Learning to Model Editing Processes
Open accessAbstract
Most existing sequence generation models produce outputs in one pass, usually left-to-right. However, this is in contrast with a more natural approach that humans use in generating content; iterative refinement and editing. Recent work has introduced edit-based models for various tasks (such as neural machine translation and text style transfer), but these generally model a single edit step. In this work, we propose modeling editing processes, modeling the whole process of iteratively generating sequences. We form a conceptual framework to describe the likelihood of multi-step edits, and describe neural models that can learn a generative model of sequences based on these multistep edits. We introduce baseline results and metrics on this task, finding that modeling editing processes improves performance on a variety of axes on both our proposed task and related downstream tasks compared to previous single-step models of edits.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Iterative refinement typically involves training a refinement model that relies on domain-specific data.
“Iterative refinement typically involves training a refinement model that relies on domain-specific data (e.g., Reid and Neubig (2022); Schick et al. (2022a); Welleck et al. (2022)).”
From Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback (2023) · cites this paper as Reid and Neubig (2022)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Alexei Baevski and Michael Auli. 2018. Adaptive Input Representations for Neural Language Modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
- Daniel Dahlmeier and Hwee Tou Ng. 2012. Better evaluation for grammatical error correction. In Pro- ceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 568-572, Montréal, Canada. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
- Wanyu Du, Zae Myung Kim, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Ku- mar, and Dongyeop Kang. 2022a. Read, revise, re- peat: A system demonstration for human-in-the-loop iterative text revision. IN2WRITING. · DOI
- Wanyu Du, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar, Zae Myung Kim, Melissa Lopez, and Dongyeop Kang. 2022b. Understanding iterative revision from human-written text. ACL. · DOI
- Felix Faltings, Michel Galley, Gerold Hintz, Chris Brockett, Chris Quirk, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2021. Text editing by command. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5259-5274, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Manaal Faruqui, Ellie Pavlick, Ian Tenney, and Dipanjan Das. 2018. WikiAtomicEdits: A Multilingual Cor- pus of Wikipedia Edits for Modeling Language and Discourse. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 305-315, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Jiatao Gu, Changhan Wang, and Jake Zhao. 2019. Lev- enshtein Transformer. arXiv:1905.11006 [cs. · arXiv
- Shaohan Huang, Yu Wu, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Text morphing. arXiv preprint arXiv: Arxiv- 1810.00341.
- Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto- encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114. · arXiv
- Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettle- moyer. 2017. End-to-end Neural Coreference Reso- lution. arXiv:1707.07045 [cs]. · arXiv
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Com- prehension. arXiv:1910.13461 [cs, stat]. · arXiv
- Jingjing Li, Zichao Li, Lili Mou, Xin Jiang, Michael R Lyu, and Irwin King. 2020. Unsupervised text gen- eration by learning from search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08557. · arXiv
- Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretrain- ing Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. · arXiv
- Pablo Loyola, Edison Marrese-Taylor, and Yutaka Mat- suo. 2017. A neural architecture for generating natu- ral language descriptions from source code changes. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 287-292, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Jonathan Mallinson, Aliaksei Severyn, Eric Malmi, and Guillermo Garrido. 2020. Felix: Flexi- ble Text Editing Through Tagging and Insertion. arXiv:2003.10687 · arXiv
- Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, Sascha Rothe, Daniil Mirylenka, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Encode, Tag, Realize: High-Precision Text Editing. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Inter- national Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5054-5065, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI
- Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Sascha Rothe. 2020. Unsupervised Text Style Transfer with Padded Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8671-8680, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Edison Marrese-Taylor, Pablo Loyola, and Yutaka Mat- suo. 2019. An Edit-centric Approach for Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 381-386, Hong Kong, China. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Edison Marrese-Taylor, Machel Reid, and Yutaka Mat- suo. 2021. Variational inference for learning repre- sentations of natural language edits. In AAAI.
- Ning Miao, Hao Zhou, Lili Mou, Rui Yan, and Lei Li. 2019. Cgmh: Constrained sentence generation by metropolis-hastings sampling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6834-6842.
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the Lim- its of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. arXiv:1910.10683 [cs, stat]. · arXiv
- Machel Reid and Victor Zhong. 2021. LEWIS: Lev- enshtein editing for unsupervised text style transfer. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3932-3944, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non- parallel text by cross-alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.09655. · arXiv
- Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Ben- gio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pages 5998-6008.
- Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Diyi Yang, Aaron Halfaker, Robert Kraut, and Eduard Hovy. 2017a. Identifying semantic edit intentions from revisions in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2000-2010, Copen- hagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Diyi Yang, Aaron Halfaker, Robert Kraut, and Eduard Hovy. 2017b. Identifying Semantic Edit Intentions from Revisions in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2000-2010, Copen- hagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Ziyu Yao, Frank F. Xu, Pengcheng Yin, Huan Sun, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Learning structural edits via incremental tree transformations. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Miltiadis Allamanis, Marc Brockschmidt, and Alexander L. Gaunt. 2019a. Learning to Represent Edits. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Represen- tations.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2019 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
“In such scenarios, modern LLMs may produce an intelligible output, but iterative refinement is necessary to ensure that all aspects of the task are met and the desired quality is achieved (Reid and Neubig, 2022; Schick et al., 2022a; Welleck et al., 2022).”
BackgroundOctoPack: Instruction Tuning Code Large Language Models
Muennighoff, N., Liu, Q., Zebaze, A., Zheng, Q., Hui, B., Zhuo, T. Y., Singh, S., Tang, X., von Werra, L., & Longpre, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07124 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“…et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022c; He et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b; Wei et al., 2023; Prenner & Robbes, 2023; Fakhoury et al., 2023; Skreta et al., 2023) (also see work on edit models more generally (Reid & Neubig, 2022; Schick et al., 2022; Dwivedi-Yu et al., 2022; Raheja et al., 2023)).”
Background
- Authors
- Reid, M., & Neubig, G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Neubig, Graham
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- Pages
- 3822-3832
- arXiv
- 2205.12374
- OpenAlex
- W4385574295
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Keywords
- iterative refinement, sequence editing, sequence generation, text generation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
