wanyu/IteraTeR_v2 huggingface dataset:
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages researchers in particular, our comparison also demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing, predominant in mainstream object-oriented programming, and structural typing, predominant in functional programming  .
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, our comparison also demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing, predominant in mainstream object-oriented programming, and structural typing, predominant in functional programming .
Edit intent: clarity
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages researchers in particular, our comparison also demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing, predominant in mainstream object-oriented programming, and structural typing, predominant in functional programming  .
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages researchers in particular, our comparison also demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing, predominant in object-oriented programming, and structural typing, predominant in functional programming .
Edit intent: clarity
Original: In this survey paper  we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages  type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and  dissimilarities between these mathematical subdisciplines .
Revised: In this survey paper we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages ' type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and dissimilarities between these mathematical subdisciplines .
Edit intent: fluency
Original: In this survey paper  we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages  type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and  dissimilarities between these mathematical subdisciplines .
Revised: In this survey paper we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and , more significantly, the dissimilarities between these mathematical subdisciplines .
Edit intent: clarity
Original: In this survey paper  we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages  type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and  dissimilarities between these mathematical subdisciplines .
Revised: In this survey paper we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and dissimilarities between these various mathematical disciplines .
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Towards that goal we get to discuss related concepts such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Revised:  Towards that goal we discuss plenty of other related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Following the  formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Revised:  Following the set-theoretic formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Following the  formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Revised:  Following the formulation of these concepts we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Following the  formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Revised:  Following the formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  Following the  formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis , to illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Revised:  Following the formulation of these concepts in set theory we present few basic examples , from number theory and real analysis that illustrate the concepts more concretely.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation  in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation  in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation  in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation , first, in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:   As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation  in the theory of types of functional programming (FP) languages and in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages (PL) theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in PL type theory involves their separate formulation in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of object-oriented programming (OOP) languages.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:  The formulations help demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing , predominant in object-oriented programming  , and structural typing , predominant in functional programming .
Revised:  The formulations help demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal typing , predominant in object-oriented programming languages , and structural typing , predominant in functional programming .
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of  object-oriented  programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of  object-oriented  programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of object-oriented / programming languages.
Edit intent: coherence
Original: In this survey paper (which hitherto is an ongoing work-in-progress) we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages' type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and, more significantly, the dissimilarities between these various mathematical disciplines.
Revised: In this survey article (which hitherto is an ongoing work-in-progress) we present the formulation of the induction and coinduction principles using the language and conventions of each of order theory, set theory, programming languages' type theory, first-order logic, and category theory, for the purpose of examining some of the similarities and, more significantly, the dissimilarities between these various mathematical disciplines.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  Towards that goal we discuss plenty of other related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Revised:  Towards that goal we discuss plenty of related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Following the set-theoretic formulation of these concepts we present few basic examples from  number theory and real analysis that illustrate the concepts, and the intuitions behind them, more concretely.
Revised:  Following the set-theoretic formulation of these concepts we present few basic examples from set theory, number theory and real analysis that illustrate the concepts, and the intuitions behind them, more concretely.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  We conclude our survey by hinting at the possibility of a more abstract and more unified treatment that uses concepts from category theory such as monads and comonads.
Revised:  We conclude the survey by hinting at the possibility of a more abstract and more unified treatment that uses concepts from category theory such as monads and comonads.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  We conclude our survey by hinting at the possibility of a more abstract and more unified treatment that uses concepts from category theory such as monads and comonads.
Revised:  We conclude our survey by hinting at the possibility of a more abstract and unified treatment that uses concepts from category theory such as monads and comonads.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of /functional / programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented / programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented / programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of /functional / programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented / programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of /functional / programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of object-oriented / programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of /functional / programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented / programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of /functional / programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of / object-oriented programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Revised:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate some of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Revised:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between structural subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Revised:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Revised:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and nominal subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in functional programming languages.
Revised:  Separating these two formulations helps demonstrate one of the fundamental differences between nominal subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages, and structural subtyping, predominant in object-oriented programming languages.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Towards that goal we discuss plenty of related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Revised:  Towards that end we discuss plenty of related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of object-oriented programming languages.
Revised:  As a side-benefit of relevance to programming languages theorists in particular, the formulation of these concepts in programming languages type theory involves their separate formulation, first, in the theory of types of functional programming languages and, next, in the theory of types of *object-oriented* programming languages.
Edit intent: fluency
Original:  Towards that end  we discuss plenty of related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Revised:  Towards that end , in this article we discuss plenty of related concepts, such as fixed points, pre-fixed points, post-fixed points, inductive sets and types, coinductive sets and types, algebras and coalgebras.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:  Following the set-theoretic formulation of these concepts we present few basic examples from set theory, number theory and real analysis that illustrate the concepts, and the intuitions behind them, more concretely.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:  A common approach to modeling dynamic connectivity in resting-state whole-brain  fMRI is to compute (across moving temporal windows) the Pearson-correlation between anatomical regions derived from predefined brain parcellation.
Revised:  A common approach to modeling dynamic connectivity in resting-state whole-brain fMRI is to compute the correlation between anatomical regions derived from predefined brain parcellation.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  To overcome this limitation , we propose a new regression approach that smooths out the noise by exploiting the geometric structure of correlation matrices.
Revised:  To overcome this limitation , we propose a new statistical model that smooths out the noise by exploiting the geometric structure of correlation matrices.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  More specifically, we identify the mean time for initiation of protein synthesis as appropriate mean {\it first-passage} time that we calculate analytically using the formalism of backward master equations.
Revised:  More specifically, we identify the meantime for the initiation of protein synthesis as appropriate mean {\it first-passage} time that we calculate analytically using the formalism of backward master equations.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Extensive experimental results on a benchmark dataset of thirty-five subjects  indicate that the proposed method significantly outperforms the original CORRCA method.
Revised:  Extensive experimental results on a benchmark dataset of thirty-five subjects and indicate that the proposed method significantly outperforms the original CORRCA method.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:  This study demonstrates that the proposed method could be a good choice for frequency recognition in SSVEP-based BCI systems .
Revised:  This study demonstrates that the proposed method could be a good choice for frequency recognition in SSVEP-based BCIs .
Edit intent: clarity
Original: Keyword spotting with limited training data is a challenging taskwhich can be treated as a few-shot learning problem.
Revised: In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of applying few-shot learning algorithms to a speech task. We formulate a user-defined scenario of spoken term classification as a few-shot learning problem.
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  Furthermore, to strengthen the ability of distinguishing the keywords with the others, we incorporate the negative class as external knowledge to the meta-training process, which proves to be effective . Experiments on the Google Speech Commands dataset show that our proposed approach outperforms the baselines .
Revised:  Furthermore, to strengthen the ability of distinguishing the keywords with the others, we incorporate the negative class as external knowledge to the meta-training process, which proves to be effective . Experiments on the Google Speech Commands dataset show that our approach outperforms the baselines .
Edit intent: clarity
Original:  This concept was first introduced by Beecken, Mittmann and Saxena ( Information and Computing, 2013), and exploited by them, and Agrawal, Saha, Saptharishi and Saxena ( Journal of Computing, 2016) to design algebraic independence based identity tests using the Jacobian criterion over characteristic zero fields.
Revised:  This concept was first introduced by Beecken, Mittmann and Saxena ( 2013), and exploited by them, and Agrawal, Saha, Saptharishi and Saxena ( Journal of Computing, 2016) to design algebraic independence based identity tests using the Jacobian criterion over characteristic zero fields.
Edit intent: coherence
Original:  This concept was first introduced by Beecken, Mittmann and Saxena ( Information and Computing, 2013), and exploited by them, and Agrawal, Saha, Saptharishi and Saxena ( Journal of Computing, 2016) to design algebraic independence based identity tests using the Jacobian criterion over characteristic zero fields.
Revised:  This concept was first introduced by Beecken, Mittmann and Saxena ( Information and Computing, 2013), and exploited by them, and Agrawal, Saha, Saptharishi and Saxena ( 2016) to design algebraic independence based identity tests using the Jacobian criterion over characteristic zero fields.
Edit intent: clarity