# Romantic-Computing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11864 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.11864/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0473/) (2014)
- [Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.04025/) (2015)
- [GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.02498/) (2020)
- [Deep-speare: A Joint Neural Model of Poetic Language, Meter and Rhyme](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03491/) (2018)
- [Generate and Revise: Reinforcement Learning in Neural Poetry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04114/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper we compare various text generation models' ability to write poetry in the style of early English Romanticism. These models include: Character-Level Recurrent Neural Networks with Long Short-Term Memory, Hugging Face's GPT-2, OpenAI's GPT-3, and EleutherAI's GPT-NEO. Quality was measured based syllable count and coherence with the automatic evaluation metric GRUEN. Character-Level Recurrent Neural Networks performed far worse compared to transformer models. And, as parameter-size increased, the quality of transformer models' poems improved. These models are typically not compared in a creative context, and we are happy to contribute.