READ: Reinforcement-based Adversarial Learning for Text Classification with Limited Labeled Data

Avinash Kumar; Rohit Sharma; Shanu Kumar

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

READ: Reinforcement-based Adversarial Learning for Text Classification with Limited Labeled Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read READ uses unlabeled text to beat GAN-BERT when labels are scarce

desk verdict READ's new trick is rewarding the text generator with the classifier's fake probability, but the paper's thin experiments don't yet back its state-of-the-art claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08035 v1 pith:FRSJ7AKN submitted 2025-01-14 cs.CL cs.AI

Rohit Sharma , Shanu Kumar , Avinash Kumar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords low-resourcetextclassificationsemi-supervisedlearningadversarialtraininginversereinforcementgenerationGAN-BERTpretrainedtransformersunlabeleddata

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 tries to establish that, when labeled data for text classification are scarce, the best way to use a large pool of unlabeled text is to generate sentences — not feature vectors — by inverse reinforcement learning, and then train the classifier adversarially against those generated sentences. The proposed method, READ, couples a reward-driven LSTM text generator to a transformer classifier by injecting the classifier's 'fake' probability into the generator's reward, so the generator learns to produce sentences that are both plausible as real text and hard for the classifier to recognize as fake. In experiments with BERT and RoBERTa on TREC question classification and SST-5 sentiment, READ is reported to outperform both GAN-BERT and vanilla fine-tuning at every label budget, with the largest relative gains at the smallest label sizes. If the result holds, it offers a way to squeeze more accuracy out of pre-trained transformers when annotation is expensive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trajectory reward $R_\phi(\tau) = \sum_t r_\phi(s_t, a_t, p_{k+1})$, where $r_\phi$ is a feed-forward MLP, $s_t$ is the partial sentence generated so far, $a_t$ is the next word, and $p_{k+1}$ is the classifier's current probability that the partial sentence is fake. The reward approximator $R$ is trained by inverse reinforcement learning to maximize the log-likelihood of the unlabeled corpus $U$, which gives it the ability to judge text plausibility; the generator $G$, a small LSTM followed by four linear layers, is trained to maximize the expected reward under this $R$ while an entropy term preserves diversity. The classifier $C$, placed on top of the pre-trained transformer $M$, is trained with three cross-entropy losses: $L_l$ for labeled examples, $L_r$ so real examples are not called fake, and $L_f$ so generated sentences are called fake. The coupling of $p_{k+1}$ into every reward step is what makes the generator's objective depend on the classifier's current state, which is the mechanism the paper credits for the gains.

What would settle it

Run READ with an unlabeled pool sampled from a domain clearly different from the classification task, for instance news text while fine-tuning on TREC questions. If the accuracy gain over GAN-BERT persists despite the domain mismatch, the reward's fake-probability coupling is not what carries the effect; if the gain disappears, the method's success depends on unlabeled data being class-relevant rather than merely language-like.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adversarial training over generated text — not over continuous feature representations as in GAN-BERT — is what unlocks low-resource text classification with pre-trained transformers. Concretely, the authors report that on TREC-CC with 2% of the training data (108 labeled examples), READ achieves a 68% relative accuracy gain over plain fine-tuning and 26% over GAN-BERT; on SST-5 with 1% labeled data (85 examples), the gains are 9% and 14% respectively; and on the 50-class TREC-CF task, READ gives consistent gains across all label budgets rather than diminishing at higher budgets. The explanation offered is that the generator is trained to fool the classifier by maximizing a reward that combines the inverse-reinforcement-learned text likelihood with the classifier's fake probability p_{k+1}, so the synthetic examples are class-relevant and adversarial at the same time. The paper also argues that feature-based generators like GAN-BERT's are unusable at inference and cannot provide explanations, whereas text generators can.

Load-bearing premise

The reward approximator, which is trained only on unlabeled text and never on task labels, is able to give the LSTM generator useful signal for producing sentences that help the classifier separate the target classes; if it cannot, the generated text is just diverse filler and the reported accuracy gains would not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

READ is claimed to provide consistent accuracy gains over GAN-BERT and plain fine-tuning across BERT and RoBERTa backbones and across three benchmarks, including a 50-class question classification task.
The method's benefit is largest exactly when labels are scarcest: a 68% relative gain over the baseline on TREC-CC at 2% labeled data (108 examples), and 9% and 14% gains on SST-5 at 1% (85 examples).
The ablation D-READ, which drops the fake probability from the reward and trains generator and classifier independently, performs worse than READ on essentially all configurations, implying that the encapsulation itself is doing part of the work.
Generated samples, shown via cosine-similarity mapping, resemble real training sentences with surface variations, indicating that the generator does not collapse to degenerate outputs.
With only 1% of labeled data, READ's learned features form tighter class clusters in t-SNE than the baseline's, which the paper offers as evidence of class-discriminative representations.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of READ's mechanism would be to draw the unlabeled pool from a domain unrelated to the classification labels; the paper's unlabeled and labeled data come from the same task, so the method's dependence on class-relevant unlabeled text is not established.
The reward coupling could be grafted onto other low-resource classifiers, for example consistency training with back-translation, setting up a comparison that would tell whether the exact IRL formulation or merely the adversarial reward channel is responsible for the gains.
Since the generator is a small LSTM, READ's generated text variety and grammatical quality are limited; using a pre-trained language model as the generator with the same reward signal is a natural next step that could push gains further, which the paper names as future work.
The paper reports single-run accuracies; re-running with multiple seeds would show whether the large relative gains at 1% to 2% labels are stable or driven by a lucky initialization.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Rohit, you asked for a quick read on this one. The idea is straightforward: take the IRL text generator from Shi et al. and feed it the fake-class probability produced by a GAN-BERT-style classifier, so the generator is rewarded for fooling the discriminator. That specific coupling is new, and the D-READ ablation (removing the fake probability from the reward) is the right control. The paper does useful engineering and the method is coherent.

The results on three sentence classification tasks show consistent gains over GAN-BERT and vanilla fine-tuning, and the gains are larger in the low-label regime, which is the regime the paper targets. Testing with both BERT and RoBERTa adds a bit of generalization evidence. The t-SNE plot is a nice sanity check, though it's not quantitative.

The soft spots are real. The experimental section has no tables, no error bars, no repeated runs. The figures are only in the text, and the numbers cited in the prose are a handful of percentages. Only two baselines are compared, so the abstract's 'state-of-art' claim is unsupported. The generation quality evidence is weak: the examples in Table 2 are mostly single-token substitutions and several are ungrammatical, which suggests the generator is easy for a BERT-scale discriminator to reject. That feeds the main worry you raised in your stress-test note: if the adversarial loop never actually runs (fake probability stays pinned high), READ collapses to GAN-BERT's unlabeled loss, and the reported gains are unexplained by the mechanism. The paper doesn't show a p_{k+1} curve or any perplexity/diversity metric, so that concern is still open.

To be clear, this is a missing diagnostic rather than a demonstrated flaw. The D-READ result is internal evidence that the reward signal matters. But the authors will need to show that the generator's fake probability actually decreases over training before I'd trust the mechanism.

Who should read this? People working on RL-based data augmentation for low-resource text classification will find the combination worth trying. It is a legitimate method proposal, not a restatement of prior work. A serious referee should see it, but the bar for publication should be adding proper experiments, more baselines, and an analysis of the adversarial dynamics. My recommendation: engage with it, but push for the extra evidence.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes READ, a method that combines an inverse-reinforcement-learning (IRL) text generator with a GAN-BERT-style semi-supervised adversarial classifier for text classification. The generator G is trained on unlabeled text U to maximize an IRL reward, and the reward at each decoding step also receives the classifier's probability p_{k+1} that the generated token sequence belongs to the fake class. The classifier C is trained with three losses: supervised loss L_l on labeled data, not-fake loss L_u on real labeled and unlabeled data, and fake loss L_f on generated text. Experiments are reported on TREC question classification (coarse and fine) and SST-5 sentiment, using BERT and RoBERTa, with comparisons against GAN-BERT, vanilla fine-tuning, and a disjoint variant D-READ that removes the fake-class probability from the reward. The paper claims consistent gains over both baselines, especially at very small labeled-data budgets, and includes qualitative generated-text examples and a t-SNE visualization as supporting evidence.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, READ would be a useful contribution to low-resource text classification: it replaces GAN-BERT's feature-level generator with a text-level IRL generator, which is also more interpretable, and the D-READ ablation provides some internal evidence that text generation itself helps beyond feature generation. The idea of routing the classifier's fake-class probability back into the generator's reward is a clean and potentially effective encapsulation of adversarial signal into text generation. However, the current manuscript does not yet substantiate the headline claims: there are no numerical tables, no error bars or significance tests, only two baselines despite an abstract claiming state-of-the-art results, and no diagnostic showing that the adversarial loop actually functions as described. The paper is therefore best viewed as a promising work-in-progress rather than a complete experimental study.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Figure 2] The central claim that READ outperforms GAN-BERT and vanilla fine-tuning for all label budgets is supported only by prose percentages, with no standard deviations, no number of random seeds, and no numerical tables. For example, the reported 68% and 26% gains at 2% labeled data on TREC-CC are presented as single numbers; without run-to-run variance it is impossible to tell whether these gains are statistically significant or within noise. Provide tables with mean and standard deviation over at least five independent runs, and perform a significance test (e.g., paired bootstrap or t-test) for the key comparisons.
[Section 2 (reward with p_{k+1}) and Section 4.1 (Table 2)] The mechanism underlying READ requires that the generated text eventually fools the classifier, i.e., that p_{k+1} for generated samples decreases as training proceeds. If the classifier can trivially detect generated text, L_f saturates and READ reduces to GAN-BERT's not-fake loss on real unlabeled data, in which case the reported gains over GAN-BERT have no causal explanation within the described method. The manuscript provides no quantitative diagnostic for this: no curve of p_{k+1} over training, no perplexity or automatic diversity metric, and no human evaluation. In addition, the generated samples in Table 2 are mostly single-token substitutions and several are ungrammatical (e.g., 'What is a origin of color?' and 'How long is the element strontium purified?'), which suggests a BERT-scale discriminator could reject them easily. Please report the evolution of the fake-class probability and a diversity/quality metric to demonstrate that the adversarial loop is actually active.
[Section 3.2 (Baselines) and Abstract] The abstract states that READ 'outperforms the existing state-of-art methods on multiple datasets,' but the experiments compare only against GAN-BERT and vanilla fine-tuning. Several more recent semi-supervised and consistency-training methods are cited in the introduction (e.g., UDA, FLiText, and normalizing flows) and are not used as baselines. Either add these baselines to the experiments or revise the claim to be specific about the comparison set. As written, the state-of-the-art claim is unsupported.
[Section 3.3 and Section 2 (Methodology)] The training procedure is underspecified to the point of hindering reproducibility. The entropy regularization coefficient for the generator, the relative weights of L_l, L_u, and L_f, the number of generator steps per discriminator step, and the number of generated samples used per epoch are not reported. The IRL training objectives for R and G are deferred to Shi et al. (2018) without stating which parts of that framework are adopted and which are modified. Please specify all hyperparameters and training schedules, or release code so that the method can be reproduced.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1, Table 1] The dataset names are inconsistent: the text refers to TREC-CF and TREC-CC, while Table 1 uses TREC-QCF and TREC-QCC. Also, the TREC question classification datasets are attributed to Lang (1995), which is a news-filtering paper; the standard credits are Li and Roth (2002/2006) and the TREC QA track. Please correct the citations.
[Section 4, Figure 2 and Figure 4] In the provided manuscript text, the figure captions appear without the actual plots. If this is not an artifact of the text extraction, the figures are essential evidence and must be included; in any case, numerical tables would make the results verifiable.
[Section 4.1, Table 2] The generated-text examples contain inconsistent quote characters (e.g., 'What is the definition of ' CPR "?') and seem to be selected to show similarity to the real text. State how the examples were selected and consider reporting a random sample to avoid selection bias.
[Section 4 (D-READ discussion)] The text claims that D-READ outperforms GAN-BERT on TREC-CF but fails to outperform READ 'for all training configurations,' yet no numerical values are given for D-READ. Please report the D-READ results in the same format as the other methods.
[Throughout] The phrase 'state-of-art' should be 'state-of-the-art,' and terms such as 'REINforcement-based ADversarial learning' are defined inconsistently (the acronym is given as READ but the expansion in the abstract uses 'ADversarial' with a lowercase 'd').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: READ's reported gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines, and no equation reduces a reported result to its own input.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that 'predicts' its own benchmark numbers. It proposes an architecture and reports accuracies on TREC-QCF, TREC-QCC, and SST-5 against GAN-BERT and vanilla fine-tuning. The reward function R_phi(tau) = sum_t r_phi(s_t, a_t, p_{k+1}) couples the generator to the classifier's fake probability, but this is an adversarial training loop rather than a circular derivation: no equation in Section 2 reduces the final accuracy to a fitted constant, and the fake-class probability p_{k+1} is a classifier output used inside the reward, not a pre-defined target being 'predicted' by the method. The load-bearing external component, IRL text generation, is cited from Shi et al. (2018), which is independent prior work; the paper's own contribution is the p_{k+1} coupling, and its effect is tested by the D-READ ablation, an empirical comparison rather than a definitional identity. No self-citations by the present authors appear in the reference list, so there is no self-citation chain to scrutinize. Concerns about whether the adversarial mechanism truly drives the gains, such as the absence of a reported p_{k+1} curve or automatic diversity metric, are correctness and reproducibility risks, not circularity. The central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical performance gain, so the ledger captures the assumptions that the pipeline relies on rather than fitted constants. The two missing hyperparameters listed below directly shape the generator-classifier coupling, yet their values are unreported. The paper does not postulate new physical or conceptual entities; it reuses the fake-class category from GAN-BERT and the generator/reward components from IRL.

free parameters (2)

Entropy regularization coefficient for generator objective
Section 2 states G maximizes expected reward with an entropy regularization term but does not report the coefficient or schedule; this directly controls diversity versus reward fidelity.
Loss weights for L_l, L_u, L_f
Section 2 sums the three losses without reporting weighting or balancing; the relative scale of supervised, unlabeled, and fake-class losses is a hand-chosen quantity that affects the reported gains.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Unlabeled dataset U is from the same distribution as L and contains class-relevant signal.
The IRL text generator is trained only on U; if U is off-domain, generated sentences cannot help the classifier (Section 2).
domain assumption The IRL training loop from Shi et al. (2018) works as advertised with this LSTM/MLP architecture and yields diverse, class-preserving sentences.
READ inherits the entire generator and reward training procedure from the cited paper without re-deriving or validating it on these datasets (Sections 2 and 3.3).
domain assumption The GAN-BERT fake-class setup produces a well-calibrated p_{k+1} that is a useful scalar reward signal.
The reward is r_phi(s_t, a_t, p_{k+1}); if p_{k+1} is miscalibrated or exploitable, the reward shaping is unreliable (Section 2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of READ: Reinforcement-based Adversarial Learning for Text Classification with Limited Labeled Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRSJ7AKN

@misc{pith2026250108035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: READ: Reinforcement-based Adversarial Learning for Text Classification with Limited Labeled Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRSJ7AKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08035}
}

read the original abstract

Pre-trained transformer models such as BERT have shown massive gains across many text classification tasks. However, these models usually need enormous labeled data to achieve impressive performances. Obtaining labeled data is often expensive and time-consuming, whereas collecting unlabeled data using some heuristics is relatively much cheaper for any task. Therefore, this paper proposes a method that encapsulates reinforcement learning-based text generation and semi-supervised adversarial learning approaches in a novel way to improve the model's performance. Our method READ, Reinforcement-based Adversarial learning, utilizes an unlabeled dataset to generate diverse synthetic text through reinforcement learning, improving the model's generalization capability using adversarial learning. Our experimental results show that READ outperforms the existing state-of-art methods on multiple datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08035 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Architecture of READ to the generated texts. We could have used the text generated from IRL along with the unlabeled data in GAN-BERT, instead we propose READ which bridges both adversarial training and text generation through IRL for improving the generation capability of pre-trained models. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows: 1) We propose READ to fully unlock the generalization capabil… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Accuracy comparison using BERT model. also having low probability of being identified as fake by C by fooling the classifier. We hypothesize that this form of adversarial learning based on reinforcement-based text generation instead of feature representation will be more robust towards improving the classifier’s generalization capability. 3 Experimental Details 3.1 Dataset We have evaluated our method’s performance… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** t-SNE Visualization of feature from using Baseline method (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Accuracy comparison using RoBERTa model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[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]

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]

Danilo Croce, Giuseppe Castellucci, and Roberto Basili. 2020. Gan-bert: Generative adversarial learning for robust text classification with a bunch of labeled examples. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 2114--2119

work page 2020
[4]

Sandipan Dandapat, Priyanka Biswas, Monojit Choudhury, and Kalika Bali. 2009. https://aclanthology.org/W09-3002 Complex linguistic annotation -- no easy way out! a case from B angla and H indi POS labeling tasks . In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop ( LAW III ) , pages 10--18, Suntec, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2009
[5]

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 Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019
[6]

Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

work page 2019
[7]

Karën Fort. 2016. Collaborative annotation for reliable natural language processing: Technical and sociological aspects

work page 2016
[8]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27

2014

Show all 30 references

[9]

Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Marc Finzi, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. 2020. Semi-supervised learning with normalizing flows. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4615--4630. PMLR

2020
[10]

Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks
[11]

Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: Learning to filter netnews. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1995, pages 331--339. Elsevier

1995
[12]

Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58t...

2020
[13]

Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10311

2021 arXiv
[14]

Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2006. Learning question classifiers: the role of semantic information. Natural Language Engineering, 12(3):229--249

2006
[15]

Chen Liu, Zhang Mengchao, Fu Zhibing, Panpan Hou, and Yu Li. 2021. Flitext: A faster and lighter semi-supervised text classification with convolution networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2481--2491

2021
[16]

Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692

2019 arXiv
[17]

Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2018
[18]

Takeru Miyato, Andrew M Dai, and Ian Goodfellow. 2016. Adversarial training methods for semi-supervised text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07725

2016 arXiv
[19]

Subhabrata Mukherjee and Ahmed Awadallah. 2020. Uncertainty-aware self-training for few-shot text classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21199--21212

2020
[20]

Language models are unsupervised multitask learners

Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners
[21]

Marta Sabou, Kalina Bontcheva, and Arno Scharl. 2012. Crowdsourcing research opportunities: lessons from natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, pages 1--8

2012
[22]

Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. 2016. Improved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29

2016
[23]

Zhan Shi, Xinchi Chen, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/606 Toward diverse text generation with inverse reinforcement learning . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18 , ...

2018 doi
[24]

Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language...

2013
[25]

Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pre-training for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5926--5936. PMLR

2019
[26]

Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11)

2008
[27]

Sam Wiseman and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-to-sequence learning as beam-search optimization. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1296--1306

2016
[28]

Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6256--6268

2020
[29]

Dani Yogatama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Jerome Connor, Tomas Kocisky, Mike Chrzanowski, Lingpeng Kong, Angeliki Lazaridou, Wang Ling, Lei Yu, Chris Dyer, et al. 2019. Learning and evaluating general linguistic intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11373

2019 arXiv
[30]

Xiaojin Jerry Zhu. 2005. Semi-supervised learning literature survey

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[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]

Danilo Croce, Giuseppe Castellucci, and Roberto Basili. 2020. Gan-bert: Generative adversarial learning for robust text classification with a bunch of labeled examples. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 2114--2119

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Sandipan Dandapat, Priyanka Biswas, Monojit Choudhury, and Kalika Bali. 2009. https://aclanthology.org/W09-3002 Complex linguistic annotation -- no easy way out! a case from B angla and H indi POS labeling tasks . In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop ( LAW III ) , pages 10--18, Suntec, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2009

[5] [5]

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 Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

[6] [6]

Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Karën Fort. 2016. Collaborative annotation for reliable natural language processing: Technical and sociological aspects

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27

2014