LLM-based post-editing as reference-free GEC evaluation

Robert Östling, Murathan Kurfali, Andrew Caines

Abstract: Evaluation of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) systems is becoming increasingly challenging as the quality of such systems increases and traditional automatic metrics fail to adequately capture such nuances as fluency versus minimal edits, alternative valid corrections compared to the ‘ground truth’, and the difference between corrections that are useful in a language learning scenario versus those preferred by native readers. Previous work has suggested using human post-editing of GEC system outputs, but this is very labor-intensive. We investigate the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as post-editors of English and Swedish texts, and perform a meta-analysis of a range of different evaluation setups using a set of recent GEC systems. We find that for the two languages studied in our work, automatic evaluation based on post-editing agrees well with both human post-editing and direct human rating of GEC systems. Furthermore, we find that a simple n-gram overlap metric is sufficient to measure post-editing distance, and that including human references when prompting the LLMs generally does not improve agreement with human ratings. The resulting evaluation metric is reference-free and requires no language-specific training or additional resources beyond an LLM capable of handling the given language.Evaluation of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) systems is becoming increasingly challenging as the quality of such systems increases and traditional automatic metrics fail to adequately capture such nuances as fluency versus minimal edits, alternative valid corrections compared to the ‘ground truth’, and the difference between corrections that are useful in a language learning scenario versus those preferred by native readers. Previous work has suggested using human post-editing of GEC system outputs, but this is very labor-intensive. We investigate the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as post-editors of English and Swedish texts, and perform a meta-analysis of a range of different evaluation setups using a set of recent GEC systems. We find that for the two languages studied in our work, automatic evaluation based on post-editing agrees well with both human post-editing and direct human rating of GEC systems. Furthermore, we find that a simple n-gram overlap metric is sufficient to measure post-editing distance, and that including human references when prompting the LLMs generally does not improve agreement with human ratings. The resulting evaluation metric is reference-free and requires no language-specific training or additional resources beyond an LLM capable of handling the given language.