Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automatic Error Type Annotation for Arabic

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2109.08068 v1 pith:K7FCVIZP submitted 2021-09-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords arabicaretaerrorannotationautomaticmorphologicalsharedsubmissions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present ARETA, an automatic error type annotation system for Modern Standard Arabic. We design ARETA to address Arabic's morphological richness and orthographic ambiguity. We base our error taxonomy on the Arabic Learner Corpus (ALC) Error Tagset with some modifications. ARETA achieves a performance of 85.8% (micro average F1 score) on a manually annotated blind test portion of ALC. We also demonstrate ARETA's usability by applying it to a number of submissions from the QALB 2014 shared task for Arabic grammatical error correction. The resulting analyses give helpful insights on the strengths and weaknesses of different submissions, which is more useful than the opaque M2 scoring metrics used in the shared task. ARETA employs a large Arabic morphological analyzer, but is completely unsupervised otherwise. We make ARETA publicly available.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards the Development of Balanced Synthetic Data for Correcting Grammatical Errors in Arabic: An Approach Based on Error Tagging Model and Synthetic Data Generating Model

    cs.CL 2025-02 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tag-conditioned Arabic synthetic data pipeline is claimed to set a new GEC state of the art, but the reported 79.36% F1 is the F0.5 score from the paper's own table.

Pith tools