This study explores the necessity of performing cross-corpora evaluation for grammatical error correction (GEC) models. GEC models have been previously evaluated based on a single commonly applied corpus: the CoNLL-2014 benchmark. However, the evaluation remains incomplete because the task difficulty varies depending on the test corpus and conditions such as the proficiency levels of the writers and essay topics. To overcome this limitation, we evaluate the performance of several GEC models, including NMT-based (LSTM, CNN, and transformer) and an SMT-based model, against various learner corpora (CoNLL-2013, CoNLL-2014, FCE, JFLEG, ICNALE, and KJ). Evaluation results reveal that the models' rankings considerably vary depending on the corpus, indicating that single-corpus evaluation is insufficient for GEC models.
Other corpora are used for evaluation, such as KJ @cite_14 and JFLEG @cite_10 @cite_24 @cite_1 @cite_9 @cite_19 . However, these corpora still depend on one or at most two corpora.
@cite_14 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_24 @cite_19 @cite_10
2114535528 2798421013 2022792389 2155870214
This paper focuses on a comparative evaluation of a wide-range of text categorization methods, including previously published results on the Reuters corpus and new results of additional experiments. A controlled study using three classifiers, kNN, LLSF and WORD, was conducted to examine the impact of configuration variations in five versions of Reuters on the observed performance of classifiers. Analysis and empirical evidence suggest that the evaluation results on some versions of Reuters were significantly affected by the inclusion of a large portion of unlabelled documents, mading those results difficult to interpret and leading to considerable confusions in the literature. Using the results evaluated on the other versions of Reuters which exclude the unlabelled documents, the performance of twelve methods are compared directly or indirectly. For indirect compararions, kNN, LLSF and WORD were used as baselines, since they were evaluated on all versions of Reuters that exclude the unlabelled documents. As a global observation, kNN, LLSF and a neural network method had the best performances except for a Naive Bayes approach, the other learning algorithms also performed relatively well. Written text often provides sufficient clues to identify the author, their gender, age, and other important attributes. Consequently, the authorship of training and evaluation corpora can have unforeseen impacts, including differing model performance for different user groups, as well as privacy implications. In this paper, we propose an approach to explicitly obscure important author characteristics at training time, such that representations learned are invariant to these attributes. Evaluating on two tasks, we show that this leads to increased privacy in the learned representations, as well as more robust models to varying evaluation conditions, including out-of-domain corpora. Using human evaluation of 100,000 words spread across 24 corpora in 10 languages diverse in origin and culture, we present evidence of a deep imprint of human sociality in language, observing that (i) the words of natural human language possess a universal positivity bias, (ii) the estimated emotional content of words is consistent between languages under translation, and (iii) this positivity bias is strongly independent of frequency of word use. Alongside these general regularities, we describe interlanguage variations in the emotional spectrum of languages that allow us to rank corpora. We also show how our word evaluations can be used to construct physical-like instruments for both real-time and offline measurement of the emotional content of large-scale texts. This article introduces ukWaC, deWaC and itWaC, three very large corpora of English, German, and Italian built by web crawling, and describes the methodology and tools used in their construction. The corpora contain more than a billion words each, and are thus among the largest resources for the respective languages. The paper also provides an evaluation of their suitability for linguistic research, focusing on ukWaC and itWaC. A comparison in terms of lexical coverage with existing resources for the languages of interest produces encouraging results. Qualitative evaluation of ukWaC versus the British National Corpus was also conducted, so as to highlight differences in corpus composition (text types and subject matters). The article concludes with practical information about format and availability of corpora and tools.