Prompt-Based Editing for Text Style Transfer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompting approaches have been recently explored in text style transfer, where a textual prompt is used to query a pretrained language model (PLM) to generate style-transferred texts word by word in an autoregressive manner. However, such a generation process is less controllable and early prediction errors may affect future word predictions. In this paper, we propose a prompt-based editing approach to text style transfer. Specifically, we prompt a PLM for style classification and use the classification probability to compute a style score. Then, we perform discrete search with word-level editing to maximize a comprehensive scoring function for the style-transfer task. In this way, we transform a prompt-based generation problem into a classification one, which does not suffer from the error accumulation problem and is more controllable than the autoregressive generation of sentences. In our experiments, we performed both automatic and human evaluation on three style-transfer benchmark datasets, and show that our approach largely outperforms the existing systems that have 20 times more parameters. Additional empirical analyses further demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it