arXivEdits: Understanding the Human Revision Process in Scientific Writing (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a new computational framework is developed to study text revision in scientific writing . authors propose a method to extract revision at document-, sentence-, and word-levels . |
| Approach: | They propose a computational framework for studying text revision in scientific writing . arXivEdits is an annotated corpus of 751 full papers from arX . authors propose to use sentence alignment, fine-grained edits and intents to extract revision . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be used to study revision in scientific writing. |
Similar Papers
CASIMIR: A Corpus of Scientific Articles Enhanced with Multiple Author-Integrated Revisions (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | CASIMIR dataset contains multiple revisions of 15,646 scientific articles . authors question the relevance of current evaluation methods for text revision . |
| Approach: | They propose a textual resource on the revision step of the writing process of scientific articles. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset contains the multiple revised versions of 15,646 scientific articles from OpenReview, along with their peer reviews. |
Making Revisions Understandable: A Survey of Edit Intentions, Methods, and Applications (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Text revision is a core process in document creation, capturing how authors iteratively refine, reorganize, and improve written content. |
| Approach: | They synthesize text revision research through the lens of edit intentions . they review prior work across the revision workflow including corpus construction, edit intention taxonomies, edit intentions, and edit intention identification. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach synthesizes datasets, taxonomies, identification methods, and applications and highlights key open research directions. |
Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Text (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | This work describes IteraTeR: the first large-scale, multi-domain, edit-intention annotated corpus of iteratively revised text. |
| Approach: | They propose to annotate iteratively revised text using a multi-domain annotated corpus that generalizes to a variety of domains, edit intentions, revision depths, and granularities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves automatic evaluations by integrating edit intentions with writing quality. |
XtraGPT: Context-Aware and Controllable Academic Paper Revision via Human-AI Collaboration (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Nuo Chen, Andre Lin HuiKai, Jiaying Wu, Junyi Hou, Zining Zhang, Qian Wang, Xidong Wang, Bingsheng He
| Challenge: | Existing systems are designed for general-purpose scientific text generation and fail to support high-quality scientific writing beyond surface-level polishing. |
| Approach: | They propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision based on criteria-guided intent alignment and context-aware modeling. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms existing LLMs and rivals the quality of proprietary ones. |
Improving Iterative Text Revision by Learning Where to Edit from Other Revision Tasks (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Iterative text revision improves text quality by fixing grammatical errors, rephrasing for better readability or contextual appropriateness. |
| Approach: | They propose to build an end-to-end text revision system that can iteratively generate helpful edits by explicitly detecting editable spans with their corresponding edit intents. |
| Outcome: | The proposed system outperforms baselines on other text revision tasks and human evaluations. |
A Process-oriented Dataset of Revisions during Writing (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Revisions are defined as "changes at any point in the writing process" a dataset of 7,120 revisions was created to analyze revisions in writing . |
| Approach: | They use keystroke data and eye tracking data of 65 students to analyze revisions . they define revisions as "changes at any point in the writing process" |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset includes 7,120 revisions from 65 students from different backgrounds . each type of revision can have a different effect on the written product or writing quality . |
One Document, Many Revisions: A Dataset for Classification and Description of Edit Intents (2022.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to understand revisions have failed to provide a deeper understanding of the nature of these edits. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a Wikipedia revision history dataset to train a classifier that achieves a 90% accuracy in identifying edit intent and a distantly-supervised model that generates . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves 90% accuracy in identifying edit intent and a best score of 28 ROUGE. |
Re3: A Holistic Framework and Dataset for Modeling Collaborative Document Revision (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a framework for collaborative document revision is lacking for empirical analysis and NLP. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision that instantiates a corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework provides first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain and assesses its capabilities. |
Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Generative large language models (LLMs) have brought advances in text generation, but their potential for enhancing classification tasks remains underexplored. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for thoroughly investigating fine-tuning LLMs for classification . they instantiate this framework in edit intent classification (EIC) a challenging and underexplored classification task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework is applied to edit intent classification (EIC) The proposed methods are generalizable on five further classification tasks. |
ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing systems that can interpret complex writing feedback and edit documents in response are limited on the most demanding writing tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose to use peer feedback to revise scientific papers based on peer feedback . they provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model fails to identify which edits correspond to a comment and the original paper. |