Papers › Leveraging Quality Prediction Models for Automatic Writing Feedback

Leveraging Quality Prediction Models for Automatic Writing Feedback

24 Jan 2017arXiv:1701.06718links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Hamed Nilforoshan, Eugene Wu

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

User-generated, multi-paragraph writing is pervasive and important in many social media platforms (i.e. Amazon reviews, AirBnB host profiles, etc). Ensuring high-quality content is important. Unfortunately, content submitted by users is often not of high quality. Moreover, the characteristics that constitute high quality may even vary between domains in ways that users are unaware of. Automated writing feedback has the potential to immediately point out and suggest improvements during the writing process. Most approaches, however, focus on syntax/phrasing, which is only one characteristic of high-quality content. Existing research develops accurate quality prediction models. We propose combining these models with model explanation techniques to identify writing features that, if changed, will most improve the text quality. To this end, we develop a perturbation-based explanation method for a popular class of models called tree-ensembles. Furthermore, we use a weak-supervision technique to adapt this method to generate feedback for specific text segments in addition to feedback for the entire document. Our user study finds that the perturbation-based approach, when combined with segment-specific feedback, can help improve writing quality on Amazon (review helpfulness) and Airbnb (host profile trustworthiness) by > 14% (3X improvement over recent automated feedback techniques).

PaperPDFCode

Code

cudbg/DialecticICWSM officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections