Image editing is an iterative process that requires precise visual evaluation and manipulation for the output to match the editing intent. However, current image editing tools do not provide accessible interaction nor sufficient feedback for blind and low vision individuals to achieve this level of control. To address this, we developed EditScribe, a prototype system that makes image editing accessible using natural language verification loops powered by large multimodal models. Using EditScribe, the user first comprehends the image content through initial general and object descriptions, then specifies edit actions using open-ended natural language prompts. EditScribe performs the image edit, and provides four types of verification feedback for the user to verify the performed edit, including a summary of visual changes, AI judgement, and updated general and object descriptions. The user can ask follow-up questions to clarify and probe into the edits or verification feedback, before performing another edit. In a study with ten blind or low-vision users, we found that EditScribe supported participants to perform and verify image edit actions non-visually. We observed different prompting strategies from participants, and their perceptions on the various types of verification feedback. Finally, we discuss the implications of leveraging natural language verification loops to make visual authoring non-visually accessible.

Collaborative review and revision of textual documents is the core of knowledge work and a promising target for empirical analysis and NLP assistance. Yet, a holistic framework that would allow modeling complex relationships between document revisions, reviews and author responses is lacking. To address this gap, we introduce Re3, a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision. We instantiate this framework in the scholarly domain, and present Re3-Sci, a large corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent, and supplemented with the respective peer reviews and human-written edit summaries. We use the new data to provide first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain, and to assess the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs at automating edit analysis and facilitating text-based collaboration. We make our annotation environment and protocols, the resulting data and experimental code publicly available.

Unsupervised constrained text generation aims to generate text under a given set of constraints without any supervised data. Current state-of-the-art methods stochastically sample edit positions and actions, which may cause unnecessary search steps. In this paper, we propose PMCTG to improve effectiveness by searching for the best edit position and action in each step. Specifically, PMCTG extends perturbed masking technique to effectively search for the most incongruent token to edit. Then it introduces four multi-aspect scoring functions to select edit action to further reduce search difficulty. Since PMCTG does not require supervised data, it could be applied to different generation tasks. We show that under the unsupervised setting, PMCTG achieves new state-of-the-art results in two representative tasks, namely keywords-to-sentence generation and paraphrasing.

Context: Deep learning has achieved remarkable progress in various domains. However, like traditional software systems, deep learning systems contain bugs, which can have severe impacts, as evidenced by crashes involving autonomous vehicles. Despite substantial advancements in deep learning techniques, little research has focused on reproducing deep learning bugs, which hinders resolving them. Existing literature suggests that only 3% of deep learning bugs are reproducible, underscoring the need for further research. Objective: This paper examines the reproducibility of deep learning bugs. We identify edit actions and useful information that could improve deep learning bug reproducibility. Method: First, we construct a dataset of 668 deep learning bugs from Stack Overflow and Defects4ML across 3 frameworks and 22 architectures. Second, we select 102 bugs using stratified sampling and try to determine their reproducibility. While reproducing these bugs, we identify edit actions and useful information necessary for their reproduction. Third, we used the Apriori algorithm to identify useful information and edit actions required to reproduce specific bug types. Finally, we conduct a user study with 22 developers to assess the effectiveness of our findings in real-life settings. Results: We successfully reproduced 85 bugs and identified ten edit actions and five useful information categories that can help us reproduce deep learning bugs. Our findings improved bug reproducibility by 22.92% and reduced reproduction time by 24.35% based on our user study. Conclusions: Our research addresses the critical issue of deep learning bug reproducibility. Practitioners and researchers can leverage our findings to improve deep learning bug reproducibility.

String data is common in real-world datasets: 67.6% of values in a sample of 1.8 million real Excel spreadsheets from the web were represented as text. Systems that successfully clean such string data can have a significant impact on real users. While prior work has explored errors in string data, proposed approaches have often been limited to error detection or require that the user provide annotations, examples, or constraints to fix the errors. Furthermore, these systems have focused independently on syntactic errors or semantic errors in strings, but ignore that strings often contain both syntactic and semantic substrings. We introduce DataVinci, a fully unsupervised string data error detection and repair system. DataVinci learns regular-expression-based patterns that cover a majority of values in a column and reports values that do not satisfy such patterns as data errors. DataVinci can automatically derive edits to the data error based on the majority patterns and constraints learned over other columns without the need for further user interaction. To handle strings with both syntactic and semantic substrings, DataVinci uses an LLM to abstract (and re-concretize) portions of strings that are semantic prior to learning majority patterns and deriving edits. Because not all data can result in majority patterns, DataVinci leverages execution information from an existing program (which reads the target data) to identify and correct data repairs that would not otherwise be identified. DataVinci outperforms 7 baselines on both error detection and repair when evaluated on 4 existing and new benchmarks.

Despite recent progress in text-to-SQL parsing, current semantic parsers are still not accurate enough for practical use. In this paper, we investigate how to build automatic text-to-SQL error correction models. Noticing that token-level edits are out of context and sometimes ambiguous, we propose building clause-level edit models instead. Besides, while most language models of code are not specifically pre-trained for SQL, they know common data structures and their operations in programming languages such as Python. Thus, we propose a novel representation for SQL queries and their edits that adheres more closely to the pre-training corpora of language models of code. Our error correction model improves the exact set match accuracy of different parsers by 2.4-6.5 and obtains up to 4.3 point absolute improvement over two strong baselines. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/Auto-SQL-Correction.

Writing is, by nature, a strategic, adaptive, and more importantly, an iterative process. A crucial part of writing is editing and revising the text. Previous works on text revision have focused on defining edit intention taxonomies within a single domain or developing computational models with a single level of edit granularity, such as sentence-level edits, which differ from human's revision cycles. This work describes IteraTeR: the first large-scale, multi-domain, edit-intention annotated corpus of iteratively revised text. In particular, IteraTeR is collected based on a new framework to comprehensively model the iterative text revisions that generalize to various domains of formal writing, edit intentions, revision depths, and granularities. When we incorporate our annotated edit intentions, both generative and edit-based text revision models significantly improve automatic evaluations. Through our work, we better understand the text revision process, making vital connections between edit intentions and writing quality, enabling the creation of diverse corpora to support computational modeling of iterative text revisions.