Pith. sign in

REVIEW

CSynGEC: Incorporating Constituent-based Syntax for Grammatical Error Correction with a Tailored GEC-Oriented Parser

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 2211.08158 v1 pith:UTZWS6UG submitted 2022-11-15 cs.CL

CSynGEC: Incorporating Constituent-based Syntax for Grammatical Error Correction with a Tailored GEC-Oriented Parser

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

Recently, Zhang et al. (2022) propose a syntax-aware grammatical error correction (GEC) approach, named SynGEC, showing that incorporating tailored dependency-based syntax of the input sentence is quite beneficial to GEC. This work considers another mainstream syntax formalism, i.e., constituent-based syntax. By drawing on the successful experience of SynGEC, we first propose an extended constituent-based syntax scheme to accommodate errors in ungrammatical sentences. Then, we automatically obtain constituency trees of ungrammatical sentences to train a GEC-oriented constituency parser by using parallel GEC data as a pivot. For syntax encoding, we employ the graph convolutional network (GCN). Experimental results show that our method, named CSynGEC, yields substantial improvements over strong baselines. Moreover, we investigate the integration of constituent-based and dependency-based syntax for GEC in two ways: 1) intra-model combination, which means using separate GCNs to encode both kinds of syntax for decoding in a single model; 2)inter-model combination, which means gathering and selecting edits predicted by different models to achieve final corrections. We find that the former method improves recall over using one standalone syntax formalism while the latter improves precision, and both lead to better F0.5 values.

discussion (0)

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