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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13110v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:31:17 GMT
• Title: Improving Explainability of Sentence-level Metrics via Edit-level Attribution for Grammatical Error Correction
• Authors: Takumi Goto, Justin Vasselli, Taro Watanabe,
• Abstract summary: We propose attributing sentence-level scores to individual edits, providing insight into how specific corrections contribute to the overall performance. 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.
• Score: 11.512856112792093
• License:
• 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}.

Related papers

• Revisiting Meta-evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction [14.822205658480813]
  SEEDA is a new dataset for GEC meta-evaluation. It consists of corrections with human ratings along two different granularities. The results suggest that edit-based metrics may have been underestimated in existing studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T05:53:09Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• Machine Translation Meta Evaluation through Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets [92.38654521870444]
  We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs. This dataset aims to discover whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:17:42Z)
• Grammatical Error Correction via Mixed-Grained Weighted Training [68.94921674855621]
  Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) aims to automatically correct grammatical errors in natural texts. MainGEC designs token-level and sentence-level training weights based on inherent discrepancies in accuracy and potential diversity of data annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T08:34:37Z)
• MuLER: Detailed and Scalable Reference-based Evaluation [24.80921931416632]
  We propose a novel methodology that transforms any reference-based evaluation metric for text generation into a fine-grained analysis tool. Given a system and a metric, MuLER quantifies how much the chosen metric penalizes specific error types. We perform experiments in both synthetic and naturalistic settings to support MuLER's validity and showcase its usability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:26:13Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• CLEME: Debiasing Multi-reference Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction [32.44051877804761]
  Chunk-LEvel Multi-reference Evaluation (CLEME) is designed to evaluate Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) systems in the multi-reference evaluation setting. We conduct experiments on six English reference sets based on the CoNLL-2014 shared task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T08:57:17Z)
• A Syntax-Guided Grammatical Error Correction Model with Dependency Tree Correction [83.14159143179269]
  Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) is a task of detecting and correcting grammatical errors in sentences. We propose a syntax-guided GEC model (SG-GEC) which adopts the graph attention mechanism to utilize the syntactic knowledge of dependency trees. We evaluate our model on public benchmarks of GEC task and it achieves competitive results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-05T07:07:48Z)
• SMURF: SeMantic and linguistic UndeRstanding Fusion for Caption Evaluation via Typicality Analysis [20.026835809227283]
  We introduce "typicality", a new formulation of evaluation rooted in information theory. We show how these decomposed dimensions of semantics and fluency provide greater system-level insight into captioner differences. Our proposed metrics along with their combination, SMURF, achieve state-of-the-art correlation with human judgment when compared with other rule-based evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T19:58:20Z)
• A Self-Refinement Strategy for Noise Reduction in Grammatical Error Correction [54.569707226277735]
  Existing approaches for grammatical error correction (GEC) rely on supervised learning with manually created GEC datasets. There is a non-negligible amount of "noise" where errors were inappropriately edited or left uncorrected. We propose a self-refinement method where the key idea is to denoise these datasets by leveraging the prediction consistency of existing models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T04:45:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.