ChatGPT for Arabic Grammatical Error Correction

Recently, large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned to follow human instruction have exhibited significant capabilities in various English NLP tasks. However, their performance in grammatical error correction (GEC) tasks, particularly in non-English languages, remains significantly unexplored. In this...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors Kwon, Sang Yun, Bhatia, Gagan, Nagoud, El Moatez Billah, Abdul-Mageed, Muhammad
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 08.08.2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Recently, large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned to follow human instruction have exhibited significant capabilities in various English NLP tasks. However, their performance in grammatical error correction (GEC) tasks, particularly in non-English languages, remains significantly unexplored. In this paper, we delve into abilities of instruction fine-tuned LLMs in Arabic GEC, a task made complex due to Arabic's rich morphology. Our findings suggest that various prompting methods, coupled with (in-context) few-shot learning, demonstrate considerable effectiveness, with GPT-4 achieving up to $65.49$ F\textsubscript{1} score under expert prompting (approximately $5$ points higher than our established baseline). This highlights the potential of LLMs in low-resource settings, offering a viable approach for generating useful synthetic data for model training. Despite these positive results, we find that instruction fine-tuned models, regardless of their size, significantly underperform compared to fully fine-tuned models of significantly smaller sizes. This disparity highlights a substantial room for improvements for LLMs. Inspired by methods from low-resource machine translation, we also develop a method exploiting synthetic data that significantly outperforms previous models on two standard Arabic benchmarks. Our work sets new SoTA for Arabic GEC, with $72.19\%$ and $73.26$ F$_{1}$ on the 2014 and 2015 QALB datasets, respectively.
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.2308.04492