Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluating LLMs’ grammatical error correction performance in learner Chinese
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluating LLMs’ grammatical error correction performance in learner Chinese
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluating LLMs’ grammatical error correction performance in learner Chinese
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluating LLMs’ grammatical error correction performance in learner Chinese
2024
Overview
Large language models (LLMs) have recently exhibited significant capabilities in various English NLP tasks. However, their performance in Chinese grammatical error correction (CGEC) remains unexplored. This study evaluates the abilities of state-of-the-art LLMs in correcting learner Chinese errors from a corpus linguistic perspective. The performance of LLMs is assessed using standard evaluation metrics of MaxMatch score. Keyword and key n-gram analyses are conducted to quantitatively explore linguistic features that differentiate LLM outputs from those of human annotators. LLMs’ performance in syntactic and semantic dimensions is further qualitatively analyzed based on these probes of keywords and key n-grams. Results show that LLMs achieve a relatively higher performance in test datasets with multiple annotators and low performance in those with a single annotator. LLMs tend to overcorrect wrong sentences, under the explicit prompt of the “minimal edit” strategy, by using more linguistic devices to generate fluent and grammatical sentences. Furthermore, they struggle with under-correction and hallucination in reasoning-dependent situations. These findings highlight the strengths and limitations of LLMs in CGEC, suggesting that future efforts should focus on refining overcorrection tendencies and improving the handling of complex semantic contexts.
