One of the goals of automatic evaluation metrics in grammatical error correction (GEC) is to rank GEC systems such that it matches human preferences. However, current automatic evaluations are based on procedures that diverge from human evaluation. Specifically, human evaluation derives rankings by aggregating sentence-level relative evaluation results, e.g., pairwise comparisons, using a rating algorithm, whereas automatic evaluation averages sentence-level absolute scores to obtain corpus-level scores, which are then sorted to determine rankings. In this study, we propose an aggregation method for existing automatic evaluation metrics which aligns with human evaluation methods to bridge this gap. We conducted experiments using various metrics, including edit-based metrics, -gram based metrics, and sentence-level metrics, and show that resolving the gap improves results for the most of metrics on the SEEDA benchmark.We also found that even BERT-based metrics sometimes outperform the metrics of GPT-4.

We introduce gec-metrics, a library for using and developing grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation metrics through a unified interface. Our library enables fair system comparisons by ensuring that everyone conducts evaluations using a consistent implementation. Moreover, it is designed with a strong focus on API usage, making it highly extensible. It also includes meta-evaluation functionalities and provides analysis and visualization scripts, contributing to developing GEC evaluation metrics. Our code is released under the MIT license¹ and is also distributed as an installable package². The video is available at YouTube³.¹GitHub: https://github.com/gotutiyan/gec-metrics²PyPi: https://pypi.org/project/gec-metrics/³Video: https://youtu.be/cor6dkN6EfI

Various evaluation metrics have been proposed for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), but many, particularly reference-free metrics, lack explainability. This lack of explainability hinders researchers from analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of GEC models and limits the ability to provide detailed feedback for users. To address this issue, we propose attributing sentence-level scores to individual edits, providing insight into how specific corrections contribute to the overall performance. For the attribution method, we use Shapley values, from cooperative game theory, to compute the contribution of each edit. Experiments with existing sentence-level metrics demonstrate high consistency across different edit granularities and show approximately 70% alignment with human evaluations. In addition, we analyze biases in the metrics based on the attribution results, revealing trends such as the tendency to ignore orthographic edits.

Using token representation from bidirectional language models (LMs) such as BERT is still a widely used approach for token-classification tasks. Even though there exist much larger unidirectional LMs such as Llama-2, they are rarely used to replace the token representation of bidirectional LMs. In this work, we hypothesize that their lack of bidirectionality is what is keeping unidirectional LMs behind. To that end, we propose to newly train a small backward LM and concatenate its representations to those of an existing LM for downstream tasks. Through experiments in token-classification tasks, we demonstrate that introducing backward model can improve the benchmark performance by more than 10 points. Furthermore, we show that the proposed method is especially effective for rare domains and in few-shot learning settings.

We propose IMPARA-GED, a novel reference-free automatic grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation method with grammatical error detection (GED) capabilities. We focus on the quality estimator of IMPARA, an existing automatic GEC evaluation method, and construct that of IMPARA-GED using a pre-trained language model with enhanced GED capabilities. Experimental results on SEEDA, a meta-evaluation dataset for automatic GEC evaluation methods, demonstrate that IMPARA-GED achieves the highest correlation with human sentence-level evaluations.

This paper presents performance measures for grammatical error correction which take into account the difficulty of error correction. To the best of our knowledge, no conventional measure has such functionality despite the fact that some errors are easy to correct and others are not. The main purpose of this work is to provide a way of determining the difficulty of error correction and to motivate researchers in the domain to attack such difficult errors. The performance measures are based on the simple idea that the more systems successfully correct an error, the easier it is considered to be. This paper presents a set of algorithms to implement this idea. It evaluates the performance measures quantitatively and qualitatively on a wide variety of corpora and systems, revealing that they agree with our intuition of correction difficulty. A scorer and difficulty weight data based on the algorithms have been made available on the web.