Controlled Generation with Prompt Insertion for Natural Language Explanations in Grammatical Error Correction (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies present tokens, examples, and hints for corrections, but do not directly explain the reasons in natural language. |
| Approach: | They propose a method called controlled generation with Prompt Insertion that uses Large Language Models to explain the reasons for corrections in natural language. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can explain the reasons for corrections in natural language by guiding the LLMs to generate explanations for all correction points. |
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. |
Enhancing Grammatical Error Correction Systems with Explanations (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | To help language learners better understand why the GEC system makes a correction, the causes of errors and the corresponding error types are two key factors. |
| Approach: | They propose to annotate large dataset with evidence words and grammatical error types to help language learners better understand corrections. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be validated by human evaluation and can be used to help second-language learners decide whether to accept a correction suggestion and understand the associated grammar rule. |
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. |
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. |
Search if you don’t know! Knowledge-Augmented Korean Grammatical Error Correction with Large Language Models (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies have shown that the performance of large language models is insufficient for non-English data, such as Korean. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that integrates evidential information from external sources into the prompt for the Korean GEC task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework extracts salient phrases from the given source and retrieves non-parametric knowledge based on these phrases. |
A Crash Course in Automatic Grammatical Error Correction (2020.coling-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) is the task of automatically detecting and correcting all types of errors in written text. |
| Approach: | tutorial aims to introduce participants to the field of Grammatical Error Correction . aim is to examine the development of neural-based GEC systems . |
| Outcome: | the tutorial aims to introduce participants to the current state of the art in the field of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) |
Explain-then-translate: an analysis on improving program translation with self-generated explanations (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using self-generated natural language explanations improves zero-shot performance by 12% on average. |
| Approach: | They propose to use self-generated natural language explanations as an intermediate step for code-to-code translation with language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves zero-shot performance by 12% on average . the proposed approach is not evaluated on a broader set of languages including low-resource languages. |
Edit-Wise Preference Optimization for Grammatical Error Correction (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have been successful in grammatical error correction (GEC) but their strengths have yet to be fully demonstrated in GEC . |
| Approach: | They propose a method to optimize grammatical errors by assigning higher reward weights to edit tokens during preference optimization. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms baselines on English and Chinese datasets and achieves state-of-the-art performance. |
LET: Leveraging Error Type Information for Grammatical Error Correction (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for grammatical error correction (GEC) are mainly divided into detection-based and end-to-end generative models. |
| Approach: | They propose an end-to-end framework which Leverages Error Type (LET) information in the generation process to introduce more convincing error type information. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms existing methods on various datasets by a clear margin. |
Unnatural language processing: How do language models handle machine-generated prompts? (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Language model prompt optimization research has shown that semantically and grammatically well-formed manually crafted prompts are outperformed by automatically generated token sequences with no apparent meaning or syntactic structure. |
| Approach: | They propose to use machine-generated prompts to probe how models respond to input that is not composed of natural language expressions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms human-crafted prompts on a target zero-shot task. |