How Good (really) are Grammatical Error Correction Systems?

Standard evaluations of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) systems make use of a fixed reference text generated relative to the original text; they show, even when using multiple references, that we have a long way to go. This analysis paper studies the performance of GEC systems relative to closest-gold {--} a gold reference text created relative to the output of a system. Surprisingly, we show that the real performance is 20-40 points better than standard evaluations show. Moreover, the performance remains high even when considering any of the top-10 hypotheses produced by a system. Importantly, the type of mistakes corrected by lower-ranked hypotheses differs in interesting ways from the top one, providing an opportunity to focus on a range of errors {--} local spelling and grammar edits vs. more complex lexical improvements. Our study shows these results in English and Russian, and thus provides a preliminary proposal for a more realistic evaluation of GEC systems.