Logo Lanfrica
  • Accueil
  • Atlas
  • Analyses
  • Documentation
  • Sign in

© 2026 Lanfrica. Tous droits réservés. Tous les droits d'auteur des ressources affichées sur le site Web Lanfrica appartiennent aux détenteurs de droits d'auteur d'origine, sauf indication contraire explicite.

Grammatical Error Detection Performance in Low-Resource Languages: Zero-Shot Synthetic vs. Human-Annotated Baselines

Domaine:

natural language processing

Type de record:

paper
Créateur:
Ass
Éditeur:
Zenodo
Hôte:avatar
Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, these annotations are unavailable in many low-resource languages. In this paper, we investigate GED in this context. Leveraging the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer capabilities of multilingual pre-trained language models, we train a model using data from a diverse set of languages to generate synthetic errors in other languages. These synthetic error corpora are then used to train a GED model. Specifically we propose a two-stage fine-tuning pipeline where the GED model is first fine-tuned on mult Research goal: How does the grammatical error detection F1 score of models trained on zero-shot synthetic data compare to human-annotated baselines across the low-resource language subset of FLORES-200? Autonomous synthesis report generated by Assignee Research. Tribunal consensus score: 8.5/10. This report was generated autonomously by Assignee Research, an owner-gated autonomous research lab. The content synthesizes findings from peer-reviewed papers. Tribunal score: 8.5/10.

Visit

doi.orgzenodo.org

Tasks

grammar error correctiontransfer learning

Tags

grammaticalerrordetectionscoremodelstrainedzero-shotsynthetic

Licenses

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationalhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

Similaires

Robustness of Synthetic vs. Human-Annotated Grammatical Error Detection Models in Low-Resource LanguagesDiversity in Zero-Shot Synthetic Data for Low-Resource Grammatical Error DetectionComparative Performance of Zero-Shot Synthetic Error Data and Human Annotations on Low-Resource Languages in FLORES-200Typological Distance and Zero-Shot Grammatical Error Detection PerformanceZero-shot Cross-lingual Transfer Performance of mT5 and Bloom in Synthetic Error Generation for Low-resource LanguagesScaling Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer for Synthetic Error Data Generation in Low-Resource Languages

Robustness of Synthetic vs. Human-Annotated Grammatical Error Detection Models in Low-Resource Languages

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th

Diversity in Zero-Shot Synthetic Data for Low-Resource Grammatical Error Detection

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th

Comparative Performance of Zero-Shot Synthetic Error Data and Human Annotations on Low-Resource Languages in FLORES-200

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th

Typological Distance and Zero-Shot Grammatical Error Detection Performance

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th

Zero-shot Cross-lingual Transfer Performance of mT5 and Bloom in Synthetic Error Generation for Low-resource Languages

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th

Scaling Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer for Synthetic Error Data Generation in Low-Resource Languages

Grammatical Error Detection (GED) methods rely heavily on human annotated error corpora. However, th