All mixed up? Finding the optimal feature set for general readability prediction and its application to English and Dutch

Readability research has a long and rich tradition, but there has been too little focus on general readability prediction without targeting a specific audience or text genre. Moreover, though NLP-inspired research has focused on adding more complex readability features there is still no consensus on which features contribute most to the prediction. In this article, we investigate in close detail the feasibility of constructing a readability prediction system for English and Dutch generic text using supervised machine learning. Based on readability assessments by both experts and a crowd, we implement different types of text characteristics ranging from easy-to-compute superficial text characteristics to features requiring a deep linguistic processing, resulting in ten different feature groups. Both a regression and classification setup are investigated reflecting the two possible readability prediction tasks: scoring individual texts or comparing two texts. We show that going beyond correlation calculations for readability optimization using a wrapper-based genetic algorithm optimization approach is a promising task which provides considerable insights in which feature combinations contribute to the overall readability prediction. Since we also have gold standard information available for those features requiring deep processing we are able to investigate the true upper bound of our Dutch system. Interestingly, we will observe that the performance of our fully-automatic readability prediction pipeline is on par with the pipeline using golden deep syntactic and semantic information

An exploratory study into automated précis grading

Automated writing evaluation is a popular research field, but the main focus has been on evaluating argumentative essays. In this paper, we consider a different genre, namely précis texts. A précis is a written text that provides a coherent summary of main points of a spoken or written text. We present a corpus of English précis texts which all received a grade assigned by a highly-experienced English language teacher and were subsequently annotated following an exhaustive error typology. With this corpus we trained a machine learning model which relies on a number of linguistic, automatic summarization and AWE features. Our results reveal that this model is able to predict the grade of précis texts with only a moderate error margin

Exploring Automated Essay Scoring for Nonnative English Speakers

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) has been quite popular and is being widely used. However, lack of appropriate methodology for rating nonnative English speakers' essays has meant a lopsided advancement in this field. In this paper, we report initial results of our experiments with nonnative AES that learns from manual evaluation of nonnative essays. For this purpose, we conducted an exercise in which essays written by nonnative English speakers in test environment were rated both manually and by the automated system designed for the experiment. In the process, we experimented with a few features to learn about nuances linked to nonnative evaluation. The proposed methodology of automated essay evaluation has yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.750 with the manual evaluation.Comment: Accepted for publication at EUROPHRAS 201

Identifying the machine translation error types with the greatest impact on post-editing effort

Translation Environment Tools make translators' work easier by providing them with term lists, translation memories and machine translation output. Ideally, such tools automatically predict whether it is more effortful to post-edit than to translate from scratch, and determine whether or not to provide translators with machine translation output. Current machine translation quality estimation systems heavily rely on automatic metrics, even though they do not accurately capture actual post-editing effort. In addition, these systems do not take translator experience into account, even though novices' translation processes are different from those of professional translators. In this paper, we report on the impact of machine translation errors on various types of post-editing effort indicators, for professional translators as well as student translators. We compare the impact of MT quality on a product effort indicator (HTER) with that on various process effort indicators. The translation and post-editing process of student translators and professional translators was logged with a combination of keystroke logging and eye-tracking, and the MT output was analyzed with a fine-grained translation quality assessment approach. We find that most post-editing effort indicators (product as well as process) are influenced by machine translation quality, but that different error types affect different post-editing effort indicators, confirming that a more fine-grained MT quality analysis is needed to correctly estimate actual post-editing effort. Coherence, meaning shifts, and structural issues are shown to be good indicators of post-editing effort. The additional impact of experience on these interactions between MT quality and post-editing effort is smaller than expected

A Comparison of Nuggets and Clusters for Evaluating Timeline Summaries

There is growing interest in systems that generate timeline summaries by filtering high-volume streams of documents to retain only those that are relevant to a particular event or topic. Continued advances in algorithms and techniques for this task depend on standardized and reproducible evaluation methodologies for comparing systems. However, timeline summary evaluation is still in its infancy, with competing methodologies currently being explored in international evaluation forums such as TREC. One area of active exploration is how to explicitly represent the units of information that should appear in a 'good' summary. Currently, there are two main approaches, one based on identifying nuggets in an external 'ground truth', and the other based on clustering system outputs. In this paper, by building test collections that have both nugget and cluster annotations, we are able to compare these two approaches. Specifically, we address questions related to evaluation effort, differences in the final evaluation products, and correlations between scores and rankings generated by both approaches. We summarize advantages and disadvantages of nuggets and clusters to offer recommendations for future system evaluation