The paper focuses on the interpretability of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) evaluation metrics, which received little attention in previous studies. To bridge the gap, we introduce **CLEME2.0**, a reference-based metric describing four fundamental aspects of GEC systems: hit-correction, wrong-correction, under-correction, and over-correction. They collectively contribute to exposing critical qualities and locating drawbacks of GEC systems. Evaluating systems by combining these aspects also leads to superior human consistency over other reference-based and reference-less metrics. Extensive experiments on two human judgment datasets and six reference datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method, achieving a new state-of-the-art result. Our codes are released at https://github.com/THUKElab/CLEME.

With the widespread application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in various tasks, the mainstream LLM platforms generate massive user-model interactions daily. In order to efficiently analyze the performance of models and diagnose failures in their answers, it is essential to develop an automated framework to systematically categorize and attribute errors. However, existing evaluation models lack error attribution capability. In this work, we establish a comprehensive Misattribution Framework with 6 primary and 15 secondary categories to facilitate in-depth analysis. Based on this framework, we present AttriData, a dataset specifically designed for error attribution, encompassing misattribution, along with the corresponding scores and feedback. We also propose MisAttributionLLM, a fine-tuned model on AttriData, which is the first general-purpose judge model capable of simultaneously generating score, misattribution, and feedback. Extensive experiments and analyses are conducted to confirm the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed method.