics (BLEU 8.3 vs 35.6, SARI 32.1 vs 44.8, ROUGE-L 52.7 vs 82.8). The poor performance of the seq2seq baseline suggests it is not properly adapted to this task, so the tagger's superiority over it does not demonstrate a general advantage over modern seq2seq summarization systems. Please add a contemporary abstractive summarization baseline (e.g., a BERT-based pointer-generator or a well-tuned Transformer) or soften the state-of-the-art claim for this task.
  3. [Sections 5.2 and 5.4] The coverage results for WikiSplit (31%) and GEC (40%) mean that the majority of training examples are filtered out because they require phrases outside the 500-phrase vocabulary. The paper acknowledges the coverage figures but does not discuss the consequences for the method's generality: the model is trained on a skewed subset of the task distribution and cannot produce outputs that require uncommon insertions. Since the Introduction claims that 'it is often enough to use a relatively small set of output tags ... to reproduce a large percentage of the targets,' this claim is empirically true for fusion and summarization but not for splitting or GEC under the chosen vocabulary. Please discuss the trade-off between vocabulary size and task applicability, and consider reporting results with larger vocabularies or with vocabulary sizes tuned per task.
  4. [Tables 2 and 3] Several reported differences are very small (e.g., DfWiki Exact 53.8 vs 53.6, SARI 85.5 vs 85.3; WikiSplit BLEU 76.3 vs 76.7). The paper does not report test-set sizes, variance, or significance tests for any metric. Given that the new state-of-the-art claim on DfWiki rests on a 0.2-point Exact margin, please provide the number of test examples and, where feasible, confidence intervals or multiple seeds so that the reader can judge whether the differences are meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The phrase '450 or 4 500 examples' appears to contain a typo; it should read '450 or 4,500 examples'.
  2. [Figure 2] The tag sequence 'KEEPcommaDELETE' appears without a space and is confusing; please clarify the tag format so that the base tag and the added phrase are visually separated.
  3. [Algorithm 1] In line 15, the condition 's(is) == t(it+j)' can access t(it+j) beyond the target length when j = np and it+np > nt; add a bounds check or specify that j is constrained by the remaining length of t.
  4. [Related Work] The sentence 'Another recent model similar to ours is called Levenshtein Transformer Gu et al. (2019)' should be 'Levenshtein Transformer (Gu et al., 2019)' with parentheses around the citation.
  5. [Throughout] The model name is typeset inconsistently (e.g., 'LASER TAGGER', 'L ASER TAGGER', 'LaserTagger'); please unify the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: results are held-out empirical evaluations with transparently reported vocabulary construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: the LaserTagger models are trained on source-target pairs converted to edit tags and evaluated on held-out test portions of external benchmarks (DiscoFuse, WikiSplit, the Toutanova et al. summarization dataset, and BEA-2019). The phrase vocabulary is constructed from training or validation target phrases by frequency; it is not a parameter fitted to the evaluation outcome, and the reported coverage figures (85%, 31%, 89%, 40%) are explicitly presented as upper bounds on achievable exact matches, not as predicted results. No equation in the paper equates a predicted quantity to an input or fitted quantity by construction: realized outputs are deterministic tag-sequence transformations of inputs, and accuracy is measured against unseen reference targets. The one notable design point is the low-resource comparison: in the DfWiki dataset-size experiment, all tagger runs use a phrase vocabulary computed from the 46K-example validation set, giving the tagger an in-domain lexical prior that the seq2seq baseline does not receive. This is a legitimate experimental-design and fairness concern, and the footnote's claim that the vocabulary is neutral because 'the tagger will never predict a phrase it has not seen in the training data' does not fully address the prior's effect on which training examples are convertible into tags. However, this is not circularity: the vocabulary is not fitted to the target labels, and the reported SARI scores are not forced by the vocabulary alone. Self-citations, such as the use of the DiscoFuse dataset from Geva et al. (2019) which includes one of the present authors, are used as external data/benchmarks rather than as load-bearing theoretical support. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that a small set of edit operations can reconstruct targets; the paper quantifies this as coverage but does not guarantee it. The greedy alignment and BERT transfer are additional assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • Phrase vocabulary size = 500
    Set based on plateau in Exact score on DfWiki validation set (Figure 4); controls coverage and tag vocabulary size.
  • Maximum added phrase length (np) = Not specified
    Used in Algorithm 1 to limit phrase length; no value is reported, so it is an implicit free hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Target texts can be reconstructed from source texts using only KEEP, DELETE, and insertion of phrases from a finite vocabulary
    The entire method relies on this. The paper measures coverage (e.g., 85% for DfWiki with 500 phrases, 31% for WikiSplit) which is often far from 100%.
  • domain assumption The greedy tag conversion in Algorithm 1 yields a valid tag sequence; it may not be globally optimal but is treated as correct
    Algorithm 1 greedily matches source and target words; no proof of correctness or optimality is given, but it is used to produce all training tags.
  • standard math Minimum k-union is NP-hard; the reduction from Problem 1 to it is valid
    Theorem 1 claims NP-hardness via reduction from minimum k-union; the proof sketch is standard and cited to Vinterbo (2002).
  • domain assumption Pretrained BERT provides a strong representation that transfers to tagging tasks
    The encoder is initialized from BERT and fine-tuned; the method depends on BERT's quality, which is an input from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Encode, Tag, Realize: High-Precision Text Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XU4CEQCK

@misc{pith2026190901187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Encode, Tag, Realize: High-Precision Text Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XU4CEQCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01187}
}
read the original abstract

We propose LaserTagger - a sequence tagging approach that casts text generation as a text editing task. Target texts are reconstructed from the inputs using three main edit operations: keeping a token, deleting it, and adding a phrase before the token. To predict the edit operations, we propose a novel model, which combines a BERT encoder with an autoregressive Transformer decoder. This approach is evaluated on English text on four tasks: sentence fusion, sentence splitting, abstractive summarization, and grammar correction. LaserTagger achieves new state-of-the-art results on three of these tasks, performs comparably to a set of strong seq2seq baselines with a large number of training examples, and outperforms them when the number of examples is limited. Furthermore, we show that at inference time tagging can be more than two orders of magnitude faster than comparable seq2seq models, making it more attractive for running in a live environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LASERTAGGER applied to sentence fusion. seems intuitively wasteful. Copy mechanisms (Gu et al., 2016; See et al., 2017) allow for choosing between copying source tokens and generating ar￾bitrary tokens, but although such hybrid models help with out-of-vocabulary words, they still re￾quire large training sets as they depend on output vocabularies as large as those used by the standard seq2seq approaches. In contrast,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example sentence fusion obtained by tagging using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of LASERTAGGERAR. tion step is that specific loss patterns can be ad￾dressed by adding specialized realization rules. For instance, one could have a rule that when applying tag hisDELETE to an entity mention followed by ’s, the realizer must always DELETE the possessive ’s regardless of its predicted tag. 4 Tagging Model Architecture Our tagger is composed of two components: an encoder, which genera… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of model LASERTAGGERAR on the DfWiki dataset, conditioned on the vocabulary size and the gold score, i.e. the percentage of examples that can be reconstructed via text-edit operations. which is the percentage of exactly correctly pre￾dicted fusions, and SAR…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SARI score as a function of the training-data size for three models. Unless we have tens of thousands of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Algorithm for Automatic Legislative Text Consolidation

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A LoRA-fine-tuned 13B language model can automatically consolidate French legislative texts, outperforming a span-extraction baseline and approaching GPT-4 on a subset of a real finance bill.

  2. SMI-Editor: Edit-based SMILES Language Model with Fragment-level Supervision

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SMI-Editor pre-trains a SMILES Transformer to restore randomly dropped chemical fragments via Levenshtein edit operations, improving downstream molecular property prediction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

  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]

    Daniel Andor, Chris Alberti, David Weiss, Aliaksei Severyn, Alessandro Presta, Kuzman Ganchev, Slav Petrov, and Michael Collins. 2016. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-1231 Globally normalized transition-based neural networks . In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2442--2452

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Jan A Botha, Manaal Faruqui, John Alex, Jason Baldridge, and Dipanjan Das. 2018. Learning to split and rephrase from wikipedia edit history. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Christopher Bryant, Mariano Felice, istein E Andersen, and Ted Briscoe. 2019. The bea-2019 shared task on grammatical error correction. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 52--75

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Shamil Chollampatt and Hwee Tou Ng. 2018. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D18-1274 Neural quality estimation of grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2528--2539

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    James Clarke and Mirella Lapata. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2433 Global inference for sentence compression: An integer linear programming approach . J. Artif. Intell. Res., 31:399--429

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.2433 2008

  8. [8]

    Trevor Cohn and Mirella Lapata. 2008. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C08-1018 Sentence compression beyond word deletion . In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 137--144

    work page 2008

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Franck Dernoncourt, Mohammad Ghassemi, and Walter Chang. 2018. A repository of corpora for summarization. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC-2018 )

    2018

  2. [10]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Yue Dong, Zichao Li, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2019. EditNTS : An neural programmer-interpreter model for sentence simplification through explicit editing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  4. [12]

    Katja Filippova, Enrique Alfonseca, Carlos A Colmenares, Lukasz Kaiser, and Oriol Vinyals. 2015. Sentence compression by deletion with LSTMs . In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 360--368

    2015

  5. [13]

    Katja Filippova and Michael Strube. 2008. Dependency tree based sentence compression. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 25--32

    2008

  6. [14]

    Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2018. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P18-1097 Fluency boost learning and inference for neural grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), p...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Mor Geva, Eric Malmi, Idan Szpektor, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. DiscoFuse : A large-scale dataset for discourse-based sentence fusion. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolog...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Roman Grundkiewicz, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, and Kenneth Heafield. 2019. Neural grammatical error correction systems with unsupervised pre-training on synthetic data. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Jiatao Gu, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Victor OK Li. 2016. Incorporating copying mechanism in sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1631--1640

    2016

  10. [18]

    Jiatao Gu, Changhan Wang, and Jake Zhao. 2019. Levenshtein transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11006

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zhijing Jin, Di Jin, Jonas Mueller, Nicholas Matthews, and Enrico Santus. 2019. Unsupervised text style transfer via iterative matching and translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11333

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hongyan Jing and Kathleen McKeown. 2000. Cut and paste based text summarization. In 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2000

  13. [21]

    Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt and Roman Grundkiewicz. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-1703 The AMU system in the C o NLL -2014 shared task: Grammatical error correction by data-intensive and feature-rich statistical machine translation . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conferen...

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Roman Grundkiewicz, Shubha Guha, and Kenneth Heafield. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1055 Approaching neural grammatical error correction as a low-resource machine translation task . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican C...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Sudhanshu Kasewa, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D18-1541 Wronging a right: Generating better errors to improve grammatical error detection . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Kevin Knight and Ishwar Chander. 1994. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1994/aaai94-119.php Automated postediting of documents . In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, USA, July 31 - August 4, 1994, Volume 1., pages 779--784

    1994

  17. [25]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W04-1013 ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries . In Text Summarization Branches Out: Proceedings of the ACL -04 Workshop , pages 74--81

    2004

  18. [26]

    Yang Liu. 2019. Fine-tune bert for extractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10318

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Amit Moryossef, Yoav Goldberg, and Ido Dagan. 2019. Step-by-step: Separating planning from realization in neural data-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Techno...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Shashi Narayan, Shay B Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Ranking sentences for extractive summarization with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hwee Tou Ng, Siew Mei Wu, Ted Briscoe, Christian Hadiwinoto, Raymond Hendy Susanto, and Christopher Bryant. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-1701 The C o NLL -2014 shared task on grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Na...

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Hwee Tou Ng, Siew Mei Wu, Yuanbin Wu, Christian Hadiwinoto, and Joel Tetreault. 2013. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-3601 The C o NLL -2013 shared task on grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learni...

    2013

  23. [31]

    Nikola I Nikolov and Richard HR Hahnloser. 2018. Large-scale hierarchical alignment for author style transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08237

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Eberhardt, and Dan Jurafsky

    Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Camilla Griffiths, Hang Su, Prateek Verma, Nelson Morgan, Jennifer L. Eberhardt, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00031 Detecting institutional dialog acts in police traffic stops . Transactions of the Association for Computational...

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Ratish Puduppully, Li Dong, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Data-to-text generation with content selection and planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00582

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sudha Rao and Joel Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may i introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human La...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Marek Rei. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1194 Semi-supervised multitask learning for sequence labeling . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2121--2130

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Marek Rei, Mariano Felice, Zheng Yuan, and Ted Briscoe. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5032 Artificial error generation with machine translation and syntactic patterns . In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications ,...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Alla Rozovskaya, Kai-Wei Chang, Mark Sammons, Dan Roth, and Nizar Habash. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-1704 The I llinois- C olumbia system in the C o NLL -2014 shared task . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared...

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Alexander M Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 379--389

    2015

  32. [40]

    Abigail See, Peter J Liu, and Christopher D Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073--1083

    2017

  33. [41]

    Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, pages 3104--3112

    2014

  34. [42]

    Jiwei Tan, Xiaojun Wan, and Jianguo Xiao. 2017. Abstractive document summarization with a Graph-Based attentional neural model. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1171--1181

    2017

  35. [43]

    Kristina Toutanova, Chris Brockett, Ke M Tran, and Saleema Amershi. 2016. A dataset and evaluation metrics for abstractive compression of sentences and short paragraphs. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 340--350

    2016

  36. [44]

    Staal A Vinterbo. 2002. A note on the hardness of the k-ambiguity problem. Technical Report DSG-T R-2002-006

    2002

  37. [45]

    Sam Wiseman, Stuart M Shieber, and Alexander M Rush. 2018. Learning neural templates for text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10122

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, vol...

    2015

  39. [47]

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

    2016

  40. [48]

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

    2016

  41. [49]

    Xingxing Zhang and Mirella Lapata. 2017. Sentence simplification with deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 584--594

    2017

  42. [50]

    Wei Zhao, Liang Wang, Kewei Shen, Ruoyu Jia, and Jingming Liu. 2019. Improving grammatical error correction via pre-training a copy-augmented architecture with unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computatio...

    2019

  43. [51]

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

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.