Prompting open-source and commercial language models for grammatical error correction of English learner text (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Christopher Davis, Andrew Caines, O Andersen, Shiva Taslimipoor, Helen Yannakoudakis, Zheng Yuan, Christopher Bryant, Marek Rei, Paula Buttery
| Challenge: | Recent advances in generative AI have enabled us to prompt large language models (LLMs) to produce texts which are fluent and grammatical. |
| Approach: | They evaluate model performance by measuring their performance on established benchmarks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models outperform supervised English GEC models on fluency correction benchmarks and commercial LLMs on edit benchmarks. |
Similar Papers
GEE! Grammar Error Explanation with Large Language Models (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing grammatical error correction tools do not provide natural language explanations of errors . a system needs to provide one-sentence explanations for each grammamatical errors in a pair of erroneous and corrected sentences. |
| Approach: | They propose a grammar error explanation task that uses one-sentence explanations for each grammatical error in a pair of erroneous and corrected sentences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed pipeline identifies grammar errors in German, Chinese, and English . human evaluation reveals that 93.9% of German errors, 96.4% of Chinese errors, and 92.20% of English errors are correctly detected and explained. |
To Err Is Human, but Llamas Can Learn It Too (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Specifically, we fine-tune Llama 2 LMs for error generation and find that this approach yields synthetic errors akin to human errors. |
| Approach: | They propose to fine-tune Llama 2 LMs for error generation and train GEC Llma models using these artificial errors. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art models with gains ranging between 0.8 and 6 F0.5 points across all languages tested. |
A Simple Recipe for Multilingual Grammatical Error Correction (2021.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Modern approaches view the task of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) as monolingual text-to-text rewriting and employ encoderdecoder neural architectures. |
| Approach: | They propose a language-agnostic method to generate a large number of synthetic examples and use large-scale multilingual language models to train state-of-the-art GEC models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method surpasses state-of-the-art results on GEC benchmarks in English, Czech, German and Russian. |
Benchmarking GPT-4 on Algorithmic Problems: A Systematic Evaluation of Prompting Strategies (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of natural language processing . however, it has been shown that they lack systematic generalization, which allows to extrapolate the learned statistical regularities outside the training distribution. |
| Approach: | They propose to benchmark a LLM with two parameters to find out its performance . they compare it to a variant of the Transformer-Encoder architecture to find the same problem . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms the previous model on three algorithmic tasks with two parameters. |
Instances Need More Care: Rewriting Prompts for Instances with LLMs in the Loop Yields Better Zero-Shot Performance (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized zero-shot task performance, mitigating the need for task-specific annotations while enhancing task generalizability. |
| Approach: | They propose an approach that optimizes the zero-shot prompts for individual task instances following an innovative manner of "LLMs in the loop" their results show that PRomPTed outperforms naive zero- shot approaches and a strong baseline which refines the task output instead of the input prompt. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms naive approaches and a strong baseline which refines the task output instead of the input prompt. |
Revisiting Automated Prompting: Are We Actually Doing Better? (2023.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work demonstrates that Large Language Models are great few-shot learners, and prompting significantly increases their performance on a range of downstream tasks. |
| Approach: | They revisit techniques for automated prompting on six different downstream tasks and a larger range of K-shot learning settings. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms manual prompting on six different downstream tasks and a larger range of K-shot learning settings. |
GPT-3.5 for Grammatical Error Correction (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work shows that GPT-3.5 struggles with several error types, including punctuation mistakes, tense errors, syntactic dependencies between words, and lexical compatibility at the sentence level. |
| Approach: | They evaluate GPT-3.5 for grammatical error correction in multiple languages . they use it to re-rank correction hypotheses generated by other GEC models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs well in English and Russian, but struggles with errors in other languages. |
Targeted Syntactic Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation datasets based on learner-produced texts are insufficient for evaluating models . Currently, sequence-to-sequence models and sequence tagging models perform well on beginner-level grammar items . |
| Approach: | They propose a new evaluation paradigm that assesses GEC models using minimal pairs of ungrammatical and grammatically paired sentences for each grammar item. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation paradigm assesses models using minimal pairs of ungrammatical and grammatically-spaced sentences for each grammar item. |
LLMs for Low Resource Languages in Multilingual, Multimodal and Dialectal Settings (2024.eacl-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in AI can be attributed to the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) success of LLMs depends on specific training techniques, such as instruction tuning and prompting . |
| Approach: | They explore the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in various tasks and languages . they also examine their performance, fine-tuning, instructions tuning, and close vs. open models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be used for speech and multimodal tasks across modalities, languages, and dialects. |
Large Language Models are Good Annotators for Type-aware Data Augmentation in Grammatical Error Correction (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance in many downstream tasks due to their emergent and in-context learning abilities. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that considers LLMs as annotators for type-aware data augmentation in GEC tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can generate consistent and typeaware data, which could improve the performance of large language models. |