arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2312.08400cs.CLcs.AI

超越英语:评估大语言模型的阿拉伯语语法错误纠正能力

Beyond English: Evaluating LLMs for Arabic Grammatical Error Correction

The University of British Columbia(不列颠哥伦比亚大学);MBZUAI(穆罕默德·本·扎耶德人工智能大学)

Sang Yun Kwon, Gagan Bhatia, El Moatez Billah Nagoudi, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed

AI总结:

该研究评估指令微调LLMs在阿拉伯语语法错误纠正任务中的表现,提出利用合成数据的方法,刷新了阿拉伯语GEC的SOTA,同时指出指令微调模型仍逊于更小的完全微调模型。

摘要:

经微调以遵循人类指令的大语言模型(LLMs)近期在各类英语自然语言处理(NLP)任务中展现出显著能力。然而,它们在语法错误纠正(GEC)任务中的表现,尤其是在非英语语言上的表现,仍缺乏充分探索。本研究评估了指令微调LLMs在阿拉伯语GEC任务中的能力——由于阿拉伯语形态丰富,该任务复杂度较高。研究结果表明,多种提示方法结合(上下文内)少样本学习展现出可观效果,其中GPT-4在专家提示下F₁得分最高达65.49,比我们设定的基线高约5个点。尽管取得了这些积极结果,我们发现无论规模大小,指令微调模型的表现仍不及完全微调模型,即便后者规模小得多。这一差距凸显出LLMs仍有很大提升空间。受低资源机器翻译所用方法的启发,我们还提出了一种利用合成数据的方法,该方法在两个标准阿拉伯语基准上的表现显著优于此前模型。我们的最优模型刷新了阿拉伯语GEC的当前最优水平(SOTA),与经同行评审发表的基线相比,在2014年和2015年QALB数据集上的F₁得分分别为73.29和73.26。

英文摘要:

Large language models (LLMs) finetuned to follow human instruction have recently exhibited significant capabilities in various English NLP tasks. However, their performance in grammatical error correction (GEC), especially on languages other than English, remains significantly unexplored. In this work, we evaluate the abilities of instruction finetuned LLMs in Arabic GEC, a complex task 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$_{1}$ score under expert prompting (approximately $5$ points higher than our established baseline). Despite these positive results, we find that instruction finetuned models, regardless of their size, are still outperformed by fully finetuned ones, even if they are significantly smaller in size. This disparity highlights substantial room for improvements for LLMs. Inspired by methods used in low-resource machine translation, we also develop a method exploiting synthetic data that significantly outperforms previous models on two standard Arabic benchmarks. Our best model achieves a new SOTA on Arabic GEC, with $73.29$ and $73.26$ F$_{1}$ on the 2014 and 2015 QALB datasets, respectively, compared to peer-reviewed published baselines.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑