Existing grammatical error correction tools do not provide natural language explanations of the errors that they correct in user-written text. However, such explanations are essential for helping users learn the language by gaining a deeper understanding of its grammatical rules (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis et al., 2006).To address this gap, we propose the task of grammar error explanation, where a system needs to provide one-sentence explanations for each grammatical error in a pair of erroneous and corrected sentences. The task is not easily solved by prompting LLMs: we find that, using one-shot prompting, GPT-4 only explains 40.6% of the errors and does not even attempt to explain 39.8% of the errors.Since LLMs struggle to identify grammar errors, we develop a two-step pipeline that leverages fine-tuned and prompted large language models to perform structured atomic token edit extraction, followed by prompting GPT-4 to explain each edit. We evaluate our pipeline on German, Chinese, and English grammar error correction data. Our atomic edit extraction achieves an F1 of 0.93 on German, 0.91 on Chinese, and 0.891 on English. Human evaluation of generated explanations reveals that 93.9% of German errors, 96.4% of Chinese errors, and 92.20% of English errors are correctly detected and explained. To encourage further research, we open-source our data and code.

Existing metrics for evaluating the factuality of long-form text, such as FACTSCORE (Min et al., 2023) and SAFE (Wei et al., 2024), decompose an input text into “atomic claims” and verify each against a knowledge base like Wikipedia. These metrics are not suitable for most generation tasks because they assume that every claim is verifiable (i.e., can plausibly be proven true or false). We address this issue with VERISCORE,1 a metric for evaluating factuality in diverse long-form generation tasks that contain both verifiable and unverifiable content. VERISCORE can be effectively implemented with either closed or fine-tuned open-weight language models. Human evaluation confirms that VERISCORE’s extracted claims are more sensible than those from competing methods across eight different long-form tasks. We use VERISCORE to evaluate generations from 16 different models across multiple long-form tasks and find that while GPT-4o is the best-performing model overall, open-weight models such as Mixtral-8×22 are closing the gap. We show that an LM’s VERISCORE on one task (e.g., biography generation) does not necessarily correlate to its VERISCORE on a different task (e.g., long-form QA), highlighting the need for expanding factuality evaluation across tasks with varying fact density.

Long-form question answering (LFQA) enables answering a wide range of questions, but its flexibility poses enormous challenges for evaluation. We perform the first targeted study of the evaluation of long-form answers, covering both human and automatic evaluation practices. We hire domain experts in seven areas to provide preference judgments over pairs of answers, along with free-form justifications for their choices. We present a careful analysis of experts’ evaluation, which focuses on new aspects such as the comprehensiveness of the answer. Next, we examine automatic text generation metrics, finding that no existing metrics are predictive of human preference judgments. However, some metrics correlate with fine-grained aspects of answers (e.g., coherence). We encourage future work to move away from a single “overall score” of the answer and adopt a multi-faceted evaluation, targeting aspects such as factuality and completeness. We publicly release all of our annotations and code to spur future work into LFQA evaluation.

In this paper, we study the generation quality of interpolation-based retrieval-augmented language models (LMs). These methods, best exemplified by the kNN-LM, interpolate the LM’s predicted distribution of the next word with a distribution formed from the most relevant retrievals for a given prefix. While the kNN-LM and related methods yield impressive decreases in perplexity, we discover that they do not exhibit corresponding improvements in open-ended generation quality, as measured by both automatic evaluation metrics (e.g., MAUVE) and human evaluations. Digging deeper, we find that interpolating with a retrieval distribution actually increases perplexity compared to a baseline LM for the majority of tokens in the WikiText-103 test set, even though the overall perplexity is lower due to a smaller number of tokens for which perplexity dramatically decreases after interpolation. However, when decoding a long sequence at inference time, significant improvements on this smaller subset of tokens are washed out by slightly worse predictions on most tokens. Furthermore, we discover that the entropy of the retrieval distribution increases faster than that of the base LM as the generated sequence becomes longer, which indicates that retrieval is less reliable when using model-generated text as queries (i.e., is subject to exposure bias). We hope that our analysis spurs future work on improved decoding algorithms and interpolation strategies for retrieval-augmented language models.

To understand what kinds of linguistic knowledge are encoded by pretrained Chinese language models (LMs), we introduce the benchmark of Sino LINGuistics (SLING), which consists of 38K minimal sentence pairs in Mandarin Chinese grouped into 9 high-level linguistic phenomena. Each pair demonstrates the acceptability contrast of a specific syntactic or semantic phenomenon (e.g., The keys are lost vs. The keys is lost), and an LM should assign lower perplexity to the acceptable sentence. In contrast to the CLiMP dataset (Xiang et al., 2021), which also contains Chinese minimal pairs and was created by translating the vocabulary of the English BLiMP dataset, the minimal pairs in SLING are derived primarily by applying syntactic and lexical transformations to naturally-occurring, linguist-annotated sentences from the Chinese Treebank 9.0, thus addressing severe issues in CLiMP’s data generation process. We test 18 publicly available pretrained monolingual (e.g., BERT-base-zh, CPM) and multi-lingual (e.g., mT5, XLM) language models on SLING. Our experiments show that the average accuracy for LMs is far below human performance (69.7% vs. 97.1%), while BERT-base-zh achieves the highest accuracy (84.8%) of all tested LMs, even much larger ones. Additionally, we find that most LMs have a strong gender and number (singular/plural) bias, and they perform better on local phenomena than hierarchical ones.

While machine translation evaluation metrics based on string overlap (e.g., BLEU) have their limitations, their computations are transparent: the BLEU score assigned to a particular candidate translation can be traced back to the presence or absence of certain words. The operations of newer learned metrics (e.g., BLEURT, COMET), which leverage pretrained language models to achieve higher correlations with human quality judgments than BLEU, are opaque in comparison. In this paper, we shed light on the behavior of these learned metrics by creating DEMETR, a diagnostic dataset with 31K English examples (translated from 10 source languages) for evaluating the sensitivity of MT evaluation metrics to 35 different linguistic perturbations spanning semantic, syntactic, and morphological error categories. All perturbations were carefully designed to form minimal pairs with the actual translation (i.e., differ in only one aspect). We find that learned metrics perform substantially better than string-based metrics on DEMETR. Additionally, learned metrics differ in their sensitivity to various phenomena (e.g., BERTScore is sensitive to untranslated words but relatively insensitive to gender manipulation, while COMET is much more sensitive to word repetition than to aspectual changes). We publicly release DEMETR to spur more informed future development of machine translation evaluation metrics