You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
This study explores the necessity of performing cross-corpora evaluation for grammatical error correction (GEC) models. GEC models have been previously evaluated based on a single commonly applied corpus: the CoNLL-2014 benchmark. However, the evaluation remains incomplete because the task difficulty varies depending on the test corpus and conditions such as the proficiency levels of the writers and essay topics. To overcome this limitation, we evaluate the performance of several GEC models, including NMT-based (LSTM, CNN, and transformer) and an SMT-based model, against various learner corpora (CoNLL-2013, CoNLL-2014, FCE, JFLEG, ICNALE, and KJ). Evaluation results reveal that the models' rankings considerably vary depending on the corpus, indicating that single-corpus evaluation is insufficient for GEC models.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ writings contain various grammatical errors. Previous research on automatic error correction for ESL learners’ grammatical errors deals with restricted types of learners’ errors. Some types of errors can be corrected by rules using heuristics, while others are difficult to correct without statistical models using native corpora and or learner corpora. Since adding error annotation to learners’ text is time-consuming, it was not until recently that large scale learner corpora became publicly available. However, little is known about the effect of learner corpus size in ESL grammatical error correction. Thus, in this paper, we investigate the effect of learner corpus size on various types of grammatical errors, using an error correction system based on phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) trained on a large scale errortagged learner corpus. We show that the phrase-based SMT approach is effective in correcting frequent errors that can be identified by local context, and that it is difficult for phrase-based SMT to correct errors that need long range contextual information.

[2]: Neural sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) approaches have proven to be successful in grammatical error correction (GEC). Based on the seq2seq framework, we propose a novel fluency boost learning and inference mechanism. Fluency boosting learning generates diverse error-corrected sentence pairs during training, enabling the error correction model to learn how to improve a sentence's fluency from more instances, while fluency boosting inference allows the model to correct a sentence incrementally with multiple inference steps. Combining fluency boost learning and inference with convolutional seq2seq models, our approach achieves the state-of-the-art performance: 75.72 (F_ 0.5 ) on CoNLL-2014 10 annotation dataset and 62.42 (GLEU) on JFLEG test set respectively, becoming the first GEC system that reaches human-level performance (72.58 for CoNLL and 62.37 for JFLEG) on both of the benchmarks.

[3]: We improve automatic correction of grammatical, orthographic, and collocation errors in text using a multilayer convolutional encoder-decoder neural network. The network is initialized with embeddings that make use of character N-gram information to better suit this task. When evaluated on common benchmark test data sets (CoNLL-2014 and JFLEG), our model substantially outperforms all prior neural approaches on this task as well as strong statistical machine translation-based systems with neural and task-specific features trained on the same data. Our analysis shows the superiority of convolutional neural networks over recurrent neural networks such as long short-term memory (LSTM) networks in capturing the local context via attention, and thereby improving the coverage in correcting grammatical errors. By ensembling multiple models, and incorporating an N-gram language model and edit features via rescoring, our novel method becomes the first neural approach to outperform the current state-of-the-art statistical machine translation-based approach, both in terms of grammaticality and fluency.

[4]: Previously, neural methods in grammatical error correction (GEC) did not reach state-of-the-art results compared to phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) baselines. We demonstrate parallels between neural GEC and low-resource neural MT and successfully adapt several methods from low-resource MT to neural GEC. We further establish guidelines for trustable results in neural GEC and propose a set of model-independent methods for neural GEC that can be easily applied in most GEC settings. Proposed methods include adding source-side noise, domain-adaptation techniques, a GEC-specific training-objective, transfer learning with monolingual data, and ensembling of independently trained GEC models and language models. The combined effects of these methods result in better than state-of-the-art neural GEC models that outperform previously best neural GEC systems by more than 10 M @math on the CoNLL-2014 benchmark and 5.9 on the JFLEG test set. Non-neural state-of-the-art systems are outperformed by more than 2 on the CoNLL-2014 benchmark and by 4 on JFLEG.

[5]: 

[6]: We propose a neural encoder-decoder model with reinforcement learning (NRL) for grammatical error correction (GEC). Unlike conventional maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the model directly optimizes towards an objective that considers a sentence-level, task-specific evaluation metric, avoiding the exposure bias issue in MLE. We demonstrate that NRL outperforms MLE both in human and automated evaluation metrics, achieving the state-of-the-art on a fluency-oriented GEC corpus.
Other corpora are used for evaluation, such as KJ [1] and JFLEG [3]0 [4] [3] [2] [3]9 . However, these corpora still depend on one or at most two corpora.