Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Is ChatGPT a Highly Fluent Grammatical Error Correction System? A Comprehensive Evaluation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.01746 v1 pith:QRG52T5N submitted 2023-04-04 cs.CL

Is ChatGPT a Highly Fluent Grammatical Error Correction System? A Comprehensive Evaluation

classification cs.CL
keywords chatgpterrorserrorpotentialcapabilitiescomprehensivecorrectcorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

ChatGPT, a large-scale language model based on the advanced GPT-3.5 architecture, has shown remarkable potential in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, there is currently a dearth of comprehensive study exploring its potential in the area of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC). To showcase its capabilities in GEC, we design zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) and few-shot CoT settings using in-context learning for ChatGPT. Our evaluation involves assessing ChatGPT's performance on five official test sets in three different languages, along with three document-level GEC test sets in English. Our experimental results and human evaluations demonstrate that ChatGPT has excellent error detection capabilities and can freely correct errors to make the corrected sentences very fluent, possibly due to its over-correction tendencies and not adhering to the principle of minimal edits. Additionally, its performance in non-English and low-resource settings highlights its potential in multilingual GEC tasks. However, further analysis of various types of errors at the document-level has shown that ChatGPT cannot effectively correct agreement, coreference, tense errors across sentences, and cross-sentence boundary errors.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Prompt Framing Distorts Count-Based Evaluation of LLM Error Detection: Evidence from Numeric Anchoring

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Anchored prompts inflate count-based F1 by up to 0.79 in LLM error detection while raising span-aware ERRANT F0.5 by only 0.04 on average.

  2. MC-PDD: Masked Corpus-Level Pretraining Data Detection for Black-Box Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A masked-token hit-rate comparison method detects pretraining data membership in black-box LLMs with performance comparable to white-box approaches.

  3. Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment

    cs.AI 2023-08 accept novelty 5.0

    Survey organizes LLM trustworthiness into seven categories and 29 sub-categories, measures eight sub-categories on popular models, and finds that more aligned models generally score higher but with varying effectiveness.

  4. The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey

    cs.AI 2023-09 accept novelty 4.0

    The paper surveys the origins, frameworks, applications, and open challenges of AI agents built on large language models.