coedit-text-editing-eval
CoEdIT: Text Editing by Task-Specific Instruction Tuning — Raheja et al. (2023) (arXiv:2305.09857, 2023)
What this evaluates
Evaluates a model's ability to follow task-specific and composite text editing instructions across diverse tasks like grammar correction, simplification, coherence, style transfer, and paraphrasing. It also assesses generalization to unseen instructions and human-perceived writing efficiency.
Datasets
- JFLEG — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- TurkCorpus — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- ASSET — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- ITER (Coherence split) — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- DISCOFUSE — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- ITER (Iterative text revision) — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- GYAFC — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- WNC — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- MRPC — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- STS — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- QQP — total ?; splits: test (-1)
Metrics
evaluation metrics (primary) — range: varies
- Varies by dataset; includes automatic metrics (e.g., BLEU, METEOR, ROUGE, ASSET score) and human evaluation for writing efficiency. Exact formulas, conventions, and scoring details are provided in Appendix B.
Input / output format
Input: Source text concatenated with a natural language editing instruction specifying the desired transformation.
Output: Edited text generated via greedy decoding.
Scoring recipe
for dataset in [JFLEG, TurkCorpus, ASSET, ITER_Coherence, DISCOFUSE, ITER_Iterative, GYAFC, WNC, MRPC, STS, QQP]:
predictions = model.generate(input_text + instruction)
gold = dataset.gold_references
score = compute_dataset_specific_metric(predictions, gold) # Details in Appendix B
aggregate_scores.append(score)
# Human evaluation also conducted for RQ3 (efficiency)
Common pitfalls
- Metrics are not explicitly defined in the main text; researchers must consult Appendix B for exact formulas and conventions.
- Evaluation includes both automatic metrics and human evaluation for writing efficiency, which are reported separately.
- All model outputs are generated using greedy decoding unless otherwise specified.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
To assess the editing capabilities of CoEdit, we perform evaluations on standard test sets sourced from a variety of text editing task benchmarks, most notably, EDITEVAL (Dwivedi-Yu et al., 2022). ... Detailed descriptions of each dataset and its evaluation metrics are in §B
Citation
@misc{raheja2023coedit,
title={CoEdIT: Text Editing by Task-Specific Instruction Tuning},
author={Raheja et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2305.09857}
}
1---2name: coedit-text-editing-eval3description: Evaluates a model's ability to follow task-specific and composite text editing instructions across diverse tasks like grammar correction, simplification, coherence, style transfer, and paraphrasing. It also assesses generalization to unseen instructions and human-perceived writing efficiency. Use when the user wants to benchmark on JFLEG, TurkCorpus, ASSET, ITER (Coherence split), DISCOFUSE, ITER (Iterative text revision), GYAFC, WNC, MRPC, STS, QQP, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports evaluation metrics.4---56# coedit-text-editing-eval78> CoEdIT: Text Editing by Task-Specific Instruction Tuning — Raheja et al. (2023) (arXiv:2305.09857, 2023)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates a model's ability to follow task-specific and composite text editing instructions across diverse tasks like grammar correction, simplification, coherence, style transfer, and paraphrasing. It also assesses generalization to unseen instructions and human-perceived writing efficiency.1314## Datasets1516- **JFLEG** — total ?; splits: test (-1)17- **TurkCorpus** — total ?; splits: test (-1)18- **ASSET** — total ?; splits: test (-1)19- **ITER (Coherence split)** — total ?; splits: test (-1)20- **DISCOFUSE** — total ?; splits: test (-1)21- **ITER (Iterative text revision)** — total ?; splits: test (-1)22- **GYAFC** — total ?; splits: test (-1)23- **WNC** — total ?; splits: test (-1)24- **MRPC** — total ?; splits: test (-1)25- **STS** — total ?; splits: test (-1)26- **QQP** — total ?; splits: test (-1)2728## Metrics2930- `evaluation metrics` **(primary)** — range: varies31 - Varies by dataset; includes automatic metrics (e.g., BLEU, METEOR, ROUGE, ASSET score) and human evaluation for writing efficiency. Exact formulas, conventions, and scoring details are provided in Appendix B.3233## Input / output format3435**Input**: Source text concatenated with a natural language editing instruction specifying the desired transformation.3637**Output**: Edited text generated via greedy decoding.3839## Scoring recipe4041```python42for dataset in [JFLEG, TurkCorpus, ASSET, ITER_Coherence, DISCOFUSE, ITER_Iterative, GYAFC, WNC, MRPC, STS, QQP]:43 predictions = model.generate(input_text + instruction)44 gold = dataset.gold_references45 score = compute_dataset_specific_metric(predictions, gold) # Details in Appendix B46 aggregate_scores.append(score)47# Human evaluation also conducted for RQ3 (efficiency)48```4950## Common pitfalls5152- Metrics are not explicitly defined in the main text; researchers must consult Appendix B for exact formulas and conventions.53- Evaluation includes both automatic metrics and human evaluation for writing efficiency, which are reported separately.54- All model outputs are generated using greedy decoding unless otherwise specified.5556## Evidence (verbatim from paper)5758> To assess the editing capabilities of CoEdit, we perform evaluations on standard test sets sourced from a variety of text editing task benchmarks, most notably, EDITEVAL (Dwivedi-Yu et al., 2022). ... Detailed descriptions of each dataset and its evaluation metrics are in §B5960## Citation6162```bibtex63@misc{raheja2023coedit,64 title={CoEdIT: Text Editing by Task-Specific Instruction Tuning},65 author={Raheja et al. (2023)},66 year={2023},67 note={arXiv:2305.09857}68}69```7071- arXiv: 2305.09857