Wronging a Right: Generating Better Errors to Improve Grammatical Error Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Grammatical error correction, like other machine learning tasks, greatly benefits from large quantities of high quality training data, which is typically expensive to produce. While writing a program to automatically generate realistic grammatical errors would be difficult, one could learn the distribution of naturallyoccurring errors and attempt to introduce them into other datasets. Initial work on inducing errors in this way using statistical machine translation has shown promise; we investigate cheaply constructing synthetic samples, given a small corpus of human-annotated data, using an off-the-rack attentive sequence-to-sequence model and a straight-forward post-processing procedure. Our approach yields error-filled artificial data that helps a vanilla bi-directional LSTM to outperform the previous state of the art at grammatical error detection, and a previously introduced model to gain further improvements of over 5% F0.5 score. When attempting to determine if a given sentence is synthetic, a human annotator at best achieves 39.39 F1 score, indicating that our model generates mostly human-like instances.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 0; 2023: 2; 2024: 4.
11 papers.
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 230
- 2021Synthetic Data Generation for Grammatical Error Correction with Tagged Corruption Modelscited by 56
- 2021Comparison of Grammatical Error Correction Using Back-Translation Modelscited by 9
- 2021Empirical Error Modeling Improves Robustness of Noisy Neural Sequence Labelingcited by 8
- 2021Understanding Model Robustness to User-generated Noisy Textscited by 8
- 2024To Err Is Human, but Llamas Can Learn It Toocited by 3
- 2023Beyond Hard Samples: Robust and Effective Grammatical Error Correction with Cycle Self-Augmentingcited by 2
- 2021Grammatical Error Generation Based on Translated Fragmentscited by 0
- 2023Domain specificity and data efficiency in typo tolerant spell checkers: the case of search in online marketplacescited by 0
- 2024Zero-shot Cross-Lingual Transfer for Synthetic Data Generation in Grammatical Error Detectioncited by 0
- 2024Enhancing Grammatical Error Detection using BERT with Cleaned Lang-8 Datasetcited by 0
- 2024Enhancing Grammatical Error Detection using BERT with Cleaned Lang-8 Dataset23 Nov 2024
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations3 Oct 2024
- 2024Zero-shot Cross-Lingual Transfer for Synthetic Data Generation in Grammatical Error Detection16 Jul 2024
- 2024To Err Is Human, but Llamas Can Learn It Too8 Mar 2024
- 2023Beyond Hard Samples: Robust and Effective Grammatical Error Correction with Cycle Self-Augmenting20 Oct 2023
- 2023Domain specificity and data efficiency in typo tolerant spell checkers: the case of search in online marketplaces3 Aug 2023
- 2021Understanding Model Robustness to User-generated Noisy Texts14 Oct 2021
- 2021Synthetic Data Generation for Grammatical Error Correction with Tagged Corruption Models27 May 2021
- 2021Empirical Error Modeling Improves Robustness of Noisy Neural Sequence Labeling25 May 2021
- 2021Grammatical Error Generation Based on Translated Fragments20 Apr 2021
- 2021Comparison of Grammatical Error Correction Using Back-Translation Models16 Apr 2021