mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CLEME: Debiasing Multi-reference Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction

arXiv 2305.10819 ↗First posted 18 May 2023cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating the performance of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) systems is a challenging task due to its subjectivity. Designing an evaluation metric that is as objective as possible is crucial to the development of GEC task. However, mainstream evaluation metrics, i.e., reference-based metrics, introduce bias into the multi-reference evaluation by extracting edits without considering the presence of multiple references. To overcome this issue, we propose Chunk-LEvel Multi-reference Evaluation (CLEME), designed to evaluate GEC systems in the multi-reference evaluation setting. CLEME builds chunk sequences with consistent boundaries for the source, the hypothesis and references, thus eliminating the bias caused by inconsistent edit boundaries. Furthermore, we observe the consistent boundary could also act as the boundary of grammatical errors, based on which the F0.5 score is then computed following the correction independence assumption. We conduct experiments on six English reference sets based on the CoNLL-2014 shared task. Extensive experiments and detailed analyses demonstrate the correctness of our discovery and the effectiveness of CLEME. Further analysis reveals that CLEME is robust to evaluate GEC systems across reference sets with varying numbers of references and annotation style.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2023.

Builds on

19 of 65 references.

References · 19

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2017JFLEG: A Fluency Corpus and Benchmark for Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 97
  3. 2022The Past Mistake is the Future Wisdom: Error-driven Contrastive Probability Optimization for Chinese Spell Checkingcited by 56
  4. 2022On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Textcited by 52
  5. 2022Grammatical Error Correction: A Survey of the State of the Artcited by 43
  6. 2022MuCGEC: a Multi-Reference Multi-Source Evaluation Dataset for Chinese Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 33
  7. 2022Learning from the Dictionary: Heterogeneous Knowledge Guided Fine-tuning for Chinese Spell Checkingcited by 31
  8. 2019Grammatical Error Correction in Low-Resource Scenarioscited by 28
  9. 2022Linguistic Rules-Based Corpus Generation for Native Chinese Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 25
  10. 2022M3ST: Mix at Three Levels for Speech Translationcited by 21
  11. 2016There's No Comparison: Reference-less Evaluation Metrics in Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 18
  12. 2022Revisiting Grammatical Error Correction Evaluation and Beyondcited by 18
7 more
  1. 2018Automatic Metric Validation for Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 17
  2. 2022Czech Grammar Error Correction with a Large and Diverse Corpuscited by 17
  3. 2022Contextual Similarity is More Valuable than Character Similarity: An Empirical Study for Chinese Spell Checkingcited by 14
  4. 2022Interpretability for Language Learners Using Example-Based Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 13
  5. 2023SSVMR: Saliency-based Self-training for Video-Music Retrievalcited by 12
  6. 2022Focus Is What You Need For Chinese Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 3
  7. 2023Character, Word, or Both? Revisiting the Segmentation Granularity for Chinese Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

5 papers.