Reliability Crisis of Reference-free Metrics for Grammatical Error Correction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reference-free evaluation metrics for grammatical error correction (GEC) have achieved high correlation with human judgments. However, these metrics are not designed to evaluate adversarial systems that aim to obtain unjustifiably high scores. The existence of such systems undermines the reliability of automatic evaluation, as it can mislead users in selecting appropriate GEC systems. In this study, we propose adversarial attack strategies for four reference-free metrics: SOME, Scribendi, IMPARA, and LLM-based metrics, and demonstrate that our adversarial systems outperform the current state-of-the-art. These findings highlight the need for more robust evaluation methods.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.
Builds on
8 of 24 references.
References · 8
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2020GECToR -- Grammatical Error Correction: Tag, Not Rewritecited by 177
- 2021A Simple Recipe for Multilingual Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 108
- 2025gec-metrics: A Unified Library for Grammatical Error Correction Evaluationcited by 9
- 2025Rethinking Evaluation Metrics for Grammatical Error Correction: Why Use a Different Evaluation Process than Human?cited by 7
- 2025IMPARA-GED: Grammatical Error Detection is Boosting Reference-free Grammatical Error Quality Estimatorcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.