← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.2193 · 记录 #1
Toward Robust Evaluation for Multilingual Grammatical Error Correction: Can Large Language Models Replace Human References?
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
A standard method for evaluating grammatical error correction systems severely underestimates performance, as it compares outputsagainst a small, fixed set of human references, despite the large space of possible valid corrections. Prior research has shown that using aclosest-gold reference – i.e., a human reference generated with respect to the system output rather than the original text – yields more accurate performance estimates. Yet, producing such references for each system individually is costly. We introduce an automated method for generating closest-gold references by prompting a large language model (LLM) with system outputs. We find that performance scores computed using automatic closest-gold references correlate well with human closest-golds, whereas standard reference-based evaluations show weak or no correlation.Building on this insight, we use both fixed human references and closest-gold references generated by Claude and Llama to compare theperformance of supervised models and GPT-4 across 14 benchmarks spanning 12 languages. Consequently, while prior work has shown that GPT-4 appears to lag behind traditional models, we demonstrate that this is due to the failures of the standard evaluation method that systematically underestimates GPT-4 performance more severely than that of supervised models. We show that a more appropriate evaluation approach, based on the closest gold method, reveals that GPT-4 outperforms traditional state-of- the-art models on almost all languages.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Toward Robust Evaluation for Multilingual Grammatical Error Correction: Can Large Language Models Replace Human References?
A standard method for evaluating grammatical error correction systems severely underestimates performance, as it compares outputsagainst a small, fixed set of human references, despite the large space of possible valid corrections. Prior research has shown that using aclosest-gold reference – i.e., a human reference generated with respect to the system output rather than the original text – yields more accurate performance estimates. Yet, producing such references for each system individually is costly. We introduce an automated method for generating closest-gold references by prompting a large language model (LLM) with system outputs. We find that performance scores computed using automatic closest-gold references correlate well with human closest-golds, whereas standard reference-based evaluations show weak or no correlation.Building on this insight, we use both fixed human references and closest-gold references generated by Claude and Llama to compare theperformance of supervised models and GPT-4 across 14 benchmarks spanning 12 languages. Consequently, while prior work has shown that GPT-4 appears to lag behind traditional models, we demonstrate that this is due to the failures of the standard evaluation method that systematically underestimates GPT-4 performance more severely than that of supervised models. We show that a more appropriate evaluation approach, based on the closest gold method, reveals that GPT-4 outperforms traditional state-of- the-art models on almost all languages.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗