Austria

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&#39;, 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&#39;, 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.

ACL 2025

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

stages 

COLING, the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, is one of the premier conferences for natural language processing and computational linguistics. Often grouped within the field of artificial intelligence, but actually pre-dating the development of artificial intelligence, advances in computational linguistics and natural language processing are now some of the major drivers behind the use of artificial intelligence for commercial and social applications – for example, on-line search, machine translation and with voice-assisted conversational devices.

First established in 1965, the biennial COLING conference is held in diverse parts of the globe and attracts participants from both top-ranked research centers and emerging countries. Today, the most important developments in our field are taking place not only in universities and academic research institutes, but also in industrial research departments and in technological startups. COLING conferences provide opportunities for all these communities to showcase their exciting developments.

COLING 2020

COLING, the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, is one of the premier conferences for natural language processing and computational linguistics. Often grouped within the field of artificial intelligence, but actually pre-dating the development of artificial intelligence, advances in computational linguistics and natural language processing are now some of the major drivers behind the use of artificial intelligence for commercial and social applications – for example, on-line search, machine translation and with voice-assisted conversational devices.

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.

workshop paper

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity, and I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring this event to life.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. Access credentials will be sent to your email from Underline - subject line "Welcome to ACL 2025". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

We present an approach to the automated scoring of a German Written Elicited Imitation Test, designed to assess literacy-dependent procedural knowledge in German as a foreign language. In this test, sentences are briefly displayed on a screen and, after a short pause, test-takers are asked to reproduce the sentence in writing as accurately as possible. Responses are rated on a 5-point ordinal scale, with grammatical errors typically penalized more heavily than lexical deviations. We compare a rule-based model that implements the categories of the scoring rubric through hand-crafted rules, and a deep learning model trained on pairs of stimulus sentences and written responses. Both models achieve promising performance with quadratically weighted kappa (QWK) values around .87. However, their strengths differ – the rule-based model performs better on previously unseen stimulus sentences and at the extremes of the rating scale, while the deep learning model shows advantages in scoring mid-range responses, for which explicit rules are harder to define.

Automated Scoring of a German Written Elicited Imitation Test

Knowing how test takers answer items in educational assessments is essential for test development, to evaluate item quality, and to improve test validity. However, this process usually requires extensive pilot studies with human participants. If large language models (LLMs) exhibit human-like response behavior to test items, this could open up the possibility of using them as pilot participants to accelerate test development. In this paper, we evaluate the human-likeness or psychometric plausibility of responses from 18 instruction-tuned LLMs with two publicly available datasets of multiple-choice test items across three subjects: reading, U.S. history, and economics. Our methodology builds on two theoretical frameworks from psychometrics which are commonly used in educational assessment, classical test theory and item response theory. The results show that while larger models are excessively confident, their response distributions can be more human-like when calibrated with temperature scaling. In addition, we find that LLMs tend to correlate better with humans in reading comprehension items compared to other subjects. However, the correlations are not very strong overall, indicating that LLMs should not be used for piloting educational assessments in a zero-shot setting.

Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?

Generative AI systems have rapidly advanced, with multimodal input capabilities enabling reasoning beyond text-based tasks. In education, these advancements could influence assessment design and question answering, presenting both opportunities and challenges. To investigate these effects, we introduce a high-quality dataset of 201 university-level STEM questions, manually annotated with features such as image type, role, problem complexity, and question format. Our study analyzes how these features affect generative AI performance compared to students. We evaluate four model families with five prompting strategies, comparing results to the average of 546 student responses per question. Although the best model correctly answers on average 58.5% of the questions using majority vote aggregation, human participants consistently outperform AI on questions involving visual components. Interestingly, human performance remains stable across question features but varies by subject, whereas AI performance is susceptible to both subject matter and question features. Finally, we provide actionable insights for educators, demonstrating how question design can enhance academic integrity by leveraging features that challenge current AI systems without increasing the cognitive burden for students

Challenges for AI in Multimodal STEM Assessments: a Human-AI Comparison

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate distractors for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), especially in domains like math education. However, existing approaches are limited in ensuring that the generated distractors are consistent with common student errors. We propose LookAlike, a method that improves error–distractor consistency via preference optimization. Our two main innovations are: (a)~mining synthetic preference pairs from model inconsistencies, and (b)~alternating supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to stabilize training. Unlike prior work that relies on heuristics or manually annotated preference data, LookAlike uses its own generation inconsistencies as dispreferred samples, thus enabling scalable and stable training. Evaluated on a real-world dataset of 1,400+ math MCQs, LookAlike achieves 51.6% accuracy in distractor generation and 57.2% in error generation under LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, outperforming an existing state-of-the-art method (45.6% / 47.7%). These improvements highlight the effectiveness of preference-based regularization and inconsistency mining for generating consistent math MCQ distractors at scale.

LookAlike: Consistent Distractor Generation in Math MCQs

Designing vocabulary learning activities for foreign/second language (L2) learners highly depends on the successful identification of difficult words. In this paper, we present a novel personalised word difficulty classifier for L2 Spanish, using the LexComSpaL2 corpus as training data and a BiLSTM model as the architecture. We train a base version (using the original LexComSpaL2 data) and a word family version of the classifier (adding word family knowledge as an extra feature). The base version obtains reasonably good performance (F1 = 0.53) and shows weak positive predictive power (ϕ = 0.32), underlining the potential of automated methods in determining vocabulary difficulty for individual L2 learners. The "word family classifier" is able to further push performance (F1 = 0.62 and ϕ = 0.45), highlighting the value of well-chosen linguistic features in developing word difficulty classifiers.

You Shall Know a Word's Difficulty by the Family It Keeps: Word Family Features in Personalised Word Difficulty Classifiers for L2 Spanish

Recent trends in NLP have shifted towards modeling lexical complexity as a continuous value, but practical implementations often remain binary. This opinion piece argues for the importance of truly graded lexical complexity prediction, particularly in language learning. We examine the evolution of lexical complexity modeling, highlighting the ``data bottleneck'' as a key obstacle. Overcoming this challenge can lead to significant benefits, such as enhanced personalization in language learning and improved text simplification. We call for a concerted effort from the research community to create high-quality, graded complexity datasets and to develop methods that fully leverage continuous complexity modeling, while addressing ethical considerations. By fully embracing the continuous nature of lexical complexity, we can develop more effective, inclusive, and personalized language technologies.

The Need for Truly Graded Lexical Complexity Prediction

This paper introduces IPPOLIS Write, an open source, web-based tool designed to provide automated feedback on the formal aspects of scientific documents. Aimed at addressing the variability in writing and language skills among scientists and the challenges faced by supervisors in providing consistent feedback on student theses, IPPOLIS Write integrates several open source tools and custom implementations to analyze documents for a range of formal issues, including grammatical errors, consistent introduction of acronyms, comparison of literature entries with several databases, referential integrity of figures and tables, and consistent link access dates.

IPPOLIS Write generates reports with statistical summaries and annotated documents that highlight specific issues and suggest improvements while also providing additional background information where appropriate. To evaluate its effectiveness, a qualitative assessment is conducted using a small but diverse dataset of bachelor's and master's theses sourced from arXiv. Our findings demonstrate the tool's potential to enhance the quality of scientific documents by providing targeted and consistent feedback, thereby aiding both students and professionals in refining their document preparation skills.

Towards Automatic Formal Feedback on Scientific Documents

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up the possibility of using them aspersonal tutors. This has led to the development of several intelligent tutoring systems and learning assistants that use LLMs as back-ends with various degrees of engineering. In this study, we seek to compare human tutors with LLM tutorsin terms of engagement, empathy, scaffolding, and conciseness. We ask human tutors to compare the performance of an LLM tutor with that of a human tutor in teaching grade-school math word problems on these qualities. We find that annotators with teaching experience perceive LLMs as showing higher performance than human tutors in all 4 metrics. The biggest advantage is in empathy, where 80% of our annotators prefer the LLM tutor more often than the human tutors. Our study paints a positive picture of LLMs as tutors and indicates that these models can be used to reduce the load on human teachers in the future.

Educators' Perceptions of Large Language Models as Tutors: Comparing Human and AI Tutors in a Blind Text-only Setting

Real-word spelling errors (RWSEs) pose special challenges for detection methods, as they ‘hide' in the form of another existing word and in many cases even fit in syntactically. We present a modern Transformer-based implementation of earlier probabilistic methods based on confusion sets and show that RWSEs can be detected with a good balance between missing errors and raising too many false
alarms. The confusion sets are dynamically configurable, allowing teachers to easily adjust which errors trigger feedback.

Transformer-Based Real-Word Spelling Error Feedback with Configurable Confusion Sets

Weakly supervised learning (WSL) is a machine learning approach used when labeled data is scarce or expensive to obtain. In such scenarios, models are trained using weaker supervision sources instead of human-annotated data. However, these sources are often noisy and may introduce unquantified biases during training. This issue is particularly pronounced in automated scoring (AS) of second language (L2) learner output, where high variability and limited generalizability pose significant challenges.
In this paper, we investigate analytical scoring of L2 learner responses under weak and semi-supervised learning conditions, leveraging Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) to provide statistical guarantees on score validity. We compare two approaches: (1) synthetic scoring using large language models (LLMs), and (2) a semi-supervised setting in which a machine learning model, trained on a small gold-standard set, generates predictions for a larger unlabeled corpus. In both cases, PPI is applied to construct valid confidence intervals for assessing the reliability of the predicted scores.
Our analysis, based on a dataset of L2 learner conversations with an AI agent, shows that PPI is highly informative for evaluating the quality of weakly annotated data. Moreover, we demonstrate that PPI can increase the effective sample size by over 150% relative to the original human-scored subset, enabling more robust inference in educational assessment settings where labeled data is scarce.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Automated Scoring of a German Written Elicited Imitation Test

Similar lecture

A Crash Course in Automatic Grammatical Error Correction 3

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Automated Scoring of a German Written Elicited Imitation Test

Similar lecture

A Crash Course in Automatic Grammatical Error Correction 3

Downloads