Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Improving Explainability of Sentence-level Metrics via Edit-level Attribution for Grammatical Error Correction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Attributing sentence-level GEC metric scores to individual edits via Shapley values yields edit-level explanations that reveal which corrections helped and which hurt.

desk verdict Useful Shapley-based edit attribution for GEC, but the consistency and human-alignment evidence is weaker than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13110 v1 pith:P3RWYJQH submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CL

Takumi Goto , Justin Vasselli , Taro Watanabe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords GrammaticalErrorCorrectionShapleyvaluesedit-levelattributionreference-freeevaluationmetricsexplainabilitymetricbiashumanagreementsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Reference-free grammatical error correction (GEC) metrics give a single sentence-level score with no indication of which edits drove the score. This paper proposes attributing the score difference between the source and corrected sentence to individual edits using Shapley values, so each edit receives a signed contribution: positive for edits that help the metric, negative for edits that hurt it, with magnitude reflecting impact. Applied to the reference-free metrics SOME, IMPARA, and GPT-2 perplexity, the method reports consistent attributions across edit granularities and about 70% agreement with human judgments. The authors use these attributions to expose metric biases, such as a tendency to downplay orthographic edits, and to decompose corpus-level scores into precision per error type.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Shapley value of each edit under the game whose payoff is the sentence-score difference $\Delta M(H|S) = M(H|S) - M(S|S)$. To keep the computation tractable the paper uses Shapley sampling values, which average the marginal contribution of an edit over $T$ uniformly sampled permutations of all edits; L1 normalization of the resulting scores makes attributions comparable across sentences and metrics. This machinery distributes the entire score difference exactly across edits, which is what makes sign and magnitude read as benefit and impact.

What would settle it

Take GEC sentences with three or four edits, compute exact Shapley values for each edit and for the edit formed by merging two same-sign edits, and check whether the merged value equals the sum of the two individual values; a systematic gap across many sentences would falsify the claim that consistency across granularities supports reliability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the opaque sentence-level output of a reference-free metric can be made explainable at the edit level by treating the edits between source and correction as players in a cooperative game whose total payoff is $\Delta M(H|S) = M(H|S) - M(S|S)$. The Shapley value of each edit distributes this payoff fairly over all subsets and orders of edits, and the sign of the resulting attribution indicates whether the metric considers the edit helpful, while the absolute value gives its influence on the final score. The authors demonstrate this on three metrics and five GEC systems, finding that Shapley-based attributions are more consistent across edit granularities than simple add/remove baselines and that higher-magnitude attributions align better with reference-based human judgments. They further show the attributions can be averaged over error types to reveal metric biases and used to compute per-error-type precision at the corpus level.

Load-bearing premise

The consistency evaluation assumes that grouping same-sign edits into a single edit yields a Shapley value equal to the sum of the individual Shapley values, an equality that does not hold for Shapley values in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can now ask which specific edits a reference-free metric rewards or penalizes, turning a single score into a per-edit diagnosis of a GEC model's output.
  • Corpus-level scores decompose into precision per error type, making it possible to see that a system's high overall score may hide low precision on certain error classes.
  • Shapley sampling brings the attribution cost down to about one second per sentence for outputs with up to roughly ten edits, making the analysis practical on standard benchmarks.
  • The observed metric biases, such as downplaying orthography, imply that users should interpret sentence-level scores with the metric's weighting preferences in mind.
  • Higher absolute attribution scores agree more often with human judgments, so the magnitude can serve as a confidence signal when using the attribution as feedback.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the grouping-sum property used in the consistency evaluation fails for Shapley values, the faithfulness claim weakens, but the human-alignment evidence for explainability would still stand on its own.
  • The same attribution scheme should transfer to text simplification or any edit-based generation task where a sentence-level quality metric exists, since the method only needs a source, a hypothesis, and the metric.
  • Because Shapley values exactly decompose the score difference, they could be used to debug reference-free metrics by tracing surprising sentence-level scores back to the specific edits that caused them.
  • A direct human study rating the attributions themselves, rather than comparing them to reference-based labels, would test whether the signs are useful as learner-facing feedback.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to make sentence-level reference-free GEC metrics explainable by attributing the score difference ΔM(H|S) = M(H|S) − M(S|S) to individual edits via Shapley values. The method computes Shapley values over the game induced by Eq. (2), uses Shapley sampling to reduce cost, and applies L1 normalization to make scores comparable across metrics. The evaluation has two parts: faithfulness, assessed by a consistency test across edit granularities (§4.3), and explainability, assessed by agreement with reference-based human labels (§4.4). The paper reports roughly 70% human alignment, higher consistency for Shapley than Add/Sub baselines, and an application to error-type precision analysis that reveals, e.g., downplaying of orthographic edits. Experiments use SOME, IMPARA, and GPT-2 perplexity on CoNLL-2014 and JFLEG with five GEC systems.

Significance. If the central claims were fully validated, the paper would provide a practical tool for diagnosing the behavior of reference-free GEC metrics and for giving edit-level feedback, which is a useful contribution to GEC evaluation and explainability. The paper has clear strengths: a public implementation, use of a principled game-theoretic attribution framework, a concrete efficiency analysis (§4.5), and application to multiple metrics, datasets, and systems. However, the faithfulness evidence in §4.3 rests on an unproven merge-consistency property that is false for general Shapley games, and the human evaluation in §4.4 uses a reference-selection procedure that can inflate agreement. These issues bear directly on the paper's two headline claims, so the contribution is currently promising but not yet adequately supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (2)] The consistency evaluation assumes that if same-sign edits are grouped into a single edit, the Shapley value of the grouped edit equals the sum of the Shapley values of the component edits. This property is not true for general Shapley values, and the paper provides no proof for the specific value functions in Eq. (2). A concrete counterexample: for three players with v(S)=1 if |S|≥2 and 0 otherwise, each Shapley value is 1/3; merging two players into one gives a two-player game with w({A,3})=1, so the merged player's Shapley value is 1/2, not 2/3. Since the value functions here are defined by arbitrary sentence-level metrics, nothing in the setup enforces merge-invariance. The consistency metrics (sign match ratio, Pearson/Spearman correlation) are weaker than the stated equality hypothesis; they can be high even when the equality fails substantially. Therefore the claim that 'Shapley shows higher consistency' and the broader claim that attribution is reliable across edit granularities are not supported as faithfulness statements. This is load-bearing because it is the quantitative evidence for the central consistency claim. I recommend either proving the merge-invariance property for the metrics considered, or replacing this evaluation with a direct behavioral test of attribution quality (e.g., comparing attribution signs against the metric's sensitivity to individual edits or against deletion/insertion curves).
  2. [§4.4] The human evaluation selects, among multiple references, 'the reference that results in the highest agreement with the attribution scores' before computing the agreement ratio. This is a form of selection bias: the same attribution scores are used both to choose the reference and to measure agreement, which can inflate the reported agreement numbers and explains part of the 'approximately 70% alignment'. The paper should report agreement separately for each reference, as well as an average or a principled aggregation (e.g., an edit is correct if it appears in any reference, or majority voting across references). Without this, the human-alignment claim is not a fair estimate of explainability.
  3. [§4.5, Table 2] The Shapley sampling evaluation reports an average absolute error of 0.066 for IMPARA against a distribution of absolute Shapley values of 0.052 ± 0.071. The paper notes that IMPARA 'exhibits higher errors' but does not quantify what this means for the downstream claims: an error larger than the average attribution magnitude can flip signs for a substantial fraction of edits, undermining the reliability of the attribution scores that are later used in §5.1 and §5.2. I recommend reporting the sign-flip rate under sampling and, if necessary, increasing T or flagging metrics for which the sampling approximation is too coarse.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / §4.4] The abstract states 'approximately 70% alignment with human evaluations', but Figure 4 shows agreement values that vary with threshold and metric, and the paper does not report a single overall number with a confidence interval. Please state the exact range and how it was computed.
  2. [Figure 3] The axis label 'Peason' should be 'Pearson'.
  3. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The notation for the empty edit set appears as 'ϕ' or '{ϕ}', which is confusing; use ∅ consistently. Also, Eq. (3) writes ∆M(S{e1,e2}|S) while Eq. (2) uses ∆M(Se′|S); please unify the notation.
  4. [§4.1.2] The system is called 'GTP-4o mini' in the text but 'GPT-4o mini' elsewhere; please fix the typo.
  5. [§5.1] The sentence 'It is important to not that the attribution scores reflect the internal decisions of the metric' contains a typo: 'not' should be 'note'.
  6. [§3, Eq. (5)] The L1 normalization in Eq. (5) is undefined when all attribution scores are zero; please state how such cases are handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Shapley attribution is a forward computation on fixed metrics, human alignment is external, and the merge-additivity concern in Section 4.3 is a soundness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (2) defines edit attributions as Shapley values of the game v(e') = M(S_{e'}|S) - M(S|S); Equation (1) is the Shapley efficiency property and is satisfied by construction, but this is a decomposition axiom, not a prediction. No parameter is fitted to human labels; the human evaluation in Section 4.4 is an external check comparing attribution signs against reference-based labels. The consistency evaluation in Section 4.3 uses an unproven merge-additivity hypothesis that is generally false for Shapley values; this is a potential soundness gap in the faithfulness argument, but it is not circular because the hypothesis is not used to define the Shapley values and the measured agreement could in principle fail. The Limitations section explicitly warns that attribution scores 'reflect the internal decisions of the metric and may not align with the true correctness of edits,' confirming that the paper treats the scores as descriptive of the metric. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; references to SOME, IMPARA, GPT-2, and Shapley are external prior work. Therefore no circularity score above 0 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new fitted parameters; the main free choice is the sampling budget T. It rests on standard Shapley theory plus several domain assumptions that the paper itself partially acknowledges, such as edit dependencies and false negatives. The grouped-edit additivity assumption in the consistency evaluation is an unproven, generally false property and is the largest ledger liability.

free parameters (1)
  • T (Shapley sampling iterations) = 64
    Sampling budget for Shapley sampling values; chosen for efficiency, not fitted to optimize results. Affects approximation error but not the direction of the central claim.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Shapley values satisfy the efficiency axiom, so attributions sum to the score difference.
    Used to justify Eq. (1). Standard result from Shapley (1953).
  • domain assumption Every subset of edits can be applied to the source sentence and the metric can score the resulting intermediate sentence.
    Shapley value computation in Eq. (2) requires evaluating M on all edited subsets; overlapping or dependent edits, acknowledged in the Limitations, can make this ill-defined.
  • ad hoc to paper The effect of false-negative corrections (errors left uncorrected) cancels out of the score difference.
    Stated in the Limitations: 'we assume that the effect of FN corrections is canceled out by Delta M'. This is not proven and affects the interpretation of the total being distributed.
  • ad hoc to paper Attribution of a grouped edit equals the sum of attributions of its component edits.
    Section 4.3 hypothesizes this for the consistency evaluation; Shapley values are not generally merge-consistent, and no proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Explainability of Sentence-level Metrics via Edit-level Attribution for Grammatical Error Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3RWYJQH

@misc{pith2026241213110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Explainability of Sentence-level Metrics via Edit-level Attribution for Grammatical Error Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3RWYJQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13110}
}
read the original abstract

Various evaluation metrics have been proposed for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), but many, particularly reference-free metrics, lack explainability. This lack of explainability hinders researchers from analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of GEC models and limits the ability to provide detailed feedback for users. To address this issue, we propose attributing sentence-level scores to individual edits, providing insight into how specific corrections contribute to the overall performance. For the attribution method, we use Shapley values, from cooperative game theory, to compute the contribution of each edit. Experiments with existing sentence-level metrics demonstrate high consistency across different edit granularities and show approximately 70\% alignment with human evaluations. In addition, we analyze biases in the metrics based on the attribution results, revealing trends such as the tendency to ignore orthographic edits. Our implementation is available at \url{https://github.com/naist-nlp/gec-attribute}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed method with an example using three edits. Figure (a) shows the low￾explainability of existing metrics that only estimate the sentence-level score, but Figure (b) shows that the edit￾level attribution solves this issue. In GEC, explainable reference-based metrics, such as ERRANT (Felice et al., 2016; Bryant et al., 2017) are limited because references cannot ac￾count for all valid corrections… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative sentences ratio regarding the num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of consistency-based evaluation. Each row shows the different datasets and each column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the results for the CoNLL￾2014 and JFLEG datasets. Overall, the results show that including edits with larger absolute attribution scores improves the agreement with human evalua￾tion, indicating that the magnitude of these scores is meaningful. When comparing…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationship between the number of edits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The heatmap indicating the precision for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

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. gec-metrics: A Unified Library for Grammatical Error Correction Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open-source library unifies ten GEC evaluation metrics and meta-evaluation frameworks, plus new empirical results including an ensemble that reaches 0.984 Spearman on SEEDA-E.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Riadh Belkebir and Nizar Habash. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.conll-1.47 Automatic error type annotation for A rabic . In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 596--606, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.conll-1.47 2021

  4. [4]

    Christopher Bryant, Mariano Felice, and Ted Briscoe. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1074 Automatic annotation and evaluation of error types for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 793--805, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computat...

    doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1074 2017

  5. [5]

    Leshem Choshen and Omri Abend. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-2020 Reference-less measure of faithfulness for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers) , pages 124--129, New Orleans, Louisi...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2020 2018

  6. [6]

    Steven Coyne, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Diana Galvan-Sosa, Michael Zock, and Kentaro Inui. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14342 Analyzing the performance of gpt-3.5 and gpt-4 in grammatical error correction . Preprint, arXiv:2303.14342

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Daniel Dahlmeier and Hwee Tou Ng. 2012. https://aclanthology.org/N12-1067 Better evaluation for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 568--572, Montr \'e al, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2012

  8. [8]

    Wong, Jinpeng Hu, Lidia S

    Tao Fang, Shu Yang, Kaixin Lan, Derek F. Wong, Jinpeng Hu, Lidia S. Chao, and Yue Zhang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01746 Is chatgpt a highly fluent grammatical error correction system? a comprehensive evaluation . Preprint, arXiv:2304.01746

    arXiv 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Mariano Felice, Christopher Bryant, and Ted Briscoe. 2016. https://aclanthology.org/C16-1079 Automatic extraction of learner errors in ESL sentences using linguistically enhanced alignments . In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Lin...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Ruth C Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 3429--3437

    2017

  3. [11]

    Peiyuan Gong, Xuebo Liu, Heyan Huang, and Min Zhang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.463 Revisiting grammatical error correction evaluation and beyond . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6891--690...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Michael Heilman, Aoife Cahill, Nitin Madnani, Melissa Lopez, Matthew Mulholland, and Joel Tetreault. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2029 Predicting grammaticality on an ordinal scale . In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis...

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Md Asadul Islam and Enrico Magnani. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.239 Is this the end of the gold standard? a straightforward reference-less grammatical error correction metric . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Masamune Kobayashi, Masato Mita, and Mamoru Komachi. 2024 a . https://aclanthology.org/2024.bea-1.6 Large language models are state-of-the-art evaluator for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational App...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Masamune Kobayashi, Masato Mita, and Mamoru Komachi. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02674 Revisiting meta-evaluation for grammatical error correction . Preprint, arXiv:2403.02674

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Katerina Korre, Marita Chatzipanagiotou, and John Pavlopoulos. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.ranlp-1.81 ELERRANT : Automatic grammatical error type classification for G reek . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processin...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 BART : Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translatio...

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  11. [19]

    Koki Maeda, Masahiro Kaneko, and Naoaki Okazaki. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.316 IMPARA : Impact-based metric for GEC using parallel data . In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3578--3588, Gyeongju, Republic o...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Courtney Napoles, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Joel Tetreault. 2017. https://aclanthology.org/E17-2037 JFLEG : A fluency corpus and benchmark for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2017

  13. [21]

    Hwee Tou Ng, Siew Mei Wu, Ted Briscoe, Christian Hadiwinoto, Raymond Hendy Susanto, and Christopher Bryant. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-1701 The C o NLL -2014 shared task on grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Na...

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Vitaliy Atrasevych, Artem Chernodub, and Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.bea-1.16 GECT o R -- grammatical error correction: Tag, not rewrite . In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building ...

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Andrii Liubonko, Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi, Artem Chernodub, Oleksandr Korniienko, and Igor Samokhin. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.bea-1.3 Pillars of grammatical error correction: Comprehensive inspection of contemporary approaches in the era of lar...

    2024

  16. [24]

    V Petsiuk. 2018. Rise: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07421

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9

    2019

  18. [26]

    Sascha Rothe, Jonathan Mallinson, Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.89 A simple recipe for multilingual grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computatio...

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Lloyd S Shapley et al. 1953. A value for n-person games

    1953

  20. [28]

    Alexey Sorokin. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.785 Improved grammatical error correction by ranking elementary edits . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11416--11429, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emira...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Erik Strumbelj and Igor Kononenko. 2010. An efficient explanation of individual classifications using game theory. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11:1–18

    2010

  22. [30]

    Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3319--3328. PMLR

    2017

  23. [31]

    Maksym Tarnavskyi, Artem Chernodub, and Kostiantyn Omelianchuk. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.266 Ensembling and knowledge distilling of large sequence taggers for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for...

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Harun Uz and G \"u l s en Eryi g it. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-srw.14 Towards automatic grammatical error type classification for T urkish . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Studen...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Yongjie Wang, Tong Zhang, Xu Guo, and Zhiqi Shen. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10415 Gradient based feature attribution in explainable ai: A technical review . Preprint, arXiv:2403.10415

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Helen Yannakoudakis, istein E Andersen, Ardeshir Geranpayeh, Ted Briscoe, and Diane Nicholls. 2018. Developing an automated writing placement system for esl learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(3):251--267

    2018

  27. [35]

    Jingheng Ye, Yinghui Li, Qingyu Zhou, Yangning Li, Shirong Ma, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Ying Shen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.378 CLEME : Debiasing multi-reference evaluation for grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Ryoma Yoshimura, Masahiro Kaneko, Tomoyuki Kajiwara, and Mamoru Komachi. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.573 SOME : Reference-less sub-metrics optimized for manual evaluations of grammatical error correction . In Proceedings of the 28th International Confere...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.