S1: the above-mentioned factors give small percentage changes in results for almost all kinds of the substrates .
S2: the above-mentioned factors give small percentage changes in results for almost all types of the substrates .
36: (nochange) kinds and types are essentially the same
37: (nochange) terms interchangeable
38: (nochange) The word change makes no difference in the sentence.
39: (nochange) It seems to be just a difference of word choice, not strength.
40: (nochange) The words "kinds" and "types" are synonyms.
41: (nochange) The use of "kinds" might be slightly less impressive than "types" though I don't think it would be enough to change the strength of the statement.
42: (nochange) these words have the same meaning, though "types" sounds better
43: (nochange) Change of term does not change the strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: in the open system , using the method of the effective non-hermitian hamiltonian , we study signal transmission through such a circuit .
S2: in the open system , using the method of the effective non-hermitian hamiltonian , we study signal transmission through such a circuit , with an important result of a long lifetime of localized states .
69: (stronger) S2 adds the results of the method instead of just describing the method.
70: (stronger) adds a result
71: (stronger) "with an important result" offers detail and outcome that is missing in s1.
72: (stronger) DETAILS STRENGTHEN THE SENTANCE
73: (stronger) important result
74: (stronger) S2 adds information about the result
75: (stronger) adds evidence
76: (stronger) S2 adds more information.
51: (stronger) The additional phrase in S2 mentions an important result, which provides additional evidence and makes S2 much stronger than S1.

S1: moreover , the derivative of rotation velocity appearing in the bessel function formulation for computing mass density tends to introduce significant errors in practical applications .
S2: moreover , the derivative of rotation velocity usually appearing in the bessel function formulation for computing mass density tends to introduce significant errors in practical applications .
36: (weaker) usually makes s2 weaker
37: (weaker) "usually" instead of "always"
38: (weaker) "Usually" adds an element of uncertainty, making S2 weaker.
39: (weaker) S2 adds "usually" which weakens the assertion.
40: (weaker) S2 is qualified by using the word "usually."
41: (weaker) The word "usually" weakens the statement as it makes clear that it is not always the case unlike the first statement.
42: (weaker) "usually" weakens the point
43: (weaker) The use of 'usually' weakens the statement.
44: (weaker) "Usually" makes S2 sound weaker.

S1: we also provide solutions for all functions appearing in the metric , involving spatial derivatives [MATH] , necessary for solving for example geodesic equations .
S2: the main improvement in this work in comparison with the existing literature , is the fact that we provide solutions for all functions appearing in the ltb metric , involving spatial derivatives [MATH] , necessary for solving for example geodesic equations .
61: (stronger) Notes a particular strength of the work, and that it's better because it is an "improvement".
62: (stronger) Proclaims how the work is an improvement.
63: (stronger) s2 brings more clarity to the statement
64: (stronger) More specifics.
65: (stronger) States that their work is better than similar literature.
51: (stronger) The use of the word "fact" strengthens S2 by adding a greater degree of certainty. The word "improvement" also indicates a positive progression in an ongoing process that builds on new knowledge.
66: (stronger) more information
67: (stronger) More information.
68: (stronger) There is a description of what is being provided in S2, thus making it stronger.

S1: the elimination of the renormalization scheme ambiguity using the pmc will not only increase the precision of qcd tests , but it will also increase the sensitivity of collider experiments to new physics beyond the standard model .
S2: the elimination of the renormalization scale ambiguity and the scheme dependence using the pmc will not only increase the precision of qcd tests , but it will also increase the sensitivity of collider experiments to new physics beyond the standard model .
77: (stronger) clarification
78: (stronger) S2 adds more information about the renormalization.
79: (stronger) S2 add more impressive
80: (stronger) Goes into greater detail about the necessity of eliminating subjects, "dependence" strongly underlines subjects' uselessness
81: (stronger) The first sentence talks about it as scheme ambiguity, but the second talks about it as scale ambiguity and scheme dependence. More specific.
82: (stronger) Clearer and better reasoning
83: (stronger) "Dependence" is a strong word
84: (stronger) s2 is better written and clarifies that scale ambiguity and scheme dependence are two different parameters.
68: (stronger) S2 provides more details

S1: the " top-down " model of is based on a d-brane construction in string theory , which dictates the field content uniquely and is roughly as successful at predicting the properties of the low-lying mesons as the bottom-up approaches .
S2: the " top-down " model of is based on a d-brane construction in string theory , and whose field content is uniquely as a result . it is roughly as successful at predicting the properties of the low-lying mesons as the bottom-up approaches .
77: (weaker) S1 is more descriptive and shortens the phrasing into one sentence
78: (weaker) The use of the word 'dictates' and the merging of the 2 sentences in S1 sounds more impressive than S2's word choices.
79: (weaker) S2 sounds less impressive as (and whose) word makes less impressive and put stress on as a result.
80: (weaker) "Dictating" field content is stronger than simply possessing field content.
81: (weaker) Dictates means it happened directly as a result of something else. "Whose" does not sound impressive
82: (weaker) Bad grammar
83: (weaker) The word "dictates" makes the idea seem more important.
84: (weaker) the removal of the word "dictates" makes the statement less forceful and certain.
68: (weaker) Dictating suggests a strong force where as 'whose field content' seems to be just a casual remark

S1: it investigates the dependence of the rate on the regularity of coefficients and driving processes .
S2: it investigates the dependence of the rate on the regularity of coefficients and driving processes and its robustness to the approximation of the increments of the driving process .
53: (stronger) S2 adds evidence
54: (stronger) S2 adds a great deal more information, strengthening the statement overall.
55: (stronger) "and its robustness to the approximation of the increments of the driving process" sounds more impressive.
56: (stronger) S2 added more evidence at the end of the sentence.
11: (stronger) Adding "and its robustness to the approximation of the increments of the driving process" adds more evidence and therefore makes the sentence stronger.
57: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence of dependence.
58: (stronger) S2 adds more justification than S1.
59: (stronger) S2 adds information about the process
60: (stronger) adds a justification

S1: if this is the case , turbulence due to the mti can provide up to 5 -- 30 % of the pressure support beyond [MATH] in galaxy clusters .
S2: if this is the case , turbulence due to the mti can provide up to 5 -- 30 % of the pressure support beyond [MATH] in galaxy clusters , an effect that is strongest for hot , massive clusters .
53: (stronger) S2 adds evidence and information
54: (stronger) S2 is much more informative and stronger because of.
55: (stronger) The second sentence goes into more detail.
56: (stronger) S2 added more evidence with the galaxy clusters.
11: (stronger) Adding "clusters, an effect that is strongest for hot, massive" adds more evidence and makes the sentence sound stronger.
57: (stronger) "an effect that is strongest for hot, massive clusters." gives more specific evidence.
58: (stronger) S2 add's strength by giving evidence to support its sentence.
59: (stronger) S2 gives us greater detail
60: (stronger) adds justification

S1: the initial binary separation is [MATH] ( in geometrical units ) , with [MATH] the total mass of the binary .
S2: the initial binary is on a quasi-circular orbit at a separation of [MATH] ( in geometrical units ) , with [MATH] the total mass of the binary .
0: (stronger) more impressive wording
1: (stronger) Adds important information
2: (stronger) S2 adds more justification by indicating exactly what the separation is.
3: (stronger) More evidence.
4: (stronger) adds evidence
5: (stronger) it provides further details
6: (stronger) S2 provides more detailed evidence.
7: (stronger) S2 give more detail about the separation.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidence

S1: this is obtained by moving along a diagonal two of the four mirrors by piezoelectric actuators .
S2: this is obtained by moving two of the four mirrors along a diagonal by piezoelectric actuators .
45: (nochange) Only changes grammatical correctness, does not add strength
46: (nochange) This is a grammatical change.
47: (nochange) This is just a rearrangement.
48: (nochange) No change in strength.
49: (nochange) Sentence structure rearrangement does not strengthen or weaken S2 in this case.
50: (nochange) They just changed the position of two phrases in the sentence, so they are the same still.
51: (nochange) This is just a change in word order that doesn't impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: the efficiency of the method utilizing experimental parameters is shown to be perfect within large parameter regimes .
S2: the efficiency of the method utilizing experimental parameters is shown to be almost perfect within large parameter regimes .
45: (weaker) almost weakens the argument (perfect is better than almost perfect)
46: (weaker) The qualifier "almost" makes the result less definitive.
47: (weaker) S2 is less complimentary of the method's efficiency than S1.
48: (weaker) The term almost gives less strength to the degree of aspect.
49: (weaker) Use of 'almost' dismisses the argument.
50: (weaker) The world "almost" makes the assertion less impressive.
51: (weaker) The addition of "almost" makes S2 less certain (almost perfect is weaker than perfect).
8: (weaker) The use of the tem"almost" weakens the evidance
52: (weaker) The use of "almost" limits the strength of the argument.

S1: a clear observational difference between the [MATH] cdm and [MATH] - essence model could be also developed by the sound speed in [MATH] - essence model was shown in the last section .
S2: a clear observational difference between the [MATH] cdm and [MATH] - essence model could be also developed by the sound speed in [MATH] - essence model , which is also shown in sec . .
18: (nochange) Prefer which is also shown, but does not make a significant change in the strength of the sentence.
19: (nochange) About the same in strength.
20: (nochange) Not much occurred here at all, honestly.
21: (nochange) Fixes a grammar issue.
22: (nochange) Neither iteration fails in its purpose. S1 is just as specific as S2.
23: (nochange) the changes do not affect the strength
24: (nochange) Highlighted sections both are both a reference to another section and there is not a noticeable difference in strength
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidences

S1: first , the computation becomes time-consuming as the dimension of data is large .
S2: first , the computation becomes highly time-consuming as the dimension increases .
61: (stronger) Strengthens the degree of how time-consuming the computation is.
62: (stronger) Better phrasing, slightly stronger because of the addition of "highly" and the infinite notion of "increases" rather than the static "is large."
63: (stronger) s2 increases the clarity of the relationship between time and how time-consuming the task becomes
64: (stronger) Highly is a great specifier.
65: (stronger) Use of "highly" suggests it is even more time-consuming.
51: (stronger) "Highly" makes the task seem more impressive and daunting.
66: (stronger) highly is a strong word
67: (stronger) S2 adds stronger words to the phrasing.
68: (stronger) Time-consuming and 'highly' time-consuming hold significant importance in the field of computation.

S1: regardless of the details of the process that produced pulsar b 's current spin , the orientation of the spins in the j0737-3039 system provides a direct , unique constraint on angular momentum production in supernovae .
S2: regardless of the details of the kick mechanism and the process that produced pulsar b 's current spin , the measured spin-spin misalignment in the double pulsar system provides an empirical , direct constraint on the angular momentum production in this supernova .
61: (stronger) Most of this is adding details or altering spelling, but the addition of "empirical" strengthens the entire statement by pointing out the verifiable proof.
62: (stronger) Adds a substantial amount of information.
63: (stronger) s2 added some clarification in terms
64: (stronger) Empirical is a great descriptor.
65: (stronger) Sounds more impressive and also adds more justification.
51: (stronger) S2 contains much more specific details that sound more impressive. Also, the use of the word "empirical" implies a degree of provability that "unique" does not.
66: (stronger) more details
67: (stronger) Although I can only follow so much of this field-oriented jargon, the inclusion of the words 'empirical', as well as other specifying phrases and elaborations, puts S2 above and beyond the first phrasing.
68: (stronger) S2 elaborates on the mechanisms and provides more strength to the case.

S1: this provides a corner stone for constructing various examples with given global behavior .
S2: this generalizes the jorge-meeks formula in [MATH] and provides a cornerstone for constructing various examples with given global behavior .
27: (stronger) "generalizes the jorge-meeks formula..." adds an additional way in which the thing in question does something useful.
28: (stronger) much more specific and clear
29: (stronger) The extra information provided in S2 adds more value to the object being described and makes it seem more important, and thus strengthens the sentence as a whole.
30: (stronger) more information is provided
31: (stronger) justifies the statement
32: (stronger) justification makes the sentence stronger.
33: (stronger) S2 states exactly what is going on in more scientific terms.
34: (stronger) S2 adds more justification with Math and information "jorge-meeks formula" compared to S1
35: (stronger) shows finding have greater impact with evidence "generalizes the..."

S1: as a result of the issues highlighted above , there is a growing literature studying many-to-one matchings with externalities ( i.e. , peer effects and complementarities ) and the research has found that designing matching mechanisms is significantly more challenging when externalities are considered .
S2: as a result of the issues highlighted above , there is a growing literature studying many-to-one matchings with externalities ( i.e. , peer effects and complementarities ) and the research has found that designing matching mechanisms is significantly more challenging when externalities are considered , e.g. incentive compatible mechanism design is no longer possible .
18: (stronger) S2 adds an relevant example.
19: (stronger) An added example helps to strength the line.
20: (stronger) The externalities come to light in this new sentence, better explaining the end results.
21: (stronger) S2 adds an example to make the example more understandable.
22: (stronger) S2 gains strength by offering an example consideration. this gives the statement credibility.
23: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence by the addition
24: (stronger) Addition to S2 gives an example of the principle
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: two-player turn based zero-sum stochastic games , called simply " games " in this text , evolve randomly in discrete transitions from one of countably many states to another .
S2: two-player turn-based zero-sum stochastic games , simply called " games " in this text , evolve randomly in discrete transitions from one of countably many states to another .
53: (nochange) S2 has a stylistic change, the added hyphen doesn't add any information
54: (nochange) The changes in S2 do not affect the strength of the revision compared to S1.
55: (nochange) Called simply and simply called means the same thing.
56: (nochange) The sentences said the same thing, just in a different order.
11: (nochange) Adding a "-" to "turn based" and changing the placement of "simply" are cosmetic changes and therefore represents no strength change.
57: (nochange) just a change in grammar structure doesn't strengthen or weaken
58: (nochange) S2 the words "simply called" were revered from the order of S1. Therefore, there is no strength change.
59: (nochange) Both sentences say the same thing just reversing word order to no greater or lesser effect
60: (nochange) it's just a grammatical change

S1: suppose [MATH] is a mean curvature flow with [MATH] .
S2: suppose [MATH] is a mean curvature flow with maximal time [MATH] of existence of the solution .
69: (stronger) Adding more details about the parameters of the [math] makes the claim more justified.
70: (stronger) indicates there is a solution
71: (stronger) more detail adds evidence.
72: (stronger) maximal time STRENGTHENS THE EVIDANCE
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (stronger) Although it is not clear what the statements in S2 mean, it sounds to be stronger than S1
75: (stronger) Adds more information
76: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
51: (stronger) "Maximal time" sounds more impressive in S2. Also, the mention of an existing solution makes the sentence stronger.

S1: we compute the signatures of these states in local tunneling spectra and point to interesting differences in these signatures depending on whether the dipolar particles are of a bosonic or a fermionic species .
S2: we compute the local tunneling spectra into the edge and identify the signatures of the localized zero energy states . finally we point to interesting differences in these signatures depending on whether the dipolar particles are of a bosonic or a fermionic species .
18: (stronger) S1 states the objective clearer and in a compound sentence. S2 seems like two abstract sentences.
19: (stronger) Sounds less simplistic, more impressive than the first line.
20: (stronger) A zero-energy state is far more exciting than a state in general!
21: (stronger) S2 states what is being identified
22: (stronger) S2 provides crucial parameters (zero energy states) needed to understand the process fully. it also breaks up the steps into their proper sequence instead of implying that the last stage was performed all at once.
23: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence by stating "identify the signatures of the localized zero energy states "
24: (stronger) S2 describes the "interesting differences" in more detail
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: in order to perform the nonparametric estimation , a maximum likelihood method are combined with a concept based on a kernel density estimation .
S2: in order to perform the nonparametric estimation , a maximum likelihood method is combined with a concept based on a kernel density estimation .
45: (nochange) grammatical correctness
46: (nochange) This is grammatical.
47: (nochange) This is a grammar change.
48: (nochange) No major aspects of changes made to the sentence.
49: (nochange) Change in words does nothing to the argument .
50: (nochange) Just a verb change, the assertion is the same on both.
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not affect strength.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (nochange) Says the same thing

S1: from the results known for ee for spinless fermion ( boson ) systems and for fermions ( bosons ) with spin , it is expected that the fixed - [MATH] state densities ( more appropriately partial densities ) approach gaussian form in general .
S2: from the results known for ee for spinless fermion ( boson ) systems , for fermions ( bosons ) with spin and from shell model calculations , it is expected that the fixed - [MATH] state densities ( more appropriately partial densities ) approach gaussian form in general .
0: (stronger) provides that calculations have been done
1: (stronger) Adds another justification
2: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it adds more evidence by adding shell model calculations
3: (stronger) Extra evidence.
4: (stronger) shell model calculations adds evidence
5: (stronger) it illustrates how they are showing their work- what type of calculations they are doing
6: (stronger) S2 adds more detail and evidence with the additional words.
7: (stronger) "shell model calculations" are added evidence.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the calculation suggests that the theory allows stars in equilibrium with arbitrary baryon number , no matter how large .
S2: the baryon number increases monotonically , which suggests that the theory allows stars in equilibrium with arbitrary baryon number , no matter how large .
69: (stronger) Instead of simply referring to a "calculation", S2 specifies that it took into account a "baryon number" and that it "increases monotonically" which is a much more impressive way of expressing the calculation.
70: (stronger) Specifies the number
71: (stronger) More detail "baryon number" instead of "calculation" equals more information.
72: (stronger) MORE EFFECTIVE
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (stronger) S2 clarifies the concept
75: (stronger) more evidence
76: (stronger) S2 provides justification of the statement.
51: (stronger) The "baryon number increases monotonically" sounds much more impressive than the "calculation."

S1: note that for large [MATH] the mass flux will be proportional to the self-diffusion coefficient of a tagged particle .
S2: note that for large [MATH] the mass flux will be proportional to the self-diffusion coefficient of a tagged particle , independent of the magnitude of the gradient .
18: (stronger) S2 adds more detail, about the tagged particle being independent of the gradient.
19: (stronger) Added information to makes it more understandable.
20: (stronger) The later sentence much better explains the results reached.
21: (stronger) S2 elaborates on S1
22: (stronger) S2 strengthens and defines the degree of the mass flux.
23: (stronger) S2 adds justification
24: (stronger) S2 gives more information on how the particle is affected
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: theoretical predictions for [MATH] cross section at [MATH] tev for different kinematical restrictions are presented .
S2: theoretical predictions for [MATH] cross section at [MATH] tev with different kinematical restrictions are presented .
36: (nochange) no difference
37: (nochange) terms interchangeable
38: (nochange) The sentence remains essentially unchanged by the switch in words.
39: (nochange) Just a grammatical difference.
40: (nochange) The changed word is a minor difference.
41: (nochange) Switching "for" and "with" does not change the strength of the statement.
42: (nochange) context does not change
43: (nochange) The change in preposition changes the meaning of the sentence only slightly and does not change the strength of the statement.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: ellison and schneier identified the major risk of pkis to be " who do we trust , and for what ? "
S2: ellison and schneier identified a risk of pkis to be " who do we trust , and for what ? "
9: (weaker) Original is stronger. "the major risk" is obviously stronger than "a risk".
10: (weaker) s1 is more specific
11: (weaker) By changing "the major" risk to just "a" risk, the strength of the sentence is weakened because the risk has weakened in magnitude.
12: (weaker) S2 is not as specific; "the major" was changed to "a"
13: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive, placing an emphasis (major) on the information provided (R3)
14: (weaker) S2 is weaker because unlike S1, the assertion "a" is weaker than S1's identification of it being the major risk.
15: (weaker) "major" is stronger than "a". R1
16: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive because of "the major" vs "a" in S2. R3 and also R1 because "major" strengthens the aspect of the risk.
17: (weaker) first describes what type of risk

S1: we show , within the framework of the euclidean [MATH] - quantum field theory in four dimensions , that the wilson operator product expansion ( ope ) is not only an asymptotic expansion at short distances as previously believed , but even converges at arbitrary finite distances .
S2: we show , within the framework of the massive euclidean [MATH] - quantum field theory in four dimensions , that the wilson operator product expansion ( ope ) is not only an asymptotic expansion at short distances as previously believed , but even converges at arbitrary finite distances .
18: (stronger) S2 slightly stronger due to use of massive description of euclidean, adds informative detail as to scale.
19: (stronger) Massive makes it sound more important.
20: (stronger) The adjective "massive" depicts the enormity of the situation.
21: (stronger) The use of "massive" in S2 makes euclidean sound far more impressive.
22: (stronger) Adding "massive" makes the statement more important sounding.
23: (stronger) adding massive makes S2 more impressive
24: (stronger) Addition of "massive" in S2 lends greatness to term
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: in the second part we study the induced maps of deformation functors and deduce properties like injectivity , isomorphism and smoothness under general , mainly cohomological conditions on the module .
S2: in the second part we study the induced maps of deformation functors and deduce properties like smoothness and injectivity under general , mainly cohomological conditions on the module .
69: (nochange) The claim is not strengthened or weakened by the removal of "isomorphism"
70: (weaker) S2 removes isomorphism as an example
71: (weaker) s2 removes detail and evidence making it a weaker sentence.
72: (weaker) LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FIRST SENTANCE
73: (weaker) took out isomorphism
74: (weaker) S1 adds isomorphism
75: (weaker) removes a piece of specific evidence
76: (weaker) S2 removes a property which reduces its justification.
51: (weaker) S1 lists an additional property, which makes it seem more impressive.

S1: however , recent works have reported non-universal oscillatory behavior in the decay rate of the le as a function of the perturbation strength .
S2: however , for chaotic systems , recent works have reported non-universal oscillatory behavior in the decay rate of the le as a function of the perturbation strength .
18: (stronger) S2 adds the type of systems that the recent work refers to -- specifically chaotic systemts
19: (stronger) Justification in the second line to explain what kind of system it is talking about.
20: (stronger) This added scrap of detail makes all the difference, here.
21: (stronger) S2 elaborates on what systems are being spoken about.
22: (stronger) S2 describes the system needed to produce the behavior, and, therefore, gives better justification for its assertion.
23: (nochange) the additions in S2 are just details
24: (stronger) S2 provides more context for statement
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: simulation results are discussed in section .
S2: simulation results are compared with experiments in section .
77: (stronger) more discriptive
78: (stronger) Noting that results are compared instead of merely discussed sounds more impressive.
79: (stronger) S2 strengths the statement as it explains in detailed
80: (stronger) Scientific comparison is stronger than discussion
81: (stronger) Shows that experiments were done, while S1 does not.
82: (stronger) instead of just discussion, it is comparison which is deeper
83: (stronger) It makes the methods seem more connected.
84: (stronger) "compared with experiments" suggest that the results are backed by solid data rather than pure discussion.
68: (cannottell) Both S1 and S2 imply that there is something happening. However, without information as to what the simulation is or what the simulation results are, it would be impossible to assert which one is stronger

S1: as applications , when the characteristic of [MATH] is not 2 , we obtain the local-global principle for isotropy of quadratic forms of rank 5 with respect to discrete valuations of [MATH] and we show that every quadratic form of rank [MATH] is isotropic over [MATH] .
S2: when the characteristic of [MATH] is not 2 , we prove that every quadratic form of rank [MATH] is isotropic over [MATH] using methods of parimala and suresh , and we obtain the local-global principle for isotropy of quadratic forms of rank 5 with respect to discrete valuations of [MATH] .
61: (nochange) S1 has "and we show", much more definitive than "we obtain", while S2 has "we prove", much more definitive than "we obtain", so both statements have a strength over the other.
62: (stronger) "We prove" is stronger than "we show."
63: (stronger) s2 is more specific
64: (stronger) More information in S2
65: (stronger) "Prove" is stronger than "show" and there is the addition of which methods they used.
51: (stronger) The use of the word "prove" is stronger than the word "show."
66: (stronger) more information
67: (stronger) S2 transforms S1's "we show" into "we prove", which is a much stronger sentence.
68: (stronger) S2 is able to prove whereas S1 only obtains

S1: observing this phenomenon has proven difficult , in part due to single-particle and plasmon backscattering caused by measurement probes .
S2: a direct observation of this phenomenon has proven elusive , mainly due to single-particle and plasmon backscattering caused by measurement probes .
77: (stronger) better diction
78: (stronger) Adding that it was directing observation instead of merely observing strengthens the sample.
79: (weaker) S1 strengths the statement as S2 used more words elusive, a direct observation
80: (stronger) More strongly expresses the backscattering being the main cause
81: (stronger) Shows that while there may have been some sort of other observation, there has never been a direct observation. Also sounds better.
82: (stronger) makes a stronger claim on the reason for why it is elusive. also the observation seems stronger since it is direct.
83: (stronger) The words used are more active.
84: (stronger) S2 is better worded and the word "mainly" implies that the reason for the effect is certain.
68: (stronger) Emphasizes the observation factor saying that it happens directly.

S1: the constants of the polynomial version of bohnenblust-hille inequality were recently investigated in and the asymptotic behavior for the multilinear case was studied in .
S2: the constants of the polynomial version of the bohnenblust-hille inequality ( complex case ) were recently investigated in .
61: (weaker) Removes the specific parameters of the study.
62: (weaker) Removes information.
63: (weaker) s1 is more explicit
64: (weaker) S2 removes a lot of the information.
65: (nochange) Phrase doesn't make much sense, no clear strength change though.
51: (weaker) Removing the ending phrase removes additional evidence referenced by the multilinear case.
66: (weaker) not enough information in s2
67: (weaker) S2 provides much less information than S1, which translates into much less evidence.
68: (weaker) S2 lacks details and justification in comparison to S1

S1: her method allows to compute this distribution numerically , but the computational complexity is quite high and limits the practical applications .
S2: her method allows to derive recurrence formulas and to compute this distribution numerically , but the computational complexity is quite high and limits the practical applications .
69: (stronger) S2 includes the phrase "to derive recurrence formulas and..." which gives more insight into the specific process used to generate the assertion.
70: (stronger) to derive sounds stronger
71: (stronger) "to derive the ...formulas" helps reader better understand claim.
72: (weaker) compute IS MORE EFFECTIVE
73: (stronger) deriving formulas is better than just computing
74: (stronger) S2 offers an additional explanation
75: (stronger) S2 adds justifications/evidence
76: (stronger) to derive recurrence formulas and seems to be impressive.
51: (stronger) S2 provides an additional process allowed by the mentioned method, which sounds more impressive.

S1: we also deal with numerical schemes for this problem . we prove convergence of a lagrangian scheme to the solution , when the discretization parameters approach zero .
S2: we deal with numerical schemes for this problem and prove convergence of a lagrangian scheme to the solution , when the discretization parameters approach zero .
36: (nochange) the change of words adds nothing important to s2
37: (nochange) second reads better, but is no more impressive
38: (nochange) These sentences say the same thing, only in a different format.
39: (stronger) S2's phrasing seems more confident. There isn't much difference, but that's what I think.
40: (nochange) The word "also" does not change the strength.
41: (nochange) Simple grammatical changes in the statements do not affect the strength of the statement.
42: (nochange) no change
43: (nochange) Grammatical changes, no change in strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: the critical hopping for the transition changes by up to about 50 per cent in one dimension , and up to about 20 per cent in two dimensions .
S2: the critical hopping for the transition changes by up to about 50 percent in one dimension , and by up to about 20 percent in two dimensions .
69: (nochange) Simply changed "per cent" to "percent" which is a grammatical change, and the addition of "by" doesn't change the strength.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) per cent is incorrect. percent is the correct spelling.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL STRENGTH
73: (nochange) minor word change
74: (nochange) Both are the same, just different ways to write percent
75: (nochange) just spelling changes
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of a grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: in section we show that when some parameters take specific values , our viscoelastic model reduces to ( a higher-dimensional extension of ) the nonlinear generalization of the simplified israel-stewart model .
S2: in sec . we show that when some parameters take specific values , our viscoelastic model reduces to ( a higher-dimensional extension of ) the nonlinear generalization of the simplified israel-stewart model .
61: (nochange) The change just alters the spelling of the in-document reference.
62: (nochange) Only an abbreviation.
63: (nochange) the abbreviation makes it less clear, but it means the same thing in the end
64: (nochange) Section and sec are the same
65: (nochange) sec. is just an abbreviation for section.
51: (nochange) This seems like an abbreviation was substituted, perhaps for formatting reasons, but the strength of the statement is not affected.
66: (weaker) abbreviations are weaker
67: (nochange) Abbreviating 'section' does not weaken or strengthen the sentence, as the abbreviation is just as easy to understand as the written word.
68: (nochange) Section and sec make no difference to the information the sentences convey

S1: section illustrates the utility of the existence theorem with an example of a kinetic model of anaerobic glycolysis in trypanosoma brucei metabolism .
S2: in section , we illustrate for the first time , the utility of wei 's existence theorem for modeling non-equlibrium steady states with various examples , including a kinetic model of anaerobic glycolysis in trypanosoma brucei .
53: (stronger) S2 is more novel sounding
54: (stronger) S2 sounds better and seems to contain additional information.
55: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive when its say's "we illustrate for the first time."
56: (stronger) S2 had many examples of specific way the theorem was proven.
11: (stronger) There is more evidence in S2 and therefore the assertion is deemed stronger.
57: (stronger) adding the fact that they illustrate for the FIRST time makes it seem more important.
58: (cannottell) S2 removes evidence by taking away "metabolism" from S1 and add's evidence of it's own or more impressive words "wei's" and "for modeling non-equillibrium steady states". Not sure what the answer is
59: (stronger) S2 provides many more details
60: (stronger) Gives much more reason and details of what is going on, and the area addressed. Also can see R1, in that it's certainly a stronger sentence, and R3, because it obviously sounds much more impressive.

S1: nrao ,530 was monitored with the very long baseline array ( vlba ) at 3 frequencies ( 22 , 43 , 86 , ghz ) on 10 consecutive days in may 2007 during observations of the galactic center ( sgr , a * ) .
S2: nrao ,530 was monitored with the very long baseline array ( vlba ) at three frequencies ( 22 , 43 and 86 , ghz ) on 10 consecutive days in 2007 may during observations of the galactic center ( sgr , a * ) .
77: (nochange) just numbers, no strength of argument change
78: (nochange) Only spelling out the number three and adding in the word 'and' does little to the meaning of either sample.
79: (stronger) S2 add more impressive as the word and as added.
80: (nochange) Slight grammatical tweak doesn't change strength of sentence
81: (nochange) Grammatic change
82: (nochange) just different grammar choices
83: (nochange) Does not change meaning, just grammar
84: (nochange) these are just changes in spelling.
68: (nochange) They both imply one and the same thing

S1: our simulated gsmfs have steep low mass end slopes of [MATH] at [MATH] , and when these numerous low-mass galaxies are included , the total [MATH] matches with the integral of sfr density .
S2: our simulated gsmfs have steep low-mass end slopes of [MATH] at [MATH] , and when these numerous low-mass galaxies are included , the total [MATH] matches with the integral of sfrd .
36: (nochange) sfrd is an abbreviation
37: (nochange) same terms
38: (nochange) Both sentences say the same thing.
39: (weaker) S2 abbreviates a term, so sounds weaker.
40: (nochange) There is no change since sfrd is an acronym for sfr density.
41: (nochange) The changing of "low mass" to "low-mass" is simply fixing a grammatical error. Shortening "sfr density" to "sfrd" doesn't change the strength of the statement.
42: (nochange) S1 looks better, but no strength is lost in S2
43: (nochange) Says the same thing; no change in strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: the model of scientific paradigms spreading throughout the community of agents with memory is analyzed .
S2: the model of scientific paradigms spreading throughout the community of agents with memory is analyzed using the master equation .
18: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it adds how the memory is analyzed by using the master equation.
19: (stronger) Added justification makes it easier to understand.
20: (stronger) The introduction of the master question adds credibility to the sentence overall.
21: (stronger) S2 explains what is being used to analyze the data
22: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it states the means by which the paradigms are analyzed.
23: (nochange) S2 just adds some extra explanation
24: (stronger) S2 gives additional relevant information to the statement
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we show that this scheme ensures the completeness , soundness , privacy , eligibility , unreusability , fairness and verifiability of an large-scale election under semi-honest model .
S2: we show that this election scheme ensures the completeness , soundness , privacy , eligibility , unreusability , fairness and verifiability of a large-scale election in which the administrator and counter are semi-honest .
27: (stronger) "under semi-honest model" emphasizes that this is just their model for such a situation, while not leading the reader to imagine how it will apply to real situations of semi-honest administrators and counters as S2 does. Other changes are minor clarification and grammar.
28: (stronger) better grammar and explains more
29: (stronger) By using the word "election" in the beginning of the sentence, it clarifies the context of the content in a way that is not found until the end of S1 when they finally tell you that it is in the context of an election. S2 also adds clarifying information by mentioning the "administrator" and "counter", which is lacking in S1. These changes make S2 stronger because it's easier to understand and the variables influenced are made clear and are easier to identify.
30: (stronger) more clear and specific
31: (stronger) strengthens the degree of aspect
32: (cannottell) i can't decide.
33: (stronger) S1 is grammatically incorrect.
34: (stronger) "under" is changed to "in which the administrator and counter are", which seems to me to be more justification.
35: (stronger) S2 is more descriptive due to extra phrases

S1: the difference in the configurations comes from the number of probe transitions used , yielding incoherent addition ( first configuration ) versus coherence-led interference ( second configuration ) of double dark resonances .
S2: the difference in the configurations comes from the number of probe transitions used , yielding a distinctive interplay of double dark resonances in each case .
27: (weaker) The explanatory lines of support, "incoherent addition...versus coherence-led..." are eliminated.
28: (stronger) sounds better
29: (weaker) The clarifying information in S1 provides more information and clarification, which makes it stronger. It distinctly describes the objects being discussed.
30: (weaker) shows the configurations in the statement
31: (weaker) doesnt justifies the assertion
32: (weaker) the sentence sound less impressive.
33: (weaker) S1 seems to have more information and S2 just sort of sums it up.
34: (weaker) S2 removes the justification for the assertion.
35: (weaker) "distinctive interplay" is more impressive despite the extra evidence in S1

S1: we find that brownian noise sets a lower limit of [MATH] to the allan deviation for a 10-millimeter-radius crystalline caf [MATH] sphere at 5.5 k.
S2: we find that dimensional fluctuation sets a lower limit of [MATH] to the allan deviation for a 10-millimeter-radius sphere at 5 k , predominantly via induced fluctuation of the refractive index .
0: (stronger) much more impressive wording
1: (stronger) Adds detail
2: (stronger) S2 adds strength by explain g the reasoning by adding ' predominantly via....'
3: (stronger) Better details.
4: (cannottell) don't understand the differences
5: (stronger) it provides further details
6: (stronger) S2 adds better descriptive terms and an example.
7: (stronger) S2 attempts to explain what is seen.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidence

S1: in section we outline the selection criteria employed to search for [MATH] galaxies and in section we consider various sources of contamination .
S2: in section we outline the selection criteria employed to search for [MATH] galaxies , consider various possible sources of contamination , and present our final dropout sample .
0: (stronger) removes redundancy and provides goal
1: (stronger) Adds important information
2: (stronger) S2 adds evidence by saying 'presenting our final dropout sample'
3: (weaker) Possible sounds like don't already know sources yet.
4: (stronger) implies results found
5: (stronger) it provides furhter details
6: (stronger) I chose S2 because S1 is not even grammatically correct the way it is written. S2 also states it provides evidence.
7: (stronger) S2 adds a specific sample.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: finally in part 6 , we prove various technical results necessary to complete the constructions carried out in the previous parts .
S2: finally in chapter 6 , we prove various technical results necessary to complete the constructions carried out in the previous parts .
18: (nochange) Minor change does not weaken or strengthen the sentence. I do not know if the reference to part 6 or chapter 6 is accurate.
19: (nochange) They mean the same thing. No strength change.
20: (nochange) Nothing occurred here in the slightest.
21: (nochange) Just changes word usage, but they're pretty much synonyms
22: (weaker) Replacing part with chapter is at odds with the use of part later in the sentence. In S1, the two parts are spaced far enough to avoid being redundant.
23: (nochange) part and chapter are the same
24: (nochange) Part and chapter are similar in strength
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidences

S1: these [MATH] determinations , combined with the observation of very large ( [MATH] ) events in the other subduction zones ( mccaffrey , 2008 ) , could have served as a warning of a possibility of such an earthquake in any major subduction zone including the sumatra and the tohoku area .
S2: these [MATH] determinations , combined with the observation of very large ( [MATH] ) events in the other subduction zones ( stein and okal , 2007 , 2011 ; mccaffrey , 2007 , 2008 ) , should have warned of such a possible earthquake in any major subduction zone , including the sumatra and tohoku areas .
53: (stronger) the citations in S2 add evidence, should is a stronger word than could and warned of a possible provides a more definite context than possibility of an earthquake
54: (stronger) S2 uses 'should' which is stronger than the 'could' used in S1. S2 also provides additional sources of evidence.
55: (stronger) Should have is stronger than could have.
56: (stronger) S2 added more evidence with more sourcing.
11: (stronger) Changing "could" to "should" strengthens the assertion and therefore makes the sentence stronger.
57: (stronger) "Should have" is stronger than "could have" so S2 is stronger.
58: (stronger) S2 provides more resources to confirm information given than S1.
59: (nochange) I think they are about the same despite the extra references. The words "could" and "should" are relatively interchangeable.
60: (stronger) more details, reference points, stronger wording

S1: in this work we develop a unified model for the high energy coherent production of pseudoscalar mesons off nuclei .
S2: in this work we , therefore , develop a model for the high energy coherent production of pseudoscalar mesons off nuclei .
45: (weaker) Removal of the word "unified" weakens it
46: (weaker) "unified" indicates complete agreement which is lost in S2.
47: (weaker) The removal of "unified" makes the model sound less impressive and more piecemeal. "Therefore" doesn't really change the meaning.
48: (weaker) Unified in S1 is more impressive than s2.
49: (nochange) Therefore is misplaced and unnecessary in S2
50: (weaker) S1 uses the term "unified" and S2 removes it, making S2 weaker.
51: (weaker) The word "unified" makes S1 seem like a more cohesive, and therefore impressive, finding.
8: (weaker) The degree is weakened because of removing the term "unified"
52: (weaker) Therefore is a weaker statement than unified.

S1: with the progress of measurement apparatus and the development of automatic sensors it is not unusual anymore to get thousands of samples of observations taking values in high dimension spaces such as functional spaces .
S2: with the progress of measurement apparatus and the development of automatic sensors it is not unusual anymore to get large samples of observations taking values in high dimension spaces such as functional spaces .
77: (weaker) thousands is more descriptive
78: (weaker) Knowing the amount (thousands) of the samples is more impressive and gives more information than just stating that the sample is large.
79: (stronger) S2 add more evidence as it defines the word large
80: (weaker) Thousands of clarifies size, more impressive number
81: (weaker) Thousands of shows a specific sample size, while "large" does not.
82: (weaker) "Large" is very vague and reviewers may not like that. Better to be specific about an ambiguous term like that.
83: (weaker) The specificity of "thousands" is lost.
84: (weaker) Large is ambiguous as compared to "thousands" which is certain.
68: (weaker) Thousands of is more specific than large and so S2 weakens.

S1: we show that this is because the tc-compound lies on the verge of the itinerant-to-localized transition , and also has a larger bandwidth , while the mn-compound lies deeper into the localized side .
S2: we show that this is because the tc compound lies on the verge of the itinerant-to-localized transition , while the mn compound lies deeper into the localized side .
77: (weaker) removes larger bandwidth
78: (weaker) S2 removes the information about the "larger bandwidth" that S1 offers.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more evidence as it adds the word and also has a larger bandwidth
80: (weaker) Removes strengthening information about bandwith size
81: (weaker) Brings in the fragment about larger bandwith while S2 does not.
82: (stronger) The reason is isolated
83: (weaker) Important info lost
84: (weaker) the parameter "larger bandwidth" was removed in S2
68: (weaker) S2 removes the bandwidth part

S1: the unique viscosity solution is a martingale along any solution of the stochastic differential equation .
S2: the unique viscosity solution is a martingale along any solution of the stochastic differential equation , i.e. is a stochastic solution in the sense of stroock and varadhan .
0: (stronger) provides further information on the equation
1: (stronger) Adds detail
2: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence by giving an example.
3: (stronger) Gives an example as evidence.
4: (stronger) adds justification
5: (stronger) it provides further details and evidence
6: (stronger) S2 provides a specific example, therefore it is stronger.
7: (stronger) The example justifies the statement.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: in this work , we report the prospects for detecting long grbs ( durations longer than 2 sec ) with cta , and how the results depend on the array performance and grb properties .
S2: in this work , we report the prospects for detecting long grbs ( durations longer than 2 sec ) with cta , and how the results depend on some of the array performance and grb properties .
36: (weaker) "some" weakens s2
37: (weaker) "some of" weakens the scope
38: (weaker) "Some of" adds uncertainty to the sentence.
39: (weaker) "some of" weakens the assertion.
40: (weaker) The cuewords "some of" in S2 weaken the argument.
41: (nochange) The addition of the words "some of" do not really weaken the statement as both the original and revised statement make it clear that the properties and performance are conditional.
42: (weaker) "some of" removes strength and inserts doubt
43: (weaker) S2 uses "some of" which makes the statement seem weaker.
44: (weaker) "some of" makes S2 sound weaker.

S1: with these hypotheses , the statement of our main result is as follows : let [MATH] be a metric space and let [MATH] be a doubling measure on [MATH] .
S2: with these hypotheses , we now present our main result . let [MATH] be a metric space , let [MATH] be a doubling measure on [MATH] , and let [MATH] be a collection of [MATH] - measurable subsets of [MATH] , with [MATH] and [MATH] , for all [MATH] .
18: (stronger) S2 stronger and more direct, we now present opposed to main result is as follows (avoid to be verbs), plus additional detail after the doubling measure, with the measurable subsets
19: (stronger) Sounds less boring?
20: (nochange) It's merely rewritten without any altering of its purpose or function.
21: (stronger) S2 adds justification and elaborates upon all of S1
22: (stronger) S2 provided a more specific definition of the findings. Also "we now present" lends an air of importance and showmanship to the statement.
23: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence
24: (stronger) S2 elaborates on the hypotheses and makes them more specific
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: by interpreting our equations as a markov process , we illustrate by direct simulation that these attractors may only stabilized by the ongoing segregation process .
S2: by interpreting our equations as a markov process , we illustrate by direct simulation that these attractors may only be stabilized by the ongoing segregation process .
45: (nochange) Only changes grammar
46: (nochange) This is a grammatical change only.
47: (nochange) This is only a typo fix.
48: (nochange) No aspect of any change in strength.
49: (nochange) S2 is grammatically correct, while S1 is not
50: (nochange) It looks like S2 is just fixing a grammar mistake of not including "be" in the sentence.
51: (nochange) This is a semantic change that doesn't impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: we then go on to argue , following ref . , that the simultaneous presence of some specific rpv operators in the superpotential can provide correlated enhancements in several flavor-changing neutral current ( fcnc ) channels and thereby predict flavor-changing leptonic decays at experimentally-verifiable levels .
S2: we then go on to argue , following ref . , that the simultaneous presence of some specific rpv operators in the superpotential can provide correlated enhancements over the sm prediction in several flavor-changing neutral current ( fcnc ) channels and thereby predict flavor-changing leptonic decays at experimentally-verifiable levels which lie far above the sm expectations .
77: (stronger) adds explanation
78: (stronger) S2 gives more explanation of the levels and the enhancements.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) Being far above expectations is a strong phrase
81: (stronger) More specific word choice in S2.
82: (stronger) shows that contribution is significant by comparison
83: (stronger) Orients the reader
84: (stronger) there is simply more justification in s2
68: (stronger) S2 clearly provides more evidence

S1: in addition , we give some details for an efficient numerical computation of the strong-coupling diagrams and also outline the limitations and possible pitfalls of this approach .
S2: in addition , we give details for an efficient numerical computation of the strong coupling diagrams and also outline the limitations and possible pitfalls of this approach .
36: (stronger) losing "some" makes s2 stronger
37: (weaker) "some" reduces impressiveness
38: (stronger) The removal of "some" makes the details sound more absolute and therefore stronger in S2.
39: (stronger) S2 removes "some" which strengthens the assertion.
40: (stronger) The term "some" in S1 weakens the phrase.
41: (stronger) The dropping of "some details" to simply "details" makes the argument stronger and dropping the hyphen in "strong-coupling" has no effect on the strength of the statement change.
42: (stronger) the removal of "some" sounds stronger
43: (stronger) S2 does not use 'some' when describing details which makes the statement stronger.
44: (stronger) "Some" makes S1 sound weaker, and the missing dash in "strong-coupling" doesn't change the strength of S2.

S1: by varying the efficiency [MATH] and opening angle [MATH] for more than [MATH] models , we find that the forward shock wave succeeds to break out of the stellar surface and potentially create grbs in all types of progenitors if a simple condition [MATH] is satisfied , that is consistent with analytical estimates , otherwise no explosion or some failed spherical explosions occur .
S2: by varying the efficiency [MATH] and opening angle [MATH] for more than [MATH] models , we find that the jet can make a relativistic breakout from all types of progenitors for grbs if a simple condition [MATH] is satisfied , which is consistent with analytical estimates . otherwise no explosion or some failed spherical explosions occur .
18: (weaker) S2 removes significant details about the forward shock wave and create grbs. S2 uses weaker verbs and language, such as can make a "relativistic" breakout, etc.
19: (weaker) Second line sounds too dumbed down and less expressive.
20: (weaker) Fewer details leaked out since fewer details of operation were included.
21: (weaker) the use of "can" in S2 raises doubt
22: (stronger) Jet sounds stronger than shock wave. Also removing "potentially" from the statement gets rid of a redundancy. The the grbs depend on a condition then it is already potential.
23: (weaker) "succeeds" is much stronger than "can"
24: (weaker) S1 contains more specific information on principle being explained.
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: a common paradigm for tensor computation involves the device of unfolding .
S2: this is because the dominant paradigm for tensor computation involves the device of unfolding .
0: (stronger) defines the paradigm more clearly
1: (stronger) Dominant is a much stronger word than common
2: (stronger) S2 sounds stronger because of the use of the word dominant even though it is just further describing the paradigm.
3: (stronger) Dominant is a stronger word choice.
4: (stronger) dominant implies strength
5: (weaker) The second sentence is too wordy
6: (stronger) 'Because' implies it is the reason, while 'a common' could mean many different things.
7: (stronger) S2 has more certainty in the claim because of the wording.
8: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence

S1: generally , the fluctuation-dissipation theorem ( fdt ) is violated in driven systems in nonequilibrium conditions .
S2: generally , the fluctuation-dissipation theorem ( fdt ) is violated in driven systems under nonequilibrium conditions .
36: (nochange) both mean the same thing
37: (nochange) terms interchangeable
38: (nochange) The word change makes no difference in the sentence's meaning.
39: (nochange) It seems to be just a difference of word choice, not strength.
40: (nochange) The difference between these two terms does not affect strength.
41: (nochange) The use of "under" instead of "in" makes no difference to the strength of the statement.
42: (stronger) "under" sounds better than "in"
43: (nochange) The change of preposition does not contribute to the strength of the statement.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: a previous instance of the dcsi-mimo scenario was studied in , and a tractable discrete optimization at finite snr was derived .
S2: it was first studied in , and a tractable discrete optimization at finite snr was derived .
77: (weaker) removes particular example
78: (weaker) Stating what was first studied in S1 makes it stronger.
79: (weaker) a previous instance of the dcsi-mimo scenario was added in S1 as it makes stronger
80: (weaker) Second sentence incomplete
81: (weaker) "it" is much weaker than what is described in S1
82: (nochange) just different pronoun usage
83: (weaker) Justification for study removed
84: (weaker) pronouns are used instead of the actual subject substantially weakens the statement.
68: (weaker) S2 removes the scenario

S1: comparison with predictions of effective lagrangian models reveal that strong longitudinal couplings to the resonances are not present in the process .
S2: comparison with predictions of effective lagrangian models based on the isobar approach reveal that strong longitudinal couplings of the virtual photon to the [MATH] resonances can be excluded from these models .
18: (stronger) S2 stronger, more detailed virtual photon of the resonances and more accurate that they can be excluded from these models opposed to are not present in the process.
19: (stronger) Much more detail added strengths the second line.
20: (stronger) Justification arises in the mention of the "isobar" approach.
21: (stronger) S2 specifies where the model is based from and states the reason for the exclusions to said models.
22: (stronger) S2 is far more specific in describing why the strong longitudinal couplings are excluded.
23: (weaker) "can be excluded from these models" is weaker than "are not present in the process" other changes are just adding details
24: (stronger) S2 gives greater specific information
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the superiority of the multi-scale analysis in enhancing class separability and spatial resolution of the classification is also demonstrated .
S2: comparison with a single scale approach shows the superiority of the multi-scale analysis in enhancing class separability and spatial resolution of the classification .
69: (stronger) Sw gives a specific point of reference in to what the scale is superior to.
70: (stronger) Specifies how it was compared
71: (stronger) "comparision...shows" statement supports claim in a stronger way than "is also demonstrated."
72: (weaker) SOME EFFECT IS MISSING
73: (stronger) active tense vs passive tense
74: (stronger) S2 adds additional context by comparing the topic with another type of approach
75: (stronger) The sentence structure is stronger in S2.
76: (stronger) Adds more justification to the statement.
51: (stronger) By referencing the comparison, S2 makes the superiority of the analysis sound more certain and impressive.

S1: we show that the equations have solutions if the associated brownian bsdes have solutions .
S2: we prove that the equations have solutions if the associated brownian bsdes have solutions .
53: (stronger) prove is stronger than show
54: (stronger) 'Prove' carries more strength than 'show' in my opinion.
55: (stronger) Prove is stronger than show.
56: (nochange) The two highlighted words mean the same thing.
11: (stronger) The word "prove" sounds scientifically stronger than "show".
57: (stronger) To prove something is much stronger than to just show.
58: (stronger) S2 adding "prove" to the sentence add's certainty to the sentence instead of S1 stating "show".
59: (stronger) "prove" is a stronger statement than "show"
60: (stronger) "prove" is a far more forceful word choice

S1: bandstructures , densities of states , and orbitals are discussed for h [MATH] , cu , ni , and zn core substitutions of the tbp molecule , as deposited via soluble precursors that are thermally annealed to produce polycrystalline , semiconducting thin-films .
S2: bandstructures , densities of states , and orbitals are calculated for h [MATH] , cu , ni , and zn core substitutions of the unit cell of solid tbp , as deposited via soluble precursors that are thermally annealed to produce polycrystalline , semiconducting thin-films .
36: (stronger) calculated is stronger than discussed
37: (stronger) calculated is stronger than discussed
38: (stronger) "Calculated" seems to sound like more work and thus more impressive than "discussed".
39: (stronger) "calculated" is far more confident than "discussed".
40: (stronger) The word "calculated" in S2 makes the argument stronger.
41: (stronger) The change from simple "discussion" to actually doing a "calculation" of the equation makes the second statement stronger.
42: (stronger) "calculated" is more meaningful than "discussed"
43: (nochange) Different terms are used but it doesn't add to the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) "calculated" is stronger than "discussed"

S1: in this approach one first identifies the kinematical hilbert space ignoring the dynamical constraints .
S2: this approach follows the dirac program in which one first identifies the kinematical hilbert space ignoring the dynamical constraints .
45: (stronger) descirbes the specific program
46: (stronger) Following an established program seems to give this argument more weight.
47: (stronger) The dirac program seems to be functioning here as an established parameter that will lend support to the argument if used.
48: (cannottell) More variations are found, which cannot determine the strength or weakness.
49: (stronger) S2 Gives specific evidence.
50: (stronger) S2 specifies that it uses a particular program, making it sound more impressive.
51: (stronger) S2 specifies the program that the approach follows which lends a greater degree of credibility and justification to S2.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) The use of the specific program strengthens the statement and provides justification

S1: the data provide direct evidence that the [MATH] states are stable and strong even at such high fillings as long as [MATH] lies in a ground-state ( [MATH] ) ll of either of the two electric subbands .
S2: the data provide direct evidence that the [MATH] states are stable and strong even at such high fillings as long as [MATH] lies in a ground-state ( [MATH] ) landau level of either of the two electric subbands , regardless of whether that level belongs to the symmetric or the anti-symmetric subband .
0: (stronger) more details sound more impressive
1: (stronger) Adds relevant detail
2: (stronger) S2 adds more justification by adding the conditions in the phrase at the end.
3: (stronger) Gives greater evidence.
4: (cannottell) don't understand difference between two
5: (stronger) it adds further details
6: (stronger) S2 writes out the word for the term that was abbreviated in S1, giving information to those who do not know the abbreviation. S2 also provides more evidence.
7: (stronger) Not using the abbreviation and stating how unbiased the approach was, adds to the justification of what was done.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: hence , the field decays via the mixing with the other scalar representations which can directly decay into the sm particles or via some higher order couplings .
S2: hence , the field decays via the mixing with the other scalar representations which can decay into the sm particles or via some higher order couplings .
18: (weaker) The word "directly" adds to S1. It strengthens the action of decay.
19: (weaker) Directly adds more importance to the first line.
20: (nochange) This is the same sentence, just about!
21: (weaker) Having directly in S1 adds some degree of certainty
22: (weaker) S1 provided the degree of decay into the sm particles and is therefore stronger.
23: (weaker) omitting directly makes S2 less impressive
24: (weaker) "Directly" sounds more impressive and concrete
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: the interpretation of mixtures is problematic in quantum mechanics ( qm ) because of nonobjectivity of properties .
S2: a crucial and problematical feature of quantum mechanics ( qm ) is nonobjectivity of properties .
9: (stronger) More concise and direct.
10: (stronger) s2 has more grand use of words and less speculation
11: (stronger) By changing "the interpretation of mixtures is problematic in" and "because of" to "a crucial and problematical feature" and "is" respectively creates more certainty of the assertion and therefore makes the sentence sound stronger.
12: (stronger) S2 makes a statement as fact, whereas S1 makes a statement as a mere interpretation.
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive, adding emphasis by use of the word crucial (R3)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the statement is condensed and the shorter and more succinct wording benefits the reader's understanding of the complex idea.
15: (stronger) "crucial" makes it stronger. And "is" is stronger than "because of". R1
16: (stronger) "Crucial" is a stronger statement in S2 and makes the feature sound much more important and impressive. Both R1 and R3.
17: (weaker) first is more informative

S1: the x-ray properties of the new clusters appear to be similar to previous new detections by planck at lower [MATH] and higher sz flux : the majority are x-ray underluminous for their mass and have a disturbed morphology .
S2: the x-ray properties of the new clusters appear to be similar to previous new detections by planck at lower [MATH] and higher sz flux : the majority are x-ray underluminous for their mass , estimated using [MATH] as mass proxy , and many have a disturbed morphology .
0: (stronger) more detailed, explains some of the mechanism
1: (nochange) Doesn't change the statement
2: (stronger) S2 adds evidence/justification by indication detailing how it was estimated.
3: (stronger) Sounds better.
4: (stronger) adds justification and implies strength
5: (stronger) it provides further details
6: (stronger) S2 adds more information, telling how the estimate was achieved.
7: (stronger) S2 tells how the estimations were achieved.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the hyperbolic equations of motion are integrated in time using two different integration methods from the newmark family : an implicit iterative newton-raphson line search solver , and an explicit predictor-corrector scheme with adaptive time stepping .
S2: the hyperbolic equations of motion are integrated in time using two different integration methods from the newmark family : an implicit iterative newton-raphson line search solver , and an explicit predictor-corrector scheme , both with adaptive time stepping .
0: (stronger) application of time stepping to both is impressive
1: (stronger) S1 implies that only the explicit predictor-corrector scheme has adaptive time-stepping
2: (stronger) S2 makes it clear that both methods have adaptive time-stepping which strengthens the statement
3: (stronger) S1 implies that only one has adaptive time stepping.
4: (stronger) implies two things
5: (stronger) The first sentence states that the explicit predictor corrector is just an adaptic time stepping whereas the second sentence includes the newton raphson and explicit are time stepping
6: (stronger) the use of the word 'both' gives the property to the other method as well, instead of only applying to one method.
7: (stronger) "both" adds to the degree of difficulty by pointing our that the "time stepping" was applied to both the "scheme" and the "solver".
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: this prediction provides a means to observationally distinguish accreted gas from outflow gas : the accreted gas will show velocity offsets in absorption line studies while ( radially ) ejected gas will not .
S2: this prediction provides a means to observationally distinguish accreted gas from outflow gas : the accreted gas will show large one-sided velocity offsets in absorption line studies while radial/bi-conical outflows will not ( except possibly in special polar projections ) .
18: (stronger) s2 is more specific with radial/bi-conical outflows and an exception, opposed to S1 general ejected gas reference.
19: (stronger) Much more evidence and justification is presented in the second line.
20: (stronger) The above rewrite strengthens the claim's veracity.
21: (weaker) S2's statement in the parenthesis adds doubt to the statement as a whole
22: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it gives possible exception to the rule while S1 states it as a concrete fact when it isn't. S1 could be seen as a misrepresentation of the truth.
23: (stronger) S2 adds justification
24: (stronger) S2 provides helpful evidence that S1 lacks
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the second step in the n-gmres optimization algorithm ( step ii in algorithm ) uses the nonlinear extension of gmres that was proposed by washio and oosterlee in for nonlinear partial differential equation ( pde ) systems ( see also and for further applications to pde systems ) .
S2: the second step in the n-gmres optimization algorithm ( step ii in algorithm ) uses the nonlinear extension of gmres for solving nonlinear systems of equations that was proposed by washio and oosterlee in in the context of nonlinear partial differential equation ( pde ) systems ( see also and for further applications to pde systems ) .
53: (stronger) S2 adds information and specificity (in the context of), the first addition adds information
54: (stronger) S1 sounds awkward. ... the 'in' should at least be dropped from 'in for' in statement S1.
55: (cannottell) I'm not able to tell if it's weaker or stronger.
56: (stronger) S2 added details that S1 didn't have.
11: (stronger) Adding the phrase "for solving nonlinear systems of equations" adds evidence to the sentence and makes the sentence stronger.
57: (stronger) S2 gives more specific details of the purpose so makes it a stronger sentence.
58: (stronger) S2 provides more information than S1 and thus sounds more impressive.
59: (stronger) S2 gives you more specifics
60: (stronger) greater detail, explains what is happening

S1: finally , we also analyze our system for thermoelectric operation at maximum power output .
S2: finally , we also analyze the interacting quantum dot set up for thermoelectric operation at maximum power output .
18: (stronger) S2 provides specific type of system.
19: (stronger) our system becomes the interacting quantum dot set up, which is less vague and more impressive sounding. second line wins this round.
20: (stronger) This new sentence expounds upon the setup of the system.
21: (stronger) Specific usage sounds far more impressive
22: (stronger) It is important to define the system with more specific terms than a simple pronoun.
23: (nochange) S2 gives more details
24: (stronger) S2 provides more information than S1
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the analysis indicates that the recent data from the babar collaboration on pion and eta transition form factor can be well reproduced , if a small contribution of twist three at the matching scale [MATH] is included .
S2: the analysis indicates that the recent data from the babar collaboration on pion and eta transition form factor can be well reproduced , if a small contribution of higher twist is added to the dominant twist two contribution at the matching scale [MATH] .
45: (stronger) Sounds more specific about the methods
46: (stronger) "higher" and "dominant" are strengthening words.
47: (cannottell) I don't think it's really possible for someone to tell whether this particular piece of language is more or less convincing without understanding to what this is referring.
48: (stronger) Higher twist added to the dominant adds more strength to the sentence.
49: (stronger) Specific evidence is added .
50: (stronger) Using the term "higher" instead of "three" makes it sound like the result is more general and applicable.
51: (stronger) "Higher twist" sounds more impressive than "twist three."
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) S2 is more specific and adds to the statement

S1: associated to simple lie superalgebras [MATH] of cartan type and to [MATH] -- modules [MATH] .
S2: associated with simple lie superalgebras [MATH] of cartan type and with [MATH] -- modules [MATH] .
77: (nochange) prepositions do not affect strength
78: (nochange) Using the same two words in both only in different spots that do not change the meaning.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) To is active, with is passive
81: (nochange) Grammatic change.
82: (nochange) just grammatical changes
83: (nochange) Fixes the grammar
84: (nochange) just a choice of grammatical words.
68: (nochange) Interchanging two words wouldnt change the meaning i suppose

S1: the authors would like to thank to professor kato and professor taguchi for having helpful discussions .
S2: the authors would like to thank professor kato and professor taguchi for having helpful discussions , and to professor fesenko for suggesting relation between his work and our work .
61: (stronger) Adding acknowledgment of a contributor.
62: (stronger) Adds support.
63: (stronger) evidence is added in s2
64: (stronger) More thanks.
65: (nochange) Just adding details, no strength change.
51: (stronger) The idea that Professor Fesenko suggested an additional relationship between his own work and the work of the author(s) lends more legitimacy and evidence to the work.
66: (stronger) s1 doesn't make sense
67: (stronger) S2 adds important pertinent details.
68: (stronger) Provides detailed information regarding professor Fesenko

S1: the method is applied to the single orbital anderson impurity model at half-filling , modelling a quantum dot coupled to two leads .
S2: the time-dependent method is applied to the single orbital anderson impurity model at half-filling , modeling a quantum dot coupled to two leads .
27: (nochange) "time-dependent" adds detail but it is not evidence nor does it qualify "method" in a weakening way. The spelling change to "modeling" is insignificant.
28: (stronger) better grammar and explains more
29: (stronger) Saying that something is "time-dependent" adds a sense of urgency and therefore makes you pay more attention. It strengthens the sentence, because things that are "time dependent" grab our attention and have higher priority.
30: (stronger) more specific
31: (stronger) sounds impressive with the technical terms
32: (stronger) adding justified information makes it more relevant and strong.
33: (stronger) S2 is grammatically correct and specifies that the method is time-dependent.
34: (nochange) Only adding a constraint to the method in S2
35: (stronger) "time-dependent" makes method more concrete

S1: in particular , it has been argued that the quantity [MATH] ( characterizing the local form bispectrum ) can become large in a number of multifield models , through the evolution of the curvature perturbation after horizon exit .
S2: in particular , it has been argued that the quantity [MATH] ( characterizing the local form bispectrum ) can become large in a number of multifield models , through the evolution of the curvature perturbation after horizon exit ; for a non-exhaustive list of examples see , or for reviews see .
36: (stronger) the examples will give more evidence
37: (stronger) adds evidence
38: (stronger) Additional examples make the assertion stronger.
39: (stronger) S2 adds examples and reviews to prove its point.
40: (stronger) S2 is stronger because of the list of examples.
41: (stronger) More evidence added by the phrase "for a non-exhaustive list of examples see, or for reviews see" to the revised statement.
42: (nochange) S2 adds no evidence
43: (nochange) S2 adds detail, not strength.
44: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence.

S1: we construct explicit counterexamples to show that both conjectures are false , meaning correlations in excited states of local hamiltonians could be dramatically different from those in the ground states .
S2: we construct explicit counterexamples to show that both conjectures are false . it means that correlations in excited states of local hamiltonians could be dramatically different from those in ground states .
61: (nochange) Just a grammatical change to turn one sentence into two.
62: (nochange) Different wording only.
63: (stronger) s2 is clearer
64: (nochange) Both specify the meaning.
65: (nochange) Just a grammatical change.
51: (nochange) The change of the phrase in S2 is stylistic, but does not change the strength of the statement.
66: (stronger) s2 reads better
67: (nochange) These are reiterations of the same sentiment. No stronger / weaker.
68: (nochange) Doesn't change the meaning of the scientific discussion whatsoever

S1: if one believes that the experimental data only represents the transition form factor in the middle momentum region , then the pqcd approach with an endpoint-enhanced pion distribution amplitude can describe the data well .
S2: if one insists that the experimental data only represent the transition form factor in the moderate momentum region , then the pqcd approach with an endpoint-enhanced pion distribution amplitude can describe the data well .
77: (stronger) better diction/phrasing
78: (stronger) "insists" is a stronger word than "believes," as is "moderate" over "middle"
79: (stronger) S2 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) Insists is stronger than believes, represent is stronger and more direct than represents, and moderate is a more impressive word than middle.
81: (nochange) Vocabulary changes, no strength added.
82: (nochange) synonyms
83: (stronger) The chosen words work better in S2
84: (stronger) Insists implies an active and aggressive stance.
68: (stronger) Insisting implies stronger assertion

S1: fundamental for our results are the studies by bejenaru , herr , holmer and tzirakis , and bejenaru and herr for the zakharov system , and also the global well-posedness results for the zakharov and klein-gordon-schr " odinger system by colliander , holmer and tzirakis .
S2: fundamental for our results are the studies by bejenaru , herr , holmer and tataru , and bejenaru and herr for the zakharov system , and also the global well-posedness results for the zakharov and klein-gordon-schr " odinger system by colliander , holmer and tzirakis .
9: (cannottell) I have no knowledge of which name listed is the correct one associated with the study cited.
10: (nochange) Both have similar terms and meaning
11: (nochange) Changing "tzirakis" to "tataru" just changes a detail in the sentence and therefore represents no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 simply corrected an error in S1. No meaning change.
13: (nochange) it is difficult to assess strength change on a name, perhaps one is the correct reference but not the other, but in this case it is difficult to tell.
14: (nochange) These just name a different researcher.
15: (nochange) change from "tzirakis" to "tataru" does not make the sentence stronger.
16: (nochange) No evidence was added or removed, only a name was changed.
17: (cannottell) seems meaning of both sentences are now different

S1: the predicted value of the curvature , [MATH] , depends only on the ratio of the density of non-relativistic matter to energy density in cosmological constant , [MATH] , and the value of the curvature from the initial bubble that starts the inflation , [MATH] .
S2: the predicted value of the curvature , [MATH] , depends only on the ratio of the density of non-relativistic matter to cosmological constant density , [MATH] , and the value of the curvature from the initial bubble that starts the inflation , [MATH] .
53: (weaker) energy is more specific than density
54: (weaker) 'Energy density' is more specific in this case.
55: (nochange) S2 basically says the same thing as S1.
56: (weaker) S2 left out the part that it was energy density referenced.
11: (nochange) Changing "energy density" to "density" and changing its placement provides slightly less details but otherwise represents no real strength change.
57: (weaker) S1 is much more specific adding energy so adds more importance than S2
58: (weaker) S2 sounds less impressive by stating "density" instead of "energy density in" as in S1.
59: (weaker) "energy density" is more specific than "density"
60: (weaker) s2 reduces info in regard to the type on density being addressed.

S1: we define the topological pressure for any sub-additive potentials of the countable discrete amenable group action and any given open cover .
S2: the topological pressure for any sub-additive potentials of a countable discrete amenable group action and any given open cover is defined .
45: (nochange) change from active to passive voice
46: (weaker) "the" is a definite article and "a" is indefinite which makes S2 sound less definitive than S1.
47: (nochange) The change to passive voice does not strengthen or weaken the nature of the assertion itself.
48: (nochange) There is no change in the strength of the aspect.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (weaker) Using "a" seems to imply that it only works in this case but potentially not others.
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not change the strength of the statement.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (nochange) Says the same thing

S1: we prove that the spectrum of this problem is discrete and consists of two sequences , one tending to [MATH] and another towards [MATH] .
S2: we prove that the spectrum of this problem is discrete and consists of two sequences , one tending to [MATH] and another to [MATH] .
45: (nochange) no difference in towards or to
46: (stronger) "towards" is less definitive than "to" to my mind.
47: (nochange) This is a language correction only.
48: (nochange) There is no change in the strength.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (nochange) Just using a different preposition.
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (stronger) 'To' is stronger than 'towards'

S1: the paco faint sample , presented in this paper , is made of 159 sources with [MATH] mjy in the southern ecliptic pole region ( ecliptic latitude [MATH] ) and with [MATH] , [MATH] .
S2: the paco faint sample , presented in this paper , is made of 159 sources with [MATH] mjy in the south ecliptic pole region ( ecliptic latitude [MATH] ) and with [MATH] , [MATH] .
69: (nochange) Both "southern" and "south" refer to the same area of the ecliptic pole in the same way, neither is stronger.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (weaker) Southern is better than south.
72: (weaker) south IS WEAKER THAN southern
73: (nochange) minor word change
74: (nochange) No specific difference
75: (nochange) just grammatical change
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not change the strength of the statement.

S1: we study the non-equilibrium relaxation kinetics of interacting magnetic flux lines in disordered type-ii superconductors at low temperatures by means of a three-dimensional elastic line model and monte carlo simulations .
S2: we study the non-equilibrium relaxation kinetics of interacting magnetic flux lines in disordered type-ii superconductors at low temperatures and low magnetic fields by means of a three-dimensional elastic line model and monte carlo simulations .
0: (stronger) further details are given
1: (stronger) Adds important, relevant detail
2: (nochange) S2 is more specific about the study, adding low-magnetic fields but does not strengthen the point.
3: (stronger) Added low magnetic fields.
4: (nochange) just adds additional info
5: (stronger) It provides further details
6: (stronger) The addition of the words 'and low magnetic fields' is providing more detail and evidence, making the sentence stronger.
7: (stronger) The work being done in "low magnetic fields adds more evidence to the work.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the apparent orientation of the bulge seems to vary depending on the range of longitude , latitude , and the population considered .
S2: the apparent orientation of the bulge seems to vary with the range of longitude , latitude , and the population considered .
45: (nochange) "depending on" and "with" are equal in strength
46: (nochange) This is a grammatical choice.
47: (nochange) The word choice doesn't make a meaningful difference.
48: (nochange) No aspect changes the degree of sentence.
49: (nochange) Extraneous words change does not make a change in argument,
50: (nochange) To me, "depending on" and "with" have the same effect here.
51: (weaker) "Depending on" is a more definitive way of describing a connection than "with."
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (weaker) Use of depend on is stronger than the vagueness of vary with.

S1: in sec . we consider non-equilibrium processes and explicitly derive an exact expression for the time-dependent reduced density operator of the coupled oscillator at an arbitrary time along the non-equilibrium process .
S2: we consider non-equilibrium processes and then derive a closed expression for the time-dependent reduced density operator of the oscillator weakly coupled to a bath at an arbitrary time along the processes .
18: (stronger) S2 closed expression is stronger than a vague exact expression, detail on oscillator weakly coupled to a bath makes more detailed and therefore impressive.
19: (weaker) Second line sounds less impressive, more basic words than the first.
20: (weaker) The looseness of the second sentence weakens the argument at hand.
21: (weaker) S2 weakens "explicitly", "an exact", and "oscillator" from S1
22: (weaker) Using terms like explicitly and exact offer a better understanding of the procedure. Also, defining the process as a non-equilibrium process is an important specificity.
23: (weaker) Explicitly is stronger than then and an exact is stronger than a closed and adding weakly makes S2 weaker
24: (weaker) S2 is more general and less specific than S1
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of some Evidences

S1: this method has received much attention recently since it has been shown to be extremely efficient on several benchmark tests and to outperform methods optimizing the popular modularity .
S2: this method has received a lot of attention , since it has been shown to be extremely efficient on benchmark tests outperforming the popular modularity .
77: (weaker) less specific diction/word choice
78: (weaker) "much" is stronger than "a lot," as is the the explanation of outperform methods over just stating "outperforming"
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) A lot of attention, benchmark tests, and outperforming sound universal, receiving "recently", on "several" tests, and "outperforming methods optimizing" sounds limited and specific.
81: (weaker) Several at least gives us a vague number of representation.
82: (stronger) fewer qualifiers
83: (weaker) S2 seems like fewer tests were done
84: (weaker) the word "recently" in s1 presents a time period while this was removed in s2. s1 is also better written.
68: (weaker) S2 omits some portions and in turn it disregards whether modularity gets optimized or not

S1: thus , our results suggest that betelgeuse entered the red supergiant phase only recently .
S2: thus , our results suggest that betelgeuse only entered the red supergiant phase recently .
77: (nochange) same word, only different placement
78: (nochange) Nearly identical wording in both examples, only the positioning of words in the sentence was changed.
79: (stronger) S2 makes stronger as the sentence means it meaningfully.
80: (nochange) Reordering the words doesn't, in this cast, change the strength of the sentence.
81: (nochange) Changing where only comes in the sentence does not change the strength of the sentence.
82: (nochange) just reordered the words
83: (nochange) The placement of "only" does neither strengthens nor weakens the statement.
84: (nochange) The location of the word only does not affect the meaning of the statements at all
68: (stronger) It strengthens the fact that, only betelgeuse entered the red supergiant

S1: this notion provides a useful parametrization of the ml decoding complexity for linear codes .
S2: this notion provides a useful parametrization of the maximum-likelihood decoding complexity for linear codes .
0: (stronger) more easily understood
1: (stronger) Unless ml is defined earlier, or is common for that subject,
2: (nochange) S2 just explains what the acronym is but does not strengthen the statement.
3: (stronger) Defines ml.
4: (stronger) don't know what ml is and abbreviation is not appropriate
5: (stronger) ml does not mean anything to me unless it's mL milliliters and I never would have assumes maximum likelihood
6: (stronger) S2 writes out the word, while it is abbreviated in S1. This gives additional information to those who might not know what the abbreviation stands for.
7: (stronger) The abbreviation in S1 is less impressive.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: second , abc may be excruciatingly slow due to very low acceptance rates .
S2: abc is often excruciatingly slow due to very low acceptance rates .
53: (stronger) often is more certain or definite than may be
54: (stronger) S2 is more specific through the use of 'often' vs. 'may be.'
55: (stronger) Often is stronger than may be.
56: (weaker) S1 implies there was a first readon why abc was so slow.
11: (stronger) Changing "may be" to "is often" removes uncertainty and therefore makes the sentence sound stronger.
57: (stronger) the word "may" implies a possibility, where "is often" is more of a statement of fact.
58: (stronger) S2 strengthened S1 by adding the words "is often" instead of "may be" which added certainty to the sentence.
59: (stronger) "may be" is weaker than "is often"
60: (weaker) s2 seems to remove the idea that there is more than one reason involved to whatever the larger discussed topic is

S1: it seems interesting to study when [MATH] holds .
S2: it seems interesting to determine when [MATH] holds .
18: (stronger) S2 use of word determine is stronger than word study
19: (nochange) They gives the same general feel. No change.
20: (stronger) Determining is more impressive than studying.
21: (stronger) S2 ensures the reader will understand.
22: (stronger) To determine is a stronger statement than study. It implies results.
23: (stronger) determine is much stronger than study
24: (nochange) Neither sentence provides greater information nor seems more impressive
25: (stronger) "Study" is changed to "Determine". The degree is strengthened
26: (stronger) Strengthen the evidence by updating "Determine" from "Study"

S1: we generalize cartan 's theorem for isoparametric hypersurfaces of spheres and wang 's classification of isoparametric hopf hypersurfaces in complex projective spaces to any compact symmetric space .
S2: we generalize cartan 's theorem classifying isoparametric hypersurfaces of spheres to any compact symmetric space .
69: (stronger) S2 uses "classifying" which lets us know what the theory is accomplishing as opposed to the ambiguity in S1/
70: (weaker) does not have wang's classification
71: (weaker) less information in s2.
72: (stronger) MORE IMPRESSIVE
73: (weaker) doing less work
74: (weaker) S1 speaks about an additional concept
75: (weaker) less evidence
76: (weaker) S2 removes justification of the statement.
51: (weaker) S1 provides more justification by referencing wang's classification.

S1: finally , we compute ground waves numerically by a constrained gradient flow .
S2: finally , we compute ground waves numerically by a suitable discretization of a constrained gradient flow .
53: (stronger) Shows that author knows what is suitable
54: (nochange) S2 seems to add information that may not be important to the overall meaning of this statement.
55: (stronger) a suitable discretization sounds more impressive.
56: (stronger) The suitable discretization of fragment makes S2 sound more impressive.
11: (nochange) Adding "by a suitable discretization of" adds more details to the sentence but otherwise doesn't seem to represent any real strength change.
57: (stronger) S2 gives more specific detail of the gradient flow with "a suitable discretization"
58: (stronger) S2 provides more detail and descriptive words "a suitable discretization of"
59: (stronger) "suitable discretization" is more specific, making S2 a stronger sentence
60: (stronger) adds justication

S1: our approach is rooted in algebraic statistics and therefore geometric in nature .
S2: our approach is rooted in algebraic statistics hence is geometric in nature .
53: (nochange) no change, equivalent meaning
54: (weaker) 'hence is' does not work here. Sounds bad.
55: (nochange) and therefore and hence means the same thing.
56: (nochange) The two sentences say the same thing, just with different words.
11: (nochange) The phrase "and therefore" and "hence is" are interchangeable and represent no real strength change.
57: (nochange) and therefore and hence is both sound like the say the same thing.
58: (nochange) Both S1 and S2 words have equal meaning there is no strength change.
59: (nochange) "and therefore" and "hence is" are equally strong
60: (weaker) s2 sounds less impressive

S1: we consider the particular class of [MATH] gravities coupled with yang - mills ( ym ) field in which the ricci scalar [MATH] constant .
S2: we consider the particular class of [MATH] gravities minimally coupled with yang - mills ( ym ) field in which the ricci scalar [MATH] constant in all dimensions [MATH] .
61: (stronger) "in all dimensions" makes it clear where the constant applies.
62: (stronger) Adds information.
63: (stronger) 'in all dimensions' specifies to what extent this information reaches.
64: (weaker) S2 offers more explanation and seems more impressive.
65: (stronger) Specifies in all dimensions.
51: (stronger) The phrase "in all dimensions" strengthens the sentence.
66: (stronger) explains it better
67: (weaker) The gravities being 'minimally' coupled with yang sounds less impressive with the initial phrasing, while 'in all dimensions' sounds more impressive - however, I erred on the side of caution and decided the word 'minimally' took away more than 'in all dimensions' added.
68: (stronger) S2 provides the degree to which coupling is done and also adds additional evidence - "in all dimensions" which strengthens the degree.

S1: we then prove that the ( real valued ) awgn channel capacity can be achieved by such a system exactly .
S2: we then prove that the ( real-valued ) awgn channel capacity can be achieved exactly by such a system .
9: (stronger) The revised sentence is more clear and correct.
10: (nochange) They both have similar terms
11: (nochange) Add a "-" between "real" and "valued" and changing the placement of the word "exactly" in the sentence are cosmetic changes and represents no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 is simply a cleanup of S1 to make it more grammatically correct. No change of meaning.
13: (nochange) hyphens do not contribute to strength change, the same goes for minor word reordering.
14: (nochange) These aren't generally stronger structural statements.
15: (nochange) No strength change.
16: (stronger) S2 sounds stronger because of the placement of exactly directly behind achieved. It seems to strengthen the achievement; R1.
17: (nochange) esssentially same

S1: we explore one essential ingredient of this problem , a computationally inexpensive low-latency filtering algorithm for detecting inspiral signals in gw data .
S2: we explore one essential ingredient of this problem , a computationally inexpensive latency free , real-time filtering algorithm for detecting inspiral signals in gw data .
18: (stronger) S2 is more impressive and descriptive, in the precise language of latency free and real time filtering.
19: (weaker) Low-latency does not mean latency free.
20: (stronger) A real-time latency-free operation is certainly more interesting than a mere low-latency operation.
21: (stronger) Elaborates on "low-latency", sounds more impressive.
22: (weaker) Following latency free with real-time is a redundant statement.
23: (stronger) Latency free is more assertive than low latency
24: (stronger) Additions to S2 give more details on the filtering algorithm
25: (stronger) "low-latency" is changed to "latency free, real time ". The degree is strengthened
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the main difference is that the singularities of the solution looked for are no longer confined to the negative real axis but are arranged in the half-plane of the negative real axis ( lhs half-plane ) .
S2: the main difference is that the singularities of the solution sought are no longer confined to the negative real axis but are arranged in the half-plane of the negative real axis ( lhs half-plane ) .
69: (nochange) Both "looked for" and "sought" are equally strong
70: (nochange) no change between looked for and sought
71: (stronger) Looked for is incorrect. Sought is a better word choice.
72: (stronger) looked for IS CHANGED TO sought WHICH STRENGTHEN THE SENTENCE
73: (nochange) just changing words
74: (nochange) sought and looked for are the same
75: (nochange) just a word change, no change in degree or meaning
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: the crank partition statistic , and other partition statistics , have gathered much interest lately .
S2: the crank partition statistic has gathered much interest recently .
53: (nochange) While the inclusion of "and other partition statistics" adds more information, it is very general, non specific and does not change or alter the argument of that statement.
54: (weaker) S2 is stronger through the inclusion of more information.
55: (weaker) Other partition statistics was removed from the sentence.
56: (weaker) S2 had important stats left out with the partition stats fragment.
11: (nochange) Removing "and other partition statistics" leads to the provision of less details but otherwise does not seem to weaken the sentence.
57: (weaker) S2 takes away the that other partition stats are included.
58: (weaker) S2 weakens S1 by removing justification by replacing "and other partition statistics" from S1.
59: (weaker) The removal of "and other partition statistics" removes detail that strengthens the sentence
60: (weaker) s1 conveys a larger number are involved

S1: the first serious sign that this may be not true came from the study of [MATH] supersymmetric gauge theories .
S2: the first serious sign that this may not be true came from the study of [MATH] supersymmetric gauge theories .
53: (nochange) the placement of not doesn't change the negative meaning of the sentence.
54: (stronger) 'May be not true' is awkward and needed reordered as in the case with S2.
55: (nochange) may be not true and may not be true means the same thing.
56: (nochange) Says the same thing just in a different order.
11: (stronger) Changing the placement of "not" actually creates a little bit more certainty and therefore makes the sentence sounds stronger.
57: (nochange) moving the words around be and not, do n.ot change the strength of either sentence
58: (nochange) S2 sounds better than S1 and is a clearer sentence "not" versus "may be not" but does not change the strength of the sentence.
59: (nochange) Both sentences are equally strong, just small variation on the wording
60: (nochange) grammatical rearrangement

S1: furthermore , with the minimum values of shear viscosity [MATH] in qgp imposed by the quantum limit , the local momentum shear , [MATH] , of the fluid , i.e. the local orbital angular momentum of interacting parton pairs , will decay with time .
S2: furthermore , with the minimum values of shear viscosity [MATH] in qgp imposed by the quantum limit , the local momentum shear , [MATH] , of the fluid , that is , the local oam of interacting parton pairs , will decay with time .
36: (nochange) oam simply is an abbreviation for "orbital angular momentum"
37: (nochange) terms are interchangeable. the first is clearer, but not stronger
38: (nochange) Rewords it, but it says the same thing.
39: (weaker) S2 abbreviates a term, so sounds weaker.
40: (nochange) Their is little difference between ie and that is. Oam is just an acronym for orbital angular momentum .
41: (weaker) Shortening "orbital angular momentum" to "oam" makes the statement less impressive. Changing "i.e." to "that is" makes no important difference.
42: (nochange) "i.e" is equal to "that is"
43: (nochange) Says the same thing. No change in strength
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: we find that longer-range interactions beyond nearest neighbor can influence the nature of the collective state and thus need to be included for a comprehensive picture .
S2: due to rkky-type sign oscillations in the interactions , we find that longer-range interactions beyond nearest neighbor can influence the collective state and thus need to be included for a comprehensive picture .
77: (stronger) specification
78: (stronger) S2 adds why they find longer-range interactions - it is due to the rkky oscilations that S2 mentions.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) Clarifies nature, strongly specific
81: (stronger) S2 shows the reason why we find longer range interactions.
82: (weaker) more strictly qualified claim
83: (stronger) Tells more about what happened
84: (stronger) There is the inclusion of additional justification in s2
68: (stronger) S2 - clear case of more evidence thereby more assertion

S1: the second-order exchange diagram ( i.e. a vertex correction ) is crucial to obtain a better spectral description of the plasmon peak and side-band peaks in comparison to [MATH] - like calculations .
S2: the second-order exchange diagram ( i.e. a vertex correction ) is also crucial to obtain the good spectral description of the plasmon satellites .
61: (weaker) "better" is stronger than "the good".
62: (stronger) The original has more information, and "better" is stronger than "good."
63: (weaker) s1 is more specific
64: (weaker) Everything is shortened to "satellites."
65: (weaker) "Good" is weaker than "better".
51: (stronger) The phrase "the good" implies an optimal spectral description, while the phrase "a better" implies that the description is merely improved, but is not yet optimal.
66: (weaker) not as much information
67: (weaker) Basically, compare / contrast 'better' with 'good.
68: (weaker) S1 provides a 'better' description whereas S2 weakens it.

S1: we prove the local well-posedness for the cauchy problem of korteweg-de vries equation in an almost periodic function space .
S2: we prove the local well-posedness for the cauchy problem of the korteweg-de vries equation in a quasi periodic function space .
0: (stronger) quasi is more impressive sounding than almost
1: (nochange) Doesn't change the statement
2: (stronger) S2 sounds stronger as the words 'an almost' as used in S1 have a weak impression, more so than 'quasi'.
3: (nochange) Basically the same meaning.
4: (stronger) almost makes it sound weaker
5: (stronger) they are mentioning a specific problem so it should state the before it, not make it sound general
6: (stronger) 'quasi' sounds more impressive than 'an almost'.
7: (stronger) "quasi" is more impressive than "almost".
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the aim is to demonstrate the full complexity of near-threshold phenomena .
S2: the aim is to demonstrate the full complexity of possible near-threshold phenomena .
0: (weaker) possible implies that it is not as certain
1: (weaker) Possible makes it sound like the researcher is not sure
2: (nochange) The addition of the word possible does not change the strength of the sentence.
3: (weaker) Possible makes it seem as the phenomena doesn't exist.
4: (weaker) Due to addition of possible
5: (nochange) It just adds the word possible which does not strengthen or weaken the sentence
6: (weaker) In S1 there is certainty, but in S2 the word 'possible' is added, making it uncertain therefore weaker.
7: (weaker) "possible" weakens the degree of certainty in S1.
8: (weaker) The word " possible" weakens the evidence

S1: in addition , data points are guaranteed to have a sparse representation in terms of the dictionary .
S2: in addition , data points are guaranteed to have a compressible representation in terms of the dictionary , depending on the assumptions on the geometry of the underlying probability distribution .
18: (stronger) S2 stronger due to elaboration, depending on the assumptions...
19: (stronger) Much more impressive.
20: (stronger) The second example justifies its compression based on the geometry of the distribution.
21: (weaker) S2 adds a significant amount of doubt by including "depending on the assumptions on the geometry of the underlying probability distribution"
22: (stronger) S2 is far better as it gives a reason for the compressible nature of the data points.
23: (stronger) Compressible is stronger than sparse and S2 adds extra justification
24: (weaker) The addition to S2 creates a less firm stance in the sentence
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: that is , [MATH] it follows that the cuntz semigroup of an [MATH] - absorbing c * - algebra is determined by the cone of its lower semicontinuous 2-quasitraces .
S2: since [MATH] is in bijection with the lower semicontinuous 2-quasitraces on [MATH] , it follows that the cuntz semigroup of an [MATH] - absorbing c * - algebra is determined by its cone of lower semicontinuous 2-quasitraces .
53: (stronger) evidence is added in S2
54: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive the way it is written.
55: (nochange) since and that is means the same thing.
56: (stronger) S2 adds more detail than S1 did.
11: (nochange) S2 just provides more details but otherwise represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) S2 gives more specific detail.
58: (stronger) Sentence 2 provides more clarification than sentence 1.
59: (stronger) You have more details in S2, therefor the sentence is stronger than S1
60: (stronger) also R3, more detail, explains more

S1: neutrinos always arrive earlier than photons by the same amount of time , once there exists a monopole on or close to their trajectories .
S2: no matter how far they travel , neutrinos always arrive earlier than photons by the same amount of time , provided a monopole existing on or close to their trajectories .
45: (stronger) the addition of "no matter how far they travel" sounds more certain
46: (stronger) "no matter how far they travel" is a definitive statement.
47: (stronger) This is a strong addition/clarification of the original point.
48: (stronger) There are more aspects to increase the degree of strength.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) The phrase "no matter how far they travel" strengthens the assertion and makes it sound more applicable (so also R3).
51: (nochange) I think that the changes are both semantic and focused on giving more details that are not necessary, other than to improve the sentence stylistically. The additional details do not impact the strength.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) S2 is a clearer statement

S1: we also show in general that vectors of products of jack vertex operators form a basis of symmetric functions .
S2: we also show in general that the images of products of jack vertex operators form a basis of symmetric functions .
0: (weaker) vectors sound more impressive than images
1: (weaker) Vectors sounds more impressive than images
2: (nochange) S2 uses 'the images' instead of vectors which does not strengthen or weaken the statement.
3: (nochange) No change.
4: (weaker) vectors is stronger than images
5: (weaker) sentence one is more specific
6: (weaker) I think 'vectors' sounds more impressive than 'the images'.
7: (weaker) "vectors" is stronger than "images".
8: (weaker) Weakens the evidence

S1: however , an origin for the formation of these unexpected species from non-equilibrium chemistry in the inner wind was soon proved a viable hypothesis by surveys of specific species in a large sample of objects showing the presence of these molecules close to the star , e.g. , sio ( sch " oier et al. 2006 ) .
S2: however , that these unexpected species could form by means of some non-equilibrium chemistry in the inner wind was soon found to be viable by surveys of specific species in a large sample of objects , e.g. , sio ( sch " oier et al. 2006 ) .
9: (weaker) "Proved" is a much stronger word than the phrase "found to be".
10: (stronger) s1 is more powerful
11: (weaker) The phrase "could form by means of some" is more uncertain and weakens the sentence. "found to be" is also weaker than "proved".
12: (weaker) 'proved' was replaced by 'found to be', which is less certain. Other fine details present in S1 were also omitted in S2.
13: (weaker) S1 includes more evidence justifying the specifics than S2 (r2)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because less is more, and S1 becomes more confusing with too many big words.
15: (weaker) "could" in S2 and "proved" changes to "found to be" make S2 weaker. R1
16: (weaker) R1, S1 proved a hypothesis, while S2 found to be viable. S1 sounds much stronger than S2.
17: (weaker) loses info to strengthen argument

S1: our analytic expression is compared to an independent calculation based on landauer approach with remarkably good agreement between the two methods .
S2: our analytic expression is confirmed using an independent calculation based on landauer approach and we find remarkably good agreement between the two methods .
45: (stronger) "confirmed" is much more impressive than "compared to"
46: (stronger) "confirmed" and "we find" are definitive statements.
47: (stronger) "Confirmed" is obviously considerably stronger than just "compared to."
48: (stronger) The term compared changed to confirmed adds more strength to the degree of aspect.
49: (nochange) Change in words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) Using the term "confirmed" makes the assertion seem more valid.
51: (stronger) "Confirmed" is stronger than "compared" because it specifies the outcome of a situation.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (stronger) Use of confirmed is stronger than compared to

S1: we will need the following three identities due to jacobi , gauss , and ramanujan respectively : [MATH] identities ( ) and ( ) can be found in and identity ( ) can be found in with a proof in .
S2: we will need the following three identities due to jacobi , gauss , and ramanujan respectively : [MATH] identities ( ) and ( ) can be found in hardy and wright and identity ( ) can be found in ramanujan with a proof in ewell .
27: (stronger) The addition of the sources was clearly intended in the original version, as they provide necessary support.
28: (stronger) clearly things missing from the first one
29: (stronger) S2 provides more clarifying information. By clarifying what it is found in and what the proof is in, the whole sentence gains more value and strength and is easier to understand.
30: (stronger) specific examples are provided
31: (stronger) adds evidence
32: (stronger) more specified information makes it strong
33: (stronger) S2 specifies exactly where the identities can be found.
34: (nochange) S2 just added the missing references.
35: (nochange) Simple addition of sources

S1: coarse-grained entropy can increase even when the fundamental quantum entropy is invariant , and is similar to an entanglement measure .
S2: coarse-grained entropy can increase even when the fundamental quantum entropy is invariant , and is a fundamental entanglement measure .
0: (stronger) defines it as a measure instead of including it among others
1: (cannottell) These sentences have two very different meanings
2: (stronger) S2 uses more direct language by stating that it is 'a fundamental' entanglement measure as opposed to being similar to an entanglement measure.
3: (stronger) Stronger language.
4: (stronger) implies likeness more than similar
5: (cannottell) the sentences appear to be stating different ideas- fundamental to my knowledge is exact and precise to something where as similar to is saying it is like something but is not entirely this...
6: (stronger) the wording in S2 is definitive, while sentence one describes it as similar.
7: (stronger) "fundamental" increases in degree form "similar to"
8: (stronger) Improves the value of the evidence

S1: let [MATH] be a smooth projective algebraic curve of genus [MATH] defined over a field [MATH] .
S2: let [MATH] be a smooth projective curve of genus [MATH] defined over a field [MATH] .
53: (nochange) algebraic does not change the meaning of the sentence, and does not really sound more impressive if added or omitted
54: (weaker) Algebraic makes S1 much more specific than S2.
55: (weaker) Sentence 2 removes the word algebraic.
56: (weaker) S1 had more detail saying it was an algebraic curve.
11: (nochange) Removing "algebraic" just removes a detail but otherwise represents no real strength change.
57: (weaker) algebraic makes S1 seem more informative and impressive
58: (weaker) S2 removed the descriptive aspects of S1 by removing "algebraic" therefore weakens sentence.
59: (weaker) Algebraic is key and S2 leaves that term out
60: (weaker) s2 weakens the statement by removing the detail of the type of curve

S1: demanding the solution be entirely free of singularities is a rather strong requirement and it is natural to expect that something weaker would be sufficient to resolve this , which is indeed the case .
S2: demanding a solution be entirely free of singularities is a rather strong requirement and it is natural to expect that something weaker would be suf/f/icient to guarantee the consistency of the b " acklund equations , which is indeed the case .
69: (stronger) While S1 suggests the requirement is to be resolved, S2 uses "guarantee the consistency" which brings to mind a sense of expectations across multiple trials rather than a simple fix.
70: (stronger) S2 is more specific
71: (weaker) strange misspellings and typos in s2. (s2 would actually be a stronger statement if typos were fixed)
72: (stronger) MORE IMRESSIVE
73: (stronger) refence to backlund equations
74: (stronger) S2 is more specific as to the type of consistency being discussed
75: (stronger) S2 gives specific evidence "guarantee the consistency of the B acklund equations."
76: (weaker) Changing resolve this to guarantee the consistency weakens the degree of this action.
51: (stronger) "Guarantee the consistency" in S2 is stronger than "resolve this" because it is more definitive and certain.

S1: given this correspondence , and the use of scale in [MATH] tv , morgan and vixie defined the flat norm with scale [MATH] of an oriented [MATH] - dimensional set [MATH] as [MATH] where [MATH] varies over [MATH] - dimensional sets , and [MATH] is the [MATH] - dimensional volume , used in place of mass .
S2: given this correspondence , and the use of scale in [MATH] tv , morgan and vixie defined the flat norm with scale [MATH] of an oriented [MATH] - dimensional set [MATH] as [MATH] where [MATH] varies over oriented [MATH] - dimensional sets , and [MATH] is the [MATH] - dimensional volume , used in place of mass .
61: (nochange) "oriented" simply adds a detail without providing additional support.
62: (nochange) Only slight specification.
63: (stronger) The second statement specifies which dimensional sets--the oriented ones.
64: (nochange) Oriented changes nothing.
65: (nochange) Merely specifies oriented, no strength change.
51: (nochange) This seems like a semantic revision that doesn't strengthen or weaken the statement.
66: (nochange) barely a difference
67: (nochange) A brief inclusion does not strengthen nor weaken the sentence.
68: (stronger) The word 'oriented' adds more evidence

S1: including the additional hopping terms leads to a larger mott phase in the case of trapped ions , and to a smaller mott phase in the case of the stripline resonators when compared to the original model with nearest-neighbor hopping only .
S2: including the additional hopping terms leads to a larger mott phase in the case of trapped ions , and to a smaller mott phase in the case of stripline resonators , compared to the original model with nearest-neighbor hopping only .
69: (nochange) simple grammatical fixes, no strength change.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (weaker) Language is more clear in s1.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES THE AND WHEN DOES NOT MAKE ANY EFFECT
73: (nochange) minor change
74: (weaker) Use of "the" makes it more specific
75: (nochange) just grammatical changes
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of a grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not change the strength of the statement.

S1: when we compare the results for the same star formation history , laes at [MATH] are dustier and show higher instantaneous sfrs than [MATH] laes , while the observed stellar masses of the two samples seem consistent .
S2: when we compare the results for the same star formation history , typical laes at [MATH] appear dustier and show higher instantaneous sfrs than [MATH] laes , while the observed stellar masses of the two samples seem consistent .
18: (weaker) The word typical adds nothing significant and the word appear dustier is weaker than are dustier.
19: (stronger) Small changes, but second line sound much more impressive.
20: (weaker) The second sentence does not guarantee that the samples shall indeed become dustier. As such, it's a weaker statement.
21: (weaker) The use of "typical" and "appear" instills doubt upon the reader.
22: (weaker) Typical adds nothing to the statement, and saying appear instead of are robs the statement of any finality.
23: (weaker) are is more certain and gives a stronger meaning than typical and appear
24: (weaker) Typical and appear make the writer appear less sure and firm in their statement
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (weaker) Weakens by updating the word "Appear"

S1: we will end section 2 by exploring some consequences of these relationships between the models .
S2: we will end sec . 2 by exploring some consequences of these relationships between the models .
36: (nochange) s2 simply has an abbreviation of section
37: (nochange) terms interchangeable
38: (nochange) These words are the same.
39: (weaker) The abbreviation just seems weaker.
40: (nochange) The only difference is an abbreviation.
41: (nochange) Abbreviating "section" to "sec." does not change the strength of the statement.
42: (weaker) there is no need to abbreviate "section" in S2, it comes across as lazy
43: (nochange) No strength change, just change in an abbreviation.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: one of these criteria is implemented numerically for the case of the fermi -- pasta -- ulam system , and we find indications which might suggest a sub -- exponentially decay for such a system .
S2: one of these criteria is implemented numerically for the case of the fermi-pasta-ulam system , and we find indications which might suggest a sub-exponential decay of the time autocorrelation of a relevant dynamical variable .
18: (stronger) Stronger language in S2 sub-expotential opposed to S1 sub -- expotentially. Plus S2 describes the system referred to in S1 in detail.
19: (stronger) Looks cleaner and adds justification.
20: (stronger) Yes, the second sentence provides a much more fascinating description of its system than the first one does.
21: (stronger) S2 elaborates on what the system in s1 is, making it sound stronger.
22: (stronger) S2 is stronger on two fronts. Single hyphens are less jarring to the eye. More importantly, defining the fermi-pasta-ulam system adds important information.
23: (nochange) S2 only adds some details
24: (stronger) S2 adds more specific information to the statement
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we found that the level of the annihilation flux in these targets is well below the sensitivities of current iacts and the future cta .
S2: we find that the level of the annihilation flux from these targets is below the sensitivities of current iacts and the future cta .
36: (weaker) well below is sronger than below
37: (stronger) active tense is stronger
38: (weaker) The word "well" makes the assertion sound stronger.
39: (weaker) Removing "well" weakens the assertion.
40: (weaker) The elimination of the term "well" makes S2 weaker.
41: (stronger) The use of "well below" is weaker than simply "below" thus the new version is stronger.
42: (weaker) "found" implies foregone fact, "well" adds stregnth
43: (weaker) S1 uses "well" to describe below which makes the statement sound more significant. Thus, S2 is weaker for not including this adjective.
44: (weaker) "well below" is stronger than "below", everything else doesn't change in strength.

S1: we test this idea on both diluted models ( random [MATH] - sat and [MATH] - sat problems ) and fully-connected model ( binary perceptron ) , and show that when the constraint density is small , this upper bound can be very close to the true value .
S2: we test this idea on both diluted models ( random [MATH] - sat and [MATH] - sat problems ) and fully-connected model ( binary perceptron ) , and show that when the constraint density is small , this estimate can be very close to the true value .
45: (weaker) "upper bound" sounds better than "estimate"
46: (weaker) "bound" implies a strict standard while "estimate" is more nebulous.
47: (weaker) "Upper bound" implies a kind of definiteness that "estimate" lacks.
48: (nochange) The change in term doesn't make any change in strength.
49: (weaker) S1 provides a specific relation of the estimate.
50: (weaker) "Estimate" is weaker than "upper bound".
51: (weaker) The word "estimate" is less definitive than the words "upper bound."
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (weaker) 'upper bound' seems to be better than an estimate.

S1: following a procedure that already appeared in , , , we note that [MATH] carries a vector bundle of rank [MATH] with canonical determinant and unexpectedly many global sections : for a curve [MATH] and [MATH] as above , there exists a globally generated vector bundle [MATH] on [MATH] with [MATH] and [MATH] , sitting in an exact sequence [MATH] and satisfying the condition [MATH] when [MATH] the rank [MATH] bundle [MATH] constructed in theorem is well-known and plays an essential role in .
S2: following a procedure that already appeared in , , , we note that [MATH] carries a vector bundle of rank [MATH] with canonical determinant and unexpectedly many global sections : for a curve [MATH] and [MATH] as above there exists a globally generated vector bundle [MATH] on [MATH] with [MATH] and [MATH] , expressible as an extension [MATH] satisfying the condition [MATH] if moreover [MATH] and [MATH] , then the above extension is non-trivial . when [MATH] the rank [MATH] bundle [MATH] constructed in theorem is well-known and plays an essential role in .
18: (weaker) S1 sitting in an exact sequence is more descriptive and impressive than the S2 expressible as an extension and unnecessary language that the above extension is non-trivial.
19: (stronger) More justification is better.
20: (stronger) Specificity emerges in the second example.
21: (stronger) S2 adds in two more mathematical examples, elaborating upon their claims.
22: (stronger) S2 is more impressive in that it defines the extension as non-trivial. This lends a sense of importance to the statement.
23: (weaker) expressible as and extension are less strong compared to sitting in and exact sequence.
24: (stronger) Use of non-trivial lends importance to S2
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we use a simple fragmentation model to describe the statistical behavior of the voronoi cell patterns generated by a set of points in 1d and in 2d .
S2: we use a simple fragmentation model to describe the statistical behavior of the voronoi cell patterns generated by a homogeneous and isotropic set of points in 1d and in 2d .
0: (stronger) description of points is more impressive
1: (stronger) Adds important information
2: (nochange) S2 adds detail about the set of points but does not strengthen or weaken the sentence.
3: (stronger) detailed evidence
4: (nochange) adds additional info
5: (stronger) it provides further details and terminology
6: (stronger) S2 adds descriptive detail that S1 is lacking.
7: (stronger) S2 specifies the set of points used.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: in the unconstrained setting , we show that as the codeword length ( dimension ) [MATH] grows , the gap to the highest achievable nld is inversely proportional ( to the first order ) to the square root of the block length . we give an explicit expression for the proportion constant , which is given by the inverse q-function of the allowed error probability , times the square root of [MATH] .
S2: when the error probability is fixed , we show that as [MATH] grows , the gap to capacity is inversely proportional ( up to the first order ) to the square-root of [MATH] where the proportion constant is given by the inverse q-function of the allowed error probability , times the square root of [MATH] .
69: (weaker) "the highest achievable nld" defines a specific capacity that is much more impressive than simply saying "capacity"
70: (weaker) S1 gives more detail
71: (stronger) s2 is more concise (easier to read) without losing the important detail.
72: (stronger) MORE EFFECTIVE
73: (weaker) the first one better describes what is being measured, codeword length and block length.
74: (weaker) S1 offers more support and evidence
75: (weaker) S1 has more evidence
76: (weaker) S2 removes justification of the statement
51: (weaker) "Explicit expression" in S1 makes sentence appear more certain, and therefore more impressive.

S1: a sample of what can be obtained will be presented in proposition .
S2: a sample of what can be obtained is presented in proposition .
61: (stronger) "is" is more definitive.
62: (stronger) "Is" is more direct than "will be."
63: (nochange) these do not change the quality of presented information
64: (stronger) Will be is weaker than Is.
65: (nochange) Just a grammatical change.
51: (stronger) "Is" implies a greater degree of certainty than "will be," which indicates a future prospect, but not a concrete current reality.
66: (stronger) 'is' is a stronger word
67: (stronger) 'Is' is a stronger declaration than 'will be'.
68: (stronger) S2 says that the sample is provided now, whereas S1 says it ll provide one in the future..

S1: chiral effective field theory can provide valuable insight into the chiral physics of hadrons when used in conjunction with non-perturbative schemes such as lattice qcd .
S2: chiral effective field theory can provide valuable insight into the chiral physics of hadrons when used in conjunction with non-perturbative schemes such as lattice quantum chromodynamics ( qcd ) .
69: (nochange) S2 simply expanded on an abbreviation, which does not change the strength of the assertion.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) Quantum chromodynamics is stronger than QCD, assuming the reader is unfamiliar with the abbreviation.
72: (nochange) ONLY EXPANSION AND NO CHANGES IN THE SENTANCE
73: (nochange) spelling out abbreviations
74: (stronger) S2 is slightly stronger because it tells what qcd is an abbreviation for
75: (nochange) just adds detail
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion.
51: (nochange) S1 uses an abbreviation, while S2 uses the full phrase. This change does not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: the system was discovered by belokurov et al. ( 2007 ) in the sloan digital sky survey data release 5 ( dr5 ) .
S2: the system was discovered by belokurov et al. ( 2007 ) in the sloan digital sky survey data release 5 ( dr5 , adelman-mccarthy et al. , 2007 ) .
69: (nochange) S2 simply adds an expanded references which does not change the scope of the claim before it.
70: (stronger) specifies a citation
71: (stronger) adelman-mccarthy et al in s2 gives reader more supporting information.
72: (nochange) adelman-mccarthy et al. , 2007 CREATES NO CHANGE
73: (stronger) more reference
74: (stronger) S2 adds a citation
75: (stronger) adds evidence
76: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence to the sentence.
51: (stronger) S2 references an additional study, which provides more justification, making S2 stronger than S1.

S1: a [MATH] - exchange system is a hereditary ( i.e. non-empty and downward-closed ) set system [MATH] on ground set [MATH] that additionally satisfies the following properties : [ ] a hereditary system [MATH] is a [MATH] - exchange system if , for all [MATH] and [MATH] in [MATH] , there exists a multiset [MATH] , containing a subset [MATH] of [MATH] for each element [MATH] , that satisfies : [ itemsep = 0em , topsep = 0.5 em , leftmargin = 0.65 in , label = ( k * ) ] [MATH] for each [MATH] .
S2: the class of [MATH] - exchange systems satisfy the following additional property : [ [MATH] - exchange system ] a hereditary system [MATH] is a [MATH] - exchange system if , for all [MATH] and [MATH] in [MATH] , there exists a multiset [MATH] , containing a subset [MATH] of [MATH] for each element [MATH] , that satisfies : [ itemsep = 0em , topsep = 0.5 em , leftmargin = 0.65 in , label = ( k * ) ] [MATH] for each [MATH] .
18: (weaker) S1 elaborates on a hereditary system, with added the example of non-empty and downward-closed.
19: (weaker) Second line lacks the evidence and explanation of the first.
20: (weaker) They're both correct, but the second version disappoints in comparison to the thrilling first.
21: (weaker) S2 removes evidence that elaborates on what a hereditary system is in S1
22: (weaker) S1 gives more valuable information in defining the parameters of the exchange system.
23: (nochange) S2 omits some extra details
24: (weaker) S2 eliminates specific information that elaborates on a principle in the statement
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: as an immediate consequence we observe that the motive of a split reductive group is mixed tate .
S2: as a consequence of this discussion we observe that the motive of a split reductive group is mixed tate .
9: (weaker) Revision is no clearer, just wordier.
10: (weaker) s1 has more grandiose words
11: (weaker) Adding "of this discussion" makes it sound less scientific and therefore makes the sentence sound weaker.
12: (stronger) Neither sentence is more specific than the other, but S2 clarifies the cause for the consequence being talked about.
13: (stronger) 'of this discussion' makes S2 sound more impressive and justified (R3)
14: (weaker) S2 is a weaker statement and "of this discussion" because the word "consequence" doesn't pair well with it. A stronger sentence would be "as a result of this discussion."
15: (weaker) "an immediate" makes sentence stronger. R1
16: (weaker) "immediate consequence" in S1 sounds more important and impressive than S2 and strengthens the sentence; R3.
17: (weaker) first is more direct

S1: special thanks go to aljo sa vol ci c for an inspiring discussion of his results on steiner symmetrization , which provided the original motivation for our work .
S2: special thanks go to aljo sa vol ci c for an inspiring discussion of his results on steiner symmetrization that provided the original motivation for our work , and to bob jerrard for pointing out an error in an earlier version of eq . ( ) .
27: (stronger) The question of strength is perhaps not applicable to making acknowledgements, but as much as it does, including another person and their contribution is giving another line of support.
28: (stronger) Nice to thank more people
29: (stronger) The extra information in S2 makes the whole sentence have more strength and communication value.
30: (stronger) adds more information
31: (stronger) justified the assertion
32: (weaker) less impressive
33: (stronger) Adds the thanks for Bob Jerrard.
34: (weaker) The addition of the part about a prior error adds uncertainty, makes you think there may be more errors.
35: (stronger) "that" is stronger than which and bob jerrard is new evidence

S1: formally , this effect is expressed as the factorization of a cross section or decay width .
S2: formally , this effect is expressed quantitatively as the factorization of a cross section or decay width .
27: (nochange) "quantitatively" just adds detail, which could probably already be assumed from "factorization"
28: (stronger) Adding quantitative makes it osund more professional
29: (stronger) "Quantitatively" better emphasizes how it is expressed.
30: (stronger) Sounds more impressive
31: (stronger) it justified the statement
32: (nochange) no effective strength change.
33: (stronger) The added word in S2 seems to clarify the statement just the slightest bit better.
34: (stronger) Quantitatively adds another dimension to the description
35: (stronger) "quantitatively" shows there is real evidence for the effect

S1: therefore , in a medium with [MATH] we expect a parametrically large correction to the medium-induced [MATH] - broadening in perturbative qcd from radiation .
S2: therefore , we expect a parametrically large correction from radiation to the medium-induced [MATH] - broadening in perturbative qcd .
18: (nochange) In a medium [MATH] adds an insignificant difference.
19: (weaker) Less justification in the second line.
20: (weaker) Again, S2 lacks a justification that S1 includes: in this case, it's the [MATH] medium.
21: (weaker) S2 removes an explanation of what the medium contains.
22: (weaker) S1 is more specific in defining the parameters in which large corrections will be seen.
23: (weaker) S2 takes out justification from S1
24: (nochange) The only real difference is a rearrangement of where "from radiation" is in the sentence
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: in this paper we will consider the contributions to she and sne due to intrinsic spin-orbit interaction only .
S2: in this paper we consider the contributions to she and sne due to the intrinsic spin-orbit interaction only .
18: (stronger) S1 is weaker. As a general rule to be verbs, such as will, weaken a sentence. Consider is stronger that will consider. Present tense is also preferable.
19: (nochange) Both lines are pretty much the same in strength and message.
20: (nochange) Nothing much was swapped around here.
21: (nochange) Grammatical errors
22: (nochange) Neither statement is stronger than the other. Either statement works for its purpose.
23: (stronger) omitting will makes S2 stronger by showing that the work has already been done
24: (nochange) Removal of will doesn't change strength and the is only a grammatical change
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidences

S1: in the following , we use flag measures of convex bodies to show that a formula generalizing mv3 holds with grassmannians replaced by certain flag manifolds , associated with given convex bodies [MATH] .
S2: in the following , we use flag measures of convex bodies to show that a formula generalizing mv3 holds with grassmannians replaced by certain flag manifolds , associated with the given convex bodies [MATH] and [MATH] , respectively .
36: (nochange) no change
37: (stronger) adds a second part to the scope
38: (nochange) This is only a grammar correction.
39: (stronger) S2 gives two supportive math structures which seems a stronger assertion.
40: (nochange) There are minor differences between the two sentences that do not affect strength.
41: (stronger) The addition of an extra math example strengthens the statement.
42: (stronger) S2 adds evidence
43: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence which strengthens the statement.
44: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence in the end.

S1: for massless theories , we calculate the scalar energy flux in the test-particle , teukolsky formalism to all orders in post-newtonian theory and fit it to a high-order post-newtonian expansion .
S2: for massless theories and quasi-circular orbits , we calculate the scalar energy flux in the test-particle , teukolsky formalism to all orders in post-newtonian theory and fit it to a high-order post-newtonian expansion .
45: (stronger) adds quasi-circular orbits, more evidence in the work
46: (nochange) The addition of "quasi-circular orbits" gives more information but no strength to the argument.
47: (nochange) This is an elaboration, but it isn't stronger, because it doesn't justify anything or offer evidence.
48: (stronger) Quasi circular orbits adds more strength to the sentence.
49: (stronger) Adds more evidence to the argument.
50: (stronger) S2 adds an extra type of science that the assertion works in.
51: (stronger) There is another additional relevant aspect in S2.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement, it just adds more info.

S1: we prove the identity [MATH] for any prime [MATH] different from [MATH] and any positive integer [MATH] prime to [MATH] , which was conjectured in .
S2: we first prove the identity [MATH] for any prime [MATH] different from [MATH] and any positive integer [MATH] prime to [MATH] , which was conjectured in .
69: (stronger) the addition of "first" suggests that there is more to the proof to be described later.
70: (stronger) first indicates there was more proven
71: (stronger) "First prove" shows process better.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGE BECAUSE OF FIRST
73: (stronger) looks like there will be other proofs as well
74: (nochange) adding "first" does not add support, just sets it up for the next idea.
75: (nochange) just an extra detail
76: (stronger) First implies that there were many more to follow which increases the evidence.
51: (stronger) The addition of the word "first" makes S2 sound like it is introducing the first step in a complex process, which makes the statement sound more impressive.

S1: one of the most important points is the limitations of the test particle approximation which their calculation relies upon .
S2: one of the most important points is the limitations of the test particle approximation upon which their calculation relies .
0: (nochange) either way, the approximation is dependent on the calculation
1: (stronger) Just sounds better
2: (stronger) S2 reads easier than S1, when a reader has to re-read a statement it can decrease the strength of the sentence. With S2, there was no reason to re-read as the point is made with a more clear sentence.
3: (stronger) Sounds stronger.
4: (stronger) better to have upon in the sentence rather than at the end
5: (stronger) The first sentence ends with a preposition which is incorrect
6: (nochange) They use the same words, just in a different order, therefore the strength does not change.
7: (stronger) S2 has correct sentence structure.
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: in the current paper we discover several variants of qd algorithms for quasiseparable matrices .
S2: in the current paper we adapt several variants of qd algorithms to quasiseparable matrices .
53: (stronger) discover means find, but adapt means implement or apply. the meanings for the two sentences are actually very different, but S2 is stronger in an active sense. Therefore adapt is a stronger word than discover
54: (cannottell) They are each saying something different, but S1 might be stronger in that they are not 'adapting' the algorithms, but discovering ones that already work or are 'for.'
55: (cannottell) I'm not sure if adapt strengthens or weakens the sentence.
56: (cannottell) The words mean different things but are not any stronger or weaker.
11: (stronger) "discover" is a very passive term while "adapt" is a very active term, therefore the change makes the sentence sound stronger.
57: (stronger) in S2 Adapt is stronger than just the word discover. adapt implies more of a proactive measure.
58: (stronger) S1 "discover" provides a finding whereas "adapt" sounds more secure as saying that something has been accepted and implemented.
59: (stronger) S2 tell us what they are doing, S1 suggests
60: (stronger) s2 sounds as if they're doing something with specifics already, rather than hunting for a way to do it

S1: as the purpose of this article is to survey and review , we make precise statements but provide only heuristic arguments with indications of the technical complexities necessary to make such arguments rigorous .
S2: as the purpose of this article is to survey and review , we make precise statements but provide only heuristic arguments with indications of the technical complexities necessary to make such arguments mathematically rigorous .
53: (nochange) mathematically does not add or remove info, same
54: (stronger) 'Mathematically' most likely greatly clarifies the style of arguments that are meant to rigorous and would strengthen the statement.
55: (stronger) mathematically rigorous adds to the sentence.
56: (stronger) I think stressing that the arguments are mathematically rigorous makes S2 stronger.
11: (nochange) Adding the word "mathematically" adds more details but otherwise represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) S2 sounds like it is giving more evidence of calculations being done.
58: (nochange) S2 added "mathematically" which did not change sentence strength.
59: (stronger) Adding "mathematically" adds detail and makes S2 a stronger statement
60: (stronger) adds details, specifics

S1: for undirected graphs , we will show that one can decide whether [MATH] admits an orientation [MATH] with [MATH] in [MATH] time ; hence this decision problem is fixed parameter tractable , which answers an open question from .
S2: for undirected graphs , we will show that one can decide whether [MATH] admits an orientation [MATH] with [MATH] in [MATH] time ; hence this decision problem is fixed-parameter tractable , which answers an open question from dorn et al. [ amb ' 11 ] .
69: (nochange) change in hyphenation and reference, no change in strength.
70: (stronger) gives specific evidence
71: (stronger) fixed-parameter is better and "dorn et al." reference helps underscore the answer statement in s2.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE SENTANCE
73: (stronger) adds a reference
74: (stronger) S2 adds a citation
75: (stronger) S2 has justification/evidence that S1 lacks
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of the statement.
51: (stronger) S2 cites a specific study, which provides more justification.

S1: consequently , when the isaacs ' condition is satisfied , the upper and lower value functions coincide , leading to the existence of the value function .
S2: consequently , when the isaacs ' condition is satisfied , the upper and lower value functions coincide , leading to the existence of the value function of the differential game .
69: (stronger) S2 includes the line "of the differential game" which adds to the specificity of the claim.
70: (stronger) S2 more specific
71: (stronger) of the differential gain adds important detail.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGE IN MEANING
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (stronger) S2 specifies the type of value function
75: (nochange) just added details
76: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence.
51: (nochange) The additional phrase in S2 provides more specific detail and clarifies the statement a bit, but ultimately does not provide more evidence or change the degree of strength.

S1: for such kind of high energy transients , their isotropic-equivalent energy ( [MATH] ) can be reliably measured and may be more scientifically meaningful when compared with grb isotropic-equivalent luminosity function ( [MATH] ) as well as cosmic grb formation rate , as the traditional luminosity function refers to steady emission much longer than a few thousand seconds .
S2: for such kind of high energy transients , their isotropic-equivalent-energy ( [MATH] ) function may be more scientifically meaningful when compared with grb isotropic-equivalent-luminosity function ( [MATH] ) , as the traditional luminosity function refers to steady emission much longer than a few thousand seconds .
27: (weaker) Loss of a line of evidence with deletion of "as well as cosmic grb formation rate". The change of "can be reliably measured" to "function" also eliminates a line of support, which is how reliably the isotropic-equivalent energy is known.
28: (nochange) seems similar
29: (weaker) S1 provides so much more information that adds strength to it by showing the increased importance of the object/event being discussed. There is more descriptive information about it and it therefore seems more valuable and thus the whole sentence is stronger.
30: (weaker) less information given in this example
31: (nochange) almost same
32: (nochange) no strength is changed by removing a piece of information.
33: (weaker) S1 seems to have more information on the measuring of the isotropic-equivalent energy and makes more sense.
34: (weaker) "can be reliably measured" adds strength to S1 over S2 (R1) and "as well as cosmic grb formation rate" adds more evidence to the assertion (R2).
35: (weaker) "can be reliably..." is further evidence that it is useful

S1: a particularly attractive implementation of the idea of supersymmetry , with soft supersymmetry breaking terms generated by supergravity , is the minimal supersymmetric standard model ( mssm ) obtained by introducing the supersymmetric partners of the of the sm states , and introducing an additional higgs doublet , with opposite hypercharge to that of the sm higgs doublet , in order to cancel the gauge anomalies and generate masses for all the fermions of the standard model .
S2: the simplest implementation of the idea of low energy broken supersymmetry is the minimal supersymmetric standard model ( mssm ) obtained by introducing the supersymmetric partners of the sm states , and introducing an additional higgs doublet with opposite hypercharge to that of sm higgs doublet , in order to cancel the gauge anomalies and generate masses for all the fermions of the standard model , with soft supersymmetry breaking terms generated by a suitable supersymmetry breaking mechanism .
69: (stronger) "particularly attractive" was changed to the more concrete "simplest." "generated by supergravity" seems less impressive than "generated by a suitable supersymmetry breaking mechanism."
70: (weaker) particularly attractive > simplest
71: (stronger) Language is more effective and detailed in s2.
72: (weaker) WEAKENS THE SENTENCE
73: (weaker) simplest is weaker than particularly attractive
74: (stronger) S2 suggests that the idea is the simplest, S1 states it is just an attractive option
75: (stronger) S2 says "the simplest" rather than just "a particularly attractive"
76: (stronger) S2 provides more justification to the process
51: (stronger) "A particularly attractive implementation" is stronger than "the simplest implementation," which implies that the implementation is not as fully developed or complex as it could be.

S1: the slightly squarish electron pockets at [MATH] momenta produce leading interpocket nesting instability at incommensurate vector [MATH] in the normal state static susceptibility , pinning a strong stripe-like spin-density wave ( sdw ) or antiferromagnetic ( afm ) order at some critical value of [MATH] .
S2: the slightly squarish electron pocket fermi surfaces at [MATH] momenta produce leading interpocket nesting instability at incommensurate vector [MATH] in the normal state static susceptibility , pinning a strong stripe-like spin-density wave or antiferromagnetic order at some critical value of [MATH] .
69: (stronger) S2 adds clarification for what type of electron pockets are being analyzed.
70: (stronger) specifies the surfaces
71: (stronger) Language in s2 is more clear
72: (stronger) LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (stronger) S2 is more specific as to the type of electron pockets
75: (nochange) Details are added, but no more justification or evidence
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
51: (nochange) "Pocket fermi surfaces" is a more specific term, but does not ultimately affect the strength of the statement. Also, in S1 the items in parentheses are just abbreviations of the terms used, which also do not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: semidefinite programming is often used to enforce this constraint , but does not scale well and easy to implement .
S2: semidefinite programming is often used to enforce this constraint , but does not scale well and is not easy to implement .
53: (stronger) is not adds evidence/justification as the meaning changes
54: (stronger) S1 needs the 'is not' from S2 to make sense.
55: (stronger) S2 says that it's not easy to implement.
56: (nochange) The two sentences basically say the same thing. S2 was a little bit smoother.
11: (stronger) Adding "is not" makes the sentence more grammatically correct and therefore sounds stronger.
57: (nochange) is not seems to change the meaning of the sentence, but doesn't seem to strengthen or weaken
58: (nochange) There is no strength change by S2 adding "is not" to it's sentence.
59: (stronger) "is not" is a critical piece of information that S1 leaves out
60: (stronger) s2 seems be adding something absolutely crucial

S1: it is shown that the master equations associated with the minimal coupling and the multipolar hamiltonians predict enormous stationary state narrowband photon emission rates in the absence of external driving for current experiments with single quantum dots and colour centres in diamond .
S2: it is shown that the master equations associated with the minimal coupling and the multipolar hamiltonians predict enormous stationary state narrowband photon emission rates , even in the absence of external driving , for current experiments with single quantum dots and colour centers in diamond .
61: (stronger) Centers/centres is just a spelling change, but adding "even" strengthens the degree of the prediction.
62: (stronger) "Even" makes the assertion more impressive.
63: (nochange) the phrases were fundamentally the same, even with the additions.
64: (stronger) More specific.
65: (nochange) Only a spelling change.
51: (stronger) The addition of the word "even" implies a greater degree of accomplishment in the face of adversity.
66: (stronger) better readability with comma
67: (nochange) Switching between a US and UK based standard doesn't impact the strength of the sentence; likewise, neither does the inclusion of 'even'.
68: (stronger) S2 stresses the condition - "even in the absence of external driving"

S1: by doing so , we are able to capture the best matching barenblatt solution and get improved decay rates in the entropy - entropy production inequality .
S2: by doing so , we will be able to capture the best matching barenblatt solution and get improved decay rates in the entropy - entropy production inequality .
27: (weaker) Using the future tense indicates that the statement is speculative and not a result that has been achieved before.
28: (weaker) More concrete in the first; changing to will be sounds less certain
29: (weaker) saying that you are able, is stronger than you "will be able".
30: (weaker) The first provides evidence while the second claims that there "will be"
31: (nochange) does not make much except for the change in verb
32: (nochange) the change of are into will be doesn't change the strength.
33: (weaker) 'Will be,' is more passive than, 'are.'
34: (nochange) Merely a change in tense
35: (weaker) "will be" is more passive than "are"

S1: excluded volume interactions by the inert particles hinder the diffusive motion of reactants .
S2: in general , excluded volume interactions by the inert particles slow down the diffusive motion of reactants .
27: (weaker) "in general" qualifies the claim of the original, suggesting that it might not always hold true. The change of "hinder" to "slow down" does not seem to make a difference.
28: (stronger) more specific
29: (weaker) "in general" weakens the phrase as a whole.
30: (weaker) hinder sounds more impressive than "slow down"
31: (stronger) sounds more impressive
32: (stronger) the specific reason make it stronger.
33: (weaker) 'Hinder' makes S1 sounds more concise.
34: (weaker) "in general" makes the assertion weaker and changing "hinder" to "slow down" is also a weaker assertion as hinder is usually closer to "stop" than "slow down"
35: (weaker) "hinder" is more impressive than "slow down"

S1: the last two applications require working over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero .
S2: the last two applications require working over an algebraically closed field ( assumed to be of characteristic zero for certain statements ) .
18: (weaker) S1 is more definite and stronger. S2 appears weaker with the addition of the assumed to be language.
19: (stronger) Second line sounds more impressive. More... academic?
20: (weaker) Now, after the sentence swap, characteristic zero is no longer certain.
21: (weaker) in S2 the word "assumed" implies some doubt.
22: (stronger) The addendum in S2 adds a margin for error and is therefore more accurate than S1.
23: (weaker) The additions in S2 make is weaker
24: (weaker) Additions to S2 create a less firm statement
25: (weaker) "Assumed to" weakens the degree and allows exceptions
26: (stronger) More detailed evience

S1: we will give explicit estimates for and a fast algorithm for computing these constants , which are then applied to proving theorems and .
S2: in particular , we will give explicit estimates for these constants needed for proving theorems and .
0: (weaker) algorithms are impressive
1: (weaker) Just sounds better
2: (stronger) S2 is more direct and to the point and uses stronger words such as ' needed' and 'in particular'
3: (weaker) S1 has fast algorithm.
4: (weaker) removes justification
5: (weaker) it is taking away one of the things they would provide
6: (stronger) 'in particular' gives S2 emphasis and S1 does not even sound grammatically correct.
7: (weaker) S1 contains a reference to the algorithm used in the work.
8: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence

S1: for a given game the ultimate goal is to find out what is its optimal worst-case ( minimax ) regret and design an algorithm that achieves it .
S2: for a given game , the ultimate goal is to find out its optimal worst-case ( minimax ) regret , and design an algorithm that achieves it .
61: (nochange) Just a grammatical change.
62: (nochange) Change in wording only.
63: (stronger) s2 is more precise
64: (stronger) What is its sounds grammatically incorrect.
65: (nochange) Simple grammatical change.
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not affect the strength of the sentence.
66: (stronger) grammatically correct
67: (nochange) S1 is slightly more complete, but the slightly less complete version in S2 still doesn't seem any stronger/weaker. It's 50/50.
68: (nochange) There is absolutely nothing different in what the two statements convey

S1: both and discuss the possibility that the yellow supergiant is instead the binary companion to the sn ,2011 dh progenitor star .
S2: both and and discuss the possibility that the yellow supergiant is instead the binary companion to the sn ,2011 dh progenitor star .
69: (nochange) grammatical error, no strength change
70: (weaker) S2 gramatically incorrect
71: (weaker) repeat of "and" is incorrect in s2.
72: (nochange) NO CHANGE IN MEANING
73: (nochange) redundant addition of word "and"
74: (weaker) S2 adds an unnecessary "and"
75: (nochange) just grammatical corrections
76: (nochange) S2 does not ahve any change in statement except a grammatical error.
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: the calculation of numerical invariants relies on a close examination of the relevant quotient singularity in characteristic [MATH] .
S2: the calculation of numerical invariants relies on a close examination of the relevant wild quotient singularity in characteristic [MATH] .
53: (stronger) the addition of wild in S2 is a modifier/qualifier of the quotient and therefore adds evidence
54: (stronger) Gives more details (wild) on the type of relevant quotient.
55: (stronger) The word wild strengthens the sentence.
56: (stronger) S2 clarified the quotient singularity.
11: (nochange) Add "wild" to the sentence simply adds a detail and represents no strength change.
57: (nochange) wild just give more detail doesn't strengthen.
58: (nochange) S2 contains a word "wild" that S1 doesn't and it does not add or take away from S1. therefore it has no strength change.
59: (stronger) by adding "wild" to quotient you have a more detailed idea of what they are referring to
60: (stronger) s2 points out the quotient is wild, strengthens is variability

S1: in these papers the main assumptions for well-posedness in [MATH] is : there exist [MATH] and [MATH] such that [MATH] a condition of this type will be called the classical stochastic parabolicity condition .
S2: in these papers the main assumption for the well-posedness in [MATH] is : there exist [MATH] and [MATH] such that [MATH] this condition will be called the classical stochastic parabolicity condition .
9: (stronger) The idea of plural assumptions seems weaker.
10: (stronger) s2 is more specific
11: (stronger) By changing "assumptions" to "assumption" and adding "the" and also changing "a condition of this type" into simply just "this". this makes the sentence sounds more certain and therefore stronger.
12: (nochange) The meaning has not changed; the sentence was simply cleaned up to be more readable and grammatically correct
13: (nochange) There is hardly any strength change as the sentences are very similar, bar only placement changes
14: (nochange) I think these are equally strong because of their wording.
15: (nochange) No strength changes.
16: (nochange) None of R1-R3 applies. Only minor words are altered, and they don't change the meaning of S2.
17: (nochange) Both essentially saying exact same thing

S1: a hierarchy in stopping of fragments , which favors heavy fragments to penetrate , provides a robust restriction on the global trend of stopping and could serve as a probe of nuclear equation of state .
S2: a hierarchy in stopping of fragments , which favors heavy fragments to penetrate , provides a robust restriction on the global trend of nuclear stopping and could serve as a probe for nuclear equation of state .
45: (nochange) the addition of nuclear and changing of to for doesn't seem to make much difference
46: (nochange) The addition of "nuclear" adds information but no weight.
47: (nochange) "Nuclear" is just a specificity change, and the "for"/"of" change makes no difference.
48: (stronger) The term nuclear and for gives more strength to the degree of sentence.
49: (stronger) S2 gives the specifics of 'stopping'. Thus adding strength to the argument.
50: (nochange) Just preposition changes and the adding of the word nuclear.
51: (nochange) Changing "of" to "for" is strictly semantic. Adding the word "nuclear" is more descriptive but does not change the strength of the sentence.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: it is thus natural to consider morphisms from [MATH] to [MATH] which preserve the type , i.e. which sends elliptic , parabolic and hyperbolic elements of [MATH] on elements of [MATH] of the same type , following .
S2: a morphism from [MATH] to [MATH] preserves the type if it sends elliptic , parabolic and hyperbolic elements of [MATH] on elements of [MATH] of the same type .
69: (weaker) "a morphism" doesn't capture the conclusiveness of the finding as well as "it is thus natural to consider morphisms..." The choice in S1 gives the claim a air of logical decision making.
70: (stronger) S1 sounds too long winded
71: (stronger) "it is thus natural to consider" in s1 is weaker than the strong statement in s2.
72: (stronger) MORE IMPRESSIVE
73: (stronger) takes away vague words like "is thus natural"
74: (weaker) S1 hypothetically refers to a previous statement of support
75: (stronger) S1's "it is thus natural to consider" is weaker than S2 with those words removed.
76: (stronger) it is thus natural to consider morphisms is having a sign of doubt which is removed in S2
51: (weaker) The use of the phrase "if it" in S2 provides a degree of uncertainty that does not appear in S1, which uses the word "preserve."

S1: this work self-consistently considers the combined acceleration and deceleration by a unmagnetized external medium of an initially highly magnetized shell .
S2: this work self-consistently considers the combined impulsive magnetic acceleration and deceleration by a unmagnetized external medium of an initially highly magnetized shell .
0: (stronger) implusive magnetic acceleration is an interesting sounding details
1: (stronger) Adds important, relevant detail
2: (nochange) S2 is more specific about the type of acceleration but not necessarily stronger.
3: (stronger) Names the type of acceleration.
4: (nochange) just additional info
5: (nochange) impulsive magnetic is just one more detail but it does not seem to make it sound better or worse
6: (stronger) In S2 the addition of 'impulsive magnetic' is providing more detail, making it stronger.
7: (stronger) The degree of the type of acceleration is improved by qualifying it with "impulsive magnetic".
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the structure constants [MATH] are chosen to be totally antisymmetric in [MATH] for the [MATH] lie algebra .
S2: the structure constants [MATH] are chosen to be totally antisymmetric in [MATH] for the semi-simple [MATH] lie algebra [ 29 ] .
18: (stronger) S2 adds description of the lie algebra, to include semi-simple.
19: (stronger) Second line shows more justification and evidence!
20: (stronger) S2 introduces an adjective, semi-simple, that clarifies its noun, unlike the vaguer noun in S1.
21: (nochange) Adds a citation but does nothing to strengthen the sentence.
22: (stronger) S2 strengthens the degree of the lie algebra.
23: (nochange) S2 just adds some extra details
24: (nochange) Addition to S2 is a reference number
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we use basic intersection theory , poincar ' e duality and the dold-thom theorem to establish existence of nash equilibria under fairly general hypotheses .
S2: we use basic intersection theory , poincar ' e duality and the dold-thom theorem to establish existence of nash equilibria under fairly general topological hypotheses .
27: (nochange) Only adds detail.
28: (stronger) more specific
29: (stronger) "topological" adds a more impressive presentation of the hypothesis, making it appear stronger
30: (stronger) The word topological makes it more specific
31: (stronger) justified the statement
32: (nochange) no rational change have been made.
33: (stronger) Adding 'topological' specifies the general.
34: (nochange) It is only adding a constraint on the hypotheses but not adding to the strength of the assertion
35: (stronger) "topological" makes the hypotheses seem more complete

S1: among these technologies , resistive memories ( reram ) have create new possibilities because of their nano-features and unique [MATH] - [MATH] characteristics .
S2: among these technologies , resistive memories ( reram ) created new possibilities because of their nano-features and unique [MATH] - [MATH] characteristics .
69: (nochange) Change in tense, not applicable to change in strength.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) have create is incorrect, while created is better.
72: (nochange) NO CHANGES IN THE SENTANCE
73: (nochange) grammatical fix
74: (stronger) S2 is stronger only because S1 is grammatically incorrect
75: (nochange) just a grammatical correction
76: (stronger) The term created strengthens the sentence than have create.
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not change the strength of the statement.

S1: using this random-walk picture that is augmented by features idiosyncratic to basketball , we account for a wide variety of statistical properties of scoring , such as the distribution of the score difference between opponents and the fraction of game time that one team is in the lead . by further including the heterogeneity of team strengths , we build a computational model that accounts for essentially all statistical features of game scoring data and season win/loss records of each team .
S2: by including the heterogeneity of team strengths , we build a detailed computational random-walk model that accounts for a variety of statistical properties of scoring in basketball games , such as the distribution of the score difference between game opponents , the fraction of game time that one team is in the lead , the number of lead changes in each game , and the season win/loss records of each team .
36: (weaker) removal of detail in s2 makes it weaker
37: (weaker) original claim is over a larger scope
38: (weaker) "accounts of essentially all statistical features" in S1 sounds more impressive than "a variety of statistical properties" in S2.
39: (weaker) S1 starts with easy to understand phrasing before getting into more technical terms. Also, "essentially all" is stronger than "a variety".
40: (weaker) S2 accounts for only a "variety of statistical properties" while S1 accounts "essentially all statistical features."
41: (stronger) The removal of the word "essentially" strengthens the newer version of the statement. Also "using the random-walk picture that is augmented" is a weaker position than "including the heterogeneity of the team strengths" specifically the word "strengths" and less ambiguous wording in the second statement makes further makes it a stronger one.
42: (stronger) S2 is worded better, "using this" is a weak opening
43: (weaker) S2 does not include the building of a computational model which weakens the statement.
44: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence in the end.

S1: convexity constraints are common in economics , statistics , operations research and financial engineering , but there is currently no multivariate method that is computationally feasible for more than a few hundred observations .
S2: convexity constraints are common in economics , statistics , operations research , financial engineering and optimization , but there is currently no multivariate method that is computationally feasible for more than a few hundred observations .
45: (stronger) adds another field
46: (nochange) The addition of optimization only gives more information rather than strengthens the argument.
47: (stronger) This adds a new scenario.
48: (stronger) Optimization adds extra evidence to the sentence S2.
49: (nochange) 'optimization' doesnt add or take from S2
50: (stronger) S2 adds an extra field of study, lending more credence to the assertion.
51: (stronger) There is an additional relevant field, which makes the concept appear more universally applicable and impressive.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: during the last years efforts were made to establish finite-time analogues to asymptotical notions such as hyperbolicity of linearizations , lyapunov exponents and stable and unstable manifolds .
S2: during the last years efforts were made to establish finite-time analogues to asymptotic notions such as hyperbolicity of trajectories and linearizations , lyapunov exponents and stable and unstable manifolds .
36: (stronger) the addition of "trajectories" gives more evidence
37: (nochange) slight differences, but they don't change strength
38: (nochange) This adds detail ("trajectories") but does not change how the sentence reads.
39: (nochange) S2 adds a little more detail but doesn't strengthen or weaken it.
40: (stronger) The addition of "trajectories" adds to the strength.
41: (stronger) The addition of "trajectories" provides a more detail and justification to the statement. The change from "asymptotical" to "asymptotic" is a simple grammar fix that does not change the strength of the statement.
42: (stronger) "trajectories" adds more strength
43: (stronger) S2 adds "trajectories" which adds to the evidence and increases the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence.

S1: but in the positive characteristic setting , there exist rational functions with only one critical point .
S2: over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic , there exist rational functions with only one critical point .
36: (stronger) s2 adds more detail and justification
37: (stronger) clearer
38: (nochange) This is adding detail.
39: (stronger) S2 invokes mathematics, so sounds more impressive.
40: (nochange) These two sentences say the same thing.
41: (stronger) The change to "over an algebraically closed field of" adds more evidence and information while also containing elements of both R1 and R3 as well.
42: (stronger) S2 is a more demonstrative sentence
43: (nochange) Differently phrased but no strength change.
44: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive.

S1: the asymmetry model for the highly viscous flow is developed further . it is based on the concept of thermally activated jumps from a practically undistorted ground state to strongly distorted , but stable structures , with a pronounced eshelby backstress from the distorted surroundings .
S2: the asymmetry model for the highly viscous flow postulates thermally activated jumps from a practically undistorted ground state to strongly distorted , but stable structures , with a pronounced eshelby backstress from the distorted surroundings .
45: (weaker) "developed further" makes the author's work sound more novel
46: (weaker) Postulates implies uncertainty while "is developed further" implies that the model does do so.
47: (stronger) "Postulation" involves more of an assertion/creation of an idea than the simpler "development."
48: (stronger) Postulates gives more strength than developed further.
49: (stronger) Postulates is a stronger and impressive word.
50: (weaker) "postulates" sounds weaker than "is developed further" and also leaves room for potential error, so S2 is weakened.
51: (weaker) "It is based on the concept" adds more justification by referencing the theoretical background.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (weaker) Postulates is weaker than "is developed further. It is based on the concept" which allows more evidence.

S1: in the commonly employed regime where the qubit dynamics can be described by a markov master equation of lindblad type , we find that decoherence is complete while the total state is still separable - no entanglement is involved .
S2: in the commonly employed regime where the qubit dynamics can be described by a markov master equation of lindblad type , we find that for almost all qubit initial states inside the bloch sphere , decoherence is complete while the total state is still separable - no entanglement is involved .
9: (weaker) The word "almost" in the revision adds doubt.
10: (stronger) s2 details more
11: (weaker) By adding the word "almost all", it creates a lack of specificity and adds to the vagueness of the sentence, therefore weakening it.
12: (weaker) S1 implies "all", whereas S2 specifically states "almost all", making it less certain than S1.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more specific information/evidence (R2)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it gives more detail.
15: (weaker) "for almost all" makes S2's scope smaller than S1. R2.
16: (weaker) R3, S2 sounds less impressive and important because it limits the find to "for almost all," which weakens the statement.
17: (weaker) for almost all is less definite

S1: herein , we work with the class of [MATH] - gradient vector fields ( defined below ) where [MATH] is a morse function .
S2: 1.5 pt plus 1pt herein , we work with the class of [MATH] - gradient vector fields ( defined in section ) where [MATH] is a morse function .
36: (stronger) the 1.5 plus 1 srengthens s2
37: (nochange) no relevant change
38: (nochange) The difference is where the example is, but it doesn't matter, and 1.5 pt plus 1 pt is only added detail.
39: (nochange) The changes don't seem to make a difference.
40: (nochange) S2 just add details but doesn't change the strength.
41: (stronger) The addition of "1.5 pt plus 1pt" adds specific evidence for the statement. I am unsure if changing "below" to "in section" made much of a difference though if it did I would suspect that "in section" is a bit more specific to the location of the justification than simply "below".
42: (stronger) S2 adds basis
43: (nochange) No change in strength, all evidence gets explained somewhere.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: instead of computing a single sparse most probable ( map ) solution as in standard compressed sensing , the focus in the bayesian framework shifts towards capturing the full posterior distribution on the latent variables , which allows quantifying the estimation uncertainty and learning model parameters using maximum likelihood .
S2: instead of computing a single sparse most probable ( map ) solution as in standard deterministic approaches , the focus in the bayesian compressed sensing framework shifts towards capturing the full posterior distribution on the latent variables , which allows quantifying the estimation uncertainty and learning model parameters using maximum likelihood .
61: (stronger) "Compressed sensing" being moved makes this statement clearer.
62: (nochange) Changes wording only.
63: (stronger) s2 uses more accurate phrasing
64: (stronger) S2 Adds more specific terms.
65: (nochange) Just switching the placement of the phrase around.
51: (nochange) The additional phrase in S2 provides some detail and perhaps some clarification, but does not really alter the strength of the sentence.
66: (stronger) more information
67: (stronger) S2 provides more information and specifics. Although some might not believe this impacts the sentence, it makes the sentence feel stronger and more persuasive.
68: (stronger) S2 describes the approach as well as the sensing technology

S1: sher and triola point out that the scalar-mediated interaction of neutrinos in a neutriophilic two-higgs-doublet model ( [MATH] 2hdm ) can be as strong as electromagnetic interaction .
S2: several authors have pointed out that the scalar-mediated interaction of neutrinos in a neutriophilic two-higgs-doublet model ( [MATH] 2hdm ) can be as strong as electromagnetic interaction .
69: (nochange) Changing the reference to the authors does not change the strength of the assertion.
70: (weaker) She and triola are more specific
71: (weaker) several authors is too vague. sher and triola gives more weight and value to the statement.
72: (weaker) sher and triola point IS CHANGED TO several authors have pointed SO WEAKER
73: (weaker) Took out specific names
74: (weaker) S1 offers specific citation
75: (weaker) removes evidence - "some authors" is a vague group.
76: (nochange) S2 jsut removes the names so it does not affect the strength
51: (nochange) S2 just provides the names of the authors, which is just an additional detail that does not change the strength of the statement.

S1: moreover , surprisingly , the partition dependence of the spectral degeneracy in the haldane - and mott-insulator is directly linked to the , in principle unrelated , density-density correlations , and presents an intriguing periodic behavior in superfluid and supersolid phases .
S2: moreover , surprisingly , the partition dependence of the spectral degeneracy in the haldane-isulator , and of a partial degeneracy in the mott-insulator , are directly linked to the , in principle unrelated , density-density correlations , and presents an intriguing periodic behavior in superfluid and supersolid phases .
77: (stronger) clarifies scientific terms used
78: (stronger) Adding that there is only a partial degeneracy of the mott-insulator instead of spectral degeneracy of both strengthens adds more important facts to the sample.
79: (stronger) S2 adds a new evidence words (of a partial degeneracy in the), which the S2 makes stronger.
80: (weaker) Weakens the degree of degeneracy
81: (stronger) When speaking of nouns, it is always better to use the exact word. If it is called a haldane-isulator, then name it as such.
82: (weaker) adds qualifier "partial" so more specific claim
83: (weaker) The second sentence is too wordy and it makes it seem less important.
84: (stronger) S2 has a better grammatical construction and clarifies that haldane-isulator and mott-insulator are two different parameters.
68: (stronger) Clearly S2 provides more evidence

S1: the orbital solution for this system has improved dramatically since it was first reported in , where the third planet was reported with an ambiguous orbital period .
S2: the orbital solution for the system has improved dramatically since the third planet was first reported in with an ambiguous orbital period .
27: (nochange) There are only minor syntactic changes, which help to clarify and make the sentence flow more naturally.
28: (stronger) sounds better, less confusing
29: (nochange) Although the words are flipped around, it doesn't have any direct influence on the strength, impressiveness, or clarity of the sentences. They are equal and simply present information in a new order.
30: (stronger) makes more sense, sounds better
31: (stronger) sounds impressive
32: (stronger) the sentence look more impressive.
33: (stronger) S2 sounds more concise.
34: (nochange) Grammatical changes only
35: (stronger) S2 is less passive and wordy

S1: while the 2nd fourier harmonics of jet quenching have been thoroughly explored in the literature and shown to be sensitive to the underlying jet path-length dependence of energy loss and the differences between the mean eccentricity predicted by glauber and cgc/kln models of initial conditions , the sensitivity of higher harmonics has remained relatively unexplored .
S2: second fourier harmonics of jet quenching have been thoroughly explored in the literature and shown to be sensitive to the underlying jet path-length dependence of energy loss and the differences between the mean eccentricity predicted by glauber and cgc/kln models of initial conditions .
77: (weaker) removes reasoning
78: (weaker) S2 removes the information about the "sensitivity of higher harmonics..."
79: (weaker) S2 add more evidence as it defines the word large the sensitivity of higher harmonics has remained relatively unexplored.
80: (stronger) Doesn't mention information about experiments or studies that aren't relevant/haven't been done
81: (weaker) Even though it says it has remained relatively unexplored, S2 is made weaker by not having it.
82: (stronger) There is another claim/comparison made instead of just a statement.
83: (stronger) S2 makes the harmonics seem more studied.
84: (weaker) S2 is an incomplete statement and does not clarify the relation with higher harmonics.
68: (weaker) S2 doesnt compare the sensitivity and so it makes the assertion weaker

S1: the amplitude of the axisymmetric poloidal magnetic field depends on the wavenumber of the rossby mode , and then on the width of the zonal jets .
S2: the amplitude of the axisymmetric poloidal magnetic field depends on the wavenumber of the rossby mode , and hence on the width of the zonal jets .
77: (nochange) phrasing; no impact on strength
78: (nochange) The word change does not alter the idea of the sample at all.
79: (stronger) S2 makes more evidence as it adds the word hence
80: (stronger) "Hence" allows the sentence to draw a conclusion, making it active, "and then" simply tacks on a clause.
81: (nochange) Grammatical changes.
82: (nochange) just a word choice
83: (nochange) synonym
84: (stronger) hence implies that the previous statement is dependent on the width of the zonal jets rather than just being a step as implied by "then"
68: (nochange) and then and hence imply the same

S1: the mass-size relation reveals that etgs overall appear to be more compact in denser environments : cluster etgs have sizes on average twice as smaller than in the local universe , whereas field etgs show a mass-size relation with a similar distribution than the local one .
S2: the mass-size relation reveals that etgs overall appear to be more compact in denser environments : cluster etgs have sizes on average around 30-50 % smaller than those of the local universe , and a distribution with a smaller scatter , whereas field etgs show a mass-size relation with a similar distribution than the local one .
77: (stronger) more specific
78: (stronger) S2 gives exact amounts instead of saying "twice as" and adds more information.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (weaker) Twice as small[er] is an impressive phrase, and" around 30 - 50 percent" is weak and unspecific.
81: (stronger) "Twice as" is not as specific as showing the actual percentage. Sentence 2 is stronger.
82: (weaker) makes a weaker claim because adds stricter qualifications
83: (stronger) Add evidence
84: (stronger) s2 defines a specific numbered percentage instead of the word "twice"
68: (stronger) S2 not only adds more evidence but is also specific on the size thus making it stronger

S1: in fact , that discovery provided a compelling experimental evidence for the existence of gravitational waves .
S2: in fact , that discovery provided compelling evidence for the existence of gravitational waves .
36: (weaker) losing "a" and "experimental" makes s2 less impressive
37: (weaker) sounds like less data (though it's the same)
38: (weaker) S2 removes the "experimental" aspect of the evidence, making the evidence more vague and less meaningful.
39: (stronger) S2 implies that the evidence applies outside the laboratory.
40: (stronger) The elimination of the word "experimental" makes the argument stronger.
41: (stronger) Dropping "experimental evidence" to "evidence" strengthens the argument as "experimental" could imply the evidence is not yet solid evidence.
42: (stronger) removal of "experimental" strengthens case
43: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it makes the work sound more novel and ground-breaking.
44: (stronger) "Experimental" makes S1 sound weaker.

S1: in this work we present new constraint on [MATH] which was obtained from the dark matter particles annihilation in the dense clumps seeded by the loops at the cosmological stage of radiation dominance .
S2: in this work we present new constraint on [MATH] which was obtained from the dm particles annihilation in the dense clumps seeded by the loops at the cosmological stage of radiation dominance .
36: (weaker) although dm is an abbreviation, we don't know what it means in s2
37: (weaker) "dark matter" is clearer, and more persuasive as a result
38: (nochange) The only change was to abbreviate the words "dark matter".
39: (weaker) Abbreviating "dark matter" seems weaker.
40: (nochange) Dm is an acronym so there is no change.
41: (nochange) The abbreviation of "dark matter" to "dm" does not change the strength of the statement.
42: (nochange) no change, though there is no reason to abbreviate here
43: (nochange) S2 uses the abbreviation for "dark matter" which doesn't contribute to the strength of the statement.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: in this work we will apply ' t hooft scheme , for the analysis of this problem .
S2: in this work for the analysis of this problem we apply the ' t hooft scheme , .
9: (stronger) "Will apply" is weaker than do "apply".
10: (nochange) both are similar
11: (stronger) By removing "will" from the verb "apply", this creates more certainty and therefore strengthens the sentence.
12: (nochange) The sentence was simply restructured for readability without changing the meaning.
13: (nochange) S2 is basically a rearrangement of S1 that doesn't have any extra information to help approve any of the rules.
14: (stronger) S2 makes grammatical sense.
15: (nochange) shifting reference does not make it stronger.
16: (nochange) None of R1-R3 apply, the sentences have the same strength.
17: (nochange) saying basically exact same thing

S1: we analytically and numerically study spin transport in a one-dimensional heisenberg model at infinite temperature .
S2: we analytically and numerically study spin transport in a one-dimensional heisenberg model in linear-response regime at infinite temperature .
61: (nochange) Just adding a detail.
62: (stronger) Adds information.
63: (stronger) s2 is more specific
64: (stronger) More information in S2
65: (nochange) Adds information but not evidence or justification.
51: (nochange) S2 has more detail, but the detail doesn't change the strength of the sentence.
66: (stronger) more information
67: (stronger) S2 provides more information/evidence than S1.
68: (stronger) S2 is more elaborate as it provides the regime

S1: the cumulative hierarchy conception of set , which is based on a metaphor of elements of sets being prior to their collection , is generally considered to be a good way to create a set conception that seems safe from contradictions .
S2: the cumulative hierarchy conception of set , which is based on the conception that sets are inductively generated from " former " sets , is generally considered a good way to create a set conception that seems safe from contradictions .
36: (nochange) they are essentially the same
37: (stronger) active phrasing is stronger than passive
38: (stronger) "Conception" sounds more concrete than "metaphor".
39: (stronger) S2 states things more straightforwardly, thus seems stronger.
40: (stronger) S2 is stronger because of the elimination of the phrase "metaphor of elements."
41: (nochange) Both statements use fairly conditional wording thus there is no real change in the strength of the statements.
42: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence
43: (nochange) I'm unsure of this one, but it doesn't really seem to change the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) "are inductively generated" sounds more impressive.

S1: for isotropic states , nearly the opposite effect is observed with both the quantum and classical correlations growing without bound as the dimension increases and only as the system becomes more entangled .
S2: for pseudo-pure states , nearly the opposite effect is observed with both the quantum and classical correlations growing without bound as the dimension increases and only as the system becomes more entangled .
45: (cannottell) I don't know the difference between isotropic and pseudo-pure, so I cannot tell if there is a change
46: (nochange) This is grammatical in nature.
47: (nochange) This is just a difference in meaning, I think.
48: (nochange) The states differ, but no change in strength.
49: (nochange) The changed words are too similar and unimportant for change in argument credence.
50: (cannottell) I don't have enough science knowledge to definitively say whether "pseudo-pure" is a weaker term than "isotropic", but it sounds relatively close so it could also be the No Strength Change option.
51: (nochange) I think that the word change is semantic in nature and does not truly impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies, Hence no change
52: (cannottell) Don't know the difference

S1: we define a rifs to be a finite set of ( deterministic ) iterated function systems ( ifss ) acting on the same metric space and , for a given rifs , we define a continuum of random attractors corresponding to each sequence of deterministic ifss .
S2: a random iterated function system ( rifs ) is a finite set of ( deterministic ) iterated function systems ( ifss ) acting on the same metric space and , for a given rifs , we define a continuum of random attractors corresponding to each sequence of deterministic ifss .
61: (nochange) adding "we define" states the obvious but does not change the impressiveness or significance of anything else in the statement.
62: (stronger) "We define" is weaker.
63: (stronger) 'random iterated function system' specifies what rifs is
64: (stronger) Explains what a rifs is.
65: (nochange) Both are just stating definitions.
51: (stronger) The use of the word "is" is more definitive than "we define...to be."
66: (stronger) spells out the abbreviation
67: (stronger) Simply 'stating' the rifs outright sounds more decisive and impressive than concluding that 'we define' rifs 'to be' suchandsuch.
68: (nochange) Just providing the abbreviation of rifs doesn't change the strength

S1: because of the regular structure of lattices , our achievability result holds for the maximal error probability .
S2: because of the regular structure of lattices , all our achievability results hold in the stronger sense of maximal error probability .
18: (weaker) S1 specifically refers to the achievability result and the maximal error probability -- the inclusion of the stronger sense language weakens the original sentence.
19: (weaker) There's something off about the second line. I can't pinpoint it, but the first sounds better rolling off the mind's tongue.
20: (stronger) The second sentence specifies for which sense the results held.
21: (stronger) S2 uses "all" which implies that more results were accurate.
22: (weaker) S1 gets to the point with less excess.
23: (stronger) the changes in S2 make it more impressive
24: (stronger) Addition of "all" to S2 makes sentence more impressive
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: since the start of operation in august 2008 fermi/large area telescope ( lat ) detected more than hundred thousand photons from this object .
S2: since the start of operation in august 2008 the fermi large area telescope ( lat ) has detected more than hundred thousand photons from this object .
69: (nochange) grammar and formatting changes that do not affect strength.
70: (stronger) more gramatically acceptable
71: (stronger) Better grammar/spelling in s2.
72: (stronger) HAS DETECTED IS MORE STRENGTH
73: (nochange) minor change
74: (nochange) no significant difference
75: (nochange) just grammatical changes
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not change the strength of the statement.

S1: the cooling simulations of ref . of 1.4 [MATH] mass toy models containing in their cores quark matter in the gapless version of the cfl phase show that the cores of such stars would be much hotter than their nuclear counterparts in the photon cooling era , because such matter has larger specific due to quadratic rather than linear dependence of the quasiparticle spectrum on the momentum .
S2: the cooling simulations of ref . of 1.4 [MATH] toy models having core quark matter in the gapless version of the cfl phase show that the cores of such stars would be much hotter than their nuclear counterparts in the photon cooling era . this is because such matter has larger specific heat due to quadratic rather than linear dependence of the quasiparticle spectrum on the momentum .
45: (nochange) wording change doesn't affect the strength, just the grammatical correctness of the sentence
46: (nochange) These are just grammatical changes.
47: (nochange) S2 is only grammatically somewhat different.
48: (stronger) Having core, heat adds more strength and evidence to the concept.
49: (nochange) removed words wont strengthen or weaken S2.
50: (nochange) The changes are more grammatical changes and do not effect the assertion.
51: (nochange) I think that all of these changes merely add detail (in the case of specifying mass toy models and larger specific heat) or are semantic in nature (changing "containing in their cores" to "having core" is a matter of linguistic preference.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) "This is because..." provides evidence strengthening the argument.

S1: on the other hand , the jet-energy loss can either be described as multiple scatterings of the parton , specific for a weakly-coupled pqcd medium , or using the ads/cft correspondence where the problem of a parton stopped in a thermal medium is related to the problem of a string falling into a [MATH] - dimensional black hole .
S2: on the other hand , the jet-energy loss can either be described as multiple scatterings of the hard parton , specific of a weakly-coupled pqcd medium , or using the ads/cft correspondence where the problem of a parton stopped in a thermal medium is related to the problem of a string falling into a [MATH] - dimensional black hole .
27: (nochange) Addition of "hard" clarifies but does not change strength, because the definite article indicates that we should already know which parton is being referred to (so the inclusion of "hard" or not does not change the set of partons that this statement might apply to). The choice of preposition "for" or "of" does not change the strength, though "specific of" sounds strange.
28: (nochange) sound similar
29: (nochange) The changes are very minimal and the words added/changed do not alter the strength of the sentence at all. Compared to all of the other great information in the sentence, these words are just insignificant transitional words that don't change the value or strength of the content at all.
30: (nochange) not enough of a difference to change the strength of the original version
31: (stronger) sounds impressive
32: (nochange) adding few more words doesn't affect the strength.
33: (stronger) S2 calling the parton hard makes it more specific.
34: (nochange) The addition of "hard" in S2 just adds a constraint but no change in strength of the assertion.
35: (stronger) "hard" makes parton more important

S1: the sample covers a stellar mass range of [MATH] ( solar masses ) which corresponds to a total mass range of [MATH] on radial scales from [MATH] to [MATH] ( effective radii ) .
S2: the sample covers a stellar mass range of [MATH] ( solar masses ) which corresponds to a total enclosed mass range of [MATH] on radial scales from [MATH] to [MATH] ( effective radii ) .
53: (nochange) the addition of details does not change the meaning
54: (stronger) Enclosed seems to clarify and be an important piece of information.
55: (stronger) It explains that the mass range is enclosed.
56: (stronger) S2 added the enclosed details which made it stronger.
11: (nochange) Adding "enclosed" just provides more detail and represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) enclosed makes it sound more impressive.
58: (nochange) There is no change by adding "enclosed" to S2.
59: (stronger) Using "enclosed" gives us a much clearer idea of the process
60: (stronger) s2 offers further detail on the type of mass range

S1: however , for general polynomials , there is still a critical step .
S2: however , for general polynomials , there is still a critical step needed .
27: (nochange) "needed" is redundant after "critical" (though it may help with clarity), so does not add to the strength.
28: (nochange) similar
29: (nochange) The word "needed" is already implied in S1 by referring to it as a critical step, and therefore it adds no extra strength.
30: (nochange) does not add or subtract info from the original version
31: (stronger) improvised statement
32: (nochange) adding a keyword doesn't make much change.
33: (nochange) Either or would work just fine. Saying that there is still a critical step implies that it is needed, so it's not necessary to add the word at the end, although to some ears it might sound more complete that way.
34: (stronger) "needed" emphasizes and makes the assertion stronger.
35: (stronger) "needed" makes the step more imperative

S1: while , optically thin , hot accretion disks have been studied to account for hard x-rays from bhcs .
S2: however , optically thin , hot accretion disks have been studied to account for hard x-rays from bhcs .
61: (nochange) Just a grammatical change.
62: (stronger) "However" is a stronger world.
63: (nochange) either sentence makes sense
64: (nochange) While and however are about as intense.
65: (nochange) Means the same thing.
51: (nochange) The change is stylistic, confined to a transitional word, and does nothing to enhance or detract from the strength of the sentence.
66: (nochange) nearly the same
67: (nochange) Depending on who you ask 'while' and 'however' are less specific synonyms of each other, properly or improperly used, but they certainly don't seem to add anything to the sentence.
68: (cannottell) Unless the previous part of the sentence which leads to 'while...' or 'however...' is known, their relative significance cannot be predicted.

S1: clustering methods can be divided into four main types : hierarchical , non hierarchical , probabilistic and mixture model .
S2: clustering methods can be divided into three main types : hierarchical , non hierarchical and fuzzy .
36: (weaker) less detail and confidence in s2
37: (nochange) different number isn't different strength, here
38: (weaker) "Fuzzy" sounds unprofessional.
39: (weaker) S2 removes specifics which seems weaker.
40: (stronger) S1 is stronger because it adds another category.
41: (weaker) The statement went from four main types to just three main types of clustering methods. The last two methods were combined from "probabilistic and mixture" to just "fuzzy" making the statement weaker and less impressive as well (R3).
42: (weaker) "fuzzy" sounds fuzzy, S1 uses proper nomenclature
43: (weaker) The use of "fuzzy" makes the statement weaker.
44: (weaker) S1 provides more evidence and sounds more impressive.

S1: the second section studies the exact reconstruction of the nonnegative measures , and gives explicit construction of design matrices for basis pursuit .
S2: section 2 studies the exact reconstruction of nonnegative measures , and gives explicit construction of design matrices for basis pursuit .
69: (nochange) Both S1 and S2 make the same claim and changing from "second" to "2" doesn't affect the strength of the claim.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) More concise language makes s2 easier to read.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL INFLUANCE IN THE SENTANCE
73: (nochange) minor change
74: (weaker) Use of 'the" makes it more specific
75: (nochange) just grammatical changes
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not change the strength of the statement.

S1: we discuss hairy black hole solutions with scalar hair of mass [MATH] and ( small ) electromagnetic coupling [MATH] , near extremality .
S2: we discuss hairy black hole solutions with scalar hair of scaling dimension [MATH] and ( small ) electromagnetic coupling [MATH] , near extremality .
18: (weaker) S1 use of the language mass and small refers to a wide scale of dimension. S2 seems weaker because the scaling dimension is already assumed in S1.
19: (stronger) Second line sounds better.
20: (nochange) Rewording changes not an iota.
21: (nochange) Change of words without strength change.
22: (nochange) Mass is the scaling dimension so either statement is correct and concise. Neither assertion is stronger.
23: (nochange) no change in strength is caused by the changes
24: (nochange) Word change is neither more nor less impressive or specific
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidences

S1: we investigate baryogenesis via leptogenesis and generation of neutrino masses and mixings through the type i plus type iii seesaw plus an one-loop mechanism in the context of renormalizable adjoint [MATH] .
S2: we investigate baryogenesis via leptogenesis and generation of neutrino masses and mixings through the type i plus type iii seesaw plus an one-loop mechanism in the context of renormalizable adjoint [MATH] theory .
69: (weaker) Specifying that the math is a theory in S2 weakens the concreteness of the claim.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (nochange) No real change in effectiveness.
72: (nochange) NO CHANGE BECAUSE OF theory
73: (nochange) specifying the context
74: (stronger) S2 refers to a specific theory
75: (nochange) no change - just an extra detail
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion.
51: (nochange) The addition of the word theory clarifies the end of the sentence but does change the overall statement.

S1: first , we will prove that [MATH] is ' conic-connected ' for some small [MATH] ( see theorem ) by showing that general tangential behavior of [MATH] is good enough to apply scorza lemma .
S2: first , we will prove that [MATH] is a [MATH] - manifold of type [MATH] for [MATH] ( see theorem ) by showing that the tangential behavior of [MATH] is good enough to apply scorza lemma .
36: (weaker) less detail in s2
37: (stronger) more evidence
38: (stronger) "The" behavior in S2 is more definite than "general" behavior in S1.
39: (stronger) S2 removes "small" and "general" and therefore sounds stronger.
40: (stronger) The phrase "some small" weakens S1.
41: (stronger) Removing the word "general" strengthens the argument. Also changing "some small" to "manifold of type" makes a stronger case. Also the addition of extra math is an example of adding more evidence (R2).
42: (stronger) "some small" sounds weak
43: (stronger) The use of "the" rather than "general" in reference to tangential behavior strengthens the statement.
44: (cannottell) I think that "general" makes S1 weaker, but i'm not sure what "conic-connected" or "manifold of type" mean.

S1: a total of 100 % of our x-ray agn host sample ( including four red sequence galaxies ) and 77 % of our post-starburst sample has either blueshifted absorption or line emission from a wind .
S2: a total of 100 % of our x-ray agn host sample ( including four red sequence galaxies ) and 77 % of our post-starburst sample has either blueshifted absorption or line emission .
36: (weaker) deletion of "from a wind" in s2 weakens it
37: (cannottell) depends on specifics I don't understand
38: (nochange) The only change was detail removal.
39: (nochange) The phrase just seems to add detail.
40: (nochange) A detail has been added that doesn't affect the strength.
41: (nochange) The deletion of "from a wind" does not make any change to the statement's strength.
42: (nochange) "from a wind" adds no value
43: (nochange) S1 includes more detail which doesn't contribute to the strength of the statement.
44: (nochange) "from a wind" is a detail, not evidence.

S1: combined with the analysis on the nv center 's electron structure and transition rules , this model explained the faraday effect , optical stark effect , pulse echo technology and energy level engineering technology to finally realize the spin-polariton entanglement .
S2: combined with the analysis on the nv center 's electron structure and transition rules , this model consistently explained the faraday effect , optical stark effect , pulse echo technology and energy level engineering technology in the way to realize the spin-polariton entanglement in diamond .
9: (cannottell) Both seem equally strong, in different ways.
10: (stronger) s2 is more powerful
11: (weaker) Changing "finally" realize to "in the way" to realize weakens the sentence.
12: (stronger) S2 adds a bit of detail and provides greater certainty over S1 (e.g. 'explained' became 'consistently explained').
13: (stronger) S2's structure is more streamlined, and also adds more specific information about what this is about (the diamond) (R2)
14: (stronger) S2 explains the material this statement deals with.
15: (stronger) "consistently" makes S2 stronger. R1
16: (stronger) R3 because in S2 the model consistently explained the effect, making it a more impressive model.
17: (stronger) way more info to explain model

S1: even the deceptively simple ah model for a single electronic level coupled to an undamped vibrational mode exhibits a rich and interesting physics , part of which is still unexplored .
S2: even the simple ah model for a single electronic level coupled to an undamped vibrational mode exhibits a rich physics , part of which is still unexplored .
61: (weaker) Taking out "interesting" weakens this statement.
62: (weaker) Removes words that make the argument more interesting.
63: (nochange) the excluded words from s2 were subjective
64: (stronger) It sounds more friendly.
65: (weaker) Sounds less important with the removal of "interesting" and "deceptively simple"
51: (weaker) The use of the phrase "and interesting" in S1 adds another dimension to the sentence, making it more impressive.
66: (weaker) removes some useful words
67: (weaker) The emphasis of simplicity being deceptive, and the physics being interesting, seemed stronger statements.
68: (weaker) S2 lacks in impression, whereas S1 sounds more interesting.

S1: these flows could either be accelerated plasma , shocks , or waves prompted by reconnection .
S2: these flows could possibly either be accelerated plasma , shocks , or waves prompted by reconnection .
27: (weaker) The inclusion of "possibly" indicates uncertainty and thus weakens the argument.
28: (weaker) Sounds much less certain
29: (weaker) "Possibly" in S2 adds unnecessary words that makes it seem like a possibility rather than a fact.
30: (weaker) the word possibly should not be used.
31: (stronger) add strength to the definition
32: (nochange) no change due to adding of possibly.
33: (weaker) Saying 'possibly,' makes it sound as though it can be things other than the three examples provided and it seems it can only be one of the three.
34: (weaker) "possibly" adds a degree of uncertainty.
35: (weaker) "possibly" discounts the evidence

S1: numerous special cases have been considered ( see ) , and the most well-studied one is for bidders with valuations that are submodular , meaning that [MATH] for every bidder [MATH] and bundles [MATH] of goods .
S2: numerous special cases have been considered ( see ) , and the most well-studied one is for bidders with valuations that are submodular , meaning that [MATH] for every bidder [MATH] and bundles [MATH] of items .
27: (nochange) "items" is slightly more formal, but does not change the strength of the claim.
28: (weaker) goods sounds better, items is not specific
29: (nochange) "goods" and "items" in this context are synonymous and have no difference in strength.
30: (nochange) goods and items both mean the same things
31: (nochange) both mean the same
32: (nochange) using of other word instead of good doesn't make any change.
33: (nochange) S1 would be preferable, but I see that as a personal thing and think either one is just as strong as the other.
34: (nochange) No change in assertion between "goods" and "items"
35: (stronger) "items" sounds less colloquial than "goods"

S1: herein , we demonstrate that these problems can be resolved with a langevin integrator that splits the dynamics into separate deterministic and stochastic substeps .
S2: herein , we demonstrate that these problems can be properly treated with a langevin integrator that splits the dynamics into separate deterministic and stochastic substeps .
0: (weaker) properly treated does not evoke the same finality as resolved
1: (weaker) Resolved implies fully done away with (the problem), while properly treated indicates that the problem still exists
2: (weaker) In S2 it is indicated that problems can be properly treated, which is weaker then 'resolved' in S1.
3: (weaker) Resolved sounds more finished. Properly treated sounds more open ended.
4: (weaker) resolved problems is better than treated problems
5: (weaker) resolved sounds stronger than properly treated
6: (weaker) In S2 the words 'properly treated' are used in place of 'resolved in S1. I think 'resolved' sounds stronger and more definitive.
7: (stronger) "properly treated" strengthens the degree of "resolved"
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: in we detail the convergence of fourier extensions for arbitrary [MATH] and discuss the numerical solution of problem .
S2: in we detail the convergence of fourier extensions for arbitrary [MATH] , and in we address numerical computation .
45: (weaker) "discuss" seems stronger, and solution of problem does too
46: (weaker) "solution" implies finality while "computation" could be ongoing.
47: (cannottell) "Address" is stronger than "discuss," but "solution" is stronger than "computation," so S2 is stronger in one way and weaker in another.
48: (weaker) The term computation gives less strength to the concept solution of problem.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (weaker) "address" and "computation" sound less important and exciting than "discuss" and "solution".
51: (weaker) "Solution of problem" is stronger than "computation" because it provides a definitive conclusion (solution) rather than just a process.
8: (weaker) change of "Computation" from "solution of problem" weakens the evidence
52: (weaker) S1 is more specific. The changes weaken the statement of S2.

S1: the quantum hall effect on a ncs has been studied in refs . .
S2: the noncommutative quantum hall effect has been studied in refs .
27: (nochange) The change of prepositional phrase to adjectival modifier does not change the impact; in this case, it just clarifies the abbreviation "ncs".
28: (stronger) Sounds better
29: (stronger) S2 is much more straightforward. It sounds more professional and formal to say "the noncommutative quantum hall effect" than to say "the quantum hall effect on a ncs".
30: (cannottell) not sure what ncs stands for
31: (stronger) explained the abbrevation
32: (stronger) the specific name make it strong.
33: (stronger) Again, this might be an industry standard or jargon, but specifying it makes it sound stronger.
34: (stronger) "noncommutative" sounds more impressive. "on a ncs" merely adds a constraint so its removal does not change the strength.
35: (stronger) "noncommutative" is stronger than a phrase like "on a ncs"

S1: in section iii we then discuss application of our model to calculate the inelastic cross-section and the range of model parameters required to get an adequate description of the currently available data on the same .
S2: we apply our model to calculate the inelastic cross-section and discuss the range of model parameters required to obtain an adequate description of currently available data for both the total and inelastic cross-sections at [MATH] tev and beyond .
36: (stronger) The last phrase of s2 adds more impressiveness.
37: (stronger) scope increased
38: (nochange) The only change is addition of detail.
39: (stronger) S2's phrasing is stronger and adds specificity.
40: (stronger) The word "obtain" is S2 makes the sentence sound more impressive.
41: (cannottell) I cannot tell if the removal of the "in section iii" is made up by the fact that "total and inelastic cross-sections at [MATH] tev and beyond." has been added to restrengthen the argument. I'm really at a loss for which statement is stronger or if they are in fact equal.
42: (stronger) "apply" is a demonstrative word; the final statement in S2 sounds stronger
43: (stronger) S2 uses the actions words more convincingly and adds to the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) S2 sounds ore impressive and adds evidence in the end.

S1: hence , the total area [MATH] swaped by each family of parallel closed geodesics on the double cover [MATH] doubles with respect to the corresponding area downstairs .
S2: hence , the total area [MATH] swept by each family of parallel closed geodesics on the double cover [MATH] doubles with respect to the corresponding area downstairs .
69: (nochange) Change in word choice that does not affect strength of statement.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) Swept is better than swaped (is swaped even a word?).
72: (weaker) swaped IS STRONGER THAN swept
73: (nochange) grammar
74: (nochange) Swapped and swept are two different and equally strong concepts
75: (nochange) just grammatical correction
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not change the strength of the sentence.

S1: furthermore , as an application of rotor-router walks , we describe the harmonic measure for the limiting shape of rotor-router aggregation , which is useful in the study of other growth models on the comb .
S2: furthermore , as an application of rotor-router walks , we describe the harmonic measure of the rotor-router aggregate and related shapes , which is useful in the study of other growth models on the comb .
53: (weaker) is less specific, more general
54: (stronger) The statement is ordered better in S2.
55: (weaker) S2 doesn't explain that the shape is limiting.
56: (weaker) S1 was more specific with the limiting shape reference.
11: (nochange) Details are changed from S1 to S2 and represents no real strength change.
57: (weaker) limiting shape gives a more specific detail than related shapes.
58: (weaker) S2 removes justification from S1 by removing "limiting shape of" from the sentence.
59: (weaker) S1 is more descriptive and easier to understand for the "lay" person
60: (weaker) s2 seems to remove what the measurement is of

S1: the gamma-ray emission generally starts during the prompt phase and may be simultaneous with the hard x-ray component , as for example in grb 090217a , or may show a delay , with the most striking case being the short grb 090510 .
S2: the gamma ray emission generally starts during the prompt phase and may be simultaneous with the hard x-ray component , as in grb 090217a , or may show a delay , with the most striking case being the short grb 090510 .
77: (weaker) S1 has better scientific wording
78: (nochange) S1 only adds the words "for example" which is already implied without it, but does not detract anything from being in there.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) "In" is stronger and more direct than "for example"
81: (nochange) No more evidence is provided, nor strength degree changed.
82: (nochange) just word choices
83: (nochange) The "for example" is excessive
84: (nochange) the removal of for example does not change the statement.
68: (nochange) Assertions remain absolutely the same

S1: we find a power law [MATH] with some exponent [MATH] which , however , does in general not coincide with the corresponding exponent in the upper bound derived in section .
S2: we find a power law [MATH] with some exponent [MATH] , in agreement with what is predicted by the upper bound derived in section .
53: (stronger) S1's language is vague, and S2 is more concise and makes a stronger overall statement
54: (stronger) 'which, however, does in general not coincide...' sounds awkward.
55: (stronger) S2 says that it is in agreement while S1 says that it does not coincide.
56: (cannottell) The two sentences said different things.
11: (stronger) Changing "which, however, does in general does not coincide" with "in agreement with what is predicted by" makes it sound more certain and therefore stronger.
57: (stronger) S2 takes away the word "in general" so it makes the sentence stronger without that.
58: (weaker) S2 gives a very contradictory statement "agreement" and "what is predicted by" compared to S1 which states "does in general not coincide".
59: (stronger) "does not in general coincide" doesn't carry the confidence that "what is predicted" does
60: (stronger) More firm, direct, concrete

S1: moreover , in a recent paper [ ] , the next-order term of the expansion was calculated and it was found that it is underextensive , i.e. , negligible in the thermodynamical limit .
S2: it was found that the corresponding contribution to the ground state energy is underextensive , i.e. , negligible in the thermodynamical limit .
45: (weaker) removing the citation weakens it
46: (weaker) "was calculated" sounds as if their was work done while "it was found" can sound as if it was just stumbled upon.
47: (weaker) The information about the recent paper was evidence.
48: (cannottell) I can't tell the strengthen or weaker part of it.
49: (nochange) Both are equally impressive.
50: (weaker) S2 removes the reference to the justification (the recent paper calculating the next term) for the assertion.
51: (weaker) S1 specifies a recent calculation that provides additional support for the statement. S2 uses vague language ("it was found") and doesn't mention specifically how supporting evidence was found.
8: (weaker) The degree is weakened
52: (weaker) The original version was more detailed and specific, the change weakened the statement.

S1: hence , tracers evolve in a smooth velocity field , which allows to differentiate it at the tracers ' finite scale and interpret their behavior in the framework of lagrangian chaos .
S2: hence , tracers evolve in a smooth velocity field , which allows to differentiate it at the tracers ' small scales and interpret their behavior in the framework of lagrangian chaos .
18: (nochange) finite and small are very similar words, neither adds more or takes away from the description of the scales
19: (weaker) finite sounds more impressive than small.
20: (stronger) "Small" is more specific than "finite."
21: (weaker) The change of "finite" to "small" sounds less impressive
22: (weaker) The term "finite" is necessary in that it is limited. Small defines too wide a range.
23: (weaker) small scales is less impressive than finite scale
24: (weaker) Finite sounds more impressive than small
25: (weaker) "Finite scale" is changed to "small scales". The degree is weakened
26: (weaker) Weakens the evidence by changing it from finite to small scale

S1: a dominant population of gas-rich , low-density planets with [MATH] is ruled out unless systematic errors are significantly larger ( [MATH] m s [MATH] ) than expected and kepler observations are severely ( [MATH] 80 % ) incomplete .
S2: a single population of gas-rich , low-density planets with [MATH] is ruled out unless our doppler errors are [MATH] 5 m s [MATH] , i.e. , much larger than expected based on observations and stellar chromospheric emission .
27: (cannottell) It is not clear whether these sentences are even making the same claim. "systematic errors" to "our doppler errors" seems more impressive, because the former has negative connotations. Eliminating "significantly larger" weakens the claim, because it no longer indicates the dimension of importance of the difference. Changing "kepler observations..." to "based on observations and stellar chromospheric emission" strengthens the statement by giving another condition.
28: (weaker) seems less certain of an outcome
29: (weaker) words like "dominant" and "significantly" makes S1 stronger.
30: (weaker) removes evidence
31: (weaker) removed some technical terms
32: (weaker) more irrelevant information has been added.
33: (stronger) Putting in the specific calculations makes the argument stronger.
34: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive in places, such as 'kepler obersvations...' and has more evidence with the additional math.
35: (weaker) The use of "dominant", "systematic", "significant" and "severe" make S1 stronger

S1: as a corollary , we get such a characterization for semimodular lattices , supersolvable lattices , bruhat orders , locally shellable lattices , and many more .
S2: as a corollary , we characterize the antichain cutsets in semimodular lattices , supersolvable lattices , bruhat orders , locally shellable lattices , and many more .
77: (stronger) better diction/explanation
78: (stronger) Stating that you characterize something instead of get characterization sounds more impressive, like more work was done.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) "Getting such a characterization" is weaker than strongly characterizing the antichain cutsets. "In" is also more active than "for."
81: (stronger) tells us what we characterize.
82: (cannottell) confused
83: (stronger) S2 is more action
84: (stronger) s2 is more specific with what it is characterizing.
68: (stronger) S2 says on what the characterization is done

S1: if the hyperbolic group [MATH] is amenable , [MATH] is virtually cyclic and the entropy is vanishing on [MATH] .
S2: if the infinite hyperbolic group [MATH] is amenable , [MATH] is virtually cyclic and the entropy is vanishing on [MATH] .
53: (stronger) infinite adds a descriptive factor that is more specific
54: (stronger) S2 specifies that it is infinite.
55: (stronger) The word infinite strengthens the sentence.
56: (cannottell) The two sentences say different things but I can't tell whether they are stronger or weaker.
11: (nochange) Adding the word "infinite" adds more detail but otherwise provides no real strength change.
57: (stronger) the "infinite" gives more weight to the sentence, specifies the vastness in number.
58: (stronger) S2 included the word "infinite" which gives a better description of the hyperbolic group than S1.
59: (stronger) Infinite is more descriptive
60: (stronger) s2 gives more detail about the group being spoken of

S1: - dilatively stable process we have [MATH] ( i.e. , the process is self-similar ) and it takes the form [MATH] a.s. , i.e. , it is degenerate .
S2: - dilatively stable process we have [MATH] ( i.e. , the process is self-similar ) and it takes the form [MATH] almost surely ( a.s. ) , i.e. , it is degenerate .
61: (weaker) "almost surely" entertains some doubt about the truth or applicability of the statement "it is degenerate".
62: (weaker) "Almost surely" is weaker.
63: (weaker) 'almost surely' take away some of the conviction S1 had
64: (weaker) Explaining what a.s. is makes it sound weaker.
65: (weaker) "almost surely" weakens because of the "almost"
51: (weaker) "Almost surely" adds a level of doubt which weakens the sentence.
66: (weaker) 'almost surely' is a weak phrase
67: (nochange) Although 'almost surely' explains the full form of the abbreviation 'as', that inclusion does not strengthen or weaken the sentence in any particular way.
68: (stronger) S2 surely confirms the process to be degenerate

S1: then knowing [MATH] for all [MATH] of the above form such that [MATH] is sufficient to determine all the degree [MATH] coefficients of [MATH] ( note that this relies on [MATH] being multilinear ) .
S2: then knowing [MATH] for all [MATH] of the above form such that [MATH] is sufficient to determine all of the degree [MATH] coefficients of [MATH] ( note that this relies on [MATH] being multilinear ) .
53: (nochange) S2 is fix of a grammatical mistake
54: (cannottell) Not sure if the addition of 'of' has an affect on the strength or wording of these statements.
55: (nochange) The word of was just added which doesn't add or subtract from the sentence.
56: (nochange) The extra word in S2 didn't change the basic premise of the sentence.
11: (nochange) Adding "of" is a cosmetic change and represents no strength change.
57: (nochange) the word "of" was not a strengthening statement nor did it make it weaker, didn't change the meaning of the sentence.
58: (nochange) S2 provides no sentence strength change the word "of" was added and provides no strength to S1.
59: (stronger) The word "of" makes the sentence smoother and more logical to me
60: (nochange) Just a small grammatical change

S1: we perform the first detection-loophole-free demonstration of epr-steering with entangled photon pairs . we demonstrate that this can be extended to high loss , in an experiment where the parties are separated by a coiled 1 km optical fiber , giving total losses of 8.9 db ( 87 % ) .
S2: we derive arbitrarily loss-tolerant tests , enabling us to perform black a detection-loophole-free demonstration of epr-steering with parties separated by a coiled 1 km optical fiber , with a total loss black of 8.9 db ( [MATH] ) .
36: (weaker) losing "entangled photon pairs" and "87%" diminishes the justification of s2
37: (weaker) "the first" is impressive, its removal weakens S2
38: (weaker) The verb choices in S2 (derive, enabling, perform) are less active than those in S1 and are thus less impressive sounding.
39: (weaker) S1 is far more impressive with "the first" and "we demonstrate".
40: (nochange) The additional details in S1 does not affect the strength.
41: (weaker) The use of the words "arbitrarily", "loss-tolerant" and enabling all weaken the statement. Also the change from a concrete percentage "87%" to a math formula further weakens the argument.
42: (stronger) "the first" sounds weak
43: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive because it is "the first" experiment of this kind and provides more information about their novel findings. S2 seems weaker because it does not include this information.
44: (weaker) S1 provides more evidence.

S1: similarly , if we say that a sequence with entries in [MATH] or a polynomial in [MATH] is positive or unimodal , we are using the partial order relation on [MATH] defined by [MATH] if [MATH] has nonnegative coefficients .
S2: similarly , when we say that a sequence of polynomials in [MATH] or a polynomial in [MATH] is unimodal , we are using the partial order relation on [MATH] defined by [MATH] if [MATH] has nonnegative coefficients .
61: (weaker) Taking out "positive" may cause this second statement to be false in some instances.
62: (stronger) "When" is stronger than "if."
63: (stronger) s2 uses more accurate language
64: (stronger) "If" is much less intense and specific than "when"
65: (stronger) "When" is stronger than "if", "polynomials" is more specific than "entries", and the removal of "positive" makes it more specific.
51: (stronger) "When" is a much more concrete word than "if," which makes S1 more hypothetical.
66: (stronger) reads better
67: (stronger) I felt the efficiency with which S2 was worded improved the strength of its statement.
68: (nochange) I dont find any difference in them. Sequence of entries may also be considered a polynomial. And so i doubt if S2 makes any difference at all.

S1: this allows a more critical examination of limb darkening than in star + star systems .
S2: this relative simplicity allows a more critical examination of limb darkening than is possible in star + star systems .
27: (stronger) The inclusion of a specific referent of the demonstrative "this" makes the statement slightly more formal and thus important and reliable.
28: (stronger) sounds better
29: (nochange) S2 simply adds more unnecessary words but says the exact same thing. It doesn't weaken it either, since the value of the added words is equal to the loss of succinctness.
30: (stronger) sounds more specific with "is possible"
31: (stronger) well formatted
32: (weaker) adding information doesn't make it strong.
33: (stronger) S2 seems to be leading into a more interesting discussion.
34: (stronger) "is possible" adds strength in S2.
35: (stronger) "relative simplicity" and "is possible" are more elevated forms of speech

S1: we characterize the unique largest subset for which the closed points are zero dimensional .
S2: we introduce the notion of the ' geometric dimension ' of a point , and characterize the unique largest subset for which the closed points are zero dimensional .
27: (nochange) Clarifies, but does not add support.
28: (stronger) telling how you do it is important
29: (stronger) The extra information provided in S2 makes the whole sentence much more strong by adding extra value and clarification to it.
30: (stronger) has more information
31: (stronger) justifies the assertion
32: (weaker) make it weak by adding unwanted introduction.
33: (stronger) S2 states better what is going on.
34: (stronger) S2 sounds more novel and interesting.
35: (stronger) "notion" sounds more impressive

S1: although of low significance , we support the premise that both the accretion luminosity and rate declined by a factor 2 -- 3 during the 5 mag fading in 2007 .
S2: we support the premise that the accretion luminosity and rate both declined by a factor 2 -- 3 during the 5 mag fading in 2007 .
45: (stronger) Removal of "although of low significance"
46: (stronger) "low significance" implies that the conclusion doesn't really matter.
47: (stronger) Removal of the weaker part about low significance.
48: (nochange) No aspect of strength change in S2.
49: (stronger) 'Although of low significance' dismisses the argument and makes S1 weaker.
50: (stronger) S2 removes "although of low significance", lending more strength to the assertion
51: (stronger) Removing the phrase "although of low significance" makes the sentence sound more impressive, as that phrase diminishes the importance of the assertion.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (stronger) Removal of "although of low significance" strengthens the argument.

S1: observables and of [MATH] in the framework of a specific maximally gauged flavour ( mgf ) model of grinstein et al. including all relevant contributions , in particular tree-level heavy gauge boson exchanges that are considered in the present paper for the first time .
S2: observables and of [MATH] in the framework of a specific maximally gauged flavour ( mgf ) model of grinstein et al. including all relevant contributions , in particular tree-level heavy gauge boson exchanges whose effects are studied in detail in the present paper for the first time .
36: (stronger) "considered" is strengthened to "studied in detail" in s2
37: (stronger) studied in detail is stronger than considered
38: (stronger) "Studied" has implications of more work done and thus is more impressive.
39: (nochange) The two statements say basically the same thing with the same strength of assertion.
40: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the phrase "studied in detail" sounds more impressive.
41: (stronger) Removing the word "considered" strengthens the statement as well as adding "studied in detail" to it.
42: (stronger) "considered" is a weak term, "studied in detail" adds strength
43: (weaker) S1 describes the work as considering this phenomena which sounds more impressive and novel than S2 which studies the phenomena which makes it sound like a weaker statement.
44: (stronger) "studied in detail" is stronger than "considered"

S1: on the other hand , this new suppression factor becomes close to unity in the backward direction .
S2: on the other hand , this improved suppression factor becomes close to unity in the backward direction .
18: (stronger) S2 improved is a stronger word than S1 new.
19: (nochange) They both give off the same strength.
20: (stronger) An improvement is more important than mere newness.
21: (stronger) S2 says that it is somehow better than S1, not just newer.
22: (stronger) Improved is more impressive sounding than new. Especially if the data supports the claim.
23: (weaker) new is more novel and stronger than improved
24: (stronger) Improved means it has been tested and made better
25: (stronger) "New" is changed to "Improved". The degree is strengthened
26: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence with the use of word "Improved"

S1: in this note we show that the well-known stanley-wilf conjecture , stating that the number of permutation s avoiding a given pattern does not grow faster than exponentially , also holds for permutation s on multiset s.
S2: in this note we present a direct proof of the already known fact that the well-known stanley-wilf conjecture , stating that the number of permutation s avoiding a given pattern does not grow faster than exponentially , also holds for permutation s on multiset s.
61: (stronger) "a direct proof" is more forceful than "show".
62: (stronger) "Direct proof" sounds more impressive, also claims that the writer's argument is "already known" to be true.
63: (stronger) s2 strengthens what was said in s1
64: (stronger) "Present a direct proof" is much stronger.
65: (stronger) "Direct proof" is strengthening.
51: (stronger) The phrase "present a direct proof" is much stronger than "show."
66: (weaker) 'already known' weakens the sentence
67: (stronger) Reiterating 'shot' as presenting 'direct proof of the already known fact', might be slightly repetitive wording, but it's much more persuasive and a more strongly worded statement.
68: (nochange) There is no change in the facts in S1 and S2, the change is merely in the initial usage of the language

S1: invariant affine reflection algebras are the last and the most general known extension of affine kac-moody lie algebras , introduced in recent years .
S2: the class of invariant affine reflection algebras is the most general known extension of the class of affine kac-moody lie algebras , introduced in 2008 .
18: (stronger) S2 stronger than S1, specific year 2008
19: (stronger) Sounds better, more defined.
20: (stronger) "2008" is more specific than "recent years."
21: (stronger) S2 specifies the year offering more proof.
22: (stronger) Making invariant affine reflection algebras singular as one class makes for an easier read. 2008 is far more specific than "in recent years."
23: (weaker) The last and the most sounds more impressive
24: (stronger) The addition of "the class of" and "2008" adds specificity to S2
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (nochange) No specific change in evidence

S1: by exploiting the virial relation , we incorporate an additional constraint from thermodynamics , often ignored in traditional hydrostatic mass determinations .
S2: by exploiting the virial relation , we implicitly incorporate an additional constraint from thermodynamics that is not used in deriving the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium .
45: (weaker) "often ignored" sounds like you are addressing a gap in the literature, while "that is not used" sounds like you are just using an unusual method for fun
46: (stronger) "often ignored" is less definitive than "is not used"
47: (stronger) "Not used" is more definite than "often ignored." I don't think the other changes strengthen or weaken it. "Implicitly" is just more specific.
48: (stronger) The term implicitly gives more strength to the sentence.
49: (nochange) Semantics do not change to a degree enough that give S2 a weaker or stronger argument.
50: (stronger) Saying that it is "not used" makes S2 sound more impressive.
51: (stronger) The phrase "that is not used" is much stronger than "often ignored," as the word "often" implies ambiguity in usage. Also, in S2 the word "implicitly" makes the statement stronger.
8: (stronger) The degree is strengthened
52: (stronger) Use of implicitly strengthens the statement

S1: in the following we describe another method to evaluate polynomials with coefficients over a finite field [MATH] and estimate its complexity .
S2: in the following we describe a method to evaluate polynomials with coefficients over a finite field [MATH] , and estimate its complexity in terms of field multiplications and sums .
18: (stronger) S2 stronger, stands on its own, without reference to another method, and includes the type of complexity described in terms of field multiplication and sums.
19: (stronger) Again, added details makes it stronger.
20: (stronger) S2 explains further what S1 did not explain sufficiently.
21: (stronger) S2 elaborates on the estimate
22: (nochange) Defining the terms of an estimate just before giving a estimate does nothing to strengthen the statement and adds no useful information.
23: (weaker) another is stronger than a. the addition of "in terms of field multiplications and sums" is just details
24: (stronger) End addition to S2 adds information about the complexity
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: studying the model both through numerical simulations and mean-field analytical methods , we find a rich behaviour with continuous and discontinuous phase transitions between a symmetric phase where both stores maintain the same level of activity , and a phase with broken symmetry where one of the two shops attracts more customers than the other .
S2: studying the model from a statistical physics perspective , both through numerical simulations and mean-field analytical methods , we find a rich behaviour with continuous and discontinuous phase transitions between a symmetric phase where both stores maintain the same level of activity , and a phase with broken symmetry where one of the two shops attracts more customers than the other .
69: (stronger) S2 includes a phrase that increases the novelty by attempting to give you the proper scope or frame of reference for the claim.
70: (weaker) 'from a statistical physics perspective' sounds superfluous
71: (stronger) "from a statistical...perspective" gives reader a reference for the statement.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (stronger) S2 specifies the type of perspective
75: (stronger) adds some justification
76: (stronger) S2 provides justification to the assertion by adding the text "from a statistical physics perspective"
51: (stronger) Mentioning the "statistical physics perspective" makes S2 sound more well informed and, ultimately , more impressive.

S1: however , most of the theoretical studies are focused on the effect of impurities on the catalytic surface .
S2: however , most of the theoretical studies are focused on the effect of fixed impurities on the catalytic surface .
0: (stronger) more detailed on type of impurities
1: (stronger) specifies fixed impurities
2: (stronger) S2 is stronger because by adding that the impurities are fixed, it shows that the studyies were more focused.
3: (stronger) Tells type of impurities.
4: (nochange) just adds additional info
5: (stronger) It adds in extra detail
6: (stronger) S2 adds more detail with the descriptive term 'fixed'.
7: (weaker) The impurities being "fixed" removes the generality of looking at impurities on the surface.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we can expect vortices to form preferentially in the centers of dark matter halos .
S2: the impact of vortices may be profound : we can expect vortices to reside preferentially in the centers of dark matter haloes .
69: (stronger) Feels like the impact of the assertion is more important with the added introduction on S2.
70: (stronger) s2 indicates the impact to be profound
71: (weaker) No extra information or evidence is offered in s2.
72: (stronger) the impact of vortices may be profound STRENGTHENS THE SENTANCE
73: (stronger) the word profound adds strength
74: (stronger) S2 indicates a profound effect, this is stronger than a preferential effect
75: (nochange) Just adds details
76: (stronger) S2 provides clear justification.
51: (stronger) The use of the word "profound" establishes the strength of the impact and makes S2 much stronger.

S1: the paper is organized as follows : in sec . we write down the general hamiltonian and t-matrix formulation for the perturbation computation on impurities effect .
S2: the paper is organized as follows : in sec . we describe the general hamiltonian and t-matrix formulation used to perturbatively compute the effects of impurities .
18: (stronger) S2 describe is stronger than S1 write down. Better flow and clarification in the language "used to perturbatively compute the effects of impurities."
19: (stronger) Much more impressive, academic sounding.
20: (stronger) The newer sentence is simply written more capably.
21: (nochange) Grammar edits
22: (stronger) Desription is the true intent of the section. Writing it down is obvious and unnecessary. If the statement is being read, it was naturally written down.
23: (weaker) Write down sounds more impressive than describe
24: (stronger) The use of "describe" is stronger than simply writing down
25: (stronger) "write down" is changed to "describe". The degree is strengthened
26: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence with the use of word " Describe"

S1: in minkowski space-time , there is a well known relation between the emission and inertial coordinates of any event .
S2: photon motions are described in minkowski space-time , where there is a well known relation , , between the emission and inertial coordinates of any event .
61: (nochange) Just adding a detail.
62: (nochange) Difficult call. The new version adds a clearer referent, but in a passive construction. It's probably the same strength overall.
63: (stronger) s2 is more specific
64: (stronger) Explains space-time further.
65: (nochange) Adds information and grammatical change, no change in strength or meaning.
51: (nochange) The words that are added provide additional detail, but seem to be more semantic than anything else.
66: (stronger) better information
67: (stronger) S2 adds more information/evidence than S1, although I am hesitant about this choice for one simple reason: S2 doesn't quite sound right. It's not as well worded as S1. But I don't believe that is what this study is concerned with.
68: (stronger) S2 says what is described in minkowski space-time

S1: in fact , at 7 tev the first result from the totem collaboration for the total cross section , through a luminosity dependent measurement , indicate consistency with a [MATH] dependence , as predicted by the highest rank parametrization result by the compete collaboration ( which is also quoted in the review of particle physics by the particle data group ) .
S2: in fact , at 7 tev the first result for the total cross section by the totem collaboration , a luminosity-dependent measurement , indicates consistency with a [MATH] dependence , as predicted ten years ago by the parametrization that was ranked highest by the compete collaboration , also quoted in the review of particle physics by the particle data group .
36: (stronger) The addition of "ten years ago" strengthens s2
37: (nochange) the second is marginally clearer, but they're pretty interchangeable
38: (nochange) Addition of detail: how long ago it was predicted.
39: (stronger) The mention of "ten years" ago sounds stronger because it implies this paper is the result of a long-term effort.
40: (nochange) S2 has more details but there is no difference in strength.
41: (stronger) Most of the changes are simple grammatical changes that do not change the strength except for the change from "rank parametrization result" to simply "predicted ten years ago" thus the statement has been weakened a bit.
42: (nochange) no change in strength
43: (nochange) The addition of information and detail doesn't add to the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) "ten years ago" is added in S2.

S1: we analyze the stability of the algorithm when the number of exercise dates increases and prove that if the underlying process for the stock price is continuous then the regression problem is ill-conditioned for small values of parameter [MATH] , time .
S2: we analyze the stability of the algorithm when the number of exercise dates increases and prove that , if the underlying process for the stock price is continuous , then the regression problem is ill-conditioned for small values of the time parameter .
18: (nochange) slight structural change only, no major change in strength or impressiveness
19: (weaker) Second line loses the detail of [math] making it weaker.
20: (nochange) This is yet another reframing without any actual modification.
21: (weaker) S2 removes the explanation of the [MATH]
22: (weaker) S2 removes the definition of the parameters leaving the statement ambiguous.
23: (nochange) the change is minor and does not affect strength
24: (weaker) Removal of MATH removes specific details and evidence
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidence

S1: in this paper we only state limit theorems for individual top eigenvalues .
S2: in this paper we state only limit theorems for individual top eigenvalues .
27: (nochange) The change in word order does not change the impact.
28: (stronger) sounds like you're leaving something out in 1; 2 is better
29: (nochange) Switching the two words doesn't effect the meaning or strength at all.
30: (stronger) more specific with the addition of "only"
31: (stronger) made point more clearly
32: (nochange) changing the sentence building doesn't make sentence stronger or weaker.
33: (stronger) S1's 'only state' sounds far more passive.
34: (nochange) The word only has just switched places in the sentence and doesn't affect the strength
35: (stronger) "state" is stronger when it becomes before the "only"

S1: we discuss an example where interactions are assumed to cause no time dispersion and thus delay occurs only due to propagation in between scatterers .
S2: we discuss an example where time dispersion occurs only due to propagation in between vertices .
0: (weaker) loss of detail weakens
1: (stronger) Although S1 sounds weaker, the added justification helps, so makes it stronger
2: (stronger) In S2, the removal of the 'interactions are assumed to cause no' which strengthens the sentence, S@ sounds more factual.
3: (stronger) Assumed to makes the argument weaker.
4: (weaker) removes justification
5: (weaker) It illustrates an assumption, cause and effect
6: (stronger) S2 takes away the use of the word assumed, making it more definitive.
7: (weaker) S2 has less detail justifying the conclusion.
8: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: in this paper , we will present new observations with less than [MATH] resolution to study the magnetic field structure in the inner disc of ngc ,253 .
S2: in this paper , we present new observations with less than [MATH] resolution to study the magnetic field structure in the inner disc of ngc ,253 .
0: (stronger) present tense sounds stronger
1: (nochange) Doesn't change the statement
2: (stronger) S2 sounds stronger because it uses present tense, which sounds more confident/stronger than something that may or may not happen in the future.
3: (stronger) Stronger word choice.
4: (nochange) will doesn't add strength
5: (nochange) it does not significantly change the first sentence if it is weaker or stronger, but the second sentence is stronger because the word will is unnecessary, the paper already states what it will state, not all of a sudden "will" it occur
6: (nochange) The only change is from the future tense, to the present tense, so I do not think the strength changes.
7: (stronger) "will" takes away from the impact of what is being done.
8: (nochange) No change in the actual meaning

S1: this will provide a basis for an application of renormalization-group ( rg ) techniques that allow for a resummation of the expansion in powers of the loop parameter , and thus allow to go beyond perturbation theory in a controlled fashion .
S2: this will provide a basis for an application of rg techniques that allow for a resummation of the expansion in powers of the loop parameter , and thus allow to go beyond perturbation theory in a controlled fashion .
61: (nochange) Just abbreviating a term.
62: (nochange) Rewording only.
63: (weaker) s1 is more specific
64: (weaker) Removes explanation.
65: (nochange) Simply clarifies that "rg" stands for "renormalization-group".
51: (nochange) S2 just changes formatting by using an abbreviation, rather than writing out the whole word.
66: (weaker) s2 doesn't define the abbreviation
67: (weaker) S1 explains the abbreviation that would not be self-evident to the uninitiated.
68: (nochange) Expansion of RG doesnt change the strength of assertion

S1: the procedure is also valid for bias factors less than unity , which is useful , for example , in problems which involve computation of particle penetration deep into a target , such as occurs in atmospheric showers or in shielding .
S2: the procedure is also valid for bias factors less than unity , which is useful , for example , in problems that involve computation of particle penetration deep into a target , such as occurs in atmospheric showers or in shielding .
0: (stronger) which seems to imply that there are more problems to be discussed that have an affect. that implies that there is only a small amount of problems.
1: (stronger) Just sounds better
2: (nochange) The use of 'that' in S2 does not sound stronger than 'which'
3: (nochange) Same thing just different pronoun.
4: (stronger) that implies essential clause
5: (nochange) I believe which and that can be used interchangably
6: (stronger) The use of 'that' instead of 'which' makes S2 stronger because 'which' seems like a choice, where 'that' is definitive.
7: (stronger) "that" is a stronger word than "which"
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: our results show that the non-selective measurement scheme for obtaining neutrino mass values reproduces the predictions from standard quantum mechanics in a more consistent theoretical background .
S2: our results show that the non-selective measurement scheme for obtaining flavor - weighted energies is consistent with the predictions from the single-particle quantum mechanics .
69: (weaker) "more consistent" was changed to "consistent" which is a weaker claim.
70: (weaker) reproduces is stronger than consistent with
71: (weaker) s2 removes pertinent detail and is less clear.
72: (stronger) Flavor - weighted energies is consistent with GIVES STRENGTH
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (weaker) Reproduction is a stronger word than consistent
75: (stronger) removes the word "more" before consistent
76: (stronger) The term single-particle is more specific, the term more has slight negative effect on S1 which is removed in S2
51: (weaker) "Reproduces" implies a more exact replication, while "consistent with" implies more of a similar relationship which is weaker.

S1: the latter two are more interesting because there are no an obvious symmetry groups associated with the additional integrals of motion .
S2: the latter two cases are more interesting because there are no a obvious symmetry groups associated with the additional integrals of motion .
9: (stronger) Although the word "a" needs to be omitted,the word "an" in the original was just as bad. The addition of the word "cases" does clarify the sentence.
10: (stronger) s2 is more specific
11: (nochange) Adding the word "cases" makes the sentence more specific, and changing the "an" to "a" makes it less grammatically correct but otherwise represent no real strength change.
12: (nochange) Both sentences contain grammatical errors and S2 is not more specific enough to make a difference.
13: (stronger) the inclusion of 'cases' strengthens the flow of the sentence (R1)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger by the addition of "cases" but grammatically incorrect with the use of article "a." In S1, "an" also is misused grammatically.
15: (nochange) No strength is added.
16: (nochange) The sentences have the same strength, there are just minor word changes and R1-R3 do not apply.
17: (stronger) more informative

S1: chas and sullivan showed in that the homology of the free loop space of a compact closed orientable manifold can be equipped with a loop product and a bv-operator making it a batalin-vilkovisky algebra .
S2: chas and sullivan ( 1999 ) showed that the homology of the free loop space of a compact closed orientable manifold can be equipped with a loop product and a bv-operator making it a batalin-vilkovisky algebra .
18: (stronger) S2 specific year slightly more impressive, to give context as far as year of study
19: (nochange) It would be read mostly the same either way, so no change.
20: (stronger) The naming of the year 1999 specifies the target range of the demonstration.
21: (stronger) S2 gives a specific date, adding credibility.
22: (stronger) S1 uses questionable grammar, while S2 adds information without disrupting the flow of the statement.
23: (nochange) S2 just gives more details
24: (nochange) 1999 is simply a bibliography reference and the removal of "in" is grammatical
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No specific change in evidence

S1: with strong geometric frustration and quantum fluctuations , [MATH] quantum heisenberg antiferromagnets on the [MATH] lattice has long been considered as an ideal platform to realize spin liquid ( sl ) , a novel phase with no symmetry breaking and fractionalized excitations .
S2: due to strong geometric frustration and quantum fluctuation , [MATH] quantum heisenberg antiferromagnets on the [MATH] lattice has long been considered as an ideal platform to realize spin liquid ( sl ) , a novel phase exhibiting fractionalized excitations without any symmetry breaking .
61: (stronger) "due to" shows definitive cause.
62: (stronger) "Due to" has a stronger cause/effect implication than "with."
63: (nochange) both mean the same thing functionally.
64: (stronger) Putting the information together sounds better.
65: (nochange) Just grammatical changes.
51: (stronger) "Due to" is stronger than "with" as it implies causality.
66: (nochange) says the same thing
67: (nochange) They are reiterations of the same sentiment, with neither iteration being stronger/weaker than the other.
68: (stronger) Towards the end of the assertion, S2 impresses more

S1: if we apply such a procedure to indicator fractional stable motions when [MATH] , we find that one can extract brownian motion from fractional brownian motions satisfying [MATH] .
S2: extending such a time-change procedure to the kernels of indicator fractional stable motions when [MATH] , we find that one can , in some sense , extract brownian motion from fractional brownian motions satisfying [MATH] .
0: (stronger) more details strength the sentence
1: (weaker) Adds too many chances for variability
2: (weaker) The words 'in some sense' take away from the strength of the statement.
3: (weaker) in some sense weakens it.
4: (stronger) adds justification
5: (stronger) it is providing further detail of what kind of a procedural change they are making or would be making
6: (stronger) S2 adds more descriptive evidence.
7: (weaker) "in some sense" weakens the importance of what is being done.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidence

S1: quantum phase transitions are cooperative phenomena where qualitative changes occur in physical quantities of a many-body system at zero temperature .
S2: quantum phase transitions are cooperative phenomena where qualitative changes occur in many-body systems at zero temperature .
36: (nochange) "physical quantities" seems obvious and doesn't strengthen s1
37: (weaker) general "systems" is weaker than "physical quantities of a many-body system"
38: (nochange) The only change is the subtraction of the detail "physical quantities".
39: (weaker) S1 specifies the type of changes, which seems stronger.
40: (nochange) The only difference is that there is more details in S1.
41: (weaker) The removal of "physical quantities" hurts the strength of the statement as now it becomes more abstract.
42: (weaker) "physical quantities" sounds more impressive
43: (nochange) The omition of "physical quantities" doesn't really change the strength of the statement.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: they connect the vector field [MATH] tangent to [MATH] ( hamiltonian vector field ) with generating function [MATH] which is [MATH] - equivariant and operator valued ( hamiltonian ) .
S2: this equation connect the vector field [MATH] tangent to [MATH] ( hamiltonian vector field ) with generating function [MATH] which is [MATH] - equivariant and operator valued ( hamiltonian ) .
45: (nochange) clarifying a pronoun
46: (stronger) While this might be just grammatical, this equation gives more specificity to the argument.
47: (nochange) This is just a specificity rather than strength change.
48: (stronger) The specific term "this equation" gives more strength to the original version.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) Using an equation to back up an assertion is stronger than "they".
51: (stronger) "This equation" lends stronger degree of connection by implying a mathematical basis for the connection.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies, Hence no change
52: (stronger) It's more specific

S1: we show that geometry , coupled to the relativistic effects that appear when using a realistic [MATH] , play a prominent role on the radio emission of air showers .
S2: we show that geometry , coupled to the relativistic effects that appear when using a realistic refractive index [MATH] , play a prominent role on the radio emission of air showers .
9: (stronger) Corrects the original sentence.
10: (stronger) s2 is more impressive and powerful
11: (nochange) Adding "refractive index" adds more details and specificity to the sentence but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 expands upon what [MATH] is exactly in this case.
13: (nochange) This detail does not merit a strength change
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the use of "refractive index" specifies [MATH].
15: (nochange) S2 adds more detail, but not strength.
16: (nochange) No strength change, only the detail of RI was included in S2.
17: (stronger) gives more info about math

S1: it is well known that only in the case of elliptic curves , i.e. for [MATH] , the correspondence [MATH] is one-to-one and the aforementioned inversion problem can be resolved in terms of single-valued functions - elliptic functions .
S2: it is well known that only in the case of elliptic curves , i.e. for [MATH] , the correspondence [MATH] is one-to-one and the aforementioned inversion problem can be solved in terms of single-valued elliptic functions .
61: (nochange) No strength of statement or evidence in these changes.
62: (nochange) "Resolved" and "solved" aren't very different in strength.
63: (stronger) sentence 2 is clearer
64: (stronger) Resolved seems less solid than solved, and repeating functions sounds off.
65: (nochange) No real difference between solved and resolved.
51: (stronger) "Solved" is a much stronger word that "resolved," and implies a greater finality.
66: (stronger) eliminates unnecessary words
67: (stronger) S2 is more precise in its wording, excising unneeded expressions. This is more impressive, although it 'might' also qualify as 'no strength change' depending on whether or not being more impressive equates to being stronger.
68: (nochange) Solved and resolved doesn't make much difference i guess

S1: recently , khoury and weltman showed that certain massive tensor-scalar theory can satisfy solar system experiments even for high coupling constants .
S2: in 2004 , khoury and weltman showed that certain massive tensor-scalar theory can satisfy solar system experiments even for high coupling constants .
45: (stronger) 2004 is more specific than recently
46: (nochange) While S2 is more specific, it does not add anything to the argument.
47: (stronger) I think the level of specificity here is helpful.
48: (stronger) Clear evidence of specified year 2004 gives more evidence for strengthening S2.
49: (nochange) Date change is irrelevant
50: (nochange) S2 just gives a more specific date, in this context that does not help the assertion at all.
51: (stronger) "In 2004" sounds more impressive because it is giving a specific, rather than general, time reference.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies, so is not stronger.
52: (stronger) A specific date is a stronger statement.

S1: the same study also demonstrated that oxide particles in ods steels exhibit a broad variety of chemical compositions , structures and interfaces including amorphous , partially amorphous and crystalline particles , core-shell structures as well as chemical gradients .
S2: the same study also demonstrated that oxide particles in ods steels exhibit a broad variety of size , chemical composition , bulk and interface structure including amorphous , partially amorphous and crystalline particles , core-shell configurations as well as chemical gradients .
36: (nochange) s2 added "bulk" which means the same as "size". no strength change
37: (nochange) term alterations seem to be of no significance
38: (nochange) There is addition of detail but the sentence means the same thing.
39: (nochange) There is more detail, but S2 doesn't seem stronger.
40: (stronger) The addition of the word "size" makes S2 stronger.
41: (stronger) Adding "size" to the example adds more information. Also changing "structures" to the more specific "bulk" also helps to clarify the statement. Changing the second "structures" to "configurations" sounds more impressive adding a more natural and clearer way of defining the core-shell make-up (R3).
42: (stronger) "configurations" is a stronger term
43: (nochange) No change in strength, just in terms.
44: (stronger) S1 provides more evidence.

S1: in this work , we assess the sharpness and strictness of this upper bound .
S2: in this work , we first assess the performance ( the sharpness and strictness ) of this upper bound .
45: (stronger) Implies there will be more evidence to follow.
46: (stronger) "performance" implies achievement.
47: (nochange) This is just clarification, not a strength difference.
48: (nochange) The performance includes both the aspects, so no strength change.
49: (nochange) Addition of extraneous words does not strengthen and weaken argument.
50: (stronger) The use of "first" implies that there are other steps taken after that make the work better.
51: (stronger) The word "first" makes S2 sound more impressive because it notes that there is more to come to the process.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: fixed point solutions of the adimensionned flow equations are also obtained in the same vein , that is by solving the fixed points equations and the associated eigenvalue problem for the threshold functions rather than for the potential .
S2: fixed point solutions of the adimensionned renormalization group flow equations are also obtained in the same vein , that is by solving the fixed points equations and the associated eigenvalue problem for the threshold functions rather than for the potential .
69: (stronger) S2 adds the specification of "renormalization group" which is part of the claim.
70: (stronger) More specific
71: (nochange) no value in renormalization group
72: (stronger) MORE SPECIFIC
73: (stronger) clarifying equations
74: (stronger) S2 specifies the renormalization group
75: (nochange) just extra details
76: (nochange) Does not make much difference in the statement.
51: (nochange) S2 provides detail and clarification, but not additional evidence that would impact the strength of that statement.

S1: as an end , the transition between two renormalization prescriptions , namely the zeta-function and the dimensional regularization , will briefly be illustrated for the sake of completeness .
S2: the transition between two renormalization prescriptions , namely the zeta-function and the dimensional regularization for the massless [MATH] theory , will briefly be illustrated for the sake of completeness .
61: (nochange) "for the massless theory" just adds a detail without increasing support for the statement.
62: (nochange) Adds information that has already been referred to earlier.
63: (stronger) s2 specifies that the theory is massless, whereas the first statement just uses a filler sentence start.
64: (stronger) As an end has less impact.
65: (nochange) No strength change, just clarifies what they are talking about.
51: (nochange) I believe that S2 just adds more details, which clarify, but don not change the strength of the sentence.
66: (stronger) explains it better
67: (stronger) As above, S2 includes more information which could then be considered more evidence, thereby increasing the strength of the sentence.
68: (stronger) S2 describes in more detail as to what theory the renormalization prescriptions pertain.

S1: this value of the cosmological constant was anticipated by kofman & starobinsky ( 1985 ) , basing on the analysis of the existing upper limits for the microwave background anisotropy .
S2: this value of the cosmological constant was anticipated by kofman & starobinsky ( 1985 ) , basing on the analysis of the existing upper limits for the microwave background anisotropy , see also eke et al. ( 1996 ) .
27: (stronger) Supplies another line of support in an additional reference.
28: (stronger) adding a source or other reading seems more justifiable
29: (nochange) The added information at the end of S2 simply refers you to a separate body of information and doesn't make the sentence any stronger.
30: (stronger) adds more evidence with source
31: (nochange) it just a reference
32: (nochange) adding reference doesn't make any strength change.
33: (stronger) S2 adds in 'eke et al' reference.
34: (nochange) S2 only adds a reference not more evidence.
35: (stronger) More evidence in S2

S1: the employed set of initial conditions does not generate any specific trend in the values of the parameters .
S2: the employed set of initial conditions does not generate any specific trend in the values of the multifractal parameters .
45: (stronger) more specific
46: (nochange) The adjective "multifractal" gives more information but no apparent weight to S2.
47: (nochange) This is just a specificity change.
48: (stronger) The term "multifractal" adds more strength to the degree of aspect.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) Using the term "multifractal" made it sound more novel and impressive.
51: (nochange) "Multifractal" is more descriptive, but does not change the strength of the statement.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) 'multifractal' provides more specific info to the statement.

S1: the solution is found with the help of an ansatz proposed for its derivative .
S2: the problem is treated with the help of an ansatz proposed for the derivative of the solution .
27: (weaker) "the problem is treated" does not clearly state that the project was successful, while "the solution is found" does.
28: (weaker) seems like it was just changed for sake of length
29: (stronger) "Treated" is a stronger and more active verb than "found".
30: (weaker) First version talks about how the solution is found in the first few words.
31: (stronger) well organized sentence
32: (stronger) the sentence is well formed.
33: (weaker) S1 is more concise.
34: (weaker) "found" is a lot more 100% in S1 than "treated" in S2 which has a connotation that treatments don't always work.
35: (stronger) "treated" and "the" add strength

S1: giant gas planets free floating in the galactic ism may be detected by their microlensing effects or by deep photometry if they are hot .
S2: giant jupiters free floating in the galactic ism may be detected by their microlensing effects or by deep photometry if they are hot .
61: (nochange) Just providing a synonym.
62: (nochange) Rewording only.
63: (weaker) s2 is more confusing
64: (weaker) While jupiters is more easily understood, gas planets sounds more intelligent.
65: (nochange) Doesn't change strength.
51: (nochange) The change is stylistic and does not affect strength.
66: (weaker) 'jupiter' is a specific planet, not a classification
67: (weaker) Although this could also be marked as 'no strength change', I felt the more correct definition of 'gas planets' was better/stronger than the slightly misleading definition of 'jupiters' (although jupiter, I suppose, is a gas planet).
68: (weaker) Not all gas planets are jupiters. S2 vaguely assumes all gas planets to be jupiters

S1: we also proved that if [MATH] is sufficiently homogeneous then [MATH] for the generic [MATH] and the generic [MATH] .
S2: we also proved that if [MATH] is not totally disconnected and sufficiently homogeneous then [MATH] for the generic [MATH] and the generic [MATH] .
53: (weaker) Is not totally disconnected (S2) is less impressive sounding, less concrete and does not seem to add more evidence due to its ambiguous phrasing.
54: (weaker) 'Not totally disconnected...' seems unnecessary.
55: (stronger) the words "not totally disconnected" made the sentence sound more impressive.
56: (stronger) The added words made the sentence easier to read.
11: (weaker) Adding "not totally disconnected and" weakens the certainty of the sentence and therefore makes the sentence sound weaker.
57: (stronger) S2 gives more evidence with "not totally disconnected"
58: (stronger) S2 words "not totally disconnected and" strengthens the sentence by adding justification.
59: (stronger) We have more detail/proof in S2
60: (weaker) s2 seems to throw in a reason to question results

S1: already the foundational papers proposed that tenuous , two-temperature flows may be responsible for the hard spectral states of black-hole binaries ( ichimaru 1977 ) and for the low nuclear luminosities in radio galaxies with large radio lobes ( rees et al. 1982 ) .
S2: already the foundational papers proposed that tenuous , two-temperature flows may be responsible for the hard spectral states of black-hole binaries ( ichimaru 1977 ; see also narayan & yi 1995 ) and for the low nuclear luminosities in radio galaxies with large radio lobes ( rees et al. 1982 ) .
9: (stronger) Revision adds evidence, strengthening foundation of the point being made.
10: (nochange) both have sources
11: (nochange) Adding "; see also narayan & yi 1995" adds more examples but represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) The source only serves to provide related information, not necessarily to prove or add weight to the information at hand.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more specific information in references which may help clarify more about what this was about than the single reference of S1 (R2)
14: (nochange) There is no guarantee the reader will find S2 more understandable because of the given reference.
15: (stronger) S2 adds more justification. R2
16: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence; R2
17: (nochange) just gives reference

S1: the method is general enough to allow for measurements from a continuous family , and is also applicable to continuous-variable states .
S2: our new method is general enough to allow for measurements from a continuous family , and is also applicable to continuous-variable states .
45: (stronger) Sounds new and novel
46: (stronger) "our new" implies novelty.
47: (stronger) The introduction of novelty is more impressive.
48: (nochange) No specific changes found to change the degree of aspect.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words do nothing to the argument.
50: (nochange) This is just a grammar change from referring to the method directly to referring to the method as the author's creation.
51: (stronger) The word "new" makes the S2 sound like a recent discovery or change, rather than an established fact, which is more impressive.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies. hence no change.
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: for magnetic impurities , the bosonization and numerical renormalization group analyses show that the system flows to a fixed point with residual [MATH] entropy and we find characteristically anisotropic static and dynamic impurity magnetic susceptibilities .
S2: for magnetic impurities , an analysis relying on bosonization and the numerical renormalization group shows that the system flows to a fixed point characterized by a residual [MATH] entropy and anisotropic static and dynamical impurity magnetic susceptibilities .
36: (nochange) simply reordering of the same information
37: (weaker) "we find" stronger than the passive
38: (weaker) S2 has only one analysis, whereas S1 has multiple analyses.
39: (nochange) Neither one seems very strong in its assertions.
40: (nochange) The differences between the two do not affect strength.
41: (weaker) The statements are very similar in strength though the addition of the word "relying" weakens the statement from the original one.
42: (weaker) "relying on" weakens the point in S2
43: (nochange) S2 rephrases but no change in strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: this difference probably results from [MATH] - dependent coupling to spin fluctuations and may explain the nodal and nodeless structure of the superconducting gap in lifep and lifeas respectively .
S2: this difference probably results from [MATH] - dependent coupling to spin fluctuations and may be the origin of the different nodal and nodeless superconducting gap structures in lifep and lifeas respectively .
27: (stronger) "be the origin of" makes the relationship concrete in a way that "explain" does not. The change from "structure of the..." to "different...structures" does not make a difference in strength.
28: (weaker) just sounds redundant
29: (weaker) "may explain" is stronger than saying "may be the origin of" (it is more to-the-point)
30: (stronger) more specific to the point
31: (stronger) used execelent technical terms
32: (weaker) adding the explanation differs the actual meaning.
33: (weaker) S1 sounds fine the way it is. S2 makes things sounds more complicated.
34: (stronger) Sounds more impressive/novel with the addition of it being the origin rather than just an explanation.
35: (weaker) "different" adds weakness

S1: abstract in this paper we study the possibly existing anisotropy in the acceleration expansion by use of the full sample of union2 data .
S2: abstract in this paper we study the possibly existing anisotropy in the accelerating expansion universe by use of the full sample of union2 data .
69: (stronger) Including the word "universe" gives the claim more scope and sense of scale of the expansion.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (nochange) universe adds nothing extra to the sentence.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES
73: (stronger) better definition
74: (stronger) adding "universe" gives more context
75: (nochange) no change - just extra detail
76: (stronger) S2 provides more justification to the sentence, by saying what is being expanded.
51: (nochange) There is a bit more specific detail in S2, but it does not provide additional evidence nor change the strength of the statement.

S1: the paper is organized as follows : in section ii an extension of the qmc model to include the [MATH] coupling is discussed , in section iii we make a short review of the calculation of the spinodal surface , in section iv results are presented and discussed and some conclusions are drawn in the last section .
S2: the paper is organized as follows : in section ii an extension of the qmc model to include the [MATH] coupling is discussed , in section iii results are presented and discussed and the final conclusions are drawn in the last section .
77: (weaker) removes explanation/part of argument
78: (weaker) S1 gives more information about what is done in secion iii.
79: (weaker) S1makes more stronger
80: (stronger) "The final conclusions" much stronger than "some conclusions."
81: (weaker) S2 doesn't explain the sections as well as S1
82: (stronger) better worded, better presentation of contributions
83: (stronger) S2 seems more "final" and conclusive
84: (stronger) although s1 is written in the active voice, the word "final" implies that there will be only one conclusion.
68: (weaker) S2 removes evidence

S1: more precisely , we assume that a constituent name defaults at a stopping time whose indicator process has an intensity , or conditional arrival rate . this intensity follows a mean-reverting jump-diffusion process which is driven by several terms .
S2: more precisely , we assume that a firm defaults at an intensity , or conditional arrival rate , which follows a mean-reverting jump-diffusion process that is driven by several terms .
69: (weaker) removes "a stopping time whose indicator process has..." which suggests that the stopping time is of importance to this assumption.
70: (weaker) S1 is more specific
71: (weaker) more detail in s1
72: (nochange) NO CHANGE IN STRENGTH
73: (nochange) changing grammar
74: (weaker) S1 speaks about the specific type of intensity
75: (nochange) details removed, words changed, but no strength difference
76: (weaker) S2 removes the justification given to the process
51: (nochange) There is a lot more information provided in S1, but these details seem to clarify and specify without changing the strength of the assertion.

S1: the proof for [MATH] between [MATH] and [MATH] uses a computer calculation , and can be made rigorous for manifolds of small enough complexity , using methods of moser and milley .
S2: the proof for [MATH] between [MATH] and [MATH] inclusive uses a rigorous computer computation that follows methods of moser and milley .
77: (stronger) better diction
78: (weaker) S1 uses much more impressive words and gives more information about the calculation.
79: (weaker) S1 makes stronger statement.
80: (stronger) Can be made rigorous is weaker than being rigorous
81: (stronger) "Can be made" in S1 is weaker than in S2.
82: (stronger) The researchers actually did the work to make it rigorous instead of claiming theoretically that it could be done.
83: (stronger) S2 makes the program seem more impressive due to the word placement.
84: (weaker) S2 has less specification with regards to the computer calculation.
68: (weaker) S2 removes the complexity factor

S1: various aspects of the phase diagrams are explained thanks to a non-linear [MATH] - model that represents the condensate in terms of the total density and pseudo-spin representation .
S2: various aspects of the phase diagrams are analytically justified thanks to a non-linear [MATH] - model that describes the condensate in terms of the total density and a pseudo-spin representation .
27: (stronger) "analytically justified" suggests a more rigorous process than "explained". "describes" is more impressive than "represents" because "represents" suggests that there were other possible ways to present the data, whereas "describes" suggests a more straightforward presentation
28: (nochange) similar
29: (stronger) To "explain" something isn't as strong as "analytically justifying" it. Also, "describing" something is stronger than just "representing" it. Thus, the verbs in S2 are stronger.
30: (nochange) both provide same information
31: (nochange) not much changed
32: (nochange) no effective change is there.
33: (stronger) 'Analytically justified' just sounds so much stronger than 'explained.'
34: (stronger) "analytically justified" sounds more impressive than "explained".
35: (stronger) "analytically justified" is more impressive

S1: however , our attempt at nonasymptotic analysis in subsection reveals unexpected difficulties . in most practically relevant situations [MATH] is unknown .
S2: however , our attempt at nonasymptotic analysis in subsection reveals unexpected difficulties : our bounds involve [MATH] in the denominator and in most practically relevant situations [MATH] is unknown .
9: (stronger) The revision explains HOW said difficulties were revealed.
10: (stronger) More details are given in s2
11: (nochange) The phrase "our bounds involve [MATH] in the denominator and" provides more details but represent no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 specifically identifies where [MATH] would be needed, whereas S1 merely implies that [MATH] is somehow involved.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more specific information about how the math is defined, making it stronger (R2)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it gives a baseline for "our" opinion.
15: (nochange) S2 adds details, but not strength.
16: (nochange) S2 just adds a detail, which does not change the strength of the sentence. None of R1-R3 apply.
17: (nochange) gives more info

S1: the obtained net magnetic moments increase with the difference between the number of removed a and b sites in good agreement with lieb 's theorem .
S2: for triangular shaped holes , the obtained net magnetic moments increase with the number difference of removed a and b sites in agreement with lieb 's theorem for even a+b .
53: (stronger) S2 adds specific information and evidence
54: (stronger) S2 is much more specific and contains additional information that S1 does not.
55: (weaker) S2 explains that it is only with triangular shaped holes.
56: (stronger) S2 added examples of evidence.
11: (nochange) Details and added and removed between S1 and S2 but these changes are merely cosmetic and represents no real strength change.
57: (nochange) S2 only gives a little more detail and doesn't make the sentence stronger or weaker.
58: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive by giving examples "for even a+b" to describe theorem and describes the types of objects "for triangular shaped holes".
59: (stronger) We are given a better understanding in S2 "for triangular shaped holes"
60: (stronger) S2 provides more specifics

S1: during a setup phase , amg recursively automatically constructs a multi-level hierarchy of increasingly coarser graphs by examining matrix entries , without relying on geometric information .
S2: during setup , amg recursively constructs a multi-level hierarchy of increasingly coarser graphs by examining matrix entries , without relying on geometric information .
53: (weaker) S1's use of 'a setup phase' is a specific example, S2 is more general. Automatically adds information as well
54: (stronger) S1 is too wordy. Phase and automatically don't seem necessary.
55: (weaker) Automatically shows how fast it is therefore strengthening it.
56: (weaker) S1 added the automatic function where S2 did not have it.
11: (nochange) The removal of "a...phase" and "automatically" are mostly cosmetic changes and represent no real strength change.
57: (nochange) just adding more details doesn't make it stronger or weaker
58: (weaker) Sentence 1 gives more information than sentence 2 does.
59: (weaker) The removal of "automatically" makes the process less impressive
60: (weaker) S1 provides more detail and points out the behavior of "amg"

S1: more precisely , they are each " almost " koszul , in that they contain some unwanted extensions , but once those are discarded , what remains is a large full abelian koszul subcategory .
S2: more precisely , they are each " almost " koszul , in that they contain some unwanted extensions , but once those are removed , what remains is a koszul category .
45: (weaker) s1 is more specific
46: (weaker) "large" and "full" are strong sounding words.
47: (stronger) "Category" is stronger than "subcategory."
48: (weaker) The "removed" term is less impressive than, discarded.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (weaker) S2 gives less detail on what remains, making it less impressive and useful.
51: (weaker) "Discarded" is stronger than "removed" as "discarded" implies a permanent dismissal, while "removed" can have either a permanent or temporary connotation.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (weaker) S1 had better words used, more specific

S1: in order to solve these problems , various inflation-like scenarios for the expansionary history of the universe at the extremely early time have been proposed .
S2: in order to solve these problems , various inflation-like scenarios for the expansion history of the universe at the very early time have been proposed .
45: (weaker) "extremely" is stronger than "very"
46: (weaker) "Extremely" is (some pun intended) a more extreme word than "very".
47: (weaker) "Extremely" is stronger than "very." The other change makes no difference.
48: (stronger) Very extremely adds more strength to the degree of concept.
49: (nochange) Semantics do not change. No change.
50: (weaker) S1 uses "extremely" while S2 uses "very", a weaker version of extremely.
51: (weaker) "Extremely" expresses a stronger degree than "very."
8: (weaker) The degree is weakened
52: (nochange) Altering words doesn't change the statement's strength

S1: i discuss the various possible physical origins of these non-gaussianities , both in terms of primordial perturbations and late-time dynamical and geometric effects , and the relationship with statistical anisotropy .
S2: i discuss the various possible physical origins of cosmological non-gaussianities , both in terms of primordial perturbations and late-time dynamical and geometric effects .
77: (weaker) removes reasoning at end of S1
78: (weaker) S2 removes the information about the relationship with statistical anisotropy.
79: (stronger) S2 makes stronger statement as a word cosmological.
80: (weaker) Removes statistical analysis
81: (cannottell) S1 uses "these" which is not stronger than cosmological, but the last part of the sentence provides something that sentence 2 did not.
82: (weaker) without discussion of relationship the claim is smaller.
83: (weaker) S2 is too general.
84: (weaker) The removal of "the relationship with statistical anisotropy" is a substantial part of the original statement and weakens the argument.
68: (cannottell) S2 adds the word 'cosmological' in the first part of the sentence and makes it stronger whereas it omits 'and the relationship with statistical anisotropy' making it weaker. So both holds true.

S1: in the presence of the centered gaussian external field , ( ii ) on a dense subset of the inverse temperature parameter the overlap is positive and the gibbs measures satisfy the extended ghirlanda-guerra identities , and ( iii ) we depict a region for the inverse temperature parameter on which the overlap can be controlled quantitatively away from the origin by the magnetization .
S2: this implies that our model is equivalent to the sk model with a shifted external field in the sense that they possess the same parisi measure ( the limiting law of the overlap ) and its gibbs measures satisfy the extended ghirlanda-guerra identities . ( iii ) we depict a region for the inverse temperature parameter on which the overlap can be controlled quantitatively away from the origin by the magnetization .
45: (weaker) adding "this implies" weakens it
46: (weaker) "implies" introduces doubt that is not present in S1.
47: (weaker) "In the sense that" and "this implies" are weakening expressions here.
48: (cannottell) The aspect of changes doesn't mean to me for any stronger or weaker aspect.
49: (stronger) Stronger logical argument with S2 structure.
50: (stronger) The phrase "our model is equivalent to the sk model with a shifted external field" introduces an application of the assertion that S1 does not have.
51: (weaker) The use of the word "implies" in S2 weakens the sentence by adding a degree of ambiguity and uncertainty.
8: (weaker) The degree is weakened
52: (weaker) Use of 'implies' is weaker than the definitive 'presence of'.

S1: an important part of the decay is expected to be due to the kelvin-wave cascade that works on length scales smaller than the intervortex distance .
S2: an important part of the decay at low temperatures is expected to be due to the kelvin-wave cascade that works on length scales smaller than the intervortex distance .
77: (nochange) merely clarification
78: (stronger) S2 adds more information to the sentence.
79: (stronger) S2 adds a evidence words (at low temperature),
80: (stronger) Clarifies evidence
81: (stronger) Brings in another degree - no pun intended- to the experiment.
82: (weaker) ads specification so claim is less extensive
83: (nochange) The change just gives more information, not evidence.
84: (stronger) the phrase "at low temperatures" add a new parameter thereby making s2 stronger.
68: (stronger) At lower temperatures - extra evidence

S1: we study dipolar bosons in a 1d optical lattice and identify a region in parameter space --- strong coupling but relatively weak on-site repulsion --- hosting a series of stable cdw states whose low-energy excitations , built from " fractional domain walls " , are remarkably similar to those of non-abelian fractional quantum hall states .
S2: we study dipolar bosons in a 1d optical lattice and identify a region in parameter space --- strong coupling but relatively weak on-site repulsion --- hosting a series of stable charge-density-wave ( cdw ) states whose low-energy excitations , built from " fractional domain walls , " have remarkable similarities to those of non-abelian fractional quantum hall states .
77: (stronger) adds "charge-density-wave"
78: (stronger) Spelling out the abbreviation of cdw gives more information to those who may be unfamiliar with it.
79: (stronger) S2 makes stronger statement.
80: (weaker) Being something (are similar) is stronger than possessing something (having similarities)
81: (stronger) S1 uses initials, while S2 writes the full word out.
82: (nochange) just different words
83: (stronger) Seems more valid
84: (stronger) S2 is better written.
68: (nochange) 2 ways of putting the fact and hence no change

S1: the result lies toward the upper uncertainty of the prediction from ( [MATH] b ) and below the prediction from [MATH] ( [MATH] b ) .
S2: the result is compatible with the prediction from ( [MATH] b ) and below the prediction from [MATH] ( [MATH] b ) .
61: (stronger) "is compatible with" is more certain than "lies toward".
62: (stronger) "Is compatible with" removes the weaker sounding conclusion of the original version.
63: (weaker) the first statement seemed more exact
64: (stronger) is compatible with is more explainable.
65: (stronger) "lies toward" and "uncertainty" are weaker words, which are removed.
51: (stronger) The phrase "lie toward" is much less impressive than "is compatible with," which implies a more defined observation.
66: (stronger) more definite
67: (cannottell) These adjustments in language are baffling- in addition to the typically opaque meaning in a sentence, these elaborations utterly baffle me and I'm unable to make a conclusion.
68: (weaker) S2 lacks detail thereby weakening the prediction

S1: using these bridges , the durrett-iglehart-theorem stating that the brownian bridge from [MATH] to [MATH] conditioned to remain above [MATH] converges weakly to the brownian excursion as [MATH] is extended to l'evy processes .
S2: using the bridges of the conditioned l'evy process , the durrett-iglehart-theorem stating that the brownian bridge from [MATH] to [MATH] conditioned to remain above [MATH] converges weakly to the brownian excursion as [MATH] , is extended to l'evy processes .
77: (stronger) clarification of "these"
78: (stronger) S2 better describes the bridges being used.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more evidence
80: (nochange) Clarification has no particular change in strength
81: (stronger) It shows what bridges we are using.
82: (nochange) just a pronoun replacement
83: (stronger) Gives a clearer picture
84: (stronger) The bridges are defined in s2 while it is silent in s1
68: (stronger) S2 is more specific in stating the type of bridges

S1: the optimized local basis functions achieve high efficiency and accuracy when applied to a one dimensional model problem .
S2: the optimized local basis set is able to achieve high accuracy with a small number of basis functions per atom when applied to a one dimensional model problem .
9: (weaker) Revision is less clear.
10: (stronger) s2 has more details than s1
11: (nochange) Changing "functions" to "set is able to" and "efficiency and" to "with a small number of basis functions per atom" just adds more detail and otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 is less certain than S1. S1 says that something "functions" whereas S2 merely says that it is "able to [function]". S1 also adds that it is efficient as well as accurate, which S2 does not.
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive with the specific information, S1 seems somewhat bland and straightforward.
14: (weaker) S1 is more relatable.
15: (weaker) "is able to" makes the sentence weaker. R1
16: (weaker) S1 mentions the efficiency plus accuracy, which makes the statement stronger and more impressive by R3. Also, S1 makes a more confident statement, where as S2 mentions that it's only "able to," not that it definitely does (R1).
17: (weaker) first sentence the functions actually achieve, opposed to stating they are able to achieve in second sentence

S1: we provide integral formulae for the adm mass of asymptotically flat hypersurfaces in riemannian manifolds with a certain warped product structure in a neighborhood of infinity , thus extending lam 's recent results on euclidean graphs to this broader context .
S2: we provide integral formulae for the adm mass of asymptotically flat hypersurfaces in riemannian manifolds with a certain warped product structure in a neighborhood of spatial , infinity , thus extending lam 's recent results on euclidean graphs to this broader context .
61: (stronger) Adding "spatial" clarifies what type of infinity this statement concerns.
62: (nochange) Adds insubstantial information.
63: (weaker) s2 makes what is presented in s1 confusing
64: (nochange) Spatial really doesn't change much.
65: (nochange) "Spatial" simply adds clarification.
51: (nochange) The word adds more clarification, but doesn't affect the strength of the sentence overall.
66: (nochange) hardly a difference
67: (nochange) Specifying infinity as 'spatial' infinity might qualify as, well, specifying, but it doesn't seem to strengthen the sentence.
68: (stronger) S2 considers spatial and infinity to be neighborhoods where as S1 considers only S1 to be so.

S1: hierarchical galaxy mergers will lead to the formation of binary and , in particular , triple smbhs , given that most massive galaxies harbor central smbhs .
S2: hierarchical galaxy mergers will lead to the formation of binary and , in the case of a subsequent merger before a binary coalesce , triple supermassive black holes ( smbhs ) , given that most massive galaxies harbor smbhs .
53: (stronger) S2 adds specific examples and evidence
54: (stronger) S1 is very vague, where S2 contains details (e.g. smbhs = supermassive black holes).
55: (weaker) In particular puts emphases on the subsequent merger before binary coalesce.
56: (stronger) S2 added additional details that S1 didn't have.
11: (nochange) S2 adds more details but ultimately doesn't strengthen the hypothesis and therefore represents no strength change.
57: (weaker) S2 takes out the word in particular which makes S1 more specific so S2 is weaker.
58: (stronger) S2 provides more descriptive information than S1.
59: (stronger) You have greater detail in S2, therefor making it the stronger statement
60: (stronger) also R3, much more detail, sounds more impressive

S1: focusing , introduced by jean-marc andreoli in the context of classical linear logic , defines a normal form for sequent calculus derivations that cuts down on the number of possible derivations by eagerly applying invertible rules and grouping sequences of non-invertible rules .
S2: focusing , introduced by jean-marc andreoli in the context of classical linear logic [ andreoli 1992 ] , defines a normal form for sequent calculus derivations that cuts down on the number of possible derivations by eagerly applying invertible rules and grouping sequences of non-invertible rules .
77: (nochange) annotation; no change of strength
78: (nochange) S2 only gives a type of citation which has no role on the rest of the sample.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (nochange) Noting a place for citation
81: (stronger) Shows source, where sentence 1 does not.
82: (nochange) different citation style
83: (nochange) The evidence does not strengthen anything
84: (stronger) s2 provides more reference with andreoli 1992
68: (nochange) I don think a citation can bring abt a change where both S1 and S2 remain the same throughout

S1: transport data clearly confirm the existence of a single electric field scale in any system .
S2: transport data clearly show the existence of a single electric field scale for all systems .
18: (weaker) S1 is stronger. Confirm is stronger than show. Any system could be considered more expansive than all systems, though the language is fairly similar.
19: (stronger) Second line shows more emphasis.
20: (weaker) The lack of confirmation in S2 indicates that only S1 was established upon prior research.
21: (weaker) Show is a weaker word than confirm, the change in systems is a wash
22: (cannottell) "Confirm" is stronger than "show", but "in any system" sounds better than "for all systems". Therefore, it is a tie.
23: (weaker) confirm is stronger than show.
24: (cannottell) Confirm in S1 is stronger than show, but all systems sounds more impressive than any system
25: (weaker) "Confirm" is changed to "show". The degree is weakened
26: (weaker) Weakens the evidence by changing it from confirm to show

S1: another possibility to achieve control of the electron dynamics on picosecond and femtosecond time scales is to utilize ultrashort highly asymmetric electromagnetic pulses .
S2: another possibility to control the electron dynamics on the subpicosecond time scale is to utilize ultrashort highly asymmetric electromagnetic pulses .
18: (weaker) S1 uses more specific terms for the scales, picosecond and femtosecond opposed to subpicosecond. To achieve control is slightly more descriptive than to control in this particular sentence.
19: (weaker) Second line removes one important word and pretends it doesn't exist, thus removing evidence.
20: (weaker) The scale is narrower - and, therefore, superior - in the first sentence, not the second.
21: (weaker) changing "picosecond and femtosecond" to simply "subpicosecond" in S2 removes a degree of certainty.
22: (nochange) Grouping the time scales together or defining both parts at once does not effect the statement. Neither does the removal of 'achieve'.
23: (stronger) Taking out "achieve" makes S2 stronger
24: (nochange) The changes to S2 make it neither stronger nor weaker in nature than S1. Added details don't add or take away from the statement
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: as a consequence , we show that the proposed scheme by these authors for testing separability would not work if the alignment matrix has a square size .
S2: as a consequence , we show that the proposed scheme by these authors for testing separability would not work if the two subsystems of the bipartite system have the same dimension .
9: (weaker) This rephrasing adds confusing technical jargon but does not mean anything more specific.
10: (stronger) s2 is more complex
11: (nochange) The phrase "if the two subsystems of the bipartite system have the same dimension" makes the sentence more vague than explicitly stating that the "alignment matrix has a square size" but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 clarifies an important detail missing in S1
13: (stronger) S2 expands on specific information, adding more evidence to give an idea of what's going on, specificity can be important (R2)
14: (weaker) S1 is stronger because it gets to the point.
15: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive. R3
16: (stronger) R3; S2 sounds like it says that it wouldn't work for a specific reason, which makes what the authors found more impressive.
17: (stronger) gives more info relating to why the testing wouldnt work

S1: we then leverage the intuition gained from the analysis of the posc and plsc to show that the second price auction or the english auction with even a very general profit sharing function generates higher expected total revenue than the auction with only a one-time payment .
S2: we leverage the intuition gained from the analysis of the posc and plsc to move beyond simple pscs and show that the auction with a psc from a very general class generates higher expected total revenue than the auction with only a one-time payment .
61: (cannottell) Not sure if "psc" is a better reference or "second price/English auction" is.
62: (nochange) Different wording only.
63: (weaker) s1 is more specific
64: (weaker) S1 has more examples.
65: (weaker) S1 implies more strength with "even" and S2 sounds less impressive due to the generalization and exclusion of clarifying phrases.
51: (weaker) The use of the word "even" implies a greater, more impressive accomplishment.
66: (weaker) s2 doesn't explain it as well
67: (nochange) There are a lot of added / left out words, but none of them seem to affect the strength of the sentence.
68: (weaker) S2 lacks in details which significantly weakens the assertion. Though, i am not able to find a chord between S2 and S1.. Maybe they are implying different aspects of a scientific discussion..

S1: another milder type of finite time singularity is the so-called " sudden singularity " .
S2: a milder type of finite time singularity is the so-called " sudden singularity " .
27: (weaker) "another" draws attention away from the statement, because it places it clearly as part of a list. However, if its place within a list is important, having that continuity may be desirable.
28: (stronger) just sounds better
29: (nochange) It doesn't change the meaning or strength - it's simply a way to say the same thing.
30: (stronger) Sounds better and isn't a run on from another version
31: (stronger) USED PERFECT PREPOSITION
32: (nochange) no strength change.
33: (stronger) S2 flows smoother. 'Another,' is not needed when you already have, 'milder.'
34: (stronger) Another implies there are a multitude of milder types of finite time singularities, whereas 'a' doesn't give this implication.
35: (stronger) "another" implies weakness and extraneous detail

S1: it is natural to assume a born-oppenheimer approximation ( boa ) of sorts and , in practice , we solve the neq electron dynamics problem for model systems or for frozen nuclei coordinates within an electron quantum-kinetic account ( qka ) .
S2: it is natural to assume a born-oppenheimer approximation ( boa ) of sorts and , in practice , we solve the neq electron dynamics problem for model systems or for frozen nuclei coordinates within an approximation to the electron quantum-kinetic account ( qka ) .
61: (nochange) "approximation to the" just clarifies the exactness of what is being applied.
62: (weaker) Makes the evidence less impressive.
63: (weaker) s2 makes the statment seem less precise by using 'an approximation to'
64: (weaker) Approximation is a weaker word.
65: (weaker) Approximation weakens the S2.
51: (weaker) "Approximation" makes the sentence seem less concrete and the conclusion/observation less definitive.
66: (weaker) approximation is a weak word
67: (stronger) Verifying that the relationship is an approximation adds more evidence, thereby making the statement a stronger one.
68: (stronger) S2 elaborates on how the solution is arrived at - "with an approximation to the"

S1: the differential transformation method ( dtm ) of pukhov and zhou is frequently presented as a ( relatively ) new method for solving differential equations .
S2: the differential transformation method ( dtm ) of pukhov -- and zhou is frequently presented as a ( relatively ) new method for solving differential equations an extensive presentation of the dtm is given in section . .
9: (stronger) The revision directs the reader to the information, which is helpful if it really is a "new" method.
10: (stronger) s2 is more impressive
11: (nochange) Adding "an extensive presentation of the dtm is given in section . ." adds more detail but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 is grammatically awkward and redundant.
13: (stronger) The addition of references helps strengthen the assertiveness, more reference means more evidence (R2)
14: (stronger) S1 is stronger because S2 offers "an extensive presentation of the dtm is given in section" which both trails off and is not separated by a period and is thus confusing.
15: (stronger) adding "an extensive presentation of the dtm is given in section" makes the sentence more impressive. R3
16: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence and justification for the statement with the extensive presentation of the dtm, which makes it stronger. R2.
17: (nochange) second just gives reference

S1: it is well known that if either [MATH] or the automorphism group of [MATH] is trivial , then [MATH] can be defined over [MATH] .
S2: it is well known that [MATH] can be defined over [MATH] if either [MATH] or the automorphism group of [MATH] is trivial .
0: (weaker) less direct and understandable
1: (nochange) Same statement
2: (nochange) S2 is stating the same thing in a different word order but does not strengthen the point.
3: (nochange) Nothing changed.
4: (nochange) no apparent change
5: (weaker) having a sentence contain if in the beginning makes sense to add then in the end and sounds better
6: (nochange) They say the exact same thing, excepted the words are just moved around.
7: (stronger) The order in S2 seems more impressive.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: we use the amplitudes of the beaming and the ellipsoidal modulations to estimate the mass of koi-13 .01 and show that it is probably a massive planet ( section 4 ) .
S2: we use the amplitude of the beaming modulation to estimate the mass of koi-13 .01 and show that it is probably a massive planet ( section 4 ) .
77: (nochange) no change of argument strength
78: (weaker) S1 adds the information about the ellipsoidal modulations.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (weaker) Beaming modulation has less evidence than both beaming and ellipsoidal modulations
81: (weaker) S1 tells what kind of modulation we are dealing with, while S2 does not.
82: (stronger) more general claim
83: (nochange) The changed terms do not really add or remove
84: (weaker) a 2nd parameter is removed in s2
68: (weaker) S2 doesnt describe the nature of modulation thereby weakening the assertion

S1: faced to this unsatisfactory situation , we study an unconventional cosmology , the dirac-milne universe , a matter-antimatter symmetric cosmology , in which antimatter is supposed to present a negative active gravitational mass .
S2: faced with this unsatisfactory situation , we study an unconventional cosmology , the dirac-milne universe , a matter-antimatter symmetric cosmology , in which antimatter is supposed to present a negative active gravitational mass .
9: (stronger) A grammar error was corrected.
10: (nochange) Both are the same strength
11: (nochange) Changing "to" to "with" makes the sentence more grammatically correct but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 is simply a grammatical correction.
13: (nochange) both to and with mean essentially the same thing, no change
14: (stronger) S2 is definitely stronger as it makes more sense.
15: (nochange) No strength changes.
16: (nochange) There is no strength change with to vs with.
17: (weaker) original sentence is more direct concerning situation (to)

S1: an interesting point of such generalized models is that they may support defect solutions with compact support - .
S2: an interesting point of such generalized models is that they may contain defect solutions with compact support - , known as compactons .
77: (stronger) clarifies term
78: (stronger) Adding that they are known as compactons adds more important information.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) Adds evidence called compactons
81: (stronger) Brings up compactons, which S1 does not do.
82: (weaker) It is more hedging its bets, not picking a reason but just pointing out a relationship
83: (nochange) Extra information is not evidence.
84: (stronger) the addition of compactons makes the statement clearer
68: (stronger) S2 adds more justification and details

S1: however the cornerstone of the present paper is an amazing though simple characterization of the [MATH] dimensional subspaces [MATH] of [MATH] ( here [MATH] is an interval in [MATH] ) via chebyshev systems .
S2: on the other hand the cornerstone of the present paper is an amazing though simple characterization of the [MATH] dimensional subspaces [MATH] of [MATH] ( here [MATH] is an interval in [MATH] ) via chebyshev systems .
0: (nochange) meaning and strength are not changed
1: (stronger) Sounds better
2: (nochange) S2 does not strengthen or weaken the statement by using 'on the other hand' instead of 'however'.
3: (nochange) Both transitions.
4: (nochange) both imply the same thing
5: (nochange) however and on the other hand can be used interchangably
6: (nochange) I think the changed words are similar enough that it doesn't change the sentence at all.
7: (weaker) "on the other hand" sounds less formal.
8: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence

S1: we show how quantum multipath interferences can lead to both super - and subradiance though the entangled states have zero dipole moment .
S2: we develop a quantum multipath interference approach which explains both super - and subradiance though the entangled states have zero dipole moment .
9: (stronger) Revision is more direct and to the point.
10: (stronger) s2 is direct
11: (weaker) Changing "show how" to "develop a" and "interferences can lead to" to "interference approach which explains" creates less active action in the sentence and therefore weakens the sentence.
12: (nochange) The meaning is essentially the same, just in different words. (e.g. both "show how" and "develop" can be either purely theoretical or demonstrative)
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more professional and streamlined than S1 (R1)
14: (nochange) These statements are different so there is no strength change.
15: (stronger) "develop" sounds more novel than "show". Same as "interference approach". R3
16: (stronger) R3. It is more impressive in S2 that they develop something than that they merely show it in S1.
17: (stronger) first sentence is only a hypothesis

S1: as special cases expressions of the average velocity and the covariance of velocities of two particles are studied in sec . ii .
S2: as special cases , the obtained expressions of average velocity and covariance of velocities of two particles are studied in detail in sec . ii .
36: (stronger) "in detail" makes s2 stronger
37: (stronger) "in detail" strengthens claim
38: (stronger) "In detail" implies that more work was put in and makes the statement sound more impressive.
39: (stronger) S2 provides detail to support its statement. "the obtained" is a confident expression, more so than "the".
40: (stronger) The phrase "obtained" makes S2 sound more impressive.
41: (nochange) The addition of "the obtained" and "in detail" do not make a significant change in strength to the statement.
42: (stronger) "in detail" sounds thorough
43: (weaker) S2 uses "the obtained" expressions and that makes the statement sound less novel which, in turn, makes the statement weaker.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: any physical processes associated with the denser cluster region seems to have caused accelerated size growth in quiescent galaxies prior to [MATH] and slower subsequent growth at [MATH] compared to galaxies in the lower density field .
S2: if this result is generalizable , then it implies that physical processes associated with the denser cluster region seems to have caused accelerated size growth in quiescent galaxies prior to [MATH] and slower subsequent growth at [MATH] compared to galaxies in the lower density field .
9: (weaker) Revision is weaker, words such as "if" and "implies" create doubt in the reader.
10: (stronger) s2 is more powerful
11: (weaker) By changing "any" to "if this result is generalizable, then it implies that" creates more uncertainty, is less assertive and therefore weakens the sentence.
12: (weaker) S2 is less confident. The certain "any" of S1 became a general implication in S2.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more justification and makes it sound stronger (R2)
14: (cannottell) I can't tell because both statements are confusing to me.
15: (weaker) "if...,then" and "it implies" makes S2 weaker. R1
16: (weaker) R1; S1 makes a statement that sounds stronger than the "if this result is generalizable" limitation placed on the statement in S2.
17: (weaker) second leaves room for other opinions

S1: first , exploiting the unique depth and angular resolution of the candels near-infrared data , we aim to measure the size growth of massive galaxies .
S2: first , exploiting the unique combination of depth and angular resolution in the candels near-infrared data , we aim to measure the size growth of massive galaxies .
0: (stronger) combining depth and angular resolution sounds impressive
1: (stronger) Adds important, relevant detail
2: (nochange) S2 adds more describing words with 'combination of' and the use of 'in' vs. 'of', neither changes make the statement stronger.
3: (stronger) Sounds stronger.
4: (stronger) implies that there is a difference between the two items
5: (weaker) of sounds more correct
6: (weaker) I think the extra wording in S2 makes the statement sound more unsure than S2.
7: (stronger) "combination of" adds to the fact that both "depth" and "angular resolution" were unique in the study.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we examine the geometry of this space of matrices and conclude that the best notion of differentiation of these matrix-valued functions is differentiation along curves .
S2: we examine the geometry of this space of matrices and conclude that the best notion of differentiation of these matrix functions is differentiation along curves .
0: (nochange) says nothing different
1: (stronger) doesn't change the intent of the statement
2: (nochange) S2 removes '-valued' but does not strengthen or weaken the statement.
3: (nochange) Nothing changed.
4: (weaker) removes value
5: (nochange) there is no impressive change
6: (weaker) S2 takes away a descriptive term, therefore I think it weakens the sentence.
7: (nochange) "matrix-valued" has the same intensity as "matrix"
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: this lead us to a natural interpretation of the jta as a generator of effective field theories .
S2: this has lead us to the natural interpretation of the jta as a generator of effective field theories .
69: (stronger) S2 uses "has" and "the" in order to make the author seem more sure about their findings rather than "a" which suggests it's one of many findings.
70: (stronger) 'the' makes it seem more specific
71: (weaker) better grammar in s1.
72: (stronger) has lead us to the IS MORE EFFECTIVE
73: (stronger) "a" means there is more than one interpretration, while "the" means only one.
74: (stronger) use of "the" suggests a more prominent interpretation
75: (stronger) "the" indicates it is the only obvious interpretation
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and do not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: we also propose an intuitive way to search the special edge states in two-dimensional quantum spin hall system .
S2: an intuitive way to search for the special edge states in the two-dimensional qsh system is also proposed .
45: (nochange) Just changed the word order
46: (nochange) These seem to just be grammatical changes.
47: (nochange) The simple restating changes don't change the strength, and the switch to passive voice doesn't, either.
48: (stronger) The full definition of qsh adds more strength to the sentence.
49: (nochange) abbreviating the jargon does nothing to the argument
50: (nochange) This is also just grammar changes, and using "qsh" instead of the full term.
51: (nochange) The word order is changed and an abbreviation is used, but these changes do not affect the strength.
8: (weaker) The term "proposed" makes the evidence weaker
52: (stronger) Leaving out the proposal makes the statement more definitive

S1: we relate the problem of enumerating the faces of [MATH] to a counting problem on certain classes of binary matrices , and exploit a structure theorem of to obtain a new result on the number of triangles in [MATH] ( theorem ) .
S2: we relate the problem of enumerating its faces to a counting problem on certain classes of binary matrices , and exploit a structure theorem of to obtain a new result on the number of triangles contained ( theorem ) .
61: (nochange) The change from "the...of" to "its" only replaces a specific noun with its pronoun; changing to "contained" is similar, it is just a word change without adding or deleting supporting evidence.
62: (nochange) Only a different wording.
63: (weaker) the second phrase is less specific
64: (nochange) The word-moving doesn't change intensity.
65: (nochange) S1 specifies the math/formula while S2 simply uses a pronoun.
51: (nochange) The changes seem to be merely semantic revisions that don't impact the strength, but rather the style or flow of the statement.
66: (stronger) more specific
67: (nochange) These revisions do not impact the sentence one way or another.
68: (weaker) S2 removes the mathematical variables.

S1: we used the same set of relevant input parameters and wave functions to make the calculations for the considered decay modes and found the following results : ( a ) one can provide a consistent pqcd interpretation for both the measured [MATH] and [MATH] simultaneously ; ( b ) the pqcd predictions for [MATH] obtained by different authors are well consistent with each other ; ( c ) our new pqcd prediction for [MATH] agree very well with the measured values from cdf and lhcb collaboration ; and ( d ) the cp-violating asymmetry [MATH] , which is large and may be detected at the lhcb experiment .
S2: by numerical calculations and phenomenological analysis we found the following results : ( a ) one can provide a consistent pqcd interpretation for both the measured [MATH] and [MATH] simultaneously ; ( b ) the pqcd predictions for [MATH] obtained by different authors are well consistent with each other ; ( c ) our new pqcd prediction for [MATH] agree well with the measured values from cdf and lhcb collaboration ; and ( d ) the cp-violating asymmetry [MATH] , which is large and may be detected at the lhcb and future super-b factory experiments .
53: (nochange) while there is more information in S1, the information is just extrapolatory and doesn't actual change the strength or evidence of the sentence
54: (weaker) S1 uses 'agree very well,' which I believe carries more weight than 'agree well.' I also believe that the first line of S1 provides more specific information than S2.
55: (stronger) S2 gives more evidence as to how they found the results.
56: (weaker) S1 had more evidence to back up their claim.
11: (nochange) Details are added and removed between S1 and S2 but these are merely cosmetic changes and therefore represent no strength change.
57: (weaker) in S1 it speaks of more specific parameters leaving that our makes S2 weaker.
58: (weaker) S2 removes justifications of S1 "we used the same set of relevant input parameters and wave functions to make the".
59: (weaker) I think S1 gives us more information
60: (weaker) also R3, s1 adds more detail, specifics of what they did

S1: in this paper , we study the [MATH] - connectivity [MATH] of the cartesian product of some graphs . we show that for a graph [MATH] and a path [MATH] , if [MATH] , then [MATH] .
S2: in this paper , we first study the [MATH] - connectivity of the cartesian product of a graph [MATH] and a tree [MATH] , and show that [MATH] if [MATH] , then [MATH] ; [MATH] if [MATH] , then [MATH] .
53: (stronger) S2 is adding evidence of [MATH] and has more specific examples than "some graphs"
54: (stronger) S2 is more thorough and clear through the use of additional details and information.
55: (weaker) Some graphs is more evidence than a graph.
56: (stronger) S2 showed the first step in the process.
11: (nochange) Details have been added and removed between S1 and S2 but these changes provides only more detail and not evidence and therefore represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) some graphs is more vague than of a graph which implies more of a focus.
58: (weaker) S1 is more descriptive than S2. S2 removed some valuable information from S1 "some graphs we show that for".
59: (stronger) S2 better explains the process
60: (stronger) s2 is more forceful and definitive

S1: we will show that in this fashion one obtains binary and statistically independent data as a natural consequence of the algorithm itself , in addition , fixing the dimensionality of the hypercube , one can tune the rate of dimensional reduction .
S2: we show that this is sufficient to obtain binary and statistically independent data as a natural consequence of the algorithm itself , in addition , fixing the dimensions of the hypercube , one can freely adjust the rate of dimensional reduction .
61: (stronger) Removing "will" takes away the potential aspect of this statement, asserting that this is already true.
62: (weaker) "Is sufficient to" is weaker.
63: (weaker) the second statement seemed less precise
64: (weaker) Sufficient is a weaker term than just obtaining.
65: (nochange) Change in grammar and phrasing, not strength.
51: (weaker) The use of the phrase "sufficient to obtain" implies that there is a greater degree that can be achieved but this examines only what is minimally sufficient, rather than what is optimal or what is the best.
66: (nochange) not much difference
67: (weaker) Including a degree of 'sufficiency' weakens the statement of prior obtainment.
68: (weaker) S1 surely says that it will obtain, whereas S2 doesn't thereby weakening it.

S1: for a tms [MATH] , we say [MATH] is flat with respect to [MATH] if [MATH] is feasible in ( ) for [MATH] and satisfies [MATH] ( cf. ) .
S2: for a tms [MATH] , we say [MATH] is flat with respect to [MATH] if [MATH] is feasible in ( ) for [MATH] and satisfies the condition [MATH] ( cf. ) .
77: (stronger) clarification
78: (nochange) "The condition" adds no additional information or clarity.
79: (nochange) Both statement remains same
80: (weaker) Redundancy weakens sentence
81: (stronger) Talks about "MATH" as a condition, where the first sentence does not.
82: (nochange) Just more wordy, but context is obvious
83: (nochange) S2 did not add/ remove anything pertinent
84: (nochange) the word "condition" does anything to the statement.
68: (nochange) [Math] is specified in both cases and so specifying 'the condition' explicitly doesnt make much change.

S1: the energy loss in this process is predicted to lead to a non-analytic dependence of the drift velocity on small forces .
S2: this is predicted to lead to a non-analytic dependence of the impurity drift velocity on small forces .
9: (weaker) The second version is less specific.
10: (weaker) S1 provides more details
11: (stronger) The word impurity provides more detail but creates no strength change.
12: (weaker) the original sentence was more specific; S2 merely refers to an impurity, S1 identifies the actual impurity.
13: (weaker) S2 excludes specific information that S1 includes, making S2 weaker (R2)
14: (weaker) The original version is stronger because it gives a specific explanation.
15: (nochange) S1 adds details, but not strength.
16: (nochange) S1 just adds clarifications and details. None of R1-R3 apply.
17: (weaker) it loses valuable information pertaining to what is described in sentence

S1: using these new results on measure rigidity we may extend the convergence of measures in to homogeneous spaces .
S2: using these new results we can extend the convergence of measures in to homogeneous spaces .
36: (weaker) s2 removed detail
37: (nochange) terms interchangeable
38: (stronger) "Can" is a more definite word than "may" so S2 is stronger.
39: (stronger) "can" is stronger than "may".
40: (stronger) The use of the word "can" in S2 strengthens the argument.
41: (weaker) While "on measure rigidity" is adds more strength to the "new results" the change from "we may extend" to "we can extend" could be tempting think that this has weakened the statement however the use of the word "may" and "can" are not used to represent uncertainty in the statement as they are used in the sense that the results "will allow for" the extending of the convergence of measures in all cases.
42: (stronger) "can" is stronger than "may", as may leaves doubt
43: (stronger) The use of "can" is more definite and stronger than the use of "may" in S1.
44: (stronger) "can" is much stronger than "may", "on measure rigidity" is a detail.

S1: in this paper , we present the first approximate nearest-neighbor ( ann ) algorithms , which run in polylog ( [MATH] ) time for bregman divergences of fixed dimension .
S2: in this paper , we present the first provably approximate nearest-neighbor ( ann ) algorithms . these process queries in [MATH] time for bregman divergences in fixed dimensional spaces .
36: (weaker) polylog was stronger evidentially than process queries
37: (stronger) makes a claim to proof
38: (stronger) The presence of "provably" strengthens S2 because it establishes the algorithms as proven fact.
39: (weaker) S1's specificity just seems more impressive.
40: (nochange) The differences between the two are only in minor details.
41: (stronger) The restructuring of the statement doesn't make a stronger case or add evidence but uses better language and grammar to get the point across.
42: (stronger) "provably" is stronger
43: (stronger) The use of "provably" makes S2 stronger.
44: (stronger) I'm not sure why, but S2 sounds more impressive.

S1: thus , theorem immediately characterises von neumann regular matrices : a square matrix over [MATH] is von neumann regular if and only if its row space and column space have the same pure dimension equal to their generator dimension .
S2: thus , theorem immediately yields a geometric characterisation of von neumann regularity : a square matrix over [MATH] is von neumann regular if and only if its row space and column space have the same pure dimension equal to their generator dimension .
36: (stronger) adding "geometric" to characterises strengthens s2
37: (stronger) specific type of characterization is stronger than the general "characterises"
38: (stronger) "Yields" is a more impressive sounding word than "characterizes".
39: (weaker) S1's succinctness seems stronger.
40: (nochange) S2 has more detail than S1 but this doesn't affect strength.
41: (stronger) The words "yields a geometric characterization of" sounds more impressive.
42: (stronger) S2 is worded better
43: (nochange) To me, the use of "characterises" and "yields" doesn't change the strength of the statement, it just uses different words to describe the same thing.
44: (stronger) "yields a geometric characterisation" sounds more impressive than "characterises"

S1: mixed strategy evolutionary programming has been implemented for continuous optimization and experimental results show it performs better than its rival pure strategy evolutionary programming , which utilizes a single mutation operator .
S2: mixed strategy evolutionary programming has been implemented for continuous optimization and experimental results show it performs better than its rival , i.e. , pure strategy evolutionary programming which utilizes a single mutation operator .
27: (nochange) The choice of inclusion of "i.e." does not add support, and the sentence is fine with or without it.
28: (nochange) similar
29: (nochange) Adding "i.e." doesn't change the strength of the sentence at all. The same information is provided in both sentences.
30: (stronger) an example is provided in the second version
31: (stronger) has justification
32: (nochange) almost the same sentence as the first one.
33: (weaker) S2 does not need the 'i.e.' to make sense.
34: (nochange) Grammatical change.
35: (nochange) Nothing added really

S1: when combined with 12 previously published light curves , we have a sample consisting of 22 transit light curves , spanning 1,041 days across 4 observational seasons .
S2: when combined with 12 previously published light curves , we have a sample consisting of 22 transit light curves , spanning 1,041 days across four observational seasons .
0: (nochange) the same data is given in two slightly different formats that have no impact.
1: (stronger) Text numbers stand out, especially after a list of other numbers
2: (nochange) There is no strength change in using the word 'four' in S2 instead of '4'.
3: (nochange) Same thing just spelled out.
4: (nochange) 4 = four, although is better to spell out number when it is smaller
5: (weaker) The entire sentence uses numbers not written out to explain each detail and it should be consistent
6: (nochange) They have the same meaning, one is just spelled out.
7: (weaker) "four" is less impressive in S2 because it stands out by not being written "4" as in S1.
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: in this coming scenario the main role of the high voltage grid may change , while the distribution grid ( i.e. , medium voltage and low voltage end of the power grid ) may gain more and more importance , while requiring a major update .
S2: in this coming scenario the main role of the high voltage grid may change , while the distribution grid ( i.e. , medium voltage and low voltage end of the power grid ) gain more and more importance , while requiring a major update .
45: (stronger) removal of the word "may" makes it sound better
46: (stronger) "may" implies a nebulous state which weakens S1.
47: (stronger) "May" shows uncertainty.
48: (nochange) There is no change in strength in sentence 2.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) S2 removes the word "may".
51: (stronger) "May" implies a degree of possibility rather than certainty, making S2 stronger.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (stronger) Removal of 'may' strengthens the statement.

S1: our main result is a formula for the [MATH] - signature in this case : let [MATH] be the coordinate ring of an affine toric variety with the conventions of remark below .
S2: in particular : ( cf. , theorem 5.1 ) let [MATH] be the coordinate ring of an affine toric variety [MATH] without torus factors , with the conventions of remark below .
45: (stronger) adding in the theorem sounds stronger (I think. I'm not sure)
46: (stronger) There is a further example given and more specifics in S2
47: (stronger) This brings in another theorem as a point of reference.
48: (stronger) The example of reference gives more evidence to strengthen the degree of sentence.
49: (nochange) Changing sentence structure does nothing to the argument
50: (stronger) Claiming the result as their own and specifying that it works in a particular case makes the assertion seem more impressive and valid.
51: (weaker) S1 specifies a "main result" which sounds a great deal more impressive, as it implies a greater amount of background work which successfully led to a given result.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (weaker) Removal of the main result statement weakens it

S1: let [MATH] be a hamiltonian of the form [MATH] with the associated system of differential equations [MATH] where [MATH] is assumed to have the following form in polar coordinates : [MATH] with the notations [MATH] this implies that [MATH] is a homogeneous function of degree [MATH] .
S2: this defines a symplectic form on [MATH] on which we consider a hamiltonian [MATH] of the form [MATH] with the associated system of differential equations [MATH] the potential [MATH] is assumed to be meromorphic on [MATH] and to have the following form in polar coordinates : [MATH] this implies that [MATH] is homogeneous of degree [MATH] .
9: (weaker) Original is more grammatically correct and clear in meaning.
10: (stronger) s2 has more grand wording
11: (nochange) The various changes from S1 to S2 provides more details but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 is slightly more certain, using words like "defines" as opposed to "let [something] be", and omits "a" before "homogeneous" to be more specific.
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive, better structural flow. (R3)
14: (nochange) I think each of these are equally strong in wording.
15: (stronger) 'let..be" is weaker than "defines" R1 and "to be meromorphic on [MATH]" adds more evidence R2.
16: (stronger) S2 seems to make a stronger and more impressive statement with "this defines..."; R3
17: (stronger) second sentence is a definition opposed to assumption in first

S1: moreover , quantitative datas on the magnetization inside the dot was retrieved and informations on the degrees of freedom of such walls was extracted .
S2: moreover , quantitative data on the magnetization inside the dot is retrieved using phase retrieval as well as new informations on the degrees of freedom of such walls .
77: (stronger) uses data correctly and expands upon idea
78: (stronger) S2 adds the information about how the data was retrieved.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (weaker) Second sentence is somewhat redundant (retrieved using retrieval) and weak, unspecific language about the process like "as well as"
81: (stronger) Shows how the process was achieved, adding credibility.
82: (nochange) better grammar in s2
83: (stronger) Adds information on how data retrieved.
84: (stronger) S2 is very specific on a particular data as compared to multiple "datas" in S1. S2 also have more justification.
68: (stronger) S2 adds evidence

S1: first we classify all locally irreducible approximable 3-valent fan tropical curves in a non-singular fan tropical plane .
S2: first we classify all locally irreducible approximable 3-valent fan tropical curves in a fan tropical plane .
9: (weaker) Revision is less specific of methodology.
10: (weaker) s2 lacks a detail
11: (nochange) Removing "non-singular" from the sentence creates less details but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 eliminates a potentially important detail from S1
13: (weaker) S2 deletes specific information that was in sentence 1 on evidence that could be an important detail (R2)
14: (cannottell) I'm not sure if non-singular makes S2 a weaker statement.
15: (nochange) S1 has more details, but not more strength.
16: (nochange) S1 adds clarification, but is not stronger or weaker than S2.
17: (weaker) more info describing plane in first sentence

S1: local hall effect appears due to large local magnetostatic field produced at the pin-holes in the alo [MATH] tunnel barrier .
S2: local hall effect appears due to large local magnetostatic field produced at the roughness in the alo [MATH] tunnel barrier .
27: (nochange) The choice of words does not change the strength, though they have slightly different meanings and presumably the new version is more specifically accurate.
28: (nochange) similar
29: (nochange) "Pin-holes" and "roughness" are simply different areas being discussed and neither has a greater distinct value or strength.
30: (weaker) pin-holes is easier to visualize
31: (nochange) used synonyms
32: (nochange) using of synonyms doesn't make any change.
33: (cannottell) I do not know which would be more appropriate to use.
34: (weaker) To me "pin-holes" in S1 seems more like a piece of evidence than "roughness" in S2.
35: (weaker) "pin-holes" is more descriptive

S1: in the case of a linear relation between [MATH] and [MATH] , our measure [MATH] reduces to [MATH] , the square of [MATH] ; hence in this case , the present approach leads to a simple transformation of the effective weights .
S2: in the case of a linear relation between [MATH] and [MATH] , our measure [MATH] reduces to [MATH] , the square of [MATH] , used in the example above ; hence in this case , the present approach leads to a simple transformation of the effective weights .
77: (nochange) irrelevant statement to strength
78: (nochange) S2 only adds that the square of MATH was used in the sample above, it does not offer any crucial information.
79: (stronger) S2 makes more stronger
80: (cannottell) "Used in the example above" may either be redundant or provide necessary clarification.
81: (stronger) Shows an example where it was used.
82: (nochange) just language choices
83: (nochange) Just orients the reader
84: (stronger) s2 implies that there is more evidence to support the statement.
68: (nochange) uSed in the example above doesnt bring about a change in assertion

S1: the proposed numerical technique , that we call variational matrix-product operator ( vmpo ) , offers a computationally efficient tool for characterizing the " globalness " and entangling capabilities of nonlocal unitary operations .
S2: the proposed numerical technique , which we call variational matrix-product operator ( vmpo ) , offers a computationally efficient tool for characterizing the " globalness " and entangling capabilities of nonlocal unitary operations .
0: (nochange) does not change the strength of the sentence
1: (weaker) Just sounds better
2: (nochange) S2 is the same strength as S1, as 'that' and 'which' do not change the impact.
3: (nochange) No change.
4: (weaker) that is stronger than which
5: (nochange) that and which seem to be used interchangeably
6: (weaker) 'that' in s1 seems more definitive than 'which'.
7: (stronger) The statement does not have a strong impact on the sentences, so using which is more appropriate.
8: (nochange) No change in the actual meaning

S1: the aim of this paper is to study trees chosen under [MATH] , the uniform distribution on the set of trees with specified degree sequence [MATH] , and then size [MATH] .
S2: the aim of this paper is to study trees chosen under [MATH] , the uniform distribution on the set of plane trees with specified degree sequence [MATH] , and then size [MATH] .
0: (stronger) defines type of trees
1: (nochange) Adding "plane" doesn't change the content
2: (nochange) S2 uses more detail but does not strengthen the statement.
3: (stronger) Gives type of trees.
4: (nochange) just adds additional info
5: (cannottell) I don't know what they mean by plane trees- if they mean as a reference to a landscape of a plane?
6: (stronger) S2 is providing more detail with the use of 'plane', making the sentence stronger.
7: (stronger) Specifies the form of the "trees".
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: swain and ray observed the inhibition of the in vitro growth of the fungus , and the emergence of isolated patterns or strains , free of f. oxysporum concentration , and localized near the places where the b. subtilis was applied ( see , for example , figure 2 in ) .
S2: the authors observed the inhibition of the in vitro growth of the fungus and the emergence of isolated patterns or strains , free of f. oxysporum concentration , which were localized near the places where the b. subtilis was applied .
45: (weaker) removal of the figure
46: (weaker) S2 loses the example provided in S1.
47: (weaker) The reference to the figure is removed.
48: (weaker) The general specification of authors gives less impression. Though evidence not given in S1. The reference of example gives more strength to the S1.
49: (weaker) Removal of the example is removal of evidence which weakens S2.
50: (nochange) This is just grammar changes and removing a reference to a figure, which I believe was not considered a strength change.
51: (nochange) S1 specifies the names of the authors and references another point in the paper, but these changes don't particularly change the strength of the assertion. Additional evidence provided is merely a reference to another place in the paper and is just offering another place to look in order to understand the statement better.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (stronger) S1 doesn't offer the example. S2 is a stronger, more specific statement

S1: we also present methodologies to isolate and understand the sources of performance bottlenecks in our design .
S2: finally , we present methodologies to isolate and understand the sources of performance bottlenecks in our design .
45: (nochange) both imply that there was evidence before, but no difference between them
46: (stronger) "finally" is a more definitive word than "also"
47: (stronger) "Finally" is just more authoritative. It shows one's coming to an end, and feels comfortable doing so.
48: (stronger) The term finally adds more strength to the degree of sentence.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (cannottell) I'm not sure if using "finally" over "also" changes the strength of the assertion.
51: (nochange) "Also" and "finally" are both commonly used transition words, which can be used more or less interchangeably. They do not impact the strength of the statement.
8: (stronger) The use of word "finally" strengthens the evidence
52: (stronger) 'Finally' is definitive and a stronger statement than 'also'

S1: the functions [MATH] and [MATH] are continuous and satisfy [MATH] the random variables [MATH] are i.i.d. with a known continuous density function [MATH] the functions [MATH] and [MATH] are such that the time series , generated by ng , is geometric mixing with the unique positive bounded invariant density [MATH] , i.e. for any measurable function [MATH] with positive constants [MATH] and [MATH] .
S2: the functions [MATH] and [MATH] are continuous and satisfy [MATH] the random variables [MATH] are i.i.d. with a known continuous bounded density function [MATH] the functions [MATH] and [MATH] are such that the time series , generated by ng , is geometric mixing with the unique positive bounded invariant density [MATH] , i.e. for any measurable function [MATH] with positive constants [MATH] and [MATH] .
61: (stronger) Adds a word that further defines the type of density function.
62: (stronger) Adds slightly more information.
63: (nochange) the added word does not change the information
64: (stronger) Slightly more specific.
65: (cannottell) I do not know if there is a difference between continuous density function and continuous bounded density function.
51: (nochange) The addition of the worded "bounded" adds detail and description to the sentence, but does not affect the strength on the sentence.
66: (nochange) barely a difference
67: (nochange) Although 'bounded' gives us more information /evidence, it remains a single word amongst a slew of vital information. I don't believe it makes much of an impact.
68: (nochange) S2 increases the evidence - it describes the density function to be 'bounded' but it doesn't change the strength of assertion.

S1: there are many groups whose centres have index [MATH] , for example any group of the form [MATH] where [MATH] is the dihedral group of order [MATH] , and [MATH] is abelian .
S2: there are many groups whose centres have index [MATH] , for example any group of the form [MATH] where [MATH] is the dihedral group of order [MATH] and [MATH] is abelian has this property .
36: (nochange) has this property doesn't add anything to s1
37: (nochange) addition makes no sense (perhaps it's a parsing error?)
38: (nochange) Grammar was fixed.
39: (weaker) It is stated to be "abelian". The additional words just weaken it.
40: (stronger) S2 states that abelian has this property so the statement is stronger.
41: (weaker) Adding "has this property" actually detracts from the strength due to the unnecessary and awkward sounding addition of those words.
42: (weaker) "has this property" adds no value and is not in proper context
43: (nochange) S2 adds detail but not strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: in order to reduce the higher-order nonlinearities in the model ( in the lagrangian multipliers [MATH] , [MATH] for the nonlinear constraint [MATH] ) , one frequently used method is to introduce a proper penalty approximation , namely , we add the term [MATH] in [MATH] , which holds the information on the extensibility of the molecules .
S2: in order to handle the higher-order nonlinearities due to the nonlinear constraint [MATH] ( i.e. , the lagrangian multipliers [MATH] , [MATH] ) , one can introduce a penalty ( or relaxation ) approximation , by adding one term [MATH] in [MATH] . physically this term can be attributed to the extensibility of the molecules .
18: (weaker) S1 stronger language includes reduce opposed to handle, frequently used method to introduce opposed to can introduce and we add opposed to by adding one... also holds info is stronger that can be attributed.
19: (stronger) While more is usually better, first line sounds like a jumbled mess while line two sounds much more professional.
20: (stronger) The second explanation offers up additional explanation of the structure of the solution.
21: (weaker) There is a lot of doubt in S2 due to the use of "can" two times. indicating uncertainty.
22: (stronger) In S1, the the term reduce implies forcing ones will onto the procedure, while handling the nonlinearities implies accommodation. S2 also conveys the same information in fewer words which is always a good thing.
23: (weaker) The uses of "can" in S2 make it less strong
24: (cannottell) Each sentence contains equal points of strength and weakness.
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: , for gravity with a scalar field , this approach only succeeds to fix the expressions of [MATH] and [MATH] as [MATH] and [MATH] , respectively , while the transformed cosmological equations derived by means of the method do not seem to be easily solvable ( bonanno et al. . ) , therefore giving no new insight into possible solutions .
S2: in ref . , for gravity with a scalar field , this approach only succeeds in fixing the expressions of [MATH] and [MATH] as [MATH] and [MATH] , respectively , while the transformed cosmological equations derived by means of the method do not seem to be easily solvable , therefore giving no new insight into possible solutions .
0: (weaker) removes references to bonanno
1: (weaker) Cites a specific reference
2: (nochange) S2 has the same strength as S1, it just orders the words differently
3: (cannottell) I don't know what either of those terms reference.
4: (nochange) both imply reference, therefore no change
5: (weaker) it takes away from quoting someone which takes away details and evidence (they obviously did not come up with in on their own)
6: (weaker) S2 has less definitive wording and takes away the example, therefore it is weaker.
7: (weaker) In S2, the reference's importance is weakened, weakening the justification from it.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: the solution is based upon the fact that the automorphisms of the heisenberg motion group [MATH] , modulo discrete sub-group [MATH] , acts isometrically on the boundary of the hyperbolic three-dimensional space-time manifold .
S2: the solution is based upon the fact that the seven-dimensional group of the automorphisms of the heisenberg motion group [MATH] , modulo discrete sub-group [MATH] , act isometrically on the boundary of the hyperbolic three-dimensional manifold .
45: (stronger) seems more specific
46: (cannottell) The additional information in each sentence doesn't sway me one way or the other but that is likely ignorance of what those terms mean.
47: (nochange) The meaning here is slightly different, but S2 is not a stronger or weaker version of S1 per se.
48: (stronger) The term "the seven-dimensional group of" adds more evidence to the concept.
49: (stronger) Giving the specific group in evidence strengthens S2.
50: (stronger) S2 adds "the seven-dimensional group"
51: (nochange) While there are additional details provided, they are background details describing groups and manifolds that are referenced in both S1 and S2. The additional details don't make S2 any stronger or weaker.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement.

S1: we present a general phenomenological model for superconducting qubits subject to noise produced by two-level systems ( tls ) whose couplings to the qubit are all roughly the same .
S2: we present a general phenomenological model for superconducting qubits subject to noise produced by two-state fluctuators whose couplings to the qubit are all roughly the same .
45: (stronger) two state fluctuators sounds more specific than two level systems (though I really don't know if that's true)
46: (nochange) This is a grammatical choice from my perspective.
47: (cannottell) I'm not sure what either of these means. As far as I can tell, this looks like some kind of correction or elaboration, not a strengthening or weakening.
48: (stronger) The two state fluctuators is more impressive than two level systems.
49: (stronger) Specific evidence is stronger.
50: (nochange) This sounds like two ways of saying the same science jargon.
51: (nochange) I think that the change a semantic one that doesn't affect the strength of the statement.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
52: (nochange) Says the same thing

S1: astrophysical mechanisms involving as the biermann battery mechanism have been used to explain the generation of fields in various objects such as galaxies , stars and supernova remnants , but they are not likely to be correlated much beyond galactic sizes .
S2: astrophysical mechanisms , as the biermann battery have been used to explain how the magnetic field is mantained in objects as galaxies , stars and supernova remnants , but they are not likely correlated beyond galactic sizes .
0: (weaker) removes detail and information, weakening the sentence
1: (stronger) Less wordy
2: (cannottell) These both seem the same strength to me but I cannot say for sure.
3: (stronger) Better word choice.
4: (weaker) removes justification
5: (weaker) the first sentence sounds a lot more clear and it is easier to read
6: (weaker) The changes in S2 make the sentence not even grammatically correct.
7: (stronger) S1 is too "wordy".
8: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: this is no substitute for proper textbook reading , but the reader will find the essential notions and definitions which are needed to understand the remainder .
S2: this is no substitute for proper textbook reading , but the reader will find essential notions and definitions needed to understand the remainder .
53: (nochange) S2 is more concise, but the addition of which are and the do not change or remove any information
54: (weaker) S1 is more specific in the way that it is written.
55: (nochange) I didn't find any words in S2 Strengthened or weakened S1.
56: (nochange) The added words don't add anything to S2.
11: (stronger) Removing "the" and "which are" makes the sentence sound more impressive and therefore represents a strength change.
57: (nochange) removing "the" and "which are" do not weaken or strengthen the sentence.
58: (nochange) S2 removes "the", "which" and "are" from S1 but does not change the strength of the sentence.
59: (weaker) in S1 "the" and "which are" bring the point home
60: (weaker) s1 is more concrete about necessity

S1: then we specifically describe the totally umbilical and maximal spacelike surfaces of revolution and give their specific parametrizations .
S2: we then specifically describe the totally umbilical and maximal spacelike surfaces of revolution and give explicitly their parametrizations .
9: (nochange) explicitly and specifically are equally strong and detailed.
10: (weaker) Specific is stronger
11: (nochange) Changing the word from specific to explicitly doesn't change the strength of the sentence.
12: (weaker) 'explicitly' does not necessarily have the same meaning as 'specific' and creates awkward grammar
13: (nochange) There is no difference in meaning between the two
14: (nochange) I think there is no strength change because the same is said in the beginning of the sentence in different ways, and explicitly and specific are basically the same.
15: (stronger) explicitly is stronger than specific. R1
16: (weaker) S2 sounds weaker than S1 because in S1 they give specific parametrizations, where in S2 they give "explicitly" parametrizations. R1because S1 sounds stronger, and R2 because the specific parametrizations in S1 seem to provide more evidence.
17: (nochange) this does not change strength due to it only describes how same information is given

S1: smr estimation and related mr statistics have recently been studied in various contexts .
S2: smres and related mr statistics have recently been studied in various contexts .
18: (weaker) S1 makes more sense than S2, because estimation is spelled out for the lay reader.
19: (weaker) reducing estimation to es and combining it with smr makes it more confusing.
20: (nochange) Again: rewording affects nothing.
21: (nochange) Name change, no affect on content.
22: (weaker) Using the full term in S1 rather than an abbreviated acronym in S2 makes S1 sound more important. Otherwise, there is no difference in the statements.
23: (nochange) this is just changes in abbreviation which does not change the strength
24: (nochange) Change is abbreviation related
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence with the removal of word "Estimation"

S1: on the other hand , its very simple assumptions on the extrapolation of source spectra at mm wavelengths as well as new data published in the last ten years make it currently not up -- of -- date for further predictions , although it is still very useful for comparisons -- even at [MATH] , ghz -- after a simple rescaling .
S2: on the other hand , its very simple assumptions on the extrapolation of source spectra at mm wavelengths as well as new data published in the last ten years make it currently not up -- of -- date for more predictions , although it is still very useful for comparisons -- even at [MATH] , ghz -- after a simple rescaling .
9: (weaker) Less grammatically correct than original.
10: (nochange) Both are the same strength
11: (nochange) Changing the word "further" to "more" is a somewhat cosmetic change and otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (nochange) "further" and "more" mean essentially the same thing in this context.
13: (nochange) Further and more mean almost the same thing, so no justification in making one stronger or weaker
14: (weaker) S2 is weaker. Further predictions sounds more appropriate.
15: (weaker) "further" is stronger than "more". R1
16: (stronger) I think s2 is slightly stronger because "more predictions" seems like a stronger word than "further predictions." R1
17: (nochange) essentially same

S1: we predict it is possible to observe these reactions at lhc energies .
S2: we predict it is possible to observe these reactions in lhc .
9: (cannottell) I cannot tell as I do not know what "lhc" is.
10: (weaker) s1 has more direct words
11: (nochange) Changing "at" to "in" and removing "energies" are cosmetic changes and also removes a detail but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 is mainly a cleanup of S1 to be more grammatically correct. The meaning is not changed.
13: (weaker) LHC probably refers to "Large Hedron Collider" and the reference to 'energies' helps assert the context of the information involves a certain scale of power. (R2)
14: (nochange) I don't believe there is a strength change here because S1 is defining a place or thing, and lhc "energies" becomes a noun. In S2, we are unaware what "lhc" is. It could be a status, a place/thing, or anything else.
15: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive. R3
16: (nochange) The strengths seem the same to me. None of R1-R3 apply.
17: (nochange) nothing all changes

S1: by analyzing different regimes of electron transport and spin dynamics , we demonstrate that the spin relaxation can be very slow and the resulting noise power spectrum demonstrates at low frequencies the [MATH] flicker noise .
S2: by analyzing different regimes of electron transport and spin dynamics , we demonstrate that the spin relaxation can be very slow and the resulting noise power spectrum increases algebraically as frequency goes to zero .
53: (weaker) S2 removes the evidence provided in S1
54: (stronger) S2 flows better.
55: (stronger) It explains why there is a flicker noise.
56: (weaker) S1 appeared to be more specific.
11: (weaker) Changing "demonstrates at low frequencies the [MATH] flicker noise
57: (stronger) increases algebraically speaks of more specific evidence
58: (stronger) S2 is stronger its word "increases....." adds certainty to the sentence more than S1.
59: (stronger) S2 is more "intellectual" than S1
60: (cannottell) they're both good, i sort of prefer s1, but not to an extend I can say one is better.

S1: the system of coupled maxwell-liouville equations is solved numerically for various geometries .
S2: this is done by numerically solving the corresponding system of coupled maxwell-liouville equations for various geometries .
36: (nochange) Simply restating it in a different way
37: (stronger) clearer
38: (stronger) "This is done" implies that the author has more know-how.
39: (weaker) S1 is more succinct, therefore stronger.
40: (nochange) Solved numerically and numerically solving are the same thing so there is no strength change.
41: (stronger) I think that also R3 could be used as well. the rearranging of the words along with the addition of "this is done" strengthens the statement in the R1 way while adding "corresponding" sounds more impressive while not changing the strength of the argument.
42: (stronger) "corresponding" S2 strengthens the details of S1
43: (nochange) S2 is clearer and more easily understood but does not change the strength.
44: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive.

S1: in general , the existence of an invariant cone is restrictive and may exclude many interesting cases in applications .
S2: in general , the existence of an invariant cone is restrictive and may exclude many interesting cases in real applications .
45: (stronger) Real seems more impressive, makes the work more novel
46: (stronger) The addition of the word "real" gives this a sense of concreteness.
47: (weaker) The argument against invariant cones is weakened by an adjective that qualifies/restricts the circumstances in which it is problematic.
48: (stronger) the term real gives more strength.
49: (nochange) The use of 'real' is extraneous
50: (stronger) Adding "real" to the assertion strengthens it.
51: (stronger) The word "real" makes the sentence seem more concrete and less theoretical, and therefore more impressive.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: by use of symmetry reduction and integrating factors , we derive all solutions of the form [MATH] in which [MATH] are complex constants , and [MATH] is a real valued function that either is single-peaked and vanishes for large [MATH] ( i.e. a solitary wave ) , or has no peak and approaches different constant values for large positive/negative [MATH] ( i.e. a kink ) .
S2: by use of symmetry reduction and integrating factors , we first derive all smooth solutions of the form [MATH] in which [MATH] are complex constants , and [MATH] is a real valued function that either is single-peaked and vanishes for large [MATH] ( i.e. a solitary wave ) , or has no peak and approaches different constant values for large positive/negative [MATH] ( i.e. a kink ) .
18: (stronger) S2 smooth solutions adds a description of the solution type, slightly more detailed and therefore impressive
19: (stronger) Added emphasis makes it sound stronger.
20: (nochange) Nothing has changed in example #2 save for a directional input.
21: (stronger) S2 limits what solutions are to be used, making it more precise.
22: (nochange) "First" adds nothing to S2, nor does the use of the adjective "smooth".
23: (nochange) S2 just adds some details
24: (weaker) Additions to S2 limit the number of solutions derived and create a less impressive statement
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we do not even assume the markov property .
S2: we do not assume the markov property .
61: (weaker) Removing "even" weakens the implied scope of the assumption.
62: (weaker) "Even" is a stronger word.
63: (stronger) s2 is more precise
64: (weaker) Even makes it sound like they did more work.
65: (weaker) "Even" implies an unusual case, it seems weaker when omitted.
51: (weaker) The use of the word "even" in S1 implies that the statement is true without making a common assumption. The idea that the assumption was not "even" made makes me feel that doing so strengthens the observations further and the use of such a word draws attention to that.
66: (stronger) 'even' is unnecessary
67: (stronger) Although the addition of 'even' is cursory, I felt the succinctness of S2 was stronger. The briefer the better, in this case.
68: (nochange) I don find any difference the word 'even' makes to the assertion

S1: using these formulas , we find some conditions on [MATH] such that the number of spectral singularities in the spectrum of the hill operator [MATH] in [MATH] with [MATH] periodic is finite .
S2: using these formulas , we find sufficient conditions on the potential [MATH] such that the number of spectral singularities in the spectrum of the hill operator [MATH] in [MATH] is finite .
36: (nochange) "some" weakens s1 while "potential" weakens s2
37: (stronger) claim of sufficiency is stronger
38: (stronger) "Sufficient" is a stronger, clearer word than "some".
39: (stronger) S2's use of "sufficient" is stronger than "some".
40: (weaker) S2 is stronger because of the addition of the word "sufficient".
41: (weaker) Well the second statement changed some to sufficient which adds strength to the statement however the addition of "potential" and the removal of one of the [MATH] equations has weakened the statement much more than the added strength.
42: (weaker) "some" implies it happens, "potential" implies it could happen
43: (stronger) S2 discusses "sufficient" conditions which sounds more impressive and stronger than "some" conditions. This adds to the strength of the statement.
44: (stronger) "sufficient" is stronger than "some"

S1: the mass-excess values obtained for [MATH] k and [MATH] ca are more precise and agree with the 2003 atomic mass evaluation ( ame ' 03 ) .
S2: the mass excesses obtained for [MATH] k and [MATH] ca are more precise and agree with the values published in the 2003 atomic mass evaluation ( ame ' 03 ) .
0: (stronger) shows that the evaluation is a published document more clearly
1: (weaker) S1 just sounds better
2: (stronger) S2 strengthens the statement by indicating that the values are published. When it is read that something is published it instantly adds credibility to the statement whether warranted or not.
3: (nochange) Nothing changes.
4: (stronger) sounds more impressive
5: (weaker) the first sentence states their purpose a lot quicker and more efficiently
6: (weaker) The wording in S2 takes away a descriptive term, therefore it is weaker.
7: (stronger) "values published" adds to the degree of importance of the values to which the group compared.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: we show by quantum monte carlo simulations of realistic kondo lattice models derived from electronic -- structure calculations that multiple quantum critical points can be realized in several plutonium -- based materials .
S2: we show by quantum monte carlo simulations of realistic kondo lattice models derived from electronic -- structure calculations that multiple quantum critical points can be realized in plutonium -- based materials .
27: (stronger) Not including the qualifying "several" suggests that this can be realized in ALL plutonium-based materials.
28: (nochange) the same really
29: (stronger) "Several" in S1 shows that it is only a limited amount, while S2 didn't use "several" and thus is stronger and more affirmative.
30: (stronger) more specific
31: (nochange) doesnt changed the meaning much
32: (nochange) no strength change.
33: (weaker) S2 implies that it is all plutonium-based materials when it seems to be only some.
34: (stronger) Removing "several" removes the uncertainty from S1.
35: (stronger) "several" is not concrete

S1: this paper sets out to solve the sleeping beauty problem and various related anthropic problems , not through the calculation of anthropic probabilities , but through finding the correct decision to make .
S2: this paper sets out to solve the sleeping beauty problem and various related anthropic ( self-locating belief ) problems , not through the calculation of anthropic probabilities , but through finding the correct decision to make .
77: (nochange) no change to argument
78: (stronger) S2 gives more information on the word anthropic.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (weaker) Parentheticals are usually weak asides and the extra description/clarification is probably not necessary.
81: (nochange) Only tells us what anthropic is. No strength added.
82: (nochange) just more clarification added
83: (nochange) The information does not add anything
84: (stronger) self locating belief explains what anthropic problems are happening.
68: (stronger) Though S2 provides additional details only as a citation, it makes it more impressive

S1: moreover , in order to deal with strong asymmetries one can not consider mild variations of the above cited quantities , rather large changes like discontinuities have to be invoked .
S2: moreover , to deal with strong asymmetries one can not consider mild variations of the above cited quantities , instead fairly large changes like discontinuities have to be invoked .
18: (stronger) S2 uses clear language.
19: (nochange) They sound about the same.
20: (nochange) Fairly and rather are more or less equivalent.
21: (weaker) In S2 "fairly" sounds less impressive than "rather"
22: (nochange) Both statements convey the same information. Neither change added or subtracted from the strength of the assertions.
23: (stronger) fairly is stronger than rather
24: (nochange) The words rather and fairly are minutely different in degree and not enough to make one sentence stronger
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (stronger) Strengthens by changing the evidance to rather

S1: most of the research in the last fifteen years concentrates on purely discontinuous l'evy processes , such as rotationally invariant stable processes , or equivalently , on purely non-local operators of the type [MATH] .
S2: most of the research in the potential theory of l'evy processes in the last fifteen years concentrates on purely discontinuous l'evy processes , such as rotationally invariant stable processes , or equivalently , on purely non-local operators of the type [MATH] .
77: (stronger) adds information necessary
78: (stronger) S2 adds what the research described was actually in which is helpful to the reader.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (weaker) Potentiality is weaker, less interesting than "research"
81: (stronger) Shows where the research was occuring, strengthening the argument.
82: (weaker) limits the field of research benig discussed
83: (stronger) S2 tells specific research
84: (weaker) the word potential implies that it is not certain while purely in s2 is certain.
68: (stronger) S2 says where the research has been conducted

S1: the models vary , however , in their modes of communication , or communication protocols .
S2: the models vary , however , in their modes of communication , or communication protocols , which we describe for each model below .
27: (nochange) The inclusion of a reference to subsequent description is not itself an addition of support.
28: (stronger) describes better
29: (stronger) The extra tag on the end of S2 tells the reader that more clarifying information will be provided in the future and tells them where to look for more information. This extra information justifies the sentence by showing that there is more proof to the statement provided.
30: (stronger) provides examples
31: (nochange) does not change much
32: (nochange) additional information doesn't effect much.
33: (weaker) If the models are described down below, the addition letting the reader know that they are described below is not required.
34: (stronger) The addition in S2 sound more impressive, makes it seem like more work was done, more thorough.
35: (stronger) S2 points out more evidence is to come, which adds strength

S1: the subject of this paper is the application of our combined photometric-hydrodynamic method to determine the fundamental parameters [MATH] , approximate position in a theoretical hertzsprung-russell diagram ( hrd ) , radius variation , reddening , and metallicity of the dm pulsators gsc 4868-0831 and v372 ser , and to describe the kinematic behaviour of the pulsating atmosphere in our limited hydrodynamic treatment .
S2: in this paper , we use our combined photometric-hydrodynamic method to determine the fundamental parameters [MATH] and [MATH] , the approximate position in a theoretical hertzsprung-russell diagram ( hrd ) , the radius variation , the reddening and the metallicity of the dm pulsators , gsc 4868-0831 and v372 ser . we also describe the kinematic behaviour of the pulsating atmosphere in our limited hydrodynamic treatment .
77: (stronger) Better formal phrasing of a scientific article
78: (weaker) Stating the subject of the paper is stronger than just saying something is "in the paper" as is using third person instead of overusing "we"
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) Stronger and more direct to state your action instead of indirect phrasing like "the subject of" and "the application of"
81: (nochange) No strength change, just change of vocabulary.
82: (nochange) just different wording
83: (stronger) The writers of S2 seem to own their writing
84: (nochange) just a change in choice of grammatical cues
68: (nochange) Words are just replaced with other usable ones and hence there is no change in assertion

S1: nevertheless , the prediction of decoupling ( or single site ) approximation for [MATH] at filling factor [MATH] is in agreement with well establishing value given above .
S2: nevertheless , the prediction of decoupling approximation for [MATH] at filling factor [MATH] is in agreement with the well established value given above .
9: (stronger) Revision is more clear and more grammatically correct.
10: (weaker) s1 is more detalied
11: (stronger) Changing the word from "establishing" to "established" creates more certainty and therefore makes the sentence stronger.
12: (nochange) S2 was simply cleaned up to be more grammatically correct and readable.
13: (nochange) No strength change because there is no difference in including the information in paranthesis in S1.
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it makes more sense when reading it.
15: (stronger) "established" is stronger than "establishing". R1
16: (nochange) None of R1-R3 applies. S1 just adds a detail.
17: (stronger) first is establishing value and second is a established value

S1: for a wide range of values of the nonlinear susceptibility , the conversion rate of the incident fundamental harmonic into the second one is shown to be as high as 40 % at the distance between the arrays as low as a half of the incident radiation wavelength .
S2: in particular , it is demonstrated that , for a wide range of values of the nonlinear susceptibility , the conversion rate of the incident fundamental harmonic into the second one can be as high as 40 % when the distance between the arrays is as low as a half of the incident radiation wavelength .
0: (stronger) proof by demonstrated
1: (stronger) Sounds better
2: (nochange) The words in S2 do not strengthen or weaken the statement.
3: (weaker) Is shown to/at is stronger language than can/when.
4: (stronger) adds justification
5: (weaker) The second sentence seems too wordy with "in particular" and "it is demonstrated that". . . it is clearly stated "is shown to"
6: (weaker) S2 adds words that make the statement seem less certain. The use of the word 'can' implies it is in question instead of certain.
7: (stronger) S2 appears to point to specific evidence rather than general results.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: the brilliant balmer h [MATH] line in the stationary emission spectrum of the galactic microquasar ss 433 has a broad component ( [MATH] 1000 km s [MATH] ) which is formed in the wind blowing from the accretion disk of the compact object .
S2: the brilliant balmer h [MATH] line in the stationary emission spectrum of the galactic microquasar ss 433 has a broad component ( [MATH] 1000 km s [MATH] ) .
27: (nochange) Information is deleted, but it was not evidence for the claim, so its omission does not change the impact.
28: (weaker) doesn't specify much, seems like something's missing
29: (weaker) The extra information in S1 adds more information about the formation of the object and therefore provides more value and overall strength to the sentence as a whole.
30: (stronger) more information provided
31: (weaker) removes justification
32: (stronger) removal of additional unwanted information.
33: (weaker) The removal of the description of how the formation occurs weakens the sentence.
34: (weaker) S2 removes justification for the assertion that is in S1 "..wind blowing from the accretion disk.."
35: (stronger) "broad component" is vague and knowledge of its formation adds strength to the argument

S1: note that an [MATH] - flow in [MATH] may not exist , and therefore [MATH] becomes undefined if [MATH] does not contain [MATH] ( e.g. in the tropical case ) .
S2: note that an [MATH] - flow in [MATH] may not exist , making [MATH] undefined if [MATH] does not contain [MATH] ( e.g. , in the tropical case ) .
53: (nochange) the sentences are equal in strength and meaning, nothing lost/gained, and S2 does not change impressive factor
54: (nochange) Each seems equal in the strength of what is being said.
55: (nochange) The two sentences are basically saying the same thing.
56: (nochange) The fancy words do not change the basic premise of the sentence.
11: (nochange) The changes from S1 to S2 are cosmetic and represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) "and therefore" makes it sound more like theory where the word "making" seems to imply a more firm statement.
58: (stronger) S2 gives a clearer sentence structure than S1 and sounds more impressive by lessening the words and adding "making".
59: (weaker) "and therefore {Math} becomes" is a stronger statement than "making"
60: (stronger) second flows better

S1: ( the code distance [MATH] is a quantitative measure of the robustness of encoded information against errors ) .
S2: ( note that the code distance [MATH] is a quantitative measure of the robustness of encoded information against errors ) .
0: (stronger) draws attention, strengthening impact
1: (stronger) Just sounds better
2: (stronger) S2 call more attention to the statement by adding 'note that' which strengthens the statement.
3: (nochange) Doesn't change. They're both in parenthesis to be seen as notes.
4: (nochange) no change
5: (stronger) the writer wants the reader to know something specific so they state "note that"
6: (stronger) 'note that' added in S2 seems to ask the reader to pay attention and adds importance.
7: (weaker) "note that" weakens the degree of importance of the statement.
8: (nochange) No change in the actual meaning

S1: we describe the lifshitz transition that takes place in strained bilayers upon splitting the parabollic bands at intermediate energies into several dirac cones at the energy scale of few mev , and we predict the consequences of such topological changes for the electron landau level spectra and the quantum hall effect .
S2: we describe the lifshitz transition that takes place in strained bilayers upon splitting the parabollic bands at intermediate energies into several dirac cones at the energy scale of few mev . then , we show how this affects the electron landau level spectra and the quantum hall effect .
18: (weaker) S2 is weaker than S1. S1 predict is stronger than S2 show how. S1 also includes the language about the consequences of such topological changes - this makes S1 more impressive.
19: (nochange) The give off similar strengths.
20: (weaker) Sentence #2 simply cannot compete with Sentence #1 on the grounds of effectiveness and impression.
21: (stronger) S2 removes the word "predict" which implies doubt in the outcome.
22: (weaker) Consequences is a stronger iteration of the results.
23: (stronger) the word show is stronger than predict
24: (weaker) S1 provides more specific information on how the electron levels are affected
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence by changing the term predict

S1: the photospheric models focus on radiation that is released when the jet becomes transparent .
S2: the photospheric models focus , instead , on radiation that is released when the jet becomes transparent .
0: (stronger) differentiation between current information and previously given information
1: (weaker) The word instead may be relevant, depending on the preceding statements. Otherwise it's just extra wording
2: (weaker) S2 is less direct, therefore seems weaker.
3: (stronger) Makes it seem like it is better than something else.
4: (cannottell) instead implies comparison but there is nothing to compare
5: (weaker) instead seems unnecessary
6: (stronger) The worder 'instead' just makes it sound stronger.
7: (weaker) "instead" removes the generality of looking at the entire jet.
8: (stronger) Strengthens the evidence

S1: furthermore , the simulated galaxies possess strong links between their cas parameters and hubble type , mostly in-line with their real counterparts .
S2: furthermore , the simulated galaxies possess strong links between their cas parameters and hubble type , mostly in-line with their observed counterparts .
18: (stronger) S2 is slightly more impressive, with the word observed replacing real. Observed counterparts seems more concrete than real counterparts.
19: (nochange) They both carry the same weight.
20: (weaker) The second sentence does not verify the reality of the mentioned counterparts.
21: (nochange) Syntax change.
22: (nochange) Neither adjective adds or detracts from the other.
23: (weaker) real is stronger than observed
24: (nochange) Highlighted words do not create a greater degree or give strength to sentence
25: (weaker) "Real" is changed to " observed". The degree is weakened
26: (weaker) Weaken by modifying to observed from real

S1: that is , we focus on the slps , and not on the encoded strings .
S2: that is , we focus on the slps alone , ignoring any properties of the encoded strings .
27: (weaker) Including the term "ignoring" makes it possibly seem negative to not look at properties of encoded strings
28: (weaker) Sounds like it's just ignoring possibly important evidence
29: (weaker) "and not on" is more definite than "ignoring"
30: (stronger) Sounds stronger.
31: (stronger) it sounds impressive since it was well formattd
32: (weaker) using alone, ignoring any properties of weakens the original version.
33: (nochange) S2 is a basic restatement so it does not change the strength much.
34: (stronger) Adds alone to define that is it just focusing on slps, increases the strength. Adds ignoring any properties compared to not on, increasing the strength.
35: (stronger) In S2, "alone" strengthens the focus and "ignoring" shows the other data is irrelevant

S1: in our scheme , the storage of quadripartite cv polarization entanglement cluster state can be achieved by using spatially separated four pulses ( write-in pulses ) , which are initially in the cv polarization entanglement cluster state , each passing through the corresponding atomic ensemble twice , based on the larmor precession of atoms in a magnetic field .
S2: in our scheme , the storage of the quadripartite cv pecs can be achieved by using four spatially separated pulses ( write-in pulses ) , which are initially in the cv pecs . based on the larmor precession of atoms in a magnetic field , each of the pulses passes through the corresponding atomic ensemble twice .
77: (stronger) improved syntax and uses acronyms
78: (weaker) S1 spells out the abbreviation "pecs" which may originally confuse readers who do not know what it means in S2.
79: (weaker) S1 makes stronger statement.
80: (nochange) Reordering of sentence, use of acronyms doesn't affect strength
81: (weaker) S1 is more specific than S2
82: (nochange) Just a difference of an acronym
83: (nochange) S2 rearranges the sentences and uses acronyms
84: (weaker) abbreviating polarization entanglement cluster state into pecs substantially weakens the statement.
68: (nochange) S1 and S2 are just two ways of saying the same thing

S1: among them , there is an interesting group showing very intense stellar winds ( mass loss rates in the range of 10 [MATH] m [MATH] per year and terminal velocities from several hundreds to several thousands km s [MATH] ) and h-deficient chemical composition .
S2: among them , there is an interesting group that has both very intense stellar winds with mass-loss rates in the range of 10 [MATH] m [MATH] per year and terminal velocities from several hundreds to several thousands km s [MATH] and a hydrogen deficient chemical composition .
9: (weaker) Sentence 2 is overly wordy. Appears that author is trying to reach a higher word count.
10: (nochange) both have similar info
11: (stronger) Changing the word "showing" to "that has both" creates more assertion and therefore makes the sentence stronger.
12: (stronger) "Showing" became "has", which is a stronger and more certain word. S2 also cleans up S1 in other respects to make it more readable and clear.
13: (nochange) Not much of a change in meaning, as this is simply a rearrangement and replacing h with hydrogen (which h obviously is in S1)
14: (nochange) I think they both say the same.
15: (stronger) "has" is stronger than "showing" R1. "with mass-loss" adds more justification. R2.
16: (stronger) R3; S2 seems only slightly stronger, but it seems like a stronger statement to me to say that "it has both" compared to it merely "showing" in S1.
17: (nochange) essentially the same

S1: the production of and hadrons is studied in inelastic [MATH] collisions at [MATH] and [MATH] collected with the atlas detector at the lhc using a minimum-bias trigger .
S2: the production of and hadrons is studied in [MATH] collision data at [MATH] and [MATH] collected with the atlas detector at the lhc using a minimum-bias trigger .
61: (weaker) "inelastic collisions" is stronger than "collisions data"--actual events rather than just numbers.
62: (nochange) Different wording only.
63: (weaker) s1 is more specific
64: (nochange) They seem about the same.
65: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength.
51: (stronger) The word "data" implies a more concrete, formal study and observation collection.
66: (weaker) s1 is more specific
67: (nochange) S1 specifies 'inelastic' collisions, but S2 also specifies the collisions as 'data'. It's a tie. No strength change.
68: (weaker) S2 doesnt describe the type of collision

S1: such a merger event would explain the presence of the intermediate mass black hole and support a young stellar population .
S2: such a merger event would explain the presence of the imbh and the young stellar population .
69: (nochange) S2 abbreviated a term in S1, no strength change.
70: (weaker) S1 spells out acronym and 'support' is stronger than the
71: (weaker) Intermediate black hole is better for the reader than imbh.
72: (nochange) NO MEANING CHANGE
73: (nochange) minor changes
74: (weaker) S1 explains what IMBH is and also identifies a relationship of support
75: (nochange) Extra words do not affect the strength of either statement.
76: (stronger) The removal of support from S2 statement gets rid of the negative stress in S1.
51: (weaker) Using the word "support" in S1 implies a more impressive degree of certainty that does not appear in S2.

S1: furthermore , we compute the probability of the corresponding time-dependent classical random walk ( crw ) .
S2: furthermore , we compute the probability of the corresponding final-time dependent classical random walk ( crw ) .
36: (stronger) final gives more strength to s2
37: (cannottell) no relevant change (unless there's a scientific difference?)
38: (nochange) The variable changes but the sentence does not change in strength.
39: (stronger) S2 seems more conclusive.
40: (nochange) S2 just adds a detail so their is no change in strength.
41: (stronger) The simple change to "final-time dependent" from "time-dependent" is more specific and adds a dimension of closure to the statement than the previous one.
42: (nochange) "final" adds no value
43: (nochange) To me, the use of "final" does not make S2 stronger.
44: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence.

S1: let [MATH] be a nondegenerate irreducible closed subvariety of dimension [MATH] over the field of complex numbers and [MATH] be its secant variety in [MATH] .
S2: let [MATH] be a nondegenerate irreducible closed subvariety of dimension [MATH] over the field of complex numbers and let [MATH] be its secant variety .
0: (cannottell) it changes procedure but does not seem to strengthen or weaken
1: (nochange) Doesn't change the statement
2: (nochange) S2 does not add or remove strength from the statement.
3: (stronger) Clearer word choice.
4: (stronger) adds justification
5: (nochange) the second sentence sounds better with "let" but I don't know if it really strengthen or weakens the sentence
6: (stronger) S2 just sounds better, S1 seems to sound redundant the way it is worded (repeating MATH).
7: (stronger) S2 is better written.
8: (nochange) No change in the actual meaning

S1: by using the most recent measurements from atlas , cms and auger , we predict [MATH] mb , as well as refine the total cross sections [MATH] mb and [MATH] mb .
S2: by using the most recent measurements from atlas , cms , totem and auger , we predict [MATH] mb and [MATH] mb , as well as refine the total cross section [MATH] mb .
9: (cannottell) Because I am unfamiliar with the terms being used, I am not sure of their importance or interchangeability.
10: (nochange) Both have similar wording
11: (nochange) The change of "sections" to "section" creates a cosmetic change, while adding "totem" adds a detail, and changing the placement and phrase structure of "and [MATH] mb" to "[MATH] mb and" are cosmetic changes and therefore represent no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 adds "totem" to the list and also adds that one [MATH] can be actually "predicted" rather than simply "refined"
13: (nochange) Both versions are practically identical regarding assertions
14: (nochange) There appears no strength change here, just different in word placements.
15: (stronger) S2 adds more justifications. R2
16: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence and justification than S1 with "totem" and the extra MATH mb. R2.
17: (stronger) gives more info

S1: moreover , as applications , we prove a krylov 's estimate for stochastic differential equation driven by cauchy processes ( i.e. critical diffusion processes ) , and also obtain the well-posedness to a class of quasi-linear first order parabolic equation with critical diffusion , where multidimensional critical burger 's equation is the main model .
S2: moreover , as applications , we prove a krylov 's estimate for stochastic differential equation driven by cauchy processes ( i.e. critical diffusion processes ) , and also obtain the global well-posedness to a class of quasi-linear first order parabolic system with critical diffusion .
9: (stronger) More succinct.
10: (weaker) s2 is less impressive
11: (nochange) Changing "equation" to "system", removing "where multidimensional critical burger's equation is the main model" and adding "global" adds and removes details but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 generalizes "equation" to "system", and also omits the exact system being referred to, which is mentioned in S1.
13: (weaker) S1 has more justification given the reference to burger's equation (R2)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because use of the word "burger" in S1 is very out of place and does not make sense to this statement, and thus makes it less credible.
15: (stronger) "system" is stronger than "equation". R1
16: (stronger) S2 uses "system" and "global"which seem to be stronger words than "equation" in S1. R1 and also R3 because these sound more impressive.
17: (weaker) first is more direct and informative

S1: following j. murray 's studies , we consider a system of two differential equations that models traveling fronts in the noyes-field theory of the belousov-zhabotinskii ( bz ) chemical reaction .
S2: following murray , we consider a system of two differential equations that models traveling fronts in the noyes-field theory of the belousov-zhabotinsky ( bz ) chemical reaction .
77: (weaker) removes source
78: (nochange) They both give the same general information, only differing in the name of the person whose study it was.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) Following an individual is a stronger assertion than something he or she possesses
81: (nochange) Grammatical change.
82: (nochange) just different writing choices
83: (weaker) Studies indicate that something has been done before.
84: (weaker) S2 removes facts about murray that he is a person and has conducted experiments.
68: (nochange) Following Murray and his studies are no different

S1: the explanation of lowering of the effective field for fractional fillings of landau level ( ll ) in terms of cyclotron braid groups is also helpful for identification of chern-simons field constructions , which were widely spread for modeling of cfs and anyons within mathematical effective approach to hall systems in fractional regime .
S2: the explanation of the mechanism for creation of the effective field for fractional fillings of landau level ( ll ) in terms of cyclotron braid groups would be also helpful for identification of chern-simons field constructions , which were widely spread for modeling of cfs and anyons within mathematical effective approach to hall systems in fractional regime .
27: (weaker) "would be" indicates an uncertainty or speculative status, whereas "is" indicates certainty. This lack of certainty also makes the statement less impressive, so the very slight improvement in impressiveness with "mechanism for creation" does not outweigh it.
28: (weaker) much less certain
29: (weaker) Although "the mechanism for creation" sounds more impressive than "lowering", the weakness of saying "would be" rather than "is" makes S2 much weaker overall.
30: (weaker) "is" being more specific than "would be"
31: (stronger) strengthned the point by using some adjectives
32: (cannottell) can't say.
33: (stronger) S2 has a better explanation of what is going on.
34: (stronger) "the mechanism for creation" sounds more impressive than "lowering"
35: (stronger) "the mechanism for creation" sounds more impressive than "lowering"

S1: in this paper , we use the two divergence-free parametrizations to probe the dynamics of dark energy in the whole evolutionary history .
S2: in this letter , we use the two divergence-free parametrizations to probe the dynamics of dark energy in the whole evolutionary history .
27: (stronger) "paper" is a more impressive term, which is associated with academic work.
28: (weaker) Paper sounds more formal
29: (nochange) Whether it is a paper or letter does not influence the context.
30: (nochange) Same point.
31: (nochange) paper and letter doesnot make much difference
32: (nochange) only paper is changed to letter, so no change in strength.
33: (weaker) Paper sounds somewhat more official and academic.
34: (weaker) A paper suggests multiple pages with a lot of research. Letter merely suggests a short 1 to 2 page article, not as impressive.
35: (weaker) "paper" sounds more academic/professional than letter

S1: twisted whitney towers are also introduced , along with a corresponding quadratic enhancement of the intersection theory for framed whitney towers that measures whitney-disk framing obstructions .
S2: twisted whitney towers are also studied , along with a corresponding quadratic enhancement of the intersection theory for framed whitney towers that measures whitney-disk framing obstructions .
45: (weaker) "introduced" sounds more novel than "studied"
46: (weaker) "studied" is a more passive verb than "introduced".
47: (stronger) "Introduced" implies novelty.
48: (stronger) The term "studied" adds more impression and strength to the concept.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (weaker) According to your instructions, "studied" does not imply novelty, making S2 weaker.
51: (stronger) "Studied" implies more extensive analysis and examination than "introduced."
8: (weaker) change of term from "introduced" to "studied" weakens the evidence
52: (stronger) Use of studied implies more importance placed on the topic.

S1: light has been observed with group velocities both faster and slower than the speed of light .
S2: in certain media , light has been observed with group velocities faster than the speed of light .
53: (stronger) S2 adds evidence, information (including slower). Certain media is generic and therefore can be omitted as the types of media are not provided
54: (stronger) S1 is more descriptive and complete than S2.
55: (stronger) Sentence 2 removes the word slower.
56: (weaker) I thought S1 looked more impressive and was more specific.
11: (nochange) The changes from S1 to S2 are cosmetic and represents no real strength change.
57: (weaker) S1 is more impressive because it shows more evidence adding "both faster and slower" so without this S2 is less impressive.
58: (weaker) S2 removes evidence from S1.
59: (stronger) S2 gives us more details
60: (weaker) "in certain media" is too weak and non-specifc

S1: note that this definition is such that the larger is [MATH] the greater is the probability to open a new pair .
S2: note that the larger is [MATH] the greater is the probability to open a new pair .
61: (nochange) Just removes a phrase that doesn't provide any emphasis or evidence.
62: (weaker) "Is such that" is weaker in this case, rather than just using the copula.
63: (stronger) s2 is more to the point
64: (stronger) It doesn't specify one definition.
65: (nochange) Does not change meaning or strength.
51: (nochange) The removal of the phrase in S2 is semantic and stylistic, but does not change the strength of the statement.
66: (stronger) eliminates unnecessary words
67: (stronger) S1's elaboration of 'this definition is such that' is repetitive, clumsy and weaker than S2's efficient rewording.
68: (nochange) Doesnt change the fact in any way

S1: we use this to prove a generalisation of the identity of duminil-copin and smirnov linking certain generating functions in finite domains to include a surface transition .
S2: we use this to prove a generalisation of the global identity of duminil-copin and smirnov to include a surface fugacity ( proposition ) .
77: (stronger) simplifies with scientific vocabulary
78: (weaker) S2 removes the information regarding "linking certain generating functions..." which adds more information to the sentence as a whole.
79: (stronger) S2 makes more evidence as it adds the word global.
80: (stronger) Global identity more impressive than regular identity, to include is stronger than "linking certain."
81: (weaker) Global does not add anything in S2, but S1 talks about finite functions.
82: (cannottell) confusing
83: (stronger) Seems more externally applicable
84: (weaker) S2 removed an important clarifying phrase.
68: (weaker) S2 omits inking certain generating functions in finite domains and hence is weaker

S1: let [MATH] be a compact , orientable surface , which is endowed with a riemannian metric [MATH] and let [MATH] be a real parameter : then it is of wide interest the study of the following partial differential equations [MATH] that are dated back even to liouville .
S2: let [MATH] be a closed namely [MATH] will be always assumed to be compact and with no boundary. , orientable surface , which is endowed with a riemannian metric [MATH] and let [MATH] be a real parameter : then it is of wide interest the study of the following partial differential equation [MATH] that are dated back even to liouville .
77: (stronger) strengthens first part of sentence
78: (weaker) S2 adds more details around the math that is given.
79: (nochange) reamins same
80: (weaker) Describing the conditions firmly is stronger than using phrases like "assumed to" and "with" something.
81: (weaker) In S1, you have studied multiple equations, while S2 only studies 1.
82: (weaker) more specified, less general
83: (stronger) Adds pertinent information.
84: (stronger) there are more parameters in S2
68: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence

S1: we do not believe that they are known in mathematical literature .
S2: they do not appear to be known in mathematical literature .
69: (weaker) "appear to be" is a weaker assertion than "believe they are" as the latter conjures a sense of scope of understanding rather than just appearance.
70: (stronger) appear > believe
71: (weaker) "we do not believe" is stronger than "they do not appear."
72: (stronger) MORE IMPRESSIVE SENTANCE
73: (nochange) minor wording change
74: (weaker) "we" and "believe" are more active words
75: (stronger) S2 sounds less tentative
76: (stronger) appear to be strengthens the degree of the statement
51: (weaker) "Appear to be" has a degree of uncertainty that makes S2 appear weaker than S1.

S1: on the other hand , the only on-line generic algorithm for sequential analysis of state-space models we are aware of is the sopf ( self-organizing particle filter ) method of : this is pf applied to to the extended state [MATH] , which never updates the [MATH] - component of particles , and typically diverges quickly over time .
S2: the only on-line generic algorithm for sequential analysis of state-space models we are aware of is the self-organizing particle filter ( sopf ) of : this is pf applied to the extended state [MATH] , which never updates the [MATH] - component of particles , and typically diverges quickly over time ; see also for a modification of sopf which we discuss later .
18: (nochange) Minor changes in S2 grammar and sentence structure, reference to see other material later discussed. No change
19: (weaker) The first line sounds better to me.
20: (stronger) The implied later discussion shall supply additional evidence for the case's viability.
21: (nochange) There are minor grammatical fixes and the addition of a call back to S2. R1-3 do not apply.
22: (stronger) S2 sounds better without the introductory clause. Also, giving the acronym in parenthesis is stronger than stating it as an afterthought. More evidence is given in the final sentence.
23: (nochange) "see also for a modification of sopf which we discuss later" just adds more details and does not change the strength. The other changes are minor edits and also do not affect the strength
24: (nochange) The reference addition at the end of S2 doesn't provide greater detail and neither sentence seems more impressive.
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: it is shown that the interplay between the spin-dependent quasiparticle distribution , which is generated in the interlayer , and the triplet superconducting correlations induced by the proximity effect between the superconducting leads and ferromagnetic elements of the interlayer , leads to the appearence of an additional contribution to the josephson current .
S2: it is shown that the interplay between the spin-dependent quasiparticle distribution and the triplet superconducting correlations induced by the proximity effect between the superconducting leads and ferromagnetic elements of the interlayer , leads to the appearence of an additional contribution to the josephson current .
61: (nochange) This just adds a detail without making anything sound more important or significant.
62: (weaker) Removes information.
63: (nochange) the information in s1 that is removed from s2 does not hinder the clarity of s2
64: (weaker) Less specific.
65: (nochange) Adds details but no strength change.
51: (nochange) The removal of the phrase that appeared in S1 removes details that clarify and add detail, but do not strengthen or weaken the sentence.
66: (stronger) s1 has unnecessary info
67: (weaker) Although this may not quality, I found the added information in S1 a stronger version of the sentence than not.
68: (weaker) S2 doesn't include where the interplay is generated and so weakens the statement.

S1: these conjectures are proven to be equivalent and it is shown that they imply the amenability of thompson 's group [MATH] .
S2: a relation between these conjectures is proved and it is shown that they imply the amenability of thompson 's group [MATH] .
53: (weaker) The addition of relation weakens the notion that the conjectures are equivalent (part vs. whole, etc).
54: (weaker) S1 flows better and sounds stronger and 'proved' doesn't sound as current as 'proven.'
55: (weaker) S2 explains that there is a relationship while S1 proves that they are equivalent.
56: (nochange) S2 is not as well written but the main premise of the sentence is the same.
11: (stronger) Changing "are proven to be equivalent" to "a relation between...is proved" makes the sentence sounds more impressive and therefore makes the sentence sound stronger.
57: (weaker) equivalent is stronger than the work relation between so S2 is weaker
58: (stronger) S2 "is proved" strengthens the degree of conjectures being approved not proven to be approved like in S1.
59: (stronger) "a relation between" gives us additional information thus making S2 the stronger statement
60: (stronger) stronger, direct statement

S1: from then on , in conjunction with the invention of new sophisticated kind of detectors , the coincidence method became one of the basic tools in the art of experimental physics .
S2: from then on , in conjunction with the invention of new sophisticated detectors , the coincidence method became one of the basic tools in the art of experimental physics .
69: (weaker) "Kind of" suggest that not all detectors are relevant tools and suggests a more specific detector.
70: (stronger) kind of makes it weaker
71: (stronger) kind of adds nothing to the statement and reads as weaker.
72: (nochange) KIND OF MAKE NO CHANGE
73: (nochange) minor change
74: (stronger) "Kind of" only refers to certain detectors among others. It is also a grammatically incorrect sentence.
75: (nochange) no change - "kind of" doesn't weaken S1
76: (stronger) S2 removes the term kind of and its more direct
51: (nochange) Removing the phrase in S2 is a semantic change that does not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: for the bipartite networks representing the mutualistic relationship between pollinating animals and plants , it has been known that their degree distributions are broad but often deviate from power-law form , more significantly for plants than animals .
S2: for the mutualistic networks of plants and pollinating animals , it has been known that the degree distribution is broad but often deviate from power-law form more significantly for plants than animals .
45: (weaker) I think "representing..." is stronger
46: (nochange) These seem to be grammatical changes only.
47: (stronger) "Mutualistic" is more solid than just "representing the mutualistic relationship." It shows they really are mutualistic, they don't just represent.
48: (weaker) The term "bipartite networks representing the mutualistic relationship between" adds more strength to the sentence1 than S2.
49: (nochange) Change in sentence structure does nothing to the argument.
50: (weaker) The rephrasing of the assertion is S2 sounds a lot less impressive to me, as S1 seems to make a much more important claim.
51: (nochange) The changes in phrasing and word order is semantic, and those changes do not impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (nochange) Says the same thing

S1: although it is usually impossible to identify every detected particle , one can however determine with a high accuracy the average multiplicities ( averaged over many events ) for different hadron species .
S2: although it is usually impossible to identify each detected particle , one can nevertheless determine with a high accuracy the average multiplicities ( averaged over many events ) for different hadron species .
9: (stronger) The revised sentence sounds less doubtful.
10: (stronger) s2 is more specific
11: (nochange) Changing "every" to "each" and "however" to "nevertheless" are cosmetic changes and therefore represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 simply improves the grammar of S1. There is no meaning change.
13: (nochange) Not much change in assertive strength given such a cosmetic semantic change.
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the first statement uses "every" and confuses whether it is referring to every particle out there or each, which narrows it down to those used in the research.
15: (stronger) "nevertheless" is stronger than "however". R1
16: (weaker) S1 uses "every," which sounds more important and stronger than "each" in S2. R1.
17: (nochange) nothing changes

S1: we note that , while the specifics of our data generation may vary at different proteomics laboratories , the model that we describe is appropriate for any high-accuracy mass spectrometry data .
S2: while the specifics of data generation may vary at different proteomics laboratories , the model we describe is appropriate for any high-accuracy mass spectrometry data .
0: (stronger) implies first person experience
1: (stronger) Just sounds better
2: (weaker) S2 takes away some of the ownership of the statement by removing the words 'we note that' and 'our', which weakens the statement.
3: (cannottell) I don't know if specifying between their specific data and just general data makes it stronger.
4: (weaker) removes ownership of data
5: (weaker) it provides whose data they are discussing
6: (stronger) S2 takes away unnecessary wording in my opnion.
7: (stronger) "we note that" reduces the importance of what it proceeds.
8: (weaker) Removal of Evidence

S1: in particular , for the transverse field ising model we show how to determine the critical point numerically with only small systems by the finite size scaling analysis , and we also investigate the local convertibility between the ground state and the corresponding first excited state for the ising model .
S2: in particular , for the transverse field ising model we show how to determine the critical point numerically with small-sized systems by the finite size scaling analysis , and we also investigate the local convertibility between the ground state and the corresponding first excited state for the ising model .
53: (weaker) S1's use of "only" is specific and its removal in S2 detracts information
54: (stronger) S2 flows much better, especially using 'small-sized' vs. 'only small systems'.
55: (weaker) S2 removes the word only which weakens the sentence.
56: (nochange) Both sentences basically said the same thing.
11: (nochange) Changing "only small" to "only small" is a cosmetic change and therefore represents no strength change.
57: (weaker) S2 takes out the word only which implies exclusivity so S2 is weaker.
58: (nochange) The change in S! is "only small" to S2 "small-sized" this does not change the sentence strength.
59: (nochange) only small sized and small-sized mean the same thing therefor not effecting the strength of the sentence
60: (weaker) s1 is more definitive in using the word "only"

S1: we take the spaces introduced by laakso in 2000 and building on the work of barlow , bass , kumagai , and teplyaev prove the existence and uniqueness of a local symmetry invariant diffusion via heat kernel estimates .
S2: we consider the spaces introduced by laakso in 2000 and , building on the work of barlow , bass , kumagai , and teplyaev , prove the existence and uniqueness of a local symmetry invariant diffusion via heat kernel estimates .
61: (weaker) "consider" is weaker; "take" is definitive action.
62: (stronger) "Take" is stronger than "consider."
63: (nochange) the sentences are not really effected by this change
64: (weaker) taking is stronger than considering.
65: (nochange) Take and consider mean similar things in this context.
51: (weaker) "Take" implies action, which is stronger than "consider" which does not imply action so much as speculation and thought.
66: (nochange) barely a difference
67: (weaker) 'Take' is a stronger word than 'consider'.
68: (nochange) Take and consider doesnt change the strength of assertion

S1: in this letter we examine if the properties of central black holes in galactic nuclei correlate with their host dark matter halo .
S2: in this paper , we examine if the properties of central black holes in galactic nuclei correlate with their host dark matter halo .
69: (stronger) "Paper" seems much more official than "later" suggesting that this was a research paper and not just a message to a colleague.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) Letter is weaker than paper.
72: (stronger) LETTER IS MORE SPECIFIC
73: (nochange) minor change
74: (nochange) letter vs paper is insignificant
75: (stronger) "Letter" sounds less impressive than "paper."
76: (weaker) changing letter to paper weakens the degree of this statement
51: (nochange) The change is semantic and does not affect the strength of the statement.

S1: in the cabf the production of a baryon in the jet fragmentation region is compensated by production of an anti-baryon in the small momentum qgp hadronization region .
S2: in the cabf the production of a baryon in the jet fragmentation is compensated by production of an anti-baryon in the small momentum qgp hadronization region .
77: (weaker) removes clarification
78: (weaker) S2 removes the information that it is in the region fo the jet fragmentation and not just the jet fragmentation itself.
79: (weaker) S1 makes the strong meaning of the word region.
80: (stronger) In the jet fragmentation is stronger than simply being in the fragmentation's region
81: (weaker) Taking away region gives you less detail in your sentence, making it weaker.
82: (nochange) region is not more or less specific, doesn't change the claim at all
83: (nochange) The word "region" did not add anything to the sentence.
84: (nochange) The word "region" does not change the statement.
68: (nochange) Omitting 'region' cannot be said to bring about a strength change

S1: regulatory dynamics in systems biology is often described by continuous rate equations for continuously varying chemical concentrations .
S2: regulatory dynamics in biology is often described by continuous rate equations for continuously varying chemical concentrations .
61: (weaker) Takes away the clarifying "systems" in describing which branch of biology this applies to.
62: (stronger) Adds a small amount of information.
63: (weaker) s1 is more specific
64: (weaker) It loses specificity.
65: (nochange) Does not add any information or change meaning or strength.
51: (nochange) The word "systems" provides a bit more specificity in terms of what field the sentence is referring to, but does not change the strength of the sentence.
66: (nochange) barely any difference
67: (nochange) This additional detail of 'systems' biology is too slight to make much of an impact.
68: (weaker) S2 fails to describe which part of biology is involved

S1: using a perturbation treatment of the noise that allows us to separate it from the ideal evolution of the quantum gate , we demonstrate that in certain cases it is necessary to divide the quantum gate in short time steps intercalated by correction procedures .
S2: using a perturbation treatment of the noise that allows us to separate it from the ideal evolution of the quantum gate , we demonstrate that in certain cases it is necessary to divide the logical operation in short time steps intercalated by correction procedures .
53: (weaker) quantum gate is a specific process, and logical operation is vague
54: (weaker) Quantum gate is more specific than the logical operation.
55: (stronger) It explains that the operation is logical.
56: (weaker) S2 sounded less specific than S1.
11: (nochange) Changing "quantum gate" to "logical operation" changes the details but otherwise represents no real strength change.
57: (nochange) doesn't seem to change the strength or weakness, not sure of the relation between "quantum gate" or "logical operation"
58: (nochange) S2 did not change the sentence strength of S1 by adding "logical operation".
59: (nochange) The two sentences come across as the same to me
60: (weaker) s2 seems to reduce the strength of the topic and simply seems weaker and less definite.

S1: a key advantage is the ability to easily combine schemes for different constraints to obtain a scheme for their intersection .
S2: a key advantage of cr schemes is the ability to easily combine cr schemes designed for different constraints into a cr scheme for the intersection of these constraints .
27: (nochange) It only clarifies what is being referred to.
28: (weaker) very redundant
29: (stronger) S2 has more information that clarifies and strengthens the sentence as a whole.
30: (weaker) Not sure what cr means but does not add anything to the statement
31: (stronger) had more information
32: (weaker) adding cr scheme diverges from actual meaning.
33: (weaker) S2 is far too wordy and passive.
34: (stronger) The addition of 'designed' makes it sound better.
35: (stronger) includes "cr schemes" and "designed"

S1: we suggest that the spin hall effect ( she ) of light can be amplified or eliminated in the layered nanostructures .
S2: the spin hall effect ( she ) of light in layered nanostructures is investigated theoretically in this paper .
36: (cannottell) each one has a stronger and weaker part to it.
37: (weaker) passive construction is less impressive
38: (stronger) S2 removes the "we suggest that" that weakens S1.
39: (weaker) S1 asserts something. S2 is "just" theoretical.
40: (stronger) The wording of S1 is more impressive and therefore stronger.
41: (weaker) "We suggest" along with the use of "can" later on in the original version is weaker due to the uncertainty factor of those words and phrases.
42: (stronger) "we suggest that" is a weak opening
43: (weaker) S2 doesn't have as much justification about what the paper investigates and, to me, seems weaker because of this.
44: (stronger) "is investigated" is much stronger than "we suggest".

S1: the ( standard ) xml format is text based to allow the users the availability of an easy and direct access to the contents of document .
S2: an xml document is basically a labeled tree whose leaves store textual data and the standard xml format is text based to allow users an easy and direct access to the contents of the document .
53: (stronger) the tree analogy is more poetic and elegant
54: (weaker) The use of 'basically' weakens S2 and the analogy used is wordy and cumbersome in my opinion.
55: (nochange) I didn't find any words in s2 that would've made the sentence weaker or stronger.
56: (stronger) S2 adds more details an describes an XML document better.
11: (nochange) Explaining what an xml document simply provides more detail and represents no strength change.
57: (weaker) the word basically weakens the statement
58: (stronger) S2 provides more information about the topic than S1 but eliminates valuable words. Therefore, S2 sounds more impressive than S1.
59: (stronger) S2 gives you more detailed information
60: (stronger) Much more informative of what xml is

S1: a nonlinear electromagnetic scattering problem is studied for two parallel periodic arrays of dielectric cylinders with a second order nonlinear susceptibility .
S2: a non-perturbative approach is proposed and applied to the system of two parallel periodic arrays of dielectric cylinders with a second order nonlinear susceptibility .
9: (stronger) Less jargon in revision, more understandable.
10: (nochange) both have alot of details
11: (stronger) By using the word "approach" instead of "problem" and "proposed and applied to the system of" rather than "studied for" implies more active action and therefore makes the sentence stronger.
12: (weaker) S2 implies more passive action than S1
13: (weaker) S1 is more direct with the information while S2 makes it harder to understand (non-perturbative is an uncommon word) (R3)
14: (nochange) These statements seem too dissimilar that I don't think there is a strength change.
15: (stronger) "studied" changes to "proposed and applied to" makes S2 sounds more impressive. R3.
16: (stronger) Proposed makes S2 sound more important and novel than "studied" in S1. R3
17: (stronger) one is just studied and the other is actually applied

S1: here , we show that while cooling and measuring in 4 tesla field the rate of growth of martensitic phase is drastically less at 25k compared to the 50k in spite of having almost similar starting fraction of the non-equilibrium austenite phase , indicating a non-thermodynamic behavior demonstrating the effect of kinetic arrest of the first order transformation .
S2: we show that , in standard process of cooling and measuring in 4 tesla field the rate of growth of martensitic phase is drastically less at 25k compared to the 50k in spite of having almost similar starting fraction of the non-equilibrium austenite phase , indicating the effect of kinetic arrest of the first order transformation .
36: (weaker) There was more detail in s2
37: (weaker) removes discussion of thermodynamicity
38: (nochange) While each one has different details added they say the same thing.
39: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it is more succinct. Also, the removal of "here" and "while" makes it seem more definitive.
40: (nochange) S1 just adds details but doesn't change the strength.
41: (weaker) Dropping "a non-thermodynamic behavior demonstrating" removes important details which help justify the kinetic arrest property mentioned at the end of the statement.
42: (weaker) S2 loses the tone that S1 provides
43: (weaker) S1 discusses the non-thermodynamic behavior which S2 omits which makes the statement weaker for leaving out this evidence.
44: (stronger) "In standard process of" makes S2 sound more impressive, and I think that "non-thermodynamic behavior demonstrating" is a detail, not evidence.

S1: the transition between adiabatic and non-adiabatic behavior depends on the ratio between the time it takes a particle to cross the boundary layer into the exhaust and its cyclotron period .
S2: the transition between adiabatic and non-adiabatic behavior depends on the ratio between a particle 's cyclotron period and the the time it takes to cross the boundary layer .
36: (weaker) the removal of "exhaust" weakens s2
37: (stronger) Clearer explanation
38: (nochange) The only change is reordering.
39: (weaker) S2 is more succinct and sounds stronger.
40: (nochange) Into the exhaust is additional information that doesn't change the strength.
41: (nochange) I don't believe the rewording nor the removal of "into the exhaust" has any effect on the strength of the statement.
42: (stronger) S2 is worded better
43: (nochange) S2 is clearer but not necessarily stronger.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength. "Into the exhaust" is a detail, not evidence.

S1: extracting this information and applying theorem gives the following : the characteristic polynomial [MATH] for a hyperplane arrangement [MATH] in [MATH] may be recovered from the degree of [MATH] and the image in [MATH] of the segre class of the singularity subscheme of [MATH] .
S2: extracting this information and applying theorem gives the following ( in characteristic [MATH] ) : the characteristic polynomial [MATH] for a hyperplane arrangement [MATH] in [MATH] may be recovered from the degree of [MATH] and the image in [MATH] of the segre class of the singularity subscheme of [MATH] .
9: (weaker) The info in quotations appears to be redundant, as it is implied by the info that follows.
10: (nochange) both are very similar in strength
11: (nochange) Adding "( in characteristic [MATH] ) adds a detail and therefore represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 is more specific about the application of the presented information as being "in characteristic [MATH]" which S1 does not mention.
13: (nochange) sentences are ambiguously identical on assertions
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the bracketing off of "( in characteristic [MATH] )" gives more clarity to the explanation.
15: (nochange) No strength is added.
16: (nochange) The parenthesis in S2 seems to just clarify the statement and does not change its strength.
17: (weaker) first one describes more about math

S1: the vacuum is thus highly peaked on a degenerate spatial geometry .
S2: the vacuum thus represents a degenerate spatial geometry , usually called " no geometry " .
61: (nochange) Just adding words for detail.
62: (stronger) Changes from a passive to active wording.
63: (nochange) They mean the same thing
64: (stronger) Explains the spatial geometry more fully.
65: (weaker) "Highly peaked" sounds more impressive than "represents"
51: (weaker) "Highly peaked on" sounds much more impressive than "represents."
66: (weaker) 'highly peaked' is stronger
67: (weaker) Although S2 provides more information/evidence, S1 utilizes more powerful wording ('highly peaked') as opposed to S2 ('usually').
68: (weaker) S2 represents a case, whereas S1 gives a firm conviction

S1: in general these periods have natural factorizations into local constituents , which reduces the problem of non-vanishing in the totally real real case to [MATH] .
S2: however these periods have natural factorizations into local constituents , which reduces the problem of non-vanishing in the totally real real case to [MATH] .
27: (stronger) "in general" indicates that the claim may have limits in scope.
28: (nochange) sound the same
29: (stronger) Beginning with "in general" weakens the entire phrase after it.
30: (weaker) the first is supportive the second is not
31: (weaker) sounds less impressive
32: (nochange) no change is there.
33: (stronger) 'However,' makes S2 sound contrary to the previous statement, where with, 'in general,' that difference might go unnoticed.
34: (stronger) "however" makes S2 stronger than "in general" (uncertainty) for S1
35: (stronger) "in general" is not very concrete "however" is more persuasive

S1: we study spherically-symmetric solutions in massive gravity generated by matter sources with polytropic equation of state and present their main features .
S2: we study spherically-symmetric solutions in massive gravity generated by matter sources with polytropic equation of state .
77: (weaker) removes part of the statement explaining the rest of the argument/article
78: (weaker) S1 adds that they present their main features which may be useful information.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) "Present their main features" is unnecessary, presumed.
81: (nochange) S1 doesn't add anything useful that adds strength to the sentence.
82: (stronger) adds a contribution
83: (weaker) S2 no longer really has a reason
84: (weaker) s2 removed some justification from s1
68: (weaker) S2 omits where the solution is presented and so it loses its impression

S1: in this paper , each background will always be referred to as a " spacetime " , that is a four dimensional differentiable , connected , hausdorff manifold [MATH] endowed with a lorentzian metric [MATH] whose signature is [MATH] .
S2: in this paper , each background will always be referred to as a " spacetime " , that is a four dimensional differentiable , second countable , hausdorff manifold [MATH] with a lorentzian metric [MATH] whose signature is [MATH] .
0: (weaker) less understandable
1: (weaker) Just sounds better
2: (cannottell) I cannot tell if connected or second countable is stronger than the other.
3: (weaker) Better word choice.
4: (cannottell) Don't understand this set
5: (weaker) second countable is not commonly used and sounds weird
6: (stronger) 'second countable' is a better descriptive term, and the use of 'endowed' in S1 is not necessary.
7: (stronger) S2 further defines the manifold.
8: (weaker) Removal of Evidence

S1: thirty three starless cores are classified into four types according to the blue and red shifts of the lines in their molecular line maps .
S2: thirty three starless cores are classified into four types according to the blueshift and red shift of the lines in their molecular line maps .
27: (nochange) The slight change in phrasing with a repeated noun "shift" or not does not change the meaning or impact.
28: (weaker) less redundant
29: (nochange) The change is very minimal and has no influence at all on the strength of either sentence - they're synonymous and of equal strength.
30: (nochange) same strength presented in both versions
31: (stronger) looks impressively readable
32: (nochange) no effective change is made.
33: (weaker) 'Blue and red shifts,' sounds more concise.
34: (nochange) Just grammatical change
35: (stronger) adding "shift" after blue is more professional than a shared noun for both adjectives

S1: this spin-spin misalignment requires that the origin of most of b 's spin is its supernova ; the spin could originate from a substantial off-center kick , causing pulsar b to tumble to its misaligned state .
S2: this spin-spin misalignment requires that the origin of most of b 's present-day spin is connected to the supernova that formed pulsar b. under the simplified assumption of a single , instantaneous kick during the supernova , the spin could be thought of as originating from the off-center nature of the kick , causing pulsar b to tumble to its misaligned state .
77: (stronger) clarification
78: (stronger) S2 adds much more information and evidence.
79: (stronger) S2 strengths the statement as it explains in detailed
80: (weaker) Less direct and impressive language
81: (weaker) Using "thought of" is weaker than the previous sentence.
82: (nochange) just different wording
83: (nochange) The extra words do not necessarily add more evidence.
84: (stronger) S2 simply has more evidence to support the statement.
68: (stronger) Easily, S2 seems to add more justification

S1: we will discuss these two existing schemes in more detail in section .
S2: we will discuss these two schemes in more details in section .
53: (nochange) existing doesn't add any information in S2, the word details is a grammatical error change (reference to "tricky rule"
54: (weaker) Using the plural form of 'details' doesn't sound right in this case.
55: (stronger) details shows more evidence.
56: (weaker) S1 had more detail because it determined the schemes to be existing.
11: (nochange) The removal of "existing" and the change from "detail" to "details" are cosmetic changes and represent no real strength change.
57: (weaker) S1 specifies that the schemes are existing as opposed the possibility in S2 that the schemes could be just theory.
58: (stronger) The only change is the word "existing" and "detail" in S1 to "detail" in S2. Seems like sentence 2 will give more detail about the topic than sentence 1.
59: (weaker) Eliminating "existing" makes the sentence less impressive
60: (weaker) better phrasing, explains only these two schemes exist

S1: hence , on a uniform mesh of size [MATH] , patches of diameter [MATH] are sufficient to preserve the convergence rates of the classical [MATH] - fem for the poisson problem .
S2: hence , on a uniform mesh of size [MATH] , patches of diameter [MATH] are sufficient to preserve a linear rate of convergence in [MATH] without pre-asymptotic effects .
53: (stronger) S2 adds evidence in the specificity of the linear rate addition and is more specific/gives more evidence by stating without pre-asymptotic effects instead of generally referring to the problem (as in S1)
54: (cannottell) Each seems to express the same amount of information, just in different ways.
55: (cannottell) I don't know if S2 strengthens or weakens S1.
56: (stronger) S2 added things like linear rate to prove its point.
11: (nochange) Details are changed between S1 and S2 but otherwise doesn't really change the evidence provided and therefore represents no strength change.
57: (nochange) adding "a linear rate" just gives more detail doesn't strengthen or give more evidence.
58: (stronger) S2 provides a more detailed sentence by adding descriptions of the topic's discussed than S1.
59: (stronger) S2 gives more detail
60: (stronger) also R3, sounds more commanding, also more defining of details

S1: for the inner bound , an achievable gdof is derived by employing a combination of treating interference as noise , zero-forcing ( zf ) at the receivers , interference alignment ( ia ) , and extending the han-kobayashi ( hk ) scheme to [MATH] users , depending on the number of antennas and the inr/snr level .
S2: an inner bound on the gdof is derived using a combination of techniques such as treating interference as noise , zero forcing ( zf ) at the receivers , interference alignment ( ia ) , and extending the han-kobayashi ( hk ) scheme to [MATH] users , as a function of the number of antennas and the [MATH] level .
18: (weaker) S1 is stronger due to language such as achievable, by employing and zero-forcing -- opposed to using or zero forcing.
19: (cannottell) Too many changes to really understand which is stronger/weaker.
20: (weaker) The specific level vanishes in S2, taking justification with it in absconding.
21: (stronger) S2 removes "depending on" which lowers doubt, and adds an example at the end (R2)
22: (stronger) Defining the inr/snr level with [MATH] adds much needed strength through specificity to S2.
23: (stronger) using is stronger than employing
24: (cannottell) The words "achievable" and "employing" sound more impressive, however S2 contains more slightly more specificity about the MATH
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: all gjms-operators on riemannian manifolds [MATH] of dimension [MATH] can be written in the form [MATH] moreover , all operators [MATH] are second-order and are given by the formula [MATH] here [MATH] is defined with respect to [MATH] , and we regard [MATH] as an endomorphism on one-forms using [MATH] .
S2: all gjms-operators on riemannian manifolds [MATH] of dimension [MATH] can be written in the form [MATH] moreover , all operators [MATH] are ( at most ) second-order and are given by the formula [MATH] here [MATH] is defined with respect to [MATH] , and we regard [MATH] as an endomorphism on one-forms using [MATH] .
45: (weaker) Adding "at most" weakens it because it says it can't be any more than second order
46: (weaker) "at most" allows for the operators to be even less than second order which is weaker.
47: (weaker) "At most" is qualifying language.
48: (nochange) The term at most doesn't make any change to strength.
49: (nochange) No change happens for the addition of 'at most'
50: (stronger) S2 uses the quantifier "at most" which gives a more useful and stronger proof.
51: (weaker) By specifying "at most" it casts a degree of uncertainty onto S2. (The operators could be less than second-order, which seems less definitive than being firmly second-order.)
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (weaker) adding "at most" puts a limit on the strength of the argument.

S1: our results put to rest some interesting speculations in the recent physics literature .
S2: these results put to rest some interesting speculations in the physics literature .
27: (stronger) Eliminating "recent" makes the statement apply to physics literature more generally. However, if one considers recent physics literature to be more relevant and worthwhile than the whole of physics literature, the more specific statement could be taken as stronger.
28: (weaker) less specific
29: (weaker) By claiming something as "Ours" it adds more conviction and value to the findings. "Recent" also adds clarifying value.
30: (stronger) sounds better
31: (weaker) less impressive
32: (nochange) no effective change is made.
33: (weaker) S1 sounds more current and takes ownership.
34: (nochange) "recent" in S1 puts a constraint on the literature but its removal does not change the strength of the assertion.
35: (weaker) "our" less passive than "these". "recent" means the data is more timely

S1: we discuss how the number of edits , reverts , the length of discussions , the burstiness of edits and reverts deviate in such pages from those following the general workflow , and argue that earlier work has significantly over-estimated the contentiousness of the wikipedia editing process .
S2: we discuss how the number of edits and reverts deviate in such pages from those following the general workflow , and argue that earlier work has significantly over-estimated the contentiousness of the wikipedia editing process .
36: (weaker) there was more detail in s1
37: (weaker) removes scope
38: (nochange) The only change is removal of detail.
39: (nochange) S2 has less detail, but it doesn't affect the statement's purpose.
40: (weaker) S2 is weaker because of the elimination of "the length of discussions , the burstiness of edits."
41: (stronger) The removal of "reverts , the length of discussions , the burstiness of edits" is not important information and actually makes the second statement stronger by sounding more impressive and is easier to process.
42: (stronger) removed the word "burstiness" and condensed the sentence
43: (weaker) S2 leaves out possibly important justification to the study which weakens the statement.
44: (weaker) S1 provides more evidence.

S1: in this article , we have extended the previous studies of collateralized derivative pricing to more generic situation , that is asymmetric and imperfect collateralization as well as the associated cva .
S2: in this article , we have extended the previous studies of collateralized derivative pricing to more generic situation , that is asymmetric and imperfect collateralization with the associated counter party credit risk .
9: (stronger) Original is wordy where it should be succinct and uses an abbreviation where it should be clear. The revision corrects this issue.
10: (stronger) s2 has stronger words
11: (nochange) Changing "as well as" to "with" makes the sentence more grammatically correct, and changing "cva" to "counter party credit risk" adds more details but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 is worded slightly differently than S1, perhaps to be clearer, but the meaning is not changed.
13: (stronger) CVA is a term most would be unfamiliar with (S1), and clarifying it with the phrase used makes things clearer (R2)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because S1's reference to 'cva' is confusing.
15: (weaker) "as well as" gives more evidence. R2
16: (weaker) "as well as" makes S1 sounds stronger than "with" in S2; it seems to add more justification or evidence. R2
17: (stronger) gives more info

S1: the dynamics of the system consists of a sequence of binary collisions .
S2: the dynamics consists of a sequence of instantaneous binary collisions .
9: (stronger) "Of the system" is not necessary. "Instantaneous" may be vital info.
10: (stronger) s2 i much more impressive
11: (nochange) Removing "of the system" and adding the word "instantaneous" removes and adds a detail respectively and otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 adds the detail that the binary collisions are instantaneous. Even though it omits "of the system" from S1, this is likely well enough implied by context to not be necessary, and its absence does not weaken S2.
13: (stronger) 'instantaneous' has more 'energy' to the statement in S2 than S1, making it sound more impressive (R3)
14: (weaker) S1 is a stronger statement here because it spells out without confusion that the dynamics are "of the system." I don't think it matters in S2 that the binary collisions are "instantaneous."
15: (stronger) " instantaneous" adds more strength. R1.
16: (nochange) The differences of the sentences are just in clarifications, they have the same strength.
17: (weaker) first is more informative

S1: the fourier , maxwell-cattaneo-vernotte , guyer-krumhansl , jeffreys type and green-naghdi type equations of heat conduction are obtained as special cases .
S2: the well-known fourier , maxwell-cattaneo-vernotte , guyer-krumhansl , jeffreys type and green-naghdi type equations of heat conduction are obtained as special cases .
53: (nochange) well-known doesn't add or change anything and doesn't seem to make the author's work more impressive
54: (weaker) 'well-known' seems unnecessary in this case.
55: (stronger) Sentence 2 tells that the fourier is well know.
56: (stronger) S2 added evidence that the fourier is well-known.
11: (nochange) Adding "well-known" just adds a detail that represents no real strength change.
57: (stronger) adding "well-known" makes it seem it's more common knowledge and makes it seem more important.
58: (stronger) s2 added "well-known" which adds more strength to the sentence than S1.
59: (stronger) "well-known" makes S2 sound more official
60: (weaker) To most, the fourier is not well-known

S1: then , we have [MATH] in this paper we give lower bounds on the class number of an algebraic function field of one variable over the finite field [MATH] in the two following situations : in the static case , namely when the function field is fixed ; in this context , we extend the formulas of theorem which is given under very weak assumptions , to obtain more precise bounds taking into account the number of points of a given degree , possibly of degree one .
S2: in this paper we give lower bounds on the class number of an algebraic function field of one variable over the finite field [MATH] in the two following situations : in the non-asymptotic case , namely when the function field is fixed ; in this context , we extend the formulas of theorem which is given under very weak assumptions , to obtain more precise bounds taking into account the number of points of a given degree [MATH] , possibly of degree one .
0: (stronger) non-asymptotic is more impressive sounding than static
1: (stronger) The sentence just sounds stronger
2: (nochange) S2 gives a different describing word of the case, not necessarily stronger, and the MATH equation really just references the formula, but doesn't make it stronget because its stated that it is a given degree in S1 as well.
3: (nochange) They say the same thing just a little different.
4: (nochange) doesn't show a change
5: (weaker) the first sentence with the use of static sounds better than non-asymptotic
6: (weaker) The word 'static' is used in S1 and 'non-asymptotic' is used in S2. I think static sounds stronger and more definitive.
7: (nochange) The rewording and rearrangement do not add to the strength of the S2.
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: there is numerical evidence for van hove singularity in strongly correlated systems .
S2: there is numerical evidence for the presence of van hove singularities in models of strongly correlated systems .
53: (stronger) it is important to know if it is a model of a system or the actual system
54: (stronger) S2 sounds better and is more specific than S1.
55: (cannottell) I can't tell if S2 strengthens or weakens S1.
56: (stronger) I thought S2 was better written than S1.
11: (nochange) Adding "the presence of" and "singularities in models of" simply adds more details but otherwise represent no real strength change.
57: (weaker) S2 is weaker because "the presence of" makes it seem like a lesser degree of evidence.
58: (stronger) S2 gives a more logical and descriptive sentence than S1.
59: (stronger) We have greater details in S2
60: (stronger) adds specifics

S1: we sharpen the inequality [MATH] between the area [MATH] and the electric charge [MATH] of a stable marginally outer trapped surface derived recently by dain , jaramillo and reiris by including explicitly the cosmological constant [MATH] as well as the principal eigenvalue [MATH] of the stability operator .
S2: we sharpen the known inequalities [MATH] and [MATH] between the area [MATH] and the electric charge [MATH] of a stable marginally outer trapped surface ( mots ) of genus [MATH] in the presence of a cosmological constant [MATH] . in particular , instead of requiring stability we include the principal eigenvalue [MATH] of the stability operator .
45: (cannottell) Removing the citation seems like removing evidence, but there also seems to be more [MATH] in S2 and the last sentence seems stronger
46: (weaker) "instead of requiring stability" makes it sound like instability is allowed which makes the entire argument sound more tenuous.
47: (weaker) "Known inequalities" implies there are some they don't know, whereas "inequality" doesn't have that implication. That rationale is R1. I picked R2 because of the removal of the info about the derivation.
48: (weaker) The removal of terms "derived recently by dain , jaramillo and reiris" gives less strength to the degree of aspect.
49: (weaker) More evidence is in S1 than S2
50: (cannottell) They both feel about the same to me, though I am not sure if ( mots ) is supposed to be a reference to the authors in S1. Also, I am not sure if "instead of requiring stability" makes the assertion stronger or not.
51: (stronger) I think that the last statement of S2 sounds much more specific in describing the process that was used, which makes S2 sound more impressive.
8: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
52: (stronger) Known inequalities is stronger than inequality.

S1: we study the emergence of synchronization in scale-free networks by considering the kuramoto model of coupled phase oscillators .
S2: this paper deals with the emergence of synchronization in scale-free networks by considering the kuramoto model of coupled phase oscillators .
45: (weaker) "We study" might be considered stronger since it is active voice rather than passive, but it is really hard to say.
46: (nochange) This seems to be a grammatical choice.
47: (nochange) Even though there is a slight change in meaning, I don't think it shows more or less impressiveness per se.
48: (stronger) This paper deals with adds more strength to the degree of aspect.
49: (nochange) Semantics do not change. No change in argument weight
50: (weaker) Referring to the paper instead of the authors, and saying "deals with" instead of "study" makes the assertion a lot less impressive.
51: (weaker) "Study" sounds like the concept in the sentence is the subject of much broader work, while specifying that the paper deals with the concept makes it seem like said concept is limited to that project, rather than broadly relevant.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies. hence no change.
52: (stronger) The change is a stronger and more specific argument.

S1: moreover , any extremizing sequence of normalised non-increasing , radial functions is relatively compact - modulo the group of dilations .
S2: moreover , any extremizing sequence of nonincreasing , radial functions is relatively compact - modulo the group of dilations .
9: (weaker) This missing hyphen in the revision is problematic, and the word "normalised" seems to add clarity to the explanation.
10: (weaker) s1 is slightly more impressive
11: (nochange) Changing "normalised non-increasing" to "nonincreasing" removes a detail and provides a slight costmetic change but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 omits "normalised" from S1 and therefore has less detail.
13: (nochange) Not much of a change between including normalised and not including it.
14: (stronger) S2 is weaker because nonincreasing is grammatically correct here.
15: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence. R2
16: (nochange) There is only a clarification added in S1, they have the same strengths.
17: (weaker) for gives more info that strengthens sentence

S1: we solve it by an explicit construction , which reminiscences the construction used by dwyer-kan in their first paper [ dk1 ] on simplicial localization .
S2: we solve it by an explicit construction , which reminiscences the construction of dwyer-kan in their first paper [ dk1 ] on simplicial localization .
27: (stronger) "of dwyer-kan" suggests that the construction was invented by dwyer-kan, while "used by dwyer-kan" indicates that this is not the case.
28: (weaker) just sounds strange
29: (weaker) To "use" something is a verb and it therefore adds more action and strength to the sentence than just saying "of".
30: (weaker) The second makes dwyer-kan sound like an object
31: (weaker) has grammer mistake
32: (nochange) there is no effective change.
33: (nochange) Either or sounds good.
34: (nochange) Grammatical changes only
35: (stronger) "of" is more succinct and less passive than "used by"

S1: analytic treatments are complicated by two obstacles ; a non-vanishing band dispersion and a non-constant berry flux .
S2: analytic treatments are complicated by a non-vanishing band dispersion and a non-constant berry flux .
61: (weaker) Removing "two obstacles" weakens S2 by removing one of the parameters.
62: (nochange) Rewording only.
63: (stronger) s2 lists the two obstacles
64: (weaker) Specifies that they are obstacles.
65: (nochange) Removing "two obstacles" before stating the two obstacles doesn't change meaning or strength.
51: (weaker) Mentioning explicitly that there are/were "two obstacles" makes S1 sound more accomplished and impressive.
66: (stronger) eliminates unnecessary words
67: (nochange) The specification of 'two obstacles' is self-evident in S2 - both the fact that they are obstacles, and the fact that they are two. So I chose no strength change.
68: (nochange) Specifying 'two obstacles' or not doesn't make much difference.

S1: in the aforementioned mechanisms for ultra-high cm energy , it is essential of the frame dragging effects of bh 's rotation .
S2: in the aforementioned mechanisms for ultra-high cm energy , the frame dragging effect of rotating bhs is necessary .
27: (weaker) "essential" is stronger than "necessary"
28: (stronger) better phrasing
29: (weaker) "It is essential" makes S1 a much stronger sentence by pointing out the severity of the situation.
30: (nochange) both discuss same notions
31: (nochange) just reorganized the statement
32: (nochange) no change.
33: (stronger) S2 is a more concise way of making the same statement.
34: (weaker) "it is essential of" has been weakened in to "is necessary" in S2
35: (weaker) having the "essential" phrase closer to the beginning of the sentence adds strength

S1: these examples ( old and new ) attest to the power of dualities and justifies the quest of numerous researchers to exploit them in addressing hard problems by simpler , elegant means .
S2: these examples ( old and new ) attest to the power of dualities and justifies the efforts of numerous researchers to exploit them to address hard problems by simple , elegant means .
27: (stronger) "quest" is more whimsical, but "efforts" seems more professional as a way to describe rigorous scientific pursuit. The other changes are minor syntactic changes. The change from "simpler" to "simple" depends on the larger context, but if there is no other means being compared, it is more elegant to eliminate the comparative.
28: (nochange) sound the same
29: (weaker) "Addressing" something shows the active participation from the researchers, rather than just saying that they are do it "to address" something. Also, going on a "quest" for something shows full dedication and strength while saying that they put forth "effort" doesn't show nearly the same amount of dedication.
30: (stronger) makes more sense logically
31: (nochange) just rewriting the statement in another way
32: (nochange) no change that effect the strength.
33: (weaker) S1 sounds more concise and sounds better.
34: (nochange) Grammatical change.
35: (weaker) "quest" and "in addressing" sounds less colloquial

S1: here , we study our estimator under various dependence assumptions .
S2: here , we study this estimator under various dependence assumptions .
77: (nochange) no change in argument
78: (nochange) Using 'our' or 'this' does not add much difference.
79: (weaker) S1 makes the strong meaning of the word our.
80: (stronger) Our estimator implies a degree of confidence
81: (weaker) Ownership sounds better.
82: (nochange) just a different pronoun
83: (weaker) "This" makes it seem like the writers do not want to own their ideas.
84: (stronger) the word "this" refers to one particular estimator rather than an ambiguous "our"
68: (nochange) our and this doesnt bring much change

S1: given a compact , simply-connected simple lie group [MATH] , let [MATH] denote the moduli space of flat principal [MATH] - bundles on a compact riemann surface [MATH] of genus greater than zero .
S2: given a compact , simply-connected simple lie group [MATH] , let [MATH] denote the moduli space of flat principal [MATH] - bundles on a compact riemann surface [MATH] of genus greater than one .
0: (nochange) does not change strength of the sentence, only data given
1: (cannottell) These two statements don't agree and I don't have any way of knowing which one is correct
2: (nochange) S2 uses a different genus, but does not strengthen the statement.
3: (stronger) 1 is greater than 0.
4: (stronger) 1 is greater than 0
5: (cannottell) values can be negative and zero, so it depends on the evidence of what they are trying to say. I have read many absorbance reasons that were negative and considered zero within my research for school labs for waste management and sampling and analysis. It depends on their purpose.
6: (stronger) One is greater than zero, so S2 sounds stronger.
7: (stronger) "one" is the greater number of the pair.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: we shall prove the fundamental theorem : the following identities hold in the domain [MATH] : [MATH] in the statement of the theorem , [MATH] is the opposite of the unique normalised drinfeld cusp form of weight [MATH] and type [MATH] for [MATH] as in .
S2: we shall prove the fundamental theorem : the following identities hold for [MATH] such that [MATH] : [MATH] in the statement of the theorem , [MATH] is the opposite of the unique normalised drinfeld cusp form of weight [MATH] and type [MATH] for [MATH] as in .
36: (weaker) the removal of domain weakens s2
37: (stronger) adds math justification
38: (nochange) Both say the same thing.
39: (weaker) S2 removes a boundary which seems less impressive.
40: (nochange) There is little difference between the cue words.
41: (stronger) Changing "in the domain" to specific math notation makes the statement stronger.
42: (weaker) S2 provides weaker wording
43: (nochange) No change in strength.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: only a single state in this class suffices for calculating all statistical-mechanical properties , including correlation functions and genuine thermodynamic variables , of a quantum system at finite temperature .
S2: a single realization of the tpq state suffices for calculating all statistical-mechanical properties , including correlation functions and genuine thermodynamic variables , of a quantum system at finite temperature .
61: (weaker) Taking out the word "only" leaves the rest of the statement ambiguous in how broadly it can be applied.
62: (weaker) "Only" is a stronger word.
63: (weaker) s2 seems less impressive
64: (nochange) They both sound the same.
65: (nochange) Conveys the same thing but with different wording.
51: (weaker) In S1 the word "only" implies a greater achievement in focusing on more isolated state.
66: (stronger) explains it better
67: (nochange) The terms do not particularly compliment the sentence.
68: (stronger) S2 describes the state whereas S1 just specifies that a state exists.

S1: this result allows us to find how those quantities scale with the number of bosons .
S2: our approach allows us to find how those quantities scale with the number of bosons .
61: (nochange) Just a change in wording that doesn't add or remove evidence or change the intensity of anything.
62: (stronger) Directly claims the results as the writer's doings.
63: (weaker) s1 sounds more factual
64: (stronger) "Our approach" assigns someone to focus on.
65: (nochange) Means the same thing.
51: (weaker) "Result" is much more definitive and much stronger than "approach."
66: (weaker) s1 references data
67: (weaker) Diminishing a 'result' into an 'approach' seems like the weaker choice.
68: (nochange) I don think the choice of words makes any difference at all

S1: we establish a connection between certain sets of positive roots and the theory of reductive dual pairs of real lie groups . as an application of our formulas , we recover the theta correspondence for compact dual pairs .
S2: we establish a connection between certain sets of positive roots and the theory of reductive dual pairs of real lie groups , and , as an application of these formulas , we recover the theta correspondence for compact dual pairs .
36: (nochange) nothing added that gives any more strength to s2
37: (weaker) "our" for "these" is stronger, so S2 is weaker
38: (weaker) "Our" formulas implies greater ownership or mastery over the formulas mentioned, so S2 takes that aspect away.
39: (weaker) "our formulas" sounds more confident than "these formulas".
40: (nochange) There is no substantial difference between the changed phrases.
41: (stronger) The word "and" ties the ideas together in a stronger way. Also changing "our formulas" to "these formulas" adds more credibility to the validity of the formulas.
42: (nochange) S2 adds no value
43: (stronger) To me, the use of "our" takes away from the professional writing style and, to me, makes S2 a stronger statement.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: in the inclusive approach it is enough to know that in principle the cancellations between real and virtual soft contributions allow us to neglect the entire classes of the diagrams and/or divergent contributions -- they sum up to zero , up to power suppressed terms .
S2: in the inclusive approach it is enough to know that the cancellations between real and virtual soft contributions allow us in principle to neglect entire classes of diagrams and/or divergent contributions -- they sum up to zero .
18: (stronger) No strength changed based on grammatical changes or the addition of the phrase, up to power suppressed terms. If anything, that phrase makes the sentence S1 confusing and possibly weaker.
19: (stronger) Changing the position of in principle gives it more relevance.
20: (weaker) Power-suppressed terms suddenly vanished. As such, the second sentence loses its luster.
21: (nochange) Change in syntax.
22: (weaker) "up to the power supressed terms" strengthens the degree of the sums of zero.
23: (nochange) S1 has some extra explanation, i.e., up to power suppressed terms
24: (nochange) Removal of highlighted phrase in S1 only provides less confusion (grammatical, not content related)
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: here we develop a coalescent model that generalizes the recurrent full sweep model to the case where selected alleles do not sweep to fixation .
S2: here we develop a general model of recurrent selective sweeps in a coalescent framework , one that generalizes the recurrent full sweep model to the case where selected alleles do not sweep to fixation .
9: (nochange) This rephrasing does not affect strength.
10: (stronger) s2 has more detail
11: (nochange) The phrase "a general model of recurrent selective sweeps in" and "framework, one" adds more details but represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 is more specific and gives more detail
13: (nochange) No difference was noted in this sentence
14: (weaker) S2 is stronger because it explains specifically the premise of the statement.
15: (weaker) "general model" makes S2 sounds less impressive. R3
16: (nochange) I don't think R1-R3 apply, the sentences are worded differently, but there are no stronger or weaker words and they say the same things, just arranged differently.
17: (weaker) change from coalescent to general

S1: furthermore we discuss the possibilities of signing the presence of uhe proton sources either within or outside the cosmic ray horizon using neutrinos or photons observations even in the eventuality of a cosmic ray composition getting heavier at the highest energies .
S2: furthermore , we discuss the possibilities of signing the presence of uhe proton sources either within or outside the cosmic ray horizon using neutrinos or photons observations even if the cosmic ray composition becomes heavier at the highest energies .
69: (weaker) "In the eventuality of" suggests a lower probability than "if" which is very vague.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) Much easier to read s2 and language is better.
72: (weaker) LESS IMPRESSIVE
73: (nochange) is clearer but the strength does not change
74: (nochange) Both offer the same message
75: (nochange) just a rephrasing
76: (stronger) osmic ray composition becomes heavier makes the statement more impressive.
51: (weaker) The use of the word "if" in S2 provides a degree of uncertainty that does not appear in S1 and weakens the overall statement.

S1: this study is motivated in part by the observation that an exact discrete parity arises in generic standard model extensions involving confined fermions coupled to electroweak [MATH] .
S2: this study is motivated in part by the observation that an exact discrete parity arises in standard model extensions involving confined fermions coupled to electroweak [MATH] .
18: (stronger) The use of both words generic and standard in S1 seems to be redundant. Since only one appears necessary, S2 is stronger.
19: (nochange) "generic standard model" and "standard model" both give the same image to me. No change.
20: (nochange) The removal of one nonessential adjective alters nothing in the grand scheme of things.
21: (stronger) Removing "generic" makes the study sound less common
22: (stronger) Using generic before standard is redundant. One should not describe an adjective with a synonym.
23: (nochange) generic is just extra detail
24: (stronger) Removal of generic gives S2 a more assured stance
25: (weaker) Removal of evidence in S2
26: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: phenomenology is consistent with deviations from the standard model reported from lep and fermilab and includes the detection of mirror fermions at the lhc .
S2: phenomenology is in principle consistent with deviations from the standard model reported by lep and fermilab and includes the probability of detection of mirror fermions at the lhc .
77: (nochange) does not change argument
78: (weaker) Adding that it is only the probability of detection and not detection itself weakens the sample.
79: (stronger) S2 makes more stronger
80: (weaker) "In principle" weaker than simply being, "probability of" weaker than simply being
81: (stronger) Even though it makes S1 less absolute, S2 becomes more specific.
82: (nochange) language choices, no factual differences
83: (weaker) S2 seems more uncertain.
84: (stronger) S2 is better worded and has a clearer meaning.
68: (stronger) S2 includes more details

S1: although detection in such an energy range remains at present an experimental challenge , it will become a visible trace of nsi if these exist .
S2: although detection in such a low energy range remains at present an experimental challenge , it will become a visible trace of nsi with normal hierarchy if they exist .
36: (stronger) "a low" and "with normal hierarchy" sounds more impressive
37: (nochange) Clarifies referents without increasing evidence or persuasive capacity.
38: (nochange) What changes is the addition of more detail.
39: (stronger) S2 is more specific so it sounds more like they know what they're doing.
40: (nochange) The difference in language just clarifies but doesn't weaken or strengthen.
41: (weaker) The word "an" is replaced with "a low" which weakens the statement also "with normal hierarchy" further limits the range in which the statement is true.
42: (weaker) "an" is replaced by "a low" which weakens the degree of the energy range
43: (nochange) S2 is just more specific to the energy level and the hierarchy but the strength is not affected.
44: (stronger) "low" and "with normal hierarchy constitute more evidence

S1: consequently , it is still unclear how significantly variable accretion histories influence protostellar evolution .
S2: consequently , it is still unclear how much vigorous time-dependent accretion histories influence protostellar evolution .
69: (stronger) "much vigorous time-dependent" is more specific than "significantly variable"
70: (stronger) much vigorous time-dependent sounds impressive than significantly variable
71: (weaker) significantly variable makes more sense than much vigorous time-dependent.
72: (stronger) much vigorous time-dependent IS MORE STRONGER THAN significantly variable
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (nochange) Both are equally strong statements
75: (nochange) The words essentially mean the same thing.
76: (weaker) much vigorous time-dependent is less impressive than significantly variable
51: (weaker) "Significantly variable" makes S1 sound more impressive as if gives the impression that accretion histories are difficult to understand, making it seem more acceptable that this understanding is unclear.

S1: it makes [MATH] a poisson space over the poisson group [MATH] . the poisson bivector field restricts to every closed conjugacy class turning it to a poisson [MATH] - variety .
S2: then [MATH] is said to be a poisson space over the poisson group [MATH] , under the conjugacy action the poisson bivector field [MATH] restricts to every closed conjugacy class making it a poisson [MATH] - variety , .
61: (nochange) "It makes" causes the first statement to be stronger, but adding "under the conjugacy action" in the second statement clarifies the conditions when this is true, so both statements have a strength and weakness.
62: (weaker) Turns the slightly stronger "it makes" into a weaker passive construction.
63: (stronger) s2 is more accurate
64: (stronger) Gives a bigger explanation.
65: (nochange) Just grammatical change and clarification.
51: (weaker) "It makes" is much stronger than "is said to be," which seems to convey a lack of firsthand knowledge and is much more passive. The additional phrase "under the conjugacy action" adds more detail and clarification but doesn't provide any more evidence or justification.
66: (stronger) better wording
67: (weaker) "it makes" is a stronger statement than "is said to be".
68: (stronger) S2 provides more justification over S1 like 'under the conjugacy action'..

S1: the non-gaussian features of the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation ( cmbr ) have received increasing attention in recent times , in connection with the upcoming release of the data of experiments as planck .
S2: the non-gaussian features of the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation ( cmbr ) have received increasing attention in recent times , in connection with the upcoming release of the data of experiments like planck .
9: (stronger) More grammatically correct.
10: (weaker) s1 has more powerful wording
11: (nochange) Changing "as" to "like" doesn't change the certainty of the sentence and therefore represents no strength change.
12: (nochange) The meaning is the same between both. S2 is simply more grammatically correct.
13: (nochange) as and like are highly similar words with similar meanings. The meaning of a simile is 'to compare two things with as or like', no strength c hange
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because the word "like" refers to this experiment being a very similar example.
15: (stronger) "like" gives larger scope than "as". R2
16: (nochange) None of R1-R3 applies. The sentences have the same strength.
17: (weaker) As planck is more definite than like

S1: we demonstrate that the model is able to realistically hindcast the expansion speed and the inhomogeneous space-time evolution of the transition to agropastoralism in europe .
S2: we demonstrate that the model is able to realistically hindcast the expansion speed and the inhomogeneous space-time evolution of the transition to agropastoralism in western eurasia .
53: (stronger) strengths the generality of europe by providing a more specific example
54: (weaker) Europe is more specific to me than Western Eurasia.
55: (stronger) Western Eurasia gives the exact location.
56: (weaker) I think S1 is easier to read with the Europe reference.
11: (nochange) Changing "europe" to "western eurasia" simply changes a detail and otherwise represents no strength change.
57: (weaker) europe is more specific than western eurasia so S2 is weaker.
58: (nochange) S2 added "western eurasia" to S! but did not change the sentence strength by doing so.
59: (stronger) Western eurasia is more descriptive than europe
60: (stronger) s2 provides more info and expands the area being addressed

S1: such a procedure defines espes as centroid energies denoting barycenters of a priori correlated total binding energy differences between the a-nucleon state the one-nucleon transfer is performed on and the complete set of eigenstates of the a +1 and a-1 systems .
S2: such a procedure defines espes as centroid energies denoting barycenters of correlated total binding energy differences between the a-nucleon state the one-nucleon transfer is performed on and the complete set of eigenstates of the a +1 and a-1 systems .
27: (stronger) "a priori" weakens the statement because indicates that the correlation is theoretical and not based on evidence, so eliminating this phrase makes the statement stronger.
28: (stronger) just sounds better
29: (nochange) The distinction of "a priori" doesn't change the value or strength of any of the proceeding or following information. The word can be removed and have the exact same meaning, yet it is such a small phrase that it doesn't depreciate the value at all either.
30: (stronger) sounds better
31: (nochange) almost same
32: (nochange) no effective change is there.
33: (weaker) S1 is more detailed.
34: (nochange) S2 just removes a descriptor of the correlation.
35: (weaker) "a priori" sounds impressive

S1: we use this result to provide a redshift-independent calibration of sed templates in the range of 8 -- 60 [MATH] m as a function of [MATH] ssfr offset from the main-sequence .
S2: we provide a redshift-independent calibration of sed templates in the range of 8 -- 60 [MATH] m as a function of [MATH] log ( ssfr ) offset from the main sequence .
53: (stronger) The meaning doesn't change with the first or third change, but the inclusion of log in the math adds evidence/function
54: (stronger) S2 adds additional information by including log (ssfr).
55: (nochange) S2 just explains that ssfr is a log.
56: (weaker) S1 looked more specific because S1 used this result to provide templates.
11: (nochange) Removing "use this result", adding "log" and removing the "-" in main sequence are cosmetic changes and represents no real strength change.
57: (weaker) use this result is more specific of that action that is being taken. Without that makes S2 weaker.
58: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive by adding justification by listing functions "log(ssfr)" in its sentence.
59: (weaker) S1 says "we use this result to" while S2 only says "we provide". We use is a stronger statement
60: (weaker) s2 removes the opening justification in s1

S1: we present the first optical imaging circular polarimetry of the anomalous x-ray pular 4u 0142 +61 , the only magnetar that has been well studied at optical and infrared wavelengths and is known to have a complicated broad-band spectrum at the wavelengths .
S2: we present the first imaging circular polarimetry of the anomalous x-ray pulsar ( axp ) 4u 0142 +61 at optical wavelengths . the axp is the only magnetar that has been well studied at optical and infrared wavelengths and is known to have a complicated broad-band spectrum over the wavelength range .
77: (stronger) better syntax
78: (stronger) S2 adds the axp and more information about the wavelength.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more impressive
80: (weaker) At the wavelengths is stronger than over the wavelength range.
81: (nochange) There is no evidence provided, or strength shown that makes any one sentence sound better than the other.
82: (nochange) different way of expressing same thing. no logical changes.
83: (nochange) Axp does not seem important.
84: (stronger) the addition of "the axp" significantly clarifies this statement and provides a better explanation.
68: (stronger) S2 suggests that 'axp' is the one which has been well studied.

S1: we analyze the energy reduction mechanism of interacting atoms on a local lattice site and show that this can not be explained only by a spatial broadening of wannier orbitals on a single particle level .
S2: we analyze the energy reduction mechanism of interacting atoms on a local lattice site and show that this can not be explained only by a spatial broadening of wannier orbitals on a single-particle level , which neglects correlations .
9: (weaker) This added information is not vital, it is already implied.
10: (stronger) s2 provides better info
11: (nochange) Adding the phrase "which neglects correlations" provides more details to the sentence but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 provides the detail "which neglects correlations" which is absent in S1.
13: (nochange) There is barely a change as 'which neglects correlations' barely adds more specific information to what is going on.
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it explains more about the single-particle level capacity.
15: (weaker) "single-particle" limits scope. R2
16: (nochange) S2 only clarifies and adds a detail, which does not change the strength.
17: (nochange) just gives more info about level

S1: the existing results on the existence of capacity achieving linear codes in the literature are limited to the codes whose generator matrix elements are zero or one with necessarily equal probability , yielding a non-sparse generator matrix .
S2: the results on the existence of capacity achieving linear codes in the literature are limited to the random binary codes with equal probability generating matrix elements and sparse parity-check matrices .
18: (weaker) S2 weaker than S1, lacks description of matrix elements as zero or one with necessarily equal probability, yielding non-sparse generator
19: (weaker) Takes away some meaning.
20: (nochange) The second sentence merely rearranges the flow of the terms without increasing or decreasing in strength, novelty, or impression.
21: (nochange) The changes in S2 simplify what S1 says without changing any meaning.
22: (stronger) Using existing and existence twice in one sentence in redundant. S2 is better worded and doesn't lose any of its impact.
23: (stronger) Omitting existing does not cause any change in strength. Changing " whose generator matrix elements are zero or one" to "random binary" is just omitting more details. Omitting "necessarily" gives more strength. Changing the end of the sentence does not cause any change in strength.
24: (stronger) The addition of "random binary" to S2 gives more specific information and the elimination of "existing" makes S2 more impressive
25: (weaker) Words like "Random" weakens the degree and allows exceptions
26: (weaker) Removes the evidence

S1: our results indicate that starting at 3-4 nuclear saturation densities the protons with fractional densities [MATH] will populate mostly the high momentum ( off-fermi shell ) tail of the momentum distribution while only 20 % of the neutrons will be in the high momentum tail .
S2: our results indicate that starting at three nuclear saturation densities the protons with fractional densities [MATH] will populate mostly the high momentum ( off-fermi shell ) tail of the momentum distribution while only 5 % of the neutrons will be in the high momentum tail .
18: (weaker) S1 3-4 nuclear saturation and 20% of the neutrons opposed to S2 three nuclear and 5% of the neutrons. S1 looks at a range and 20% of the neutrons at the high momentum tail.
19: (weaker) 3-4 is bigger than a simple three.
20: (stronger) S2 narrows down the range and results from the looseness contained within S1.
21: (weaker) Although it is more precise, having 20% sounds far more impressive than 5%
22: (stronger) Narrowing down the nuclear saturation densities from 3-4 to simply 3 takes away a greater margin for error and lends more credibility to S2.
23: (stronger) S2 is more certain with more strength in the percentage given
24: (stronger) 5% is more impressive than 20%
25: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
26: (nochange) No changes in the evidences

S1: there exist then positive integers [MATH] and [MATH] , such that [MATH] the maps [MATH] are know in very few cases .
S2: there exist then integers [MATH] and [MATH] , such that [MATH] the maps [MATH] are known in a few cases only .
27: (weaker) "very few" more strongly states the scarcity of cases than "a few cases only".
28: (stronger) proper grammar
29: (weaker) In S1, the word "positive" adds clarifying strength while the word "very" adds more emphasis.
30: (stronger) finishes a thought and makes more sense to solve.
31: (nochange) doesnt make much difference
32: (weaker) the removal of positive integer make it weak.
33: (stronger) S1 seems to have improper grammar. 'Are know,' doesn't make sense.
34: (nochange) "positive" is just a constraint on the integers, thus not affecting the strength of the assertion. The other changes are grammatical.
35: (stronger) "only" limits the outlying evidence being discussed

S1: starlike ) functions involving the gaussian hypergoemetric functions .
S2: fully starlike ) functions involving gaussian hypergeometric functions .
77: (nochange) adjective does not change strength of argument
78: (nochange) The largest addition of "fully" starlike does not add or detract anything from S1.
79: (weaker) S1 makes more stronger
80: (stronger) Fully starlike much more impressive than starlike
81: (stronger) Uses "fully" starlike, rather than not knowing how starlike in S1.
82: (weaker) stricter qualifier
83: (stronger) S2 gives a better image
84: (stronger) the word fully ascertain what kind of starlike functions is specified.
68: (nochange) I wonder whether the word 'fully' means anything here. however its diff to predict the change in assertion without more evidence

S1: on the other hand , observations of molecular absorption lines in front of a bright radio continuum source allow rare molecular species to be detected even in distant galaxies , where they could not be observed in emission because of distance dilution .
S2: observations of molecular absorption lines toward a bright radio continuum source allow rare molecular species to be detected even in distant galaxies , where they can not be observed in emission because of distance dilution .
45: (weaker) "on the other hand" implies that there is other evidence
46: (stronger) "can" sounds more definitive than "could"
47: (stronger) "On the other hand" shows waffling, and "can" is more than "could," because it implies extension of that inability to be observed into the future.
48: (nochange) The difference in terms does not make any difference in strength.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (stronger) "Can not" feels subtly stronger than "could not"
51: (nochange) The changes are semantic and add a little more detail, but do not change the strength of the statement.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (stronger) Removal of 'on the other hand' strengthens the statement and leaves it less vague.

S1: in addition , the lateral extent of the energy deposition in the calorimeter is a sensitive discriminant between hips and standard model particles .
S2: in addition , assuming isolation , the lateral extent of the energy deposition in the calorimeter is a sensitive discriminant between hips and standard model particles .
77: (nochange) does not change strength
78: (stronger) S2 adds "assuming isolation" which gives more information.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (weaker) Assumptions are weak
81: (weaker) Assuming is NEVER a good thing to do!
82: (weaker) more qualified claim
83: (weaker) S2 seems uncertain.
84: (stronger) there is the inclusion of an assumed parameter in s2
68: (stronger) S2 adds evidence - assuming isolation

S1: qft avoids such head on encounters with the nonlinear unitarity , by deriving the latter from the asymptotic convergence of hermitian fields in the setting of scattering theory .
S2: qft avoids such direct encounters with nonlinear properties by implementing unitarity via the asymptotic convergence of hermitian fields in the setting of scattering theory .
69: (stronger) "head on" makes it seem like a confrontation, while "direct" invokes a sense of immediate attention.
70: (weaker) deriving sounds stronger than implementing
71: (stronger) language in s2 is much better.
72: (weaker) SOME IMPRESSIONS ARE MISSING
73: (nochange) clearer but no change
74: (stronger) Use of the word "implementing" suggests a direct action
75: (nochange) just a rephrasing
76: (stronger) properties by implementing, sounds more impressive
51: (weaker) "Deriving" implies a process leading to a result, which is much stronger than "via."

S1: thus , generically , the more a permutation preserves the order defined by id , but ignoring card number [MATH] , the more it is favored by [MATH] .
S2: thus , in the above sense , the more a permutation preserves the order defined by id , but ignoring card number [MATH] , the more it is favored by [MATH] .
77: (nochange) no real strength change between phrasing
78: (stronger) "In the above sense" sounds more concrete than "generically."
79: (weaker) S1 sounds stronger than S2 statement.
80: (stronger) Generically is universal, in the above sense is limited.
81: (stronger) Generically is never a good term to use. Too broad.
82: (weaker) First is more general, while the second limits the claims a bit
83: (nochange) No difference, words mean basically same thing
84: (weaker) although not specific, generically at least implies that it is based on a standard while you don't know what standards "in the above sense" is based on.
68: (weaker) I think 'generically' implies a specific condition which can never be replaced by ' in the above sense '

S1: using a magnitude limited sample , we find a considerable difference when comparing the empirical distributions of [MATH] for agns and non-agn galaxies , the agns showing typically low [MATH] values and associated dispersions , while non-agns present higher [MATH] values and a broader distribution .
S2: using a volume limited sample , we find a considerable difference when comparing the empirical distributions of [MATH] for agns and non-agn galaxies , the agns showing typically low [MATH] values and associated dispersions , while non-agns present higher [MATH] values and a broader distribution .
27: (nochange) "volume" instead of "magnitude" is more specific, but does not make the claim stronger.
28: (stronger) more concrete
29: (nochange) "Magnitude" and "volume" are words of equal strength that simply are different types of measures.
30: (stronger) volume would be the correct term to use in this problem
31: (nochange) both are synonyms
32: (weaker) change of word magnitude into volume.
33: (stronger) 'Volume,' sounds more accurate.
34: (nochange) "magnitude" and "volume" are merely measurement defining words, doesn't change the strength of the assertion.
35: (weaker) "magnitude" just sounds cooler

S1: however , in the previous studies although the concepts from quantum information are investigated , they are not fully explored , because they are mealy used as some common order parameters , and some important properties such as operations are missing .
S2: however , in the previous studies although the concepts from quantum information were investigated , they were not fully explored , because they were mealy used as some common order parameters , and some important operational properties were missing .
53: (nochange) only change is tense
54: (stronger) S1 is kind of a run on and has included words that were not necessary.
55: (stronger) Were is the past tense implying that things could have changed since then.
56: (weaker) S1 added more details with the "such as operations" fragment.
11: (stronger) Changing the tense from present tense to past tense makes the sentence grammatically correct and therefore makes the sentence sound stronger.
57: (weaker) S1 says "are investigated", which sounds more current and more impressive that saying "were investigated".
58: (weaker) S2 removes the clarity of S1. S1 stated "are missing" S2 stated "were missing".
59: (nochange) The 2 sentences are about the same. S1 using present tense and S2 using past tense.
60: (weaker) s1 is more current, stronger, better choice of verbiage

S1: recent work has indicated a third model of decisions , based on the use of heuristics .
S2: recent works include a third model of decision , based on the use of heuristics .
69: (stronger) "has indicated" suggests the decisions have been put forth but maybe not accepted as true, while "works include" concretely asserts the third model of decision is part of the assertion.
70: (nochange) No change
71: (stronger) easier to read s1 because it is in present tense.
72: (weaker) SECOND SENTENCE works include IS WEAKER
73: (nochange) grammar change
74: (weaker) S1 suggests that their work has led to the identification of this model
75: (stronger) "has indicated" is weaker than "include" - also "works" indicates more evidence
76: (stronger) The term works include strengthens the sentence, making it more important
51: (weaker) "Indicated" implies a more definitive outcome than "include" does.

S1: in general , the behavior of the full and reduced graph c * - algebras is quite different , as suggested by the free group c * - algebra example above .
S2: in general , the behaviors of the full and reduced graph c * - algebras are quite different , as suggested by the free group c * - algebra example above .
27: (nochange) The change from singular to plural does not seem to make a difference in strength (though it allows the statement to focus either on the unity of what the graph shows or the variety of what the graph shows).
28: (stronger) grammar
29: (nochange) Changing the words from singular to plural doesn't influence the strength of the sentence at all - it merely explains how many variables are involved.
30: (nochange) same phrase worded differently, no strength change
31: (stronger) corrected the gramitical mistake
32: (weaker) the plural form weakens it.
33: (stronger) S2 is grammatically correct.
34: (nochange) Grammatical change.
35: (weaker) The plural form of "behavior" suggests indeterminate, less concrete evidence

S1: we consider also the corresponding measure on the polydisc [MATH] where [MATH] is [MATH] - multiindex . inequality [MATH] between [MATH] - multindexes means [MATH] , [MATH] .
S2: we will consider also the corresponding measure on the polydisc [MATH] , [MATH] where [MATH] is an [MATH] - multiindex ; the inequality [MATH] between two [MATH] - multiindices means [MATH] ; we denote the [MATH] - multiindex [MATH] by [MATH] .
0: (stronger) more detailed, offering more information
1: (cannottell) Cripes
2: (weaker) S2 weakens the statement by using a future tense; as opposed to S1 that uses present tense which sounds more confident/stronger.
3: (cannottell) I don't know.
4: (stronger) adds justification
5: (weaker) second sentence appears too wordy without sufficient details
6: (weaker) S2 adds more information by adding 'we denote the multiindex by'
7: (cannottell) Without the equations, the strength of each is unclear.
8: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: in particular , the idea of localization comes from algebraic geometry : given a point [MATH] in some affine variety [MATH] , one likes to investigate the nature of [MATH] in an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of [MATH] in the zariski topology .
S2: for this we first note that the idea of localization comes from algebraic geometry : given a point [MATH] in some affine variety [MATH] , one likes to investigate the nature of [MATH] in an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of [MATH] in the zariski topology .
69: (nochange) Both intro phrases in S1 and S2 are independent of the claims and don't affect the strength of the claims.
70: (weaker) in particular sounds more succinct
71: (weaker) "in particular" qualifies the statement better than "for this we..."
72: (nochange) NO CHANGES IN THE MEANING
73: (stronger) assuming more notes will be added
74: (stronger) S2 suggests that additional evidence will follow
75: (weaker) The tone of S2 sounds less certain.
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion.
51: (stronger) The phrase "for this we first note that" sounds more impressive because it implies that this is just the first step in a complex process.

S1: it is argued that human consciousness is likely to have emerged during self-consistent evolution of the physical universe through the gradual accumulation of biological entities ' ability to tap into the intrinsic non-deterministic potentiality during the global non-equilibrium phase transitions in the infinite degrees-of-freedom quantum universe .
S2: it is argued that human consciousness is likely to have emerged during the self-consistent evolution of the physical universe , through the gradual accumulation of biological entities ' ability to tap into the intrinsic non-deterministic potentiality in the global nonequilibrium phase transitions occurring continually in the quantum universe .
69: (stronger) "Infinite degrees-of-freedom" sounds more impressive than "occurring continually"
70: (weaker) infinite degrees of freedom sounds more impressive than occurring continually
71: (stronger) concise and straightforward language makes for better readability.
72: (nochange) THE CHANGES IN WORDS IS NOT STRENGTHEN
73: (nochange) minor changes - not sure about difference between infinite degrees of freedom and occurring continually
74: (weaker) S1 specifies the infinite nature of the quantum universe therefore provides greater support
75: (nochange) The words that are replaced don't change the strength at all.
76: (stronger) The term occurring Continually is more perfect than the term infinite degrees-of-freedom
51: (weaker) "Infinite degrees-of-freedom" sounds more impressive (infinite is a stronger word) than "occurring continually."

S1: more precisely , let [MATH] be the kernel of the propagator [MATH] . we say that the perturbations of leprobleme are non-trapping if the following condition is fulfilled [ [MATH] ] for all [MATH] , there exists [MATH] such that [MATH] following the results of , we know that singularities propagate along null-bicharacteristics ( with considaration of there reflections from [MATH] ) .
S2: more precisely , let [MATH] be the kernel of the propagator [MATH] and consider the following [ [MATH] ] for all [MATH] , there exists [MATH] such that [MATH] from , we know that singularities propagate along null-bicharacteristics ( with consideration of their reflections from [MATH] ) .
77: (stronger) concise and corrects spelling error "there"
78: (stronger) Using the correct form of "their" in S2 gives it much more credibility.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (stronger) Stronger to command someone to consider, than clauses like "we'll say this if this is true"
81: (weaker) S1 is more specific, talking about coniditions that need fulfilled and such.
82: (nochange) different wording choices
83: (nochange) Grammar fixed in S2
84: (weaker) there are significantly less arguments in s2
68: (weaker) S2 removes important evidence

S1: the holographic insulator/superconductor phase transition with back-reaction was studied in .
S2: the holographic insulator/superconductor phase transition was also studied in .
9: (cannottell) I don't have enough context to judge this pair.
10: (weaker) s2 has more speculative wording
11: (nochange) Changing "with back-reaction" to "also" changes the detail but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 omits the detail "with back-reaction" present in S1
13: (weaker) 'with back reaction' sounds like it includes feedback, helping support the information and make it more important (R3)
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger except for the grammatical error of putting "also" after the "was."
15: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive. R3.
16: (stronger) "was also studied in" seems to add more evidence to support and strengthen S2. R2.
17: (weaker) first describes transition in deeper detail

S1: however , previous literature on bec dark matter has mostly neglected an important aspect of halo physics , namely angular momentum .
S2: however , previous literature on bec-cdm has mostly neglected an important aspect of halo physics , namely angular momentum .
27: (stronger) Using the specific scientific term instead of the more colloquial term makes it sound more impressive.
28: (weaker) clarifying what it is sounds better at this point
29: (nochange) The two sentences are saying the exact same thing, just using different phrases with equal strength.
30: (nochange) same point just worded differently
31: (weaker) abbrevation is not a best choice
32: (nochange) no change.
33: (cannottell) Putting 'cdm' instead of 'dark matter' looks like it might be an industry standard, and as a non-professional, I do not know which one would be preferable.
34: (nochange) Only adding a constraint on the dark matter (cold dark matter), not changing strength of the assertion.
35: (nochange) simple noun switch

S1: three-dimensional voronoi analysis is used to quantify the clustering of inertial particles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence using data from numerics and experiments .
S2: three-dimensional vorono " analysis is used to quantify the clustering of inertial particles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence using data sets from numerics in the point particle limit and one experimental data set .
36: (stronger) in the point particle limit ads more strength
37: (weaker) fewer experiments
38: (cannottell) There is more data (data "sets") in S2 but "one experimental data set" implies less experiments.
39: (stronger) S2 is more specific in its description which seems stronger.
40: (stronger) S2 adds the evidence of "in the point particle limit."
41: (stronger) The last change from to "in the point particle limit and one experimental data set" adds more specific justification over the previous choice of simplifying it to "experiments".
42: (weaker) "one experimental data set" weakens the sentence
43: (nochange) S2 gives more detail but doesn't make it stronger by expanding on the experiments.
44: (stronger) S2 provides a lot more evidence.

S1: a diagonal tetrad , on the other hand , resulted in highly constrained models with constant torsion scalar , which are of less physical interest .
S2: a diagonal tetrad , on the other hand , resulted in highly constrained models with constant torsion scalar , which are of less physical interest in this context .
53: (nochange) in this context does not add or subtract any information, superfluous.
54: (stronger) S2 is stronger if this is only true 'in this context' by stating that, but would be weaker if this limits this rule.
55: (cannottell) I don't know if "in this context" strengthens or weakens the sentence.
56: (stronger) S2 added an example that the evidence was good only for this context.
11: (stronger) "in this context" creates more specificity and therefore strengthens the assertion in the sentence.
57: (stronger) "In this context" is more specific in detail makes it seem like a stronger sentence
58: (nochange) S2 words "in this context" does not change the sentence strength in sentence S1.
59: (stronger) S2 gives us better view of what they are doing
60: (weaker) s2 encourages the reader to ask questions regarding context

S1: we present an efficient finite difference method for the computation of parameter sensitivities for a wide class of continuous time markov chains .
S2: we present an efficient finite difference method for the computation of parameter sensitivities that is applicable to a wide class of continuous time markov chain models .
53: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive "applicable vs for"
54: (cannottell) Each seems to be equivalent in its strength, just written differently.
55: (stronger) that is applicable to etc. sounds more impressive.
56: (nochange) The highlighted words mean the same thing with no additional detail provided.
11: (nochange) Changing "for" to "that is applicable to" and "chains" to "chain models" merely adds some details but otherwise represent no real strength change.
57: (weaker) models makes it sound more like a theory than a fact.
58: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive by adding more detail or descriptive words than S1.
59: (stronger) "Chain models" (S2) is more informative than just "Chains" (S1)
60: (stronger) sounds more impressive by adding detail that isn't necessary, but expands things

S1: let [MATH] be a rational function on [MATH] of degree [MATH] , and suppose that [MATH] is of characteristic [MATH] .
S2: let [MATH] be a rational function on [MATH] of degree [MATH] , and suppose that [MATH] has characteristic [MATH] .
0: (weaker) less definite on inclusion of the characteristic
1: (cannottell) The meaning is the same, although S2 does sound better
2: (nochange) These sentences seem to be the same strength to me; using 'has' rather than 'is of' has no impact on strength.
3: (stronger) Has is just better word choice.
4: (stronger) has implies belonging
5: (nochange) is of and has seem to be stating the same thing
6: (nochange) The wording makes the change have a different meaning, but I can't think of a reason one would be weaker or stronger, they are just different.
7: (nochange) "is of" and "has" are equally intensive.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: some recent works attempt to first infer the geometric layout from 2d images for improving object detection .
S2: some previous works attempt to first infer the 3d structure from 2d images for improving object detection .
53: (weaker) recent is more specific than previous, and geometic is more impressive than 3D.
54: (weaker) Previous makes S2 sound outdated as compared to recent.
55: (stronger) S2 explains that the structure is 3d.
56: (cannottell) The two sentences are equal but have different points.
11: (weaker) Changing "recent" to "previous" and "geometric layout" to "3d structure" makes the sentence sound more vague and therefore weaker.
57: (weaker) In S1 the word recent makes it seem more current, which makes it more impressive
58: (stronger) S2 provides a more detailed and informative sentence "3d structure" and "previous" instead of S1 recent and "geometric layout"
59: (nochange) I think both sentences express the same idea equally well
60: (weaker) previous sounds less up-to-date than recent, geometric layout is easier to envision

S1: a few years ago , bassetti and diaconis showed that , for a similar sampler that only generates walks consisting of north and east steps , the relative variance is [MATH] .
S2: a few years ago , bassetti and diaconis showed that , for a sampler ` a la knuth , that generates walks crossing a [MATH] square and consisting of north and east steps , the relative variance is only [MATH] .
18: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it contains a more specific sample name a la knuth and added detail of crossing a square.
19: (cannottell) They seem far too different to really tell. And I have no idea what "a la knuth" means. I'm sorry.
20: (nochange) This is just tossing in Latin, another language, for kicks!
21: (stronger) S2 adds an example and includes the word "only" which removes doubt.
22: (weaker) Inserting a French description into an English paper alienates potential audiences.
23: (weaker) The word only shows strength and it is omitted in S2
24: (stronger) S2 adds MATH evidence to the statement
25: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2
26: (stronger) Addition of Evidences

S1: here parameters [MATH] ( [MATH] ) and the parameters [MATH] obey the following relations [MATH] where [MATH] and [MATH] .
S2: parameters [MATH] ( [MATH] ) and [MATH] obey certain relations described in section 2 .
69: (weaker) S1 provides the relations obeyed, while S2 removes this evidence and refers to another part of the paper.
70: (cannottell) S2 is easier to read, but may or may not leave out things in S1 since I cannot see what section 2 says.
71: (weaker) S2 refers reader to another section instead of describing it as in s1.
72: (nochange) SAME MEANING
73: (cannottell) depends on what section 2 has.
74: (weaker) S1 offers specific relations to support their parameters
75: (weaker) removes evidence
76: (stronger) Additional evidence is provided in S2, though the reference
51: (weaker) While S1 contains formulas for evidence, S2 references the same formulas in another section of the paper. However, the use of formulas in that immediate sentence make S1 appear much more impressive.

S1: by using the constructed action , we derive a dynamical equation for riemann tensor itself , and show that it embodies the usual gravitational field equations .
S2: in spacetimes with torsion , we construct a dynamical equation for riemann tensor itself , and show that it embodies the usual gravitational field equations .
69: (stronger) The introduction in S2 has much more novelty and flair than S1.
70: (stronger) in specifies the action
71: (stronger) in spacetimes with torsion is more detailed than the vague using the constructed action.
72: (stronger) in spacetimes with torsion IS MORE STRENGTH
73: (stronger) more specific
74: (nochange) The two sentences are equally strong, one just talks about construction and the other just talks about derivation
75: (cannottell) They sound relatively equal in strength.
76: (weaker) The terms used in S2 seems to be less impressive.
51: (weaker) "Derive" implies a result, which is stronger than "construct," which does not imply a result.

S1: this reentrant sc phase is a consequence of non-zero chirality of the pairing order parameter and implies the presence of chiral edge currents .
S2: this induced sc phase is a consequence of non-zero chirality of the pairing order parameter and implies the presence of chiral edge currents .
61: (cannottell) Not sure if "reentrant" is a stronger or more descriptive term than "induced".
62: (nochange) Rewording only.
63: (nochange) they keep the same meaning
64: (nochange) Reentrant and induced seem the same in intensity.
65: (nochange) Means the same thing.
51: (stronger) "Induced" implies a greater degree of purpose that strengthens that aspect of the statement.
66: (weaker) s1 is more specific
67: (nochange) It's another either/or reiteration. Depending on the context of the sentence, one word might be better than the other, but I'm ignorant of the substance in this sentence and certainly can't decide myself on that matter. Ultimately, it seemed negligible.
68: (stronger) Induced implies more assertion, whereas re-entrant weakens the assertion.

S1: this classification leaves only the case of multiplicity pairs [MATH] and [MATH] open .
S2: the classification leaves only the case of multiplicity pair [MATH] open .
69: (nochange) S2 seems to have simplified the pairs into a single pair, but the strength of the classification is the same.
70: (weaker) S1 'this' is more specific and gives specific example
71: (weaker) s2 removes evidence/detail of the second pair.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES
73: (cannottell) depends on whether leaving only one case open instead of two is better or worse
74: (weaker) S1 is more specific
75: (stronger) only one piece of evidence is still "open" in the second statement
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of grammatical mistake
51: (weaker) S1 has an additional set of equations (removed, but designated as [MATH]) which makes S1 appear more impressive.

S1: again , the number of these complexes is given by the fu -- catalan number eq : fc .
S2: it is not difficult to see ( cf. section ) that the number of these complexes is indeed given by the fu -- catalan number eq : fc .
9: (weaker) The original is more succinct and more clear.
10: (stronger) s2 has less speculative words
11: (weaker) By adding "it is not difficult to see ( cf. section ) that" and "indeed" makes the sentence sound more conversational and less scientific and therefore weakens the sentence.
12: (weaker) S2 is less certain than S1. It adds phrases like "not difficult to see" that make rest of the sentence less certain than if it was simply declared as fact.
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive and direct (R3)
14: (weaker) S2 is weaker because the statement assumes by use of "it is not difficult to see" that the reader or audience would understand. It he/she doesn't they might feel inadequate.
15: (cannottell) "it is not difficult to see" makes S2 weaker, but "indeed" adds strength.
16: (stronger) S2 adds evidence and justification with (cf. section); R2.
17: (nochange) added words of second doesnt really change sentence

S1: in the above result , the union of all the minimal milnor-like attractors [MATH] contained in [MATH] , is not necessarily equal to the milnor attractor [MATH] ( see examples and ) .
S2: in the above result , the union of all the minimal statistical attractors [MATH] contained in [MATH] , is not necessarily equal to the milnor 's attractor [MATH] ( see examples and in section ) .
36: (stronger) in section gives more detail as well as the possessive of milnor
37: (weaker) less clear
38: (weaker) Statistical is less specific than milnor-like.
39: (nochange) S2 just uses different terms.
40: (weaker) The cue words milnor-like add to the specificity of the charge.
41: (stronger) The word "statistical" is stronger than "milnor-like" (R1) also the addition of pointing to a specific section where the examples are strengthen the statement (R2).
42: (stronger) "statistical" in S2 sounds more important
43: (weaker) Milnor-like attractors sounds more impressive.
44: (cannottell) Since I'm not sure what "milnor-like" and "in section" mean, it's hard to decide if they consitute further evidence.

S1: the contact term is added to keep the full amplitude gauge invariant by two methods : one is to multiply the form factors to the point-like particles scattering amplitudes and another is to construct gauge invariant effective interactions .
S2: the contact term is added to keep the full amplitude gauge invariant by two methods : one is to multiply form factors with the amplitude for point-like particles and another is to construct a gauge invariant lagrangian .
9: (stronger) Revision is more grammatically correct and clearer.
10: (nochange) both are similar
11: (nochange) The two sentences adds and removes details between them but these additional and removal of details represent no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 was merely restructured; meaning is essentially the same in both sentences.
13: (weaker) S1 is easier to understand, lagrangian is not a word commonly seen in use, making S2 confusing and weaker (R1)
14: (cannottell) I'm not sure what is stronger.
15: (weaker) "effective" makes S1 stronger. R1
16: (nochange) None of R1-R3 apply; the sentences are equally strong.
17: (weaker) second sentence is less definite

S1: we have : [ koh ] [MATH] it can be seen that all terms of the sum in the right-hand side of the koh identity are unimodal polynomials in [MATH] , with non-negative coefficients , and symmetric about [MATH] .
S2: it can be seen that all terms of the sum in the right-hand side of the koh identity are unimodal polynomials in [MATH] , with nonnegative coefficients , and symmetric about [MATH] .
45: (weaker) Removal of [math]
46: (nochange) This is grammatical in nature.
47: (stronger) Presumably the extra math presents an extra justification here.
48: (nochange) There is no change in aspect to increase or decrease the degree of strength.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (cannottell) It looks like the first part of S1 adds something that could be considered evidence/justification to the assertion, but I can't really tell. Otherwise, there is no strength change as the other change is the removal of a hyphen.
51: (nochange) The phrase "we have" doesn't impact strength either way. The changed spelling of non-negative is merely semantic and does not impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (weaker) Evidence is removed in S2
52: (weaker) Removal of 'we have' weakens the statement.

S1: each of them are constructible under some chosen of the momentum shift scheme .
S2: each of them are constructible under some choice of the momentum shift scheme .
53: (nochange) choice is more grammatically correct
54: (stronger) Chosen does not work as used in S1.
55: (nochange) The sentences are basically stating the same thing.
56: (cannottell) The two sentences say different things but S2 really didn't make a lot of sense to be honest.
11: (nochange) Changing "chosen" to "choice" is merely cosmetic and represents no strength change.
57: (weaker) chosen sounds more like a decision is made where choice makes it sound like it is still being decided.
58: (weaker) S2 weakens the sentence by adding "choice" it makes the sentence seem unsure or unclear.
59: (weaker) "Chosen" sounds predetermined whereas "Choice" sounds somewhat random
60: (nochange) grammatical improvement

S1: we consider the two-dimensional associativity ( or wdvv ) equation [MATH] and describe all integrable structures related to it ( i.e. , hamiltonian , symplectic , and recursion operators ) .
S2: we consider a [MATH] rd-order generalized monge-amp ` ere equation [MATH] ( which is closely related to the associativity equation in the [MATH] - d topological field theory ) and describe all integrable structures related to it ( i.e. , hamiltonian , symplectic , and recursion operators ) .
27: (nochange) Though S2 adds useful details, this is not extra evidence. They also significantly change the meaning of the statement.
28: (weaker) 1 just sounds verbose
29: (stronger) S2 makes the speaker appear more intelligent and knowledgeable about the topic and adds extra information that makes the message as a whole seem stronger and smarter. It clarifies what is being spoken of and therefore delivers the message more strongly.
30: (weaker) first is easier to understand
31: (stronger) has justification
32: (cannottell) can't say.
33: (weaker) S1 is very concise. S2 is very confusing.
34: (stronger) More justification with additional Math and descriptors.
35: (stronger) S2 has more detail regarding the equation

S1: we find that for ambient gas densities exceeding a critical value [MATH] , where [MATH] is the mass of the black hole in units of 100 solar masses , the period of the oscillations decreases rapidly and the duty cycle increases from 6 % to 50 % .
S2: we find that for ambient gas densities exceeding [MATH] , the period of the oscillations decreases rapidly and the duty cycle increases from 6 % , in agreement with observations of the fraction of active galactic nuclei at [MATH] , to 50 % .
61: (nochange) Both statements have phrases that increase emphasis/support.
62: (stronger) I'm not sure, but I think the original has more information.
63: (stronger) s2 is more to-the-point
64: (weaker) S2 lacks the numbers and some actual data.
65: (stronger) S1's additions merely clarify what they are talking about, whereas S2 states that the findings are in agreement with other observations.
51: (stronger) S2 mentions that the observation is in agreement with other observations, adding a greater layer of justification.
66: (weaker) s1 explains it better
67: (cannottell) The information presented in these sentences is so beyond my comprehension that I'm unsure which revision is stating the information more / less eloquently.
68: (weaker) S2 leaves out important facts..

S1: the bkm criterium on the growth of supremum of the vorticity , applied on the same time-interval , does not rule out the occurrence of a singularity around [MATH] .
S2: the bkm criterium on the power-law growth of supremum of the vorticity , applied on the same time-interval , is not inconsistent with the occurrence of a singularity around [MATH] .
9: (weaker) "Is not inconsistent with" is a very weak phrase. It is confusing and not to the point.
10: (stronger) s2 is more specific and not speculation
11: (stronger) Changing "does not rule out" to is not inconsistent with" creates a more specific point and makes the sentence sound stronger.
12: (stronger) S2 is more specific and more certain. "Is not inconsistent" has more conviction than "does not rule out."
13: (nochange) No strength change due to high similarity between versions
14: (cannottell) I cannot tell the difference here.
15: (weaker) "does... rule out" is stronger than "Is... inconsistent with". R1
16: (weaker) 'does not rule out" is a stronger statement in S1; "is not inconsistent with" seems less confident and weaker in S2. R1
17: (stronger) second is more direct leaving less doubt

S1: ab initio calculations show that in that case the weak van der waals forces between the graphene layers are replaced by much stronger covalent bonds that stabilize the structure and that , at full coverage , a bilayer analogue of graphane is formed .
S2: ab initio calculations showed that the weak van der waals forces between the graphene layers are replaced by much stronger covalent bonds that stabilize the structure and that , at full coverage , a bilayer analogue of graphane is formed .
0: (stronger) removed the implication that the result only occurred in one case
1: (weaker) Adds specifics
2: (nochange) S2 is just a change to past-tense but does not change the strength.
3: (stronger) Clearer language.
4: (cannottell) I prefer S2 to S1 just based on the writing. Not sure there implies a difference though
5: (stronger) the second sentence makes it sound better with one word-showed
6: (nochange) The only difference is in the tense, show vs. showed, so I do not think there is any strength change.
7: (stronger) S2 sounds more definite.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: the kondo traps if is coupled to only one of the superconducting reservoirs ( i.e. located close to one of the superconductor-insulator interfaces ) may affect the critical current by : 1 ) blocking out a part of supercurrent , and 2 ) generating microwave resonances from the coupling between conduction electron and the electron captured by trapping centre .
S2: if the kondo traps are coupled to only one of the superconducting reservoirs ( i.e. , located close to one of the superconductor-insulator interfaces ) , they may affect the critical-current by ( 1 ) blocking out a part of supercurrent and ( 2 ) generating microwave resonances from the coupling between conduction electron and the electron captured by the trapping center .
27: (nochange) All of the changes are minor grammatical and spelling decisions, which don't affect the content or impact.
28: (stronger) Grammar, in general
29: (weaker) S1 is more straightforward by omitting words like "they" and "the", which clutter and weaken S2.
30: (stronger) the first has incorrect grammar
31: (cannottell) didnot understand
32: (nochange) the sentence is simply restructured.
33: (stronger) S2 is simply better written. It flows better and makes more sense as a sentence.
34: (nochange) S2 is a grammatical fix of S1
35: (stronger) "are" and the dash in "critical-current" and "the" make S2 seen more novel

S1: the last section is devoted to the conclusion .
S2: the last section is devoted to the conclusion and outlook .
27: (cannottell) The fact that they are considering further work could be taken as making it more or less impressive, depending on whether it is viewed as indicating that this work is incomplete, or that this work is useful enough to deserve further elaboration.
28: (nochange) Outlook doesn't really add to the conclusion
29: (stronger) S2 adds more clarification/information and thus is stronger.
30: (stronger) Gives another example
31: (weaker) outlook in someway weekened the conclusion
32: (nochange) though few properties have been added, but the strength remains the same.
33: (stronger) S2, with the added, 'and outlook,' seems to point towards the future of the issue.
34: (stronger) Adds the fact that not only is there a conclusion (or result of whatever the thing is about) it also projects from the conclusion.
35: (nochange) just adding more information to the next section.

S1: it is a syntactic property on anonymized datasets : when only certain attributes , known as quasi-identifiers ( qids ) are considered , each tuple in the anonymized dataset should appear at least [MATH] times .
S2: the [MATH] - anonymity notion requires that when only certain attributes , known as quasi-identifiers ( qids ) , are considered , each tuple in a [MATH] - anonymized dataset should appear at least [MATH] times .
45: (stronger) more math = more evidence
46: (stronger) "requires" makes it sound as if a stringent standard is being met.
47: (stronger) "Requires" is stronger than just "is a property."
48: (weaker) The strength of the aspect is lessened in this sentence.
49: (weaker) Removal of specific evidence weakens S2
50: (cannottell) They both sound about equal, but it could go one way or another depending on the strength interpretation of a property versus a requirement.
51: (stronger) The use of the word "requires" makes S2 more definitive and stronger.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
52: (weaker) The use of notion weakens the statement.

S1: as the exact processing time of this system is hard to compute , we introduce the notion of heavy traffic equilibrium as an approximation of the nash equilibrium , derived by considering the asymptotic regime where the system load approaches capacity .
S2: as the exact processing time of this system is hard to compute and can not be characterized in closed form , we introduce the notion of heavy traffic equilibrium as an approximation of the nash equilibrium , derived by considering the asymptotic regime where the system load approaches capacity .
9: (cannottell) I am not sure if the added information is vitally important or is just wordiness.
10: (stronger) s2 provides more detailed info
11: (nochange) Adding the phrase "and can not be characterized in closed form" adds details but otherwise represents no strength change for the sentence.
12: (stronger) S2 provides further detail which is lacking in S1 and thereby adds more support to its reasoning.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more evidence about how this works, justifying further infornation better (R2)
14: (cannottell) I can't tell what is stronger.
15: (stronger) S2 adds more justification. R2
16: (weaker) S2 adds further limitations to the statement, weakening it. R2
17: (cannottell) seems to be no change

S1: here we give an introduction to reaction pathways and reaction coordinate , and develop the theory of free energy as the potential of mean force .
S2: here , we give an introduction to reaction pathways and coordinates , and develop the theory of free energy as the potential of mean force .
0: (stronger) removed redundancy which makes it sound stronger and more dynamic
1: (stronger) Just sounds better
2: (nochange) S2 doesn't add or remove strength by removing the word reaction.
3: (nochange) No change.
4: (nochange) no change with additional info
5: (cannottell) i don't know if it is necessary to have the word reaction before coordinate, and then the second one makes coordinate plural. It does not appear to be better or worse
6: (weaker) S2 takes away a descriptive term.
7: (weaker) "coordinates" is too general in the statement.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: the classical and pivotal " shape theorem " of cox and durrett gives the analogue of the law of large numbers for the growth of this random ball .
S2: the classical and foundational " shape theorem " of cox and durrett gives the analogue of the law of large numbers for the growth of this random ball .
36: (nochange) pivotal and foundational are essentially the same
37: (cannottell) probably interchangeable, unless the terms mean something other than what I'd expect
38: (nochange) The only thing that changes is one word which keeps its meaning of "very important".
39: (weaker) This may be a personal preference, but "pivotal" seems stronger than "foundational".
40: (weaker) S2 is weaker because of the removal of the word "pivotal."
41: (stronger) The use of "foundational" is more solid than "pivotal" thus the statement has been strengthened.
42: (stronger) "foundational" implies proven over time more than "pivotal"
43: (nochange) Both statement use very strong words to describe the importance of the "shape theorem" and both are very convincing but I don't think one is better than the other.
44: (nochange) The sentences were just phrased differently, without changing their strength.

S1: we develop upper and lower bounds on the diversity order of ic for any dimension and any number of transmit and receive antennas .
S2: in the first part of this work we develop an upper bound on the diversity order of ic 's for any dimension and any number of transmit and receive antennas .
61: (weaker) Removes mention of one bracket in a range, thus leaving the entire range ambiguous.
62: (nochange) Doesn't add substantial information. Deletes "lower bounds" but presumably those are still mentioned later on.
63: (weaker) s1 is clearer
64: (stronger) More specific.
65: (nochange) No significant change in meaning or strength.
51: (weaker) Mentioning that there were both upper and lower bounds makes S1 appear to be more impressive than S2, which mentions only an upper bound.
66: (cannottell) I don't know
67: (weaker) S1 included a fuller version of the work, whereas S2 truncated that version into 'the first part of this work', only mentioning the upper bound.
68: (stronger) S2 provides where the bounds are developed and so strengthens the fact

S1: we find that the dimensionless strength coupling parameter [MATH] is constrained to [MATH] for [MATH] by the laser data of the earth 's artificial satellite lageos ii .
S2: we find that the dimensionless strength coupling parameter [MATH] is constrained to [MATH] for [MATH] by the laser data of the earth 's artificial satellite lageos ii , corresponding to [MATH] .
53: (stronger) [MATH] evidence added in S2
54: (cannottell) S2 adds an additional equation, which may or may not be important to the overall strength and meaning of this statement.
55: (cannottell) I'm not sure if sentence 2 weakens or strengthens sentence 1.
56: (stronger) S2 added the corresponding to Math part which added evidence to it.
11: (stronger) Adding "corresponding to [MATH]" provides more evidence and therefore makes the assertion stronger.
57: (nochange) just adds a little more detail to the sentence doesn't make it sound more impressive or more evident.
58: (nochange) S2 added "corresponding to {MATH} which does not add strength to the sentence.
59: (stronger) You are given more proof in S2
60: (weaker) s2 is too repetitive

S1: here we give a new proof of their result in dimension three but instead of local analysis of eigenfunctions we use the global methods of .
S2: here we give a new proof of their results for dimensions [MATH] but instead of local analysis of eigenfunctions we use the global methods of .
69: (stronger) S2 suggests the proof takes into account more than one dimension while S1 specifies only a single dimension.
70: (stronger) gives the specific math behind it
71: (weaker) s1 is less confusing.
72: (nochange) NO ADDITIONAL EFFECTS
73: (cannottell) depends on whether dimension three and the math are the same
74: (nochange) Both are the same
75: (weaker) removes specific evidence
76: (nochange) S2 is a fix of a grammatical mistake
51: (nochange) S1 is a bit more specific by mentioning the exact dimension, but this does not change the strength of the statement.

S1: further , the results on characterizing the existence of pairwise-stable matchings naturally suggest two simple algorithms for finding pairwise-stable matchings , which we discuss in section .
S2: further , the results on characterizing the existence of stable matchings naturally suggest two simple algorithms for finding stable matchings , which we discuss in section .
27: (nochange) The loss of specificity from "pairwise-stable" to "stable" does not make a difference in strength, as it is not a deletion of evidence.
28: (stronger) seems less redundant
29: (nochange) "pairwise-stable" and "stable" are just two ways of saying the exact same thing, and one doesn't seem more distinct than the other. The value added by "pairwise" is equal to the value lost from being to-the-point by just saying "stable".
30: (nochange) same notion
31: (cannottell) both statements have flaws
32: (weaker) change of pairwise-stable matching to stable makes it weak.
33: (stronger) It seems like 'pairwise' can be implied just due to the fact that they are matchings, so the word is not really needed.
34: (nochange) S1 only provides a bit more information "pairwise" compared to S2 but does not change the assertion.
35: (weaker) "pairwise-stable" is more descriptive than "stable"

S1: we prove short time existence for the ricci flow on open manifolds without requiring upper bounds on the curvature .
S2: we prove short time existence for the ricci flow on open mani-folds of nonnegative complex sectional curvature .
61: (stronger) Specifies the type of curvature involved.
62: (nochange) Changes information, but doesn't strengthen or weaken it.
63: (weaker) s1 was more clear in defining what the bounds were
64: (weaker) It's less specific and also mani-folds isn't a word.
65: (cannottell) I do not know what this means.
51: (weaker) "Without requiring" implies a greater degree of impressive accomplishment, as though something has been accomplished to a greater or more definitive degree.
66: (weaker) more understandable
67: (stronger) S2's elaboration of the terminology sounds more impressive than S1. 'More evidence', as it were.
68: (nochange) S2 and S1 are just two ways of saying the same fact. It doesn't bring about a strength change.

S1: in addition to the previous bc and kw examples with two zeros , one can engineer others by solving appropriate constraint relations or directly by making wise choices by using symmetries .
S2: in addition to the previous bc and kw examples with two zeros , one can engineer others by solving appropriate constraint relations or directly by making wise choices based using symmetries .
0: (nochange) doesn't change the strength
1: (weaker) Just sounds better
2: (stronger) S2 uses the word 'based' which sounds more credible thus a stronger statement.
3: (weaker) Poor word choice. Not clear.
4: (stronger) based implies justification
5: (cannottell) the second sentence sounds almost better to use based but I think they should add "on" based on...
6: (weaker) I thik 'by' sounds more grammatically correct and concrete.
7: (weaker) S2 uses improper grammar.
8: (nochange) No change in the meaning

S1: by differential field / we mean a field extension [MATH] of [MATH] equipped with a derivation [MATH] .
S2: by differential field / we mean a field [MATH] of characteristic zero equipped with a derivation [MATH] .
77: (cannottell) the meaning of [MATH] and characteristic zero needs to be known to know if strength changes
78: (weaker) Listing out the math in S1 would make it stronger than merely stating words in place of it.
79: (nochange) remains same
80: (cannottell) Unsure about subject
81: (stronger) characteristic zero is more specific than the first sentence.
82: (cannottell) don't know what this means
83: (nochange) Info changed, but not stronger
84: (stronger) the field is specified in s2
68: (cannottell) Unless i know what [Math] stands for, it would be impossible to predict what the sentences are trying to assert

S1: therefore : if [MATH] is a countably infinite sofic group and [MATH] are two standard probability spaces then the bernoulli shifts [MATH] and [MATH] are isomorphic if and only if [MATH] .
S2: therefore : if [MATH] is a countably infinite sofic group and [MATH] are two probability spaces , neither of which is a two-atom space , then the bernoulli shifts [MATH] and [MATH] are isomorphic if and only if [MATH] .
9: (weaker) Original is clear and less wordy.
10: (nochange) Both have equal meaning and power
11: (nochange) Removing "standard" from the sentence and adding "neither of which is a two-atom space" removes and adds some details respectively and otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (stronger) S1 simply says "standard", but S2 defines what "standard" is in this case.
13: (stronger) S2 includes information that helps clarify the context, justifying (R2)
14: (cannottell) Not being a science teacher/researcher/student, I cannot tell is S2 is weaker.
15: (weaker) "standard" adds more evidence. R2
16: (nochange) There are only details that are different between the two, and they are the same strength.
17: (stronger) second sentence gives more info about spaces

S1: our main concern in this regard is the acceleration of the particle and the saturation of the velocity .
S2: our main concern is the acceleration of the particle and the saturation of the velocity .
0: (weaker) insinuates that the concern is a major problem instead of a problem affecting one aspect
1: (nochange) Doesn't change the statement
2: (stronger) S2 is stronger because it is more direct.
3: (stronger) Shows only one main concern not many like S1.
4: (cannottell) not sure "in this regard" implies strength or not
5: (nochange) sentence one is more specific but the second sentence does not seem weaker
6: (weaker) 'in this regard' seems to be defining one certain thing, so taking that away weakens the sentence.
7: (stronger) "in this regard" weakens the degree of concern.
8: (weaker) Removal of Evidences

S1: the cost function is assumed to consist of a collection of individual components , and diffusion adaptation allows the nodes to cooperate and diffuse information in real-time and to alleviate the effects of instantaneous approximation and measurement noise through a continuous learning process .
S2: the cost function is assumed to consist of a collection of individual components . diffusion adaptation allows the nodes to cooperate and diffuse information in real-time ; it also helps alleviate the effects of stochastic gradient noise and measurement noise through a continuous learning process .
9: (stronger) The first is a run-on sentence, while the semi-colon in the revision helps to break it up more appropriately. The revision is more clear in general.
10: (nochange) both are of equal impressiveness
11: (nochange) Removing "and" and "and to" and adding "it also helps", and changing "instantaneous approximation" to "stochastic gradient noise" are mostly cosmetic changes and the changing of details and therefore represent no strength change.
12: (weaker) S2 is grammatically awkward compared to S1
13: (nochange) The sentences appear equivalent in assertiveness.
14: (stronger) S2 is stronger because using the "; it also helps" breaks up the statement to become more easily understandable than S1, which is a run-on sentence.
15: (weaker) "to help" makes the sentence weaker. R1
16: (stronger) The fact that "it also helps" is separated with a ";" in S2 seems to set it aside from the rest of the sentence and make that fragment stronger than in S1. R1.
17: (cannottell) seems meaning of sentence changes

S1: from the analysis based on the one-dimensional spin diffusion model , we find that the spin polarization linearly increases with decreasing the resistivity for both cfs and fs electrodes , and verify that cfs has relatively large spin polarization compared with fs .
S2: from the analysis based on the one-dimensional spin diffusion model , we find that the spin polarization monotonically increases with decreasing the resistivity , which depends on the structural ordering , for both cfs and fs electrodes , and verify that cfs has relatively large spin polarization compared with fs .
36: (stronger) structural ordering adds evidence
37: (cannottell) depends on difference between linear and monotonic, which I don't understand
38: (nochange) The only changes are addition of detail.
39: (weaker) S2 weakens the assertion by including a phrase which says that detail is needed, without providing it.
40: (stronger) The phrase "which depends on the structural ordering" weakens S2.
41: (weaker) The first change from "linearly" to "monotonically" is simply a different choice for the same idea and does not affect the strength of the statement. However "which depends on the structural ordering" weakens the statement since it is now dependent on an new variable that was not mentioned in the first statement.
42: (weaker) "which depends on the structural ordering" weakens the case
43: (nochange) No change in strength, S2 simply clarifies by adding more detail.
44: (stronger) S2 provides more evidence.

S1: we will harness the fkg inequality and the monotonicity of percolation a few times .
S2: the harris inequality and monotonicity of percolation will be used a few times .
45: (weaker) "we will harness" sounds more more impressive than this thing we're going to use a few times
46: (weaker) "We will harness" sounds more forceful than "will be used"
47: (stronger) "Harness" is more impressive than just "use."
48: (cannottell) The changes are completely different, so I can't specify the strengthness.
49: (nochange) They mean the same thing and do nothing to the argument.
50: (weaker) Using the term "harness" makes S1 sound more impressive than the term "used" in S2.
51: (stronger) "We will harness" is much more active than the passive phrase "will be used." Active phrases sound more impressive.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (nochange) Doesn't change the strength of the statement

S1: this system is believed to flow to an [MATH] superconformal field theory ( scft ) in the infrared ( ir ) that consists of a pair of [MATH] minimal [MATH] models .
S2: this system is believed to flow to an [MATH] superconformal field theory ( scft ) in the infrared ( ir ) , the [MATH] model .
45: (stronger) seems stronger because of the elimination of "that consists of" and "minimal"
46: (weaker) S2 loses specificity that is present in S1.
47: (stronger) This language is more definite.
48: (nochange) There is no aspect of change in strength.
49: (nochange) Change in extraneous words does nothing to the argument .
50: (weaker) S1 sounds more impressive with "the pair of minimal models" as opposed to "the model".
51: (cannottell) The use of the word "minimal" seems to weaken S1, but the fact that S1 references a pair of models makes there seem to be more evidence. I am not sure if S1 or S2 is stronger.
8: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all.
52: (weaker) Removal of the specifics weakens the argument

S1: this result represents the most sensitive measurement of [MATH] in beta decay .
S2: this result represents the most sensitive measurement of [MATH] in nuclear beta decay .
9: (weaker) An unneeded clarification.
10: (weaker) s1 is more specific
11: (nochange) Adding the word "nuclear" adds detail to the sentence but otherwise represent no strength change.
12: (stronger) Further detail is provided in S2; 'nuclear' was not specified in S1.
13: (stronger) S2 adds more specific information about what Beta decay refers to. (R1)
14: (cannottell) I don't believe nuclear adds to this, but I'm not a scientist or science student.
15: (nochange) "nuclear" adds detail, but not strength.
16: (nochange) S2 only specifies something, the strength does not change and R1-R3 do not apply.
17: (stronger) second describes more in detail type of decay

S1: to our knowledge , no experiment has specifically searched for the signature of radiative decay of massive neutrinos from muon decays as proposed in this work .
S2: to our knowledge , no experiment has specifically searched for the signature of radiative decay of massive neutrinos from particles decays as proposed in this work .
45: (cannottell) I don't know the difference between muon and particles, so I cannot tell if there is a change
46: (nochange) While "muon" is more specific than "particles" it doesn't seem to change anything.
47: (stronger) Because "particles" is more general than "muons," it shows that the work proposed is going to cover more ground.
48: (weaker) The term particles is less impressive than "muon".
49: (weaker) S2 is more vague for its use of 'particles' instead of 'muon.'
50: (cannottell) It depends on if "muon" is gives more strength or makes the claim more specific.
51: (nochange) I think that "muon" and "particles" are used interchangeably and this change does not impact the strength of the sentence.
8: (nochange) S2 just clarifies, Hence no change
52: (cannottell) Don't know the definition of muon

S1: for [MATH] they are equal to chebyshev polynomials of the second kind , again more precisely , polynomials orthogonal with respect to wigner measure i.e. the one with the density [MATH] on the other hand these polynomials are related to so called rogers-szeg " o polynomials and other important families of polynomials such as al-salam-chihara polynomials .
S2: for [MATH] they are equal to the rescalled chebyshev polynomials of the second kind , again more precisely , polynomials orthogonal with respect to the wigner measure i.e. the one with the density [MATH] on the other hand these polynomials are related to the so called rogers-szeg " o polynomials and other important families of polynomials such as the al-salam -- chihara polynomials .
9: (weaker) The word "the" appears to be added to boost word count. Is not adding anything beneficial.
10: (stronger) s2 has more specifics
11: (nochange) The various changes from S1 to S2 creates cosmetic changes and adds a little more detail with "the rescalled" but otherwise represents no strength change.
12: (stronger) S2 is more specific, using words like "the" to define things with greater clarity than S1.
13: (nochange) Word changes do not make a change in assertions
14: (cannottell) I cannot tell because "al-salam-chihara" in S1 and "the al-salam -- chihara" in S2 could potentially be either one kind or referring to two kinds of polynomials.
15: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive. R3
16: (nochange) S2 adds a detail/clarification, it is not stronger or weaker than S1.
17: (weaker) first is more indicative of inclusion of all polynomials

S1: one of the models that that has been a topic of theoretical research is the jackiw-pi ( jp ) model in three ( 2 + 1 ) - dimensions of spacetime where the non-abelian gauge invariance and parity are respected together due to the introduction a one-form vector field , endowed with a parity , that is opposite of the usual non-abelian 1-form vector field .
S2: one such massive model , that has been a topic of theoretical interest , is the jackiw-pi ( jp ) model in three ( 2 + 1 ) - dimensions of spacetime where the non-abelian gauge invariance and parity are respected together due to the introduction of a 1-form vector field , endowed with a parity , that is opposite of the usual non-abelian 1-form vector field [ 11 ] .
69: (stronger) "such massive model" is more impressive than "one of the models" and "interest" adds novelty that "research" doesn't.
70: (nochange) no signficant changes
71: (stronger) Language includes repeated or missing words and less evidence/detail in s1.
72: (stronger) such massive model STRENGTHENS
73: (cannottell) research seems stronger than interest, but massive is also stronger.
74: (weaker) S1 speaks about research, this is more reliable than interest
75: (weaker) "interest" is weaker than "researtch"
76: (nochange) The change does not affect the strength of assertion at all
51: (weaker) "Research" represents a stronger degree of study and commitment than "interest."

S1: we also present a proof of independence of volume fluctuations for quantities from both families within the framework of statistical mechanics .
S2: we also present a proof of independence of volume fluctuations for quantities from both families within the framework of the grand canonical ensemble .
9: (cannottell) I am not sure which is more accurate/correct.
10: (stronger) s2 sounds more impressive
11: (weaker) Changing "statistical mechanics" to "the grand canonical ensemble" makes the sentence sound less scientific and therefore makes the sentence weaker.
12: (nochange) S2 appears to be merely making a correction over S1. The meaning is essentially the same.
13: (stronger) S2 sounds more impressive due to turn of phrase in grand canonical ensemble, but it may be hard to understand the context (R3)
14: (weaker) "the grand canonical ensemble" is very out of place, and is irrelevant, to the S2 statement.
15: (stronger) "the grand canonical ensemble" makes the sentence sound more impressive. R3
16: (nochange) The detail just seems to change, and the strength is the same.
17: (cannottell) the meanings of sentences are now different

S1: we determine that [MATH] and [MATH] for every [MATH] .
S2: we determine that , for example , [MATH] and [MATH] for every [MATH] .
0: (stronger) showing that an example is given
1: (cannottell) S1 is a definite statement. If anything, S2 is weakened by using "for example"
2: (weaker) S2 sounds less impressive or weaker because the use of 'for example' sounds less direct.
3: (stronger) Gave an example
4: (cannottell) hard to determine context based on small phrase
5: (nochange) "for example" does not add any strenth or weakness
6: (weaker) S1 is a concrete sentence, where S2 is giving an example, so S1 is stronger.
7: (weaker) "for example" weakens the importance of the following mathematics.
8: (nochange) No actual change in the meaning

S1: given the observations , the clearest definition would be that the haze is a population of anomalously hard spectrum electrons towards the gc and the microwave and gamma-ray haze/bubbles are observed signals generated by those electrons .
S2: given the observations , the clearest definition would be that the haze is a population of anomalously hard spectrum cosmic-rays towards the gc and the microwave and gamma-ray haze/bubbles are observed signals generated by those cosmic-rays .
9: (weaker) "Cosmic-rays" is less specific.
10: (cannottell) Not sure if electrons or rays are stronger
11: (nochange) Changing "electrons" to "cosmic-rays" just shows a word change and represents no strength change.
12: (nochange) S2 appears to only be correcting an error in S1. The meaning is not changed.
13: (stronger) Cosmic-rays helps clarify the source of this energy (R1)
14: (weaker) More people understand electrons than cosmic-rays, which is vague.
15: (stronger) "cosmic-rays' are stronger than "electrons". R1
16: (nochange) The sentences have the same strength, only a descriptive word was changed equally in both sentences. None of R1-R3 apply.
17: (cannottell) seems meanings of both sentences are now different

