Research on Domain-Specific Chinese Spelling Correction Method Based on Plugin Extension Modules

Hongfei Zhao; Xiaowu Zhang; Xuan Chang

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 12 references

Research on Domain-Specific Chinese Spelling Correction Method Based on Plugin Extension Modules

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A plug-in module added to a frozen Chinese spelling model raises domain-specific F1 scores by a factor of 2 to 3.

desk verdict A pragmatic domain-adaptation idea for Chinese spelling correction with impressive reported gains, but the evaluation doesn't isolate the plugin's contribution, so the main claim is not yet backed up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09884 v1 pith:IU4KGHUX submitted 2024-11-15 cs.CL

Xiaowu Zhang , Hongfei Zhao , Xuan Chang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords Chinesespellingcorrectiondomain-specificadaptationpluginextensionmodulefrozenparametersdual-predictionchangeanalysismedicallegalofficialdocumentssynthetictrainingdataover-correction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a Chinese spelling-correction model trained on general text can be extended to specialized domains without retraining the base model. The proposed fix is a plug-in Transformer module that learns domain terminology from word lists and synthetic corrupted samples, while the original model's parameters are frozen. On medical, legal, and official-document test sets, adding the matching plugin raises F1 by about two to three times over the frozen base model (for example, medical detection F1 on MCSC-Test rises from 24.9 to 71.6). The paper also adds a dual-prediction change analysis that compares two model runs to undo over-corrections. If this works, adapting a speller to a new domain becomes a matter of supplying a terminology list and training a small add-on module.

What carries the argument

The plugin extension module is a 12-layer Transformer encoder, the same architecture as BERT, inserted in parallel with the base model's feature extractor; its output is added elementwise to the base encoder's hidden states before the correction head. Because the base weights stay frozen, all domain-specific learning is forced into this add-on. The second mechanism is dual-prediction change analysis, a post-processing rule that classifies each character's two-run prediction pattern into over-correction, no correction, confident correction, or conditional correction, and reverts characters whose predictions oscillate.

What would settle it

Collect real misspellings of legal or official-document terminology from a held-out corpus, run the corresponding plugin on them, and compare F1 with the frozen base model; if the synthetic-trained plugin does not beat the base model on these real errors, the core assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a domain-specific plugin extension module can supply the missing vocabulary knowledge to a frozen Chinese spelling-correction model. The plugin is a 12-layer Transformer encoder; its hidden features are added to the base BERT encoder's output before the correction head, so the original weights never change. Trained only on domain terms corrupted with confusion-set noise and padded with random characters, the plugin raises detection F1 from 24.9 to 71.6 on MCSC-Test, from 29.0 to 57.8 on EC-Law, from 24.9 to 65.1 on EC-Med, and from 38.2 to 54.7 on EC-Odw. The paper reports that the same recipe works for medical, legal, and official-document domains, and that an unsuitable plugin leaves the input unchanged, which it attributes to the random-padding training trick.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reported gain rests on the assumption that synthetic training samples—domain terms corrupted with confusion-set noise and padded with random characters—teach the plugin to correct real misspellings inside full sentences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adding a domain plugin roughly doubles to triples detection and correction F1 on the medical, legal, and official-document test sets compared with the frozen base model alone.
General-domain ability is preserved in principle, since the base model's parameters are never updated, so users can attach and detach domain modules at will.
For legal and official documents, the plugin is trained entirely on pseudo-samples built from domain word lists, so no sentence-level error corpus is needed for a new domain.
The dual-prediction algorithm trades a second forward pass for fewer over-corrections, reverting characters whose two predictions disagree or whose conditional correction lacks confident neighbors.
The recipe is presented as compatible with any neural correction model that has an embedding layer, a feature extractor, and a correction head.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A test the paper does not run: whether the legal and official-document plugins, trained only on synthetic padded word pairs, correct real human errors beyond the EC test sets; this is the main open empirical question.
Because fusion is additive, an implicit prediction is that multiple domain plugins could be composed additively, and that out-of-domain terms will be left unchanged thanks to the random-padding training; both are worth checking explicitly.
The dual-prediction rule is a heuristic; a single-pass confidence threshold could achieve similar over-correction suppression at half the inference cost, and a comparison would show whether the second pass pays for itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Short version: this paper has a clean, plausible idea—freeze a BERT-based speller and bolt on a small adapter-like extension module trained on domain lexicons with confusion-set noise—and it reports 2–3x F1 gains on medical, legal, and official-document test sets. That is worth a look. But the experiments as reported don't actually show that the plugin module is what causes the gains, because the "+Plugin" condition appears to bundle in the dual-prediction post-processing heuristic from §3.2, and there is no ablation separating them. The stress-test note is right: the central claim is attributed to the plugin, yet the table doesn't isolate it.

What's genuinely new: the specific combination is not in the prior work I know. Using a frozen backbone with a side network trained on bare terms plus random padding is a reasonable recipe for domain adaptation when you have no in-domain sentences, and the idea that the extension should learn to leave unfamiliar characters alone is sensible. The dual-prediction change analysis is a modest heuristic, but at least it's explicit.

Where it falls short, in rough order of importance. First, the component attribution problem above—needs an ablation that runs plugin-without-dual-prediction and dual-prediction-without-plugin. Second, the MM-BERT baseline is never described; we don't know what it is, how it was trained, or whether it's a strong baseline. Third, the paper claims general-domain performance is preserved, but never measures it on any open-domain benchmark. That's a key part of the pitch and it's untested. Fourth, for legal and official-document domains the training signal is entirely synthetic, and there is no check against real error corpora or against fine-tuned or adapter-based baselines. Fifth, no error bars or significance tests; some of those F1 differences are large, but with small test sets like EC-LAW (2,460 sentences) a stability check would help. Sixth, no code or data. The writing also has placeholder text, duplicate references, and inconsistent figure references—needs a cleanup pass.

This is not a fatal flaw. The idea is worth engaging, and the results, if they hold up under proper isolation and baselines, would be useful to practitioners who need to adapt general spellers to specialized domains without retraining. It's a solid workshop-level paper that could become a solid conference paper after revision.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee can push for the ablations, general-domain numbers, and baseline documentation. I wouldn't cite it until the evaluation is tightened and ideally code/data are released.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a plugin-based extension module for domain-specific Chinese spelling correction. The base model's parameters are frozen, and an additional Transformer module is trained on domain terminology (with confusion-set corruption and random padding) to inject domain knowledge. A dual-prediction change analysis algorithm is also proposed to reduce over-correction. Experiments on medical, legal, and official-document datasets (MCSC-Test, EC-LAW, EC-Med, EC-ODW) report large F1 gains over a baseline called MM-BERT after adding the medical/legal/official-document plugin. The abstract and conclusion claim that general-domain spelling correction performance is preserved because the original model parameters are frozen.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the approach would be a practical and lightweight way to adapt existing Chinese spelling correction models to new domains without retraining the base model, and the use of public term dictionaries to generate training data would lower the annotation barrier. The paper deserves credit for a clean design idea: freezing the base model and training only an extension module is a sensible way to address catastrophic forgetting, and the reported gains on three domains are substantial. However, the current evidence does not isolate the plugin's contribution from the dual-prediction post-processing heuristic, the general-domain preservation claim is never directly measured, and the baseline and training data construction are insufficiently documented. The significance of the result therefore depends on additional experiments that the manuscript does not yet provide.

major comments (5)

[§4.2, Table 2] The central claim that the plugin extension module causes the 2–3× F1 gains is not supported because the '+Plugin' condition is never defined relative to the dual-prediction change analysis algorithm of §3.2. The table compares 'MM-BERT' with 'MM-BERT + Plugin' but does not state whether the dual-prediction post-processing (Algorithm 1) was applied in either condition, so the reported gains cannot be attributed to the extension module alone. An ablation with four conditions—base, base+plugin, base+dual-prediction, and base+plugin+dual-prediction—is required to establish the contribution of each component.
[§3.1, §4.2] The claim that general-domain performance is 'not compromised' is asserted but never measured. Although freezing the base parameters prevents direct modification of those weights, the forward pass changes from Y = O(BERT(E(X))) to Y' = O(BERT(E(X)) + P(E(X))), so the extension module can alter outputs on general-domain text as well. The paper should report detection and correction F1 on a general-domain benchmark such as SIGHAN or Wang271K, with and without each plugin, to substantiate the abstract's claim that the extension module does not compromise general spelling correction performance.
[§4.1, Table 1] For the legal and official-document domains, the extension module is trained only on pseudo datasets constructed by corrupting bare domain terms with confusion sets and padding them with random characters, and no evidence is provided that this synthetic signal transfers to real sentence-level errors. EC-LAW, EC-MED, and EC-ODW are test-only sets, so there is no validation set for early stopping or hyperparameter selection in those domains. The paper should report how these hyperparameters were chosen, and should compare against fine-tuning the base model or using adapter methods on the same training signal to justify the synthetic-data approach.
[§4.2, Table 2] The baseline 'MM-BERT' is not described, referenced, or defined anywhere in the manuscript, and no comparison is made with existing domain-adaptive Chinese spelling correction systems such as ECSpell on the EC datasets, MedSpell on MCSCSet, or standard adapter/PEFT baselines. Without a documented baseline and comparable systems, the absolute F1 numbers in Table 2 are difficult to interpret, and the claim that the proposed method outperforms existing approaches is not yet established.
[§4.2, Table 2] No error bars, significance tests, or multiple-run statistics are reported. Given that the EC-LAW and EC-ODW test sets contain only about 2,000–2,500 sentences and the gains differ substantially across domains, the paper should report variance across random seeds or bootstrap confidence intervals so that the reader can assess the stability of the observed improvements.

minor comments (6)

[§3] The text says the network architecture is shown in 'Figure 3-4', but only Figure 1 is provided for the architecture; the reference should be corrected to Figure 1.
[References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: [Jiang et al. 2022a] and [Jiang et al. 2022b] are the same paper, and [Lv et al. 2023a] and [Lv et al. 2023b] are the same paper; these should be merged.
[§4.1] The experimental setup does not report the number of extension module layers used in the experiments, the batch size, the number of training epochs, or the size of the pseudo datasets; these details are needed for reproducibility.
[§4.2] The definitions of the detection and correction metrics are not given; the paper should state whether the reported precision, recall, and F1 are computed at the character level, the word level, or the sentence level, and how the 'correct' prediction is counted.
[Algorithm 1] In the S4 condition, the check 'if Si = 4 and Si−1 != 3 and Si+1 != 3' uses undefined neighbor states S_−1 and S_{n+1} for boundary characters; the algorithm should specify boundary handling.
[§3.2] The description of the five change scenarios in the text and the algorithm's classification do not explicitly map the scenario 'A→B→C' to case S1; clarifying this mapping would make the method easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the plugin's training signal and held-out test sets are distinct, and no equation or citation reduces the claimed F1 gains to the training objective.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding a frozen-backbone extension module trained on corrupted domain terminology improves F1 on held-out domain test sets. This is not circular by construction: the training signal (Section 3.1) is synthetic, generated by confusion-set and random-character corruption of domain terms plus random character padding, while evaluation (Section 4.2) uses real, externally sourced test sets (MCSC-Test, EC-Law, EC-MED, EC-Odw). Equation 2 (Y' = O(BERT(E(X)) + P(E(X)))) adds a learned module P without any mathematical identity that forces the observed gains; the paper never defines the test metric in terms of the training labels. The dual-prediction change analysis (Section 3.2) is a hand-specified inference-time heuristic, not a parameter fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction; no equation equates its output to the training objective. I found no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The main weaknesses are missing ablations (the '+Plugin' rows may include dual-prediction, and general-domain performance is not measured), but those are experimental attribution and generalization concerns, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen training design choices (corruption ratios, padding, learning rate) and on unverified assumptions about frozen-model feature fusion and synthetic-data transfer. These are not hidden, but the paper gives no sensitivity analysis or direct tests, leaving the method's robustness unmeasured.

free parameters (5)

Confusion corruption ratios = 20% unchanged; of the corrupted 80%: 30% MASK, 50% similar character, 20% random character
These ratios (Section 3.1) are chosen by hand and directly shape the training data distribution for the extension module; no sensitivity analysis is given.
Random padding characters = unspecified
The paper says 'adds identical characters randomly before and after' but gives no count or distribution; this affects how well the module learns to ignore context and is a free design choice.
Learning rate and decay factor = lr_base = 5e-5, delta = 0.9
Standard hyperparameters in Equation 3, but the results depend on them and no tuning or alternative values are reported.
Dual-prediction S4 neighbor rule = Both neighbors must be classified as S3 for a correction to stand
This rule in Section 3.2 is a hand-designed decision boundary for over-correction and appears to be chosen based on intuition; no validation of alternative rules is given.
Number of extension module layers = 12 (adopts BERT architecture)
The paper states the module 'directly adopt[s] the 12-layer Transformer architecture of BERT' and says the number can be configured, but no ablation of depth is performed.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The frozen original model can effectively use features added by the extension module, even though the correction module is not updated during training.
Section 3.1 acknowledges this concern explicitly: 'If the upstream correction module is not updated, the training effectiveness of the extension module may be diminished.' The paper asserts that more iterations alleviate it but provides no experiments isolating this effect.
domain assumption Synthetic pseudo-sentences built from domain term lists and confusion sets generalize to real misspellings in full sentences.
The training data for legal and official-document modules is constructed entirely from lexicons (Section 4.1), so the method assumes that this artificial noise distribution matches real error patterns well enough to improve test performance.
domain assumption Oscillating predictions between two passes indicate over-correction, and the S4 neighbor rule correctly flags valid corrections.
The dual-prediction algorithm (Section 3.2) is built on this classification of prediction patterns; the paper provides no analysis or ablation demonstrating that oscillation is a reliable over-correction signal.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Research on Domain-Specific Chinese Spelling Correction Method Based on Plugin Extension Modules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IU4KGHUX

@misc{pith2026241109884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Research on Domain-Specific Chinese Spelling Correction Method Based on Plugin Extension Modules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IU4KGHUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09884}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a Chinese spelling correction method based on plugin extension modules, aimed at addressing the limitations of existing models in handling domain-specific texts. Traditional Chinese spelling correction models are typically trained on general-domain datasets, resulting in poor performance when encountering specialized terminology in domain-specific texts. To address this issue, we design an extension module that learns the features of domain-specific terminology, thereby enhancing the model's correction capabilities within specific domains. This extension module can provide domain knowledge to the model without compromising its general spelling correction performance, thus improving its accuracy in specialized fields. Experimental results demonstrate that after integrating extension modules for medical, legal, and official document domains, the model's correction performance is significantly improved compared to the baseline model without any extension modules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09884 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Dual-Prediction Change Analysis Algorithm Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

S pell GCN : Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for C hinese spelling check

Xingyi Cheng, Weidi Xu, Kunlong Chen, Shaohua Jiang, Feng Wang, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chu, and Yuan Qi. S pell GCN : Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for C hinese spelling check. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.81 2020
[2]

CSCD - NS : a C hinese spelling check dataset for native speakers

Yong Hu, Fandong Meng, and Jie Zhou. CSCD - NS : a C hinese spelling check dataset for native speakers. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 146--159, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. Association for Computational Lin...

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.10 2024
[4]

MCSCSet: A Specialist-annotated Dataset for Medical-domain Chinese Spelling Correction

Wangjie Jiang, Zhihao Ye, Zijing Ou, Ruihui Zhao, Jianguang Zheng, Yi Liu, Siheng Li, Bang Liu, Yujiu Yang, and Yefeng Zheng. Mcscset: A specialist-annotated dataset for medical-domain chinese spelling correction, 2022 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11720

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[5]

Exploration and exploitation: Two ways to improve C hinese spelling correction models

Chong Li, Cenyuan Zhang, Xiaoqing Zheng, and Xuanjing Huang. Exploration and exploitation: Two ways to improve C hinese spelling correction models. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli, editors, Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natur...

doi:10.18653/v 2021
[6]

The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for C hinese spell checking

Yinghui Li, Qingyu Zhou, Yangning Li, Zhongli Li, Ruiyang Liu, Rongyi Sun, Zizhen Wang, Chao Li, Yunbo Cao, and Hai-Tao Zheng. The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for C hinese spell checking. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors, Findings of the Association for Computatio...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.finding 2022
[8]

General and domain-adaptive chinese spelling check with error-consistent pretraining

Qi Lv, Ziqiang Cao, Lei Geng, Chunhui Ai, Xu Yan, and Guohong Fu. General and domain-adaptive chinese spelling check with error-consistent pretraining. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing, 22 0 (5): 0 1–18, May 2023 b . ISSN 2375-4702. doi:10.1145/3564271. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3564271

doi:10.1145/3564271 2023
[9]

An error-guided correction model for C hinese spelling error correction

Rui Sun, Xiuyu Wu, and Yunfang Wu. An error-guided correction model for C hinese spelling error correction. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 3800--3810, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.1...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.278 2022
[10]

Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for C hinese spelling check

Yuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Li-Ping Chang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for C hinese spelling check. In Liang-Chih Yu, Zhifang Sui, Yue Zhang, and Vincent Ng, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth SIGHAN Workshop on C hinese Language Processing , pages 32--37, Beijing, China, July 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/w15-3106 2015

Show all 12 references

[11]

A hybrid approach to automatic corpus generation for C hinese spelling check

Dingmin Wang, Yan Song, Jing Li, Jialong Han, and Haisong Zhang. A hybrid approach to automatic corpus generation for C hinese spelling check. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun ' ichi Tsujii, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Meth...

2018 doi
[12]

Chinese spelling error detection using a fusion lattice lstm, 2019

Hao Wang, Bing Wang, Jianyong Duan, and Jiajun Zhang. Chinese spelling error detection using a fusion lattice lstm, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.10750

2019 arXiv
[13]

Rethinking masked language modeling for C hinese spelling correction

Hongqiu Wu, Shaohua Zhang, Yuchen Zhang, and Hai Zhao. Rethinking masked language modeling for C hinese spelling correction. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

2023 doi
[14]

Sdcl: Self-distillation contrastive learning for chinese spell checking, 2022

Xiaotian Zhang, Hang Yan, Yu Sun, and Xipeng Qiu. Sdcl: Self-distillation contrastive learning for chinese spell checking, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17168

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S pell GCN : Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for C hinese spelling check

Xingyi Cheng, Weidi Xu, Kunlong Chen, Shaohua Jiang, Feng Wang, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chu, and Yuan Qi. S pell GCN : Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for C hinese spelling check. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.81 2020

[2] [2]

CSCD - NS : a C hinese spelling check dataset for native speakers

Yong Hu, Fandong Meng, and Jie Zhou. CSCD - NS : a C hinese spelling check dataset for native speakers. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 146--159, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. Association for Computational Lin...

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.10 2024

[3] [4]

MCSCSet: A Specialist-annotated Dataset for Medical-domain Chinese Spelling Correction

Wangjie Jiang, Zhihao Ye, Zijing Ou, Ruihui Zhao, Jianguang Zheng, Yi Liu, Siheng Li, Bang Liu, Yujiu Yang, and Yefeng Zheng. Mcscset: A specialist-annotated dataset for medical-domain chinese spelling correction, 2022 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11720

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[4] [5]

Exploration and exploitation: Two ways to improve C hinese spelling correction models

Chong Li, Cenyuan Zhang, Xiaoqing Zheng, and Xuanjing Huang. Exploration and exploitation: Two ways to improve C hinese spelling correction models. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli, editors, Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natur...

doi:10.18653/v 2021

[5] [6]

The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for C hinese spell checking

Yinghui Li, Qingyu Zhou, Yangning Li, Zhongli Li, Ruiyang Liu, Rongyi Sun, Zizhen Wang, Chao Li, Yunbo Cao, and Hai-Tao Zheng. The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for C hinese spell checking. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors, Findings of the Association for Computatio...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.finding 2022

[6] [8]

General and domain-adaptive chinese spelling check with error-consistent pretraining

Qi Lv, Ziqiang Cao, Lei Geng, Chunhui Ai, Xu Yan, and Guohong Fu. General and domain-adaptive chinese spelling check with error-consistent pretraining. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing, 22 0 (5): 0 1–18, May 2023 b . ISSN 2375-4702. doi:10.1145/3564271. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3564271

doi:10.1145/3564271 2023

[7] [9]

An error-guided correction model for C hinese spelling error correction

Rui Sun, Xiuyu Wu, and Yunfang Wu. An error-guided correction model for C hinese spelling error correction. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 3800--3810, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.1...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.278 2022

[8] [10]

Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for C hinese spelling check

Yuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Li-Ping Chang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for C hinese spelling check. In Liang-Chih Yu, Zhifang Sui, Yue Zhang, and Vincent Ng, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth SIGHAN Workshop on C hinese Language Processing , pages 32--37, Beijing, China, July 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/w15-3106 2015