Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Keep Calm and Switch On! Preserving Sentiment and Fluency in Semantic Text Exchange

T0 review · 3 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 SMERTI performs semantic text exchange: swapping what a sentence is about while preserving sentiment and fluency, and it outperforms existing baselines on review and headline datasets.

desk verdict A useful new task and pipeline, but the headline outperformance claim is undercut by using the same sentence encoder in both generation and evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00088 v2 pith:7VG7U3NB submitted 2019-08-30 cs.CL cs.IRcs.LG

Steven Y. Feng , Aaron W. Li , Jesse Hoey This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.IRcs.LG
keywords semantictextexchangeSMERTIinfillingsentimentpreservationdataaugmentationUniversalSentenceEncodercontrollablegenerationsequence-to-sequence
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 introduces semantic text exchange: rewriting a sentence so that it is about something new—say, rainy weather instead of sunny weather—while keeping the original sentiment and fluent style. The proposed pipeline, SMERTI, does this in three steps: replace the word or phrase that names the old topic with the new one, mask other words semantically related to the old topic, and infill the masked spans with a neural sequence-to-sequence model. The paper claims SMERTI outperforms three baseline models on Yelp reviews, Amazon reviews, and news headlines, measured by a composite Semantic Text Exchange Score (STES) that combines sentiment preservation, fluency, and similarity to the replacement entity. It also introduces a masking-rate threshold that lets a user control how much semantic change is applied. If correct, this gives a practical tool for data augmentation and for correcting the content of chatbot or assistant responses without flattening their emotion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-module pipeline. The Entity Replacement Module uses a constituency parser to collect candidate phrases with the same grammatical structure as the replacement entity, then scores them with the Universal Sentence Encoder, a sentence-level embedding model, to pick the most similar phrase as the original entity. The Similarity Masking Module uses the same encoder to find words and phrases in the text whose embeddings are close to the original entity, masks them, and collapses adjacent masks; a masking-rate threshold (MRT) controls how aggressive this is. The Text Infilling Module, either a bidirectional GRU with attention or a transformer, fills each mask with variable-length text appropriate to the new entity. The evaluation metric STES (harmonic mean of sentiment preservation accuracy, rescaled fluency score SLOR, and content similarity CSS) is what makes the claimed advantage measurable.

What would settle it

On a held-out set of equal-size outputs from SMERTI and the strongest baseline, recompute the content-similarity score using a different sentence embedding model (or human 'RE match' ratings) that was not used anywhere in SMERTI's pipeline. If SMERTI's lead over the baseline disappears or reverses under this independent measure while the original USE-based CSS still favors SMERTI, then the reported outperformance is at least partly an artifact of using the same embeddings on both sides of the evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that semantic text exchange can be decomposed into three modular operations that together outperform whole-sentence style-transfer-style approaches: entity replacement locates the original entity that best matches the replacement entity and swaps it; similarity masking deletes spans whose meaning was tied to that original entity; and text infilling regenerates those spans conditioned on the replacement. The authors report that both SMERTI-RNN and SMERTI-Transformer beat the WordNet-based and Word2Vec baselines on all three datasets, with the largest gains in fluency and content similarity, and that human ratings correlate strongly with the automatic metrics. The masking-rate threshold acts as a single dial controlling a trade-off: higher rates increase semantic similarity to the replacement entity but decrease fluency and sentiment preservation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that SMERTI outperforms baselines depends on treating the Universal Sentence Encoder as an impartial judge of semantic similarity, even though the same encoder is used inside SMERTI to decide which words to replace and mask.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can generate many paraphrases of one review or headline with the same sentiment and fluency but different semantic content, directly serving text data augmentation.
  • Chatbot or virtual-assistant text that is fluent but factually wrong about the situation can be corrected to the true entity while keeping the emotional tone.
  • The masking-rate threshold gives a controllable operating point, so the same pipeline can do light edits (grammar recovery) or large semantic rewrites.
  • STES provides a three-way composite score that future semantic text exchange systems can be compared on.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the content-similarity half of STES uses the same sentence-embedding model that SMERTI uses internally to choose and mask words, part of the reported advantage over WordNet- and Word2Vec-based baselines may be metric-method alignment rather than a property of the output text; an independent judge (human raters or a different embedding model) would settle this.
  • Editorial inference: the pipeline is entity-centric, so it is most convincing for exchanges where a single replaceable word or phrase carries the changed meaning; extending it to abstract topic or domain shifts would require a different notion of 'similar to the original entity' than embedding distance.
  • Testable extension beyond the paper: treat the masking-rate threshold as a calibration dial, choosing per-sentence MRT to hit a target content-similarity while keeping sentiment and fluency above a floor; this would make the method directly usable for controlled data augmentation.
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 introduces a new task, semantic text exchange (STE), in which a text's semantic content is adjusted (e.g., by replacing an entity) while its sentiment and fluency are preserved. It proposes SMERTI, a three-module pipeline: entity replacement using a constituency parser and Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) similarity, similarity masking with a user-controlled masking rate threshold (MRT), and text infilling with either an RNN or a Transformer. The paper defines the Semantic Text Exchange Score (STES) as the harmonic mean of sentiment preservation accuracy (SPA), fluency (SLOR), and content similarity score (CSS), and reports experiments on Yelp, Amazon, and news headlines showing that SMERTI-RNN and SMERTI-Transformer outperform WordNet-based and Word2Vec-based baselines. A small human evaluation (8 participants, 54 items) is presented as supporting the automatic metrics.

Significance. If the central claim holds, STE is a useful new task with concrete applications in data augmentation and correction of chatbot output, and SMERTI is a simple, modular, and reproducible pipeline; the authors also release code, which strengthens the paper's practical contribution. The paper's main weakness is evaluator alignment: CSS is computed with USE embeddings, and the same encoder is used inside SMERTI's entity replacement and similarity masking modules, so the reported outperformance may partly reflect the fact that SMERTI is optimized against the same similarity function used to judge it. The human evaluation is too small to resolve this concern. The task definition and the analysis of the MRT trade-off are valuable regardless, but the headline comparative claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and §3.2–3.3] The content similarity score (CSS) in §5.2 is computed with the Universal Sentence Encoder, and the same encoder is used in the Entity Replacement Module (§3.2) to select the original entity and in the Similarity Masking Module (§3.3) to decide which words to mask. SMERTI's outputs are therefore explicitly guided toward high CSS under the exact similarity function that is later used to evaluate CSS in STES (Eq. 4), while the WordNet and Word2Vec baselines optimize different similarity notions. This is a genuine correctness risk: the headline comparison in Table 2 may partly reflect evaluator alignment rather than a genuine superiority in semantic exchange. The paper should either re-evaluate with a held-out semantic similarity measure (e.g., a different sentence encoder or human judgments), or provide a detailed argument and additional experiments showing that the USE-overlap does not materially affect the ranking.
  2. [§5.5–5.6 and §6.2] The human evaluation uses only 8 participants and 54 items, with one randomly chosen evaluation line per part-of-speech per dataset. The reported Pearson correlations between human ratings and automatic metrics (0.9952 for RE Match vs. CSS, 0.9327 for Fluency vs. SLOR, 0.8768 for Sentiment Preservation vs. SPA) appear to be computed over model-level averages rather than item-level judgments. Such aggregate correlations, with six or fewer points, cannot establish that CSS is a valid item-level measure of semantic exchange, and they do not rule out the USE-circularity concern. The paper itself concedes in §7 that the human evaluation is limited in size and that a larger and more diverse participant pool is needed. Please report item-level agreement statistics (e.g., per-item correlations or ICC) and confidence intervals, or substantially expand the evaluation.
  3. [Table 2 and Appendix E] The main results in Table 2 are reported as point averages without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since §5.1 describes three independent evaluation sets and multiple MRT/RRT levels, it is important to know whether SMERTI's margins over W2V-STEM are stable. Please provide variance estimates and, where appropriate, paired significance tests across the repeated evaluation sets, and state whether the margins in Table 2 are consistent across the three repetitions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (2)–(3)] The derivation of the character-level SLOR formula is not dimensionally transparent: Eq. (2) divides by the total character length and Eq. (3) appears to add a word-level quantity in the numerator; please provide a cleaner step-by-step derivation or notation that makes the weighting explicit.
  2. [§5.1] The evaluation setup says the process is repeated three times, yielding three sets of 1000 lines per dataset per POS, but it is not stated whether the same 100 test lines are reused across different POS or different repetitions; please clarify the sampling procedure and whether the three sets are independent.
  3. [§4.2 and Appendix C] Some hyperparameters for the Transformer are said to replicate Vaswani et al. (2017), but the concrete model size and number of layers are not reported in the main text; please include a compact hyperparameter table for full reproducibility.
  4. [Table 3] In the Yelp example, the 40% and 60% MRT outputs for SMERTI-Transformer are identical; Appendix A acknowledges that different MRTs can yield equal outputs, but the main text should note this occurrence so readers do not misinterpret Table 3 as a monotonic progression.
  5. [§3.3] The algorithm for increasing the base similarity threshold ST in intervals of 0.05 is clear in general, but the reported masked outputs in Table 1 do not show the final ST values after adjustment; please include the final threshold in the table or in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

CSS is computed with the same USE cosine similarity that SMERTI uses to pick replacement entities and masks, so part of the reported CSS/STES advantage is built into the method; the small human study does not fully break the tie.

  1. other [Sec. 3.2 (ERM), Sec. 3.3 (SMM), Sec. 5.2 (CSS), STES Eq. (4) component C]
    "Using USE and the above equation, we can identify words/phrases within the input text S which are most similar to RE. ... Next, we mask words similar to OE to generate S′′ using USE. ... Content Similarity Score (CSS) ... We also use the USE for this due to its design and strong performance as previously mentioned."

    The construction of SMERTI and the evaluation of its central claim use the same Universal Sentence Encoder cosine similarity. ERM selects the OE that is most USE-similar to the RE, and SMM masks words that are USE-similar to that OE; CSS then scores the output by its USE similarity to the RE and feeds into STES as component C. SMERTI is therefore explicitly built to satisfy the same similarity function that judges it, while the W2V and WordNet baselines are built around different similarity functions. This does not fully determine the result, because SPA and SLOR are independent and a small human study correlates with CSS, but the automatic outperformance on CSS is partially constructed from the metric-method overlap rather than measured independently.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain and no first-principles derivation that reduces to its inputs; the core issue is evaluative. The Content Similarity Score in Sec. 5.2 uses USE, the same encoder that drives entity selection in Sec. 3.2 and masking in Sec. 3.3, so the CSS component of STES is aligned with SMERTI's design choices by construction. The reported human evaluation (54 pieces, 8 raters) is external evidence and the correlations in Sec. 6.2 are suggestive, but the paper itself concedes in Sec. 7 that the human evaluation is limited in size and needs a larger and more diverse pool. The Sec. 6.5 correlations between MRT/RRT and CSS/SPA/SLOR are also largely expected from the definition of the masking-rate threshold, though this is a minor point. Overall, the headline outperformance claim has independent components (sentiment via VADER, fluency via SLOR) and is plausible, so the circularity is partial rather than total. This is a metric-method alignment concern, not an allegation of intentional bias.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the automatic metrics and the fairness of the comparison. The free parameters (MRT, ST, MINsim) are tunable controls, not fitted constants, but the baseline MINsim values are chosen to match SMERTI's masking rates, which affects the comparison. The axioms are the assumptions that the embedding, sentiment, and fluency measures are accurate and that the evaluation REs are representative.

free parameters (3)
  • Masking rate threshold (MRT) = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 (user-set)
    Controls the maximum fraction of input words to mask; the base similarity threshold is adjusted in 0.05 steps to meet it, so it is a tunable hyperparameter rather than a fitted constant.
  • Base similarity threshold (ST) = 0.4 down to 0.1 depending on MRT
    Used in SMM to select words similar to OE for masking; adjusted to match MRT, so it is not independently fit to an external target but set by the MRT.
  • MINsim for baselines = 0.075 and 0 for nouns, 0.1 and 0 for verbs
    Chosen to make baseline replacement rates approximately match SMERTI's MRT 20% and 40%; this is fitting the baseline threshold to a target rate, affecting the fairness of comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption USE embeddings reliably measure semantic similarity between words, phrases, and sentences
    SMERTI's ERM/SMM and the CSS metric both rely on USE similarity (Sec. 3.2, 3.3, 5.2). If USE is a biased or noisy semantic measure, the pipeline and its evaluation are both affected.
  • domain assumption VADER's sentiment labels are an accurate proxy for sentiment preservation
    SPA is computed with VADER (Sec. 5.2). The human evaluation correlates well, but VADER is rule-based and may not capture nuanced sentiment.
  • domain assumption Character-level SLOR with a Flair LM trained on One Billion Words measures fluency
    SLOR is used as the fluency metric (Sec. 5.2); the paper rescales the values but does not validate against other fluency measures.
  • domain assumption The datasets and the manual RE selection are representative
    Only top 10% frequent words and phrases are candidate REs, and verbs and adjectives are filtered by sentiment lists, which may bias toward easier cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Keep Calm and Switch On! Preserving Sentiment and Fluency in Semantic Text Exchange." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VG7U3NB

@misc{pith2026190900088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Keep Calm and Switch On! Preserving Sentiment and Fluency in Semantic Text Exchange},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VG7U3NB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00088}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a novel method for measurably adjusting the semantics of text while preserving its sentiment and fluency, a task we call semantic text exchange. This is useful for text data augmentation and the semantic correction of text generated by chatbots and virtual assistants. We introduce a pipeline called SMERTI that combines entity replacement, similarity masking, and text infilling. We measure our pipeline's success by its Semantic Text Exchange Score (STES): the ability to preserve the original text's sentiment and fluency while adjusting semantic content. We propose to use masking (replacement) rate threshold as an adjustable parameter to control the amount of semantic change in the text. Our experiments demonstrate that SMERTI can outperform baseline models on Yelp reviews, Amazon reviews, and news headlines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture and example, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ERM example with S = i love this hotel ! the beds are comfortable and the service is great ! and RE = restaurant showing (a) Parse tree for RE; (b) and (c) Parse tree for S; (d) Semantic similarity heat map [mask] token. Next, we replace [mask] tokens ad￾jacent to each other with a single [mask]. We set a base similarity threshold (ST) that se￾lects a subset of words to mask. We compare the actual fraction of masked… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph of overall average results (referring to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Graph of average results by POS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graph of average results by dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graph of average results by MRT/RRT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  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]

    Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638--1649

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473 Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate . In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D

    Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1075 A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference . In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632--642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 2015

  6. [6]

    John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil

    Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-2029 Universal sentence encoder for E nglish . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Sys...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-2029 2018

  7. [7]

    Ciprian Chelba, Tomas Mikolov, Mike Schuster, Qi Ge, Thorsten Brants, and Phillipp Koehn. 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3005 One billion word benchmark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling . CoRR, abs/1312.3005

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Danqi Chen and Christopher Manning. 2014. A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 740--750

    2014

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Nancy Chinchor. 1992. Muc-4 evaluation metrics. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Message understanding, pages 22--29. Association for Computational Linguistics

    1992

  2. [10]

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merri \"e nboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1179 Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder -- decoder for statistical machine translation . In Procee...

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, Mirella Lapata, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2017. Learning to generate product reviews from attributes. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 623--632

    2017

  5. [13]

    Goodfellow, and Andrew M

    William Fedus, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Andrew M. Dai. 2018. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ByOExmWAb Maskgan: Better text generation via filling in the \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ . In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 3...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Zhenxin Fu, Xiaoye Tan, Nanyun Peng, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2018. Style transfer in text: Exploration and evaluation. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2018

  7. [15]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. In proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web, pages 507--517. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering ...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Dirk Hovy. 2016. The enemy in your own camp: How well can we detect statistically-generated fake reviews--an adversarial study. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), volume 2, pages 351--356

    2016

  9. [17]

    Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168--177. ACM

    2004

  10. [18]

    Clayton J Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media

    2014

  11. [19]

    Mika Juuti, Bo Sun, Tatsuya Mori, and N Asokan. 2018. Stay on-topic: Generating context-specific fake restaurant reviews. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, pages 132--151. Springer

    2018

  12. [20]

    Katharina Kann, Sascha Rothe, and Katja Filippova. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K18-1031 Sentence-level fluency evaluation: References help, but can be spared! In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 313--323, Brussels, Belg...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2014

  14. [22]

    Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1169 Delete, retrieve, generate: a simple approach to sentiment and style transfer . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Li...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Zachary Chase Lipton, Sharad Vikram, and Julian J. McAuley. 2015. Capturing meaning in product reviews with character-level generative text models. ArXiv, abs/1511.03683

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1166 Effective approaches to attention-based neural machine translation . In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1412--1421, Lisb...

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space . In 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, May 2-4, 2013, Work...

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013 b . Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3111--3119

    2013

  19. [27]

    George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39--41

    1995

  20. [28]

    Rishabh Misra. 2018. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16182.40004 News headlines dataset for sarcasm detection . https://rishabhmisra.github.io/publications/

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073135 Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation . In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, pages 31...

    2002

  22. [30]

    Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Radim R eh u r ek and Petr Sojka. 2010. Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora . In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks , pages 45--50, Valletta, Malta. ELRA. http://is.muni.cz/publication/884893/en

    2010

  24. [32]

    C. J. Van Rijsbergen. 1979. Information Retrieval, 2nd edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, USA

    1979

  25. [33]

    Julie M Robillard, Ian Cleland, Jesse Hoey, and Chris Nugent. 2018. Ethical adoption: A new imperative in the development of technology for dementia. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 14(9):1104--1113

    2018

  26. [34]

    Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 6830--6841

    2017

  27. [35]

    Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3104--3112

    2014

  28. [36]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998--6008

    2017

  29. [37]

    Jingjing Xu, Xu Sun, Qi Zeng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Houfeng Wang, and Wenjie Li. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1090 Unpaired sentiment-to-sentiment translation: A cycled reinforcement learning approach . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Associa...

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Yuanshun Yao, Bimal Viswanath, Jenna Cryan, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. 2017. Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1143--1158. ACM

    2017

  31. [39]

    Wanrong Zhu, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P. Xing. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.00158 Text infilling . CoRR, abs/1901.00158

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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