Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text editing, such as grammatical error correction, arises naturally from imperfect textual data. Recent works frame text editing as a multi-round sequence tagging task, where operations -- such as insertion and substitution -- are represented as a sequence of tags. While achieving good results, this encoding is limited in flexibility as all actions are bound to token-level tags. In this work, we reformulate text editing as an imitation game using behavioral cloning. Specifically, we convert conventional sequence-to-sequence data into state-to-action demonstrations, where the action space can be as flexible as needed. Instead of generating the actions one at a time, we introduce a dual decoders structure to parallel the decoding while retaining the dependencies between action tokens, coupled with trajectory augmentation to alleviate the distribution shift that imitation learning often suffers. In experiments on a suite of Arithmetic Equation benchmarks, our model consistently outperforms the autoregressive baselines in terms of performance, efficiency, and robustness. We hope our findings will shed light on future studies in reinforcement learning applying sequence-level action generation to natural language processing.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".