Towards an improved methodology for automated readability prediction

Since the first half of the 20th century, readability formulas have been widely employed to automatically predict the readability of an unseen text. In this article, the formulas and the text characteristics they are composed of are evaluated in the context of large Dutch and English corpora. We describe the behaviour of the formulas and the text characteristics by means of correlation matrices and a principal component analysis, and test the methodological validity of the formulas by means of collinearity tests. Both the correlation matrices and the principal component analysis show that the formulas described in this paper strongly correspond, regardless of the language for which they were designed. Furthermore, the collinearity test reveals shortcomings in the methodology that was used to create some of the existing readability formulas. All of this leads us to conclude that a new readability prediction method is needed. We finally make suggestions to come to a cleaner methodology and present web applications that will help us collect data to compile a new gold standard for readability prediction

A Retrospective Analysis of the Fake News Challenge Stance Detection Task

The 2017 Fake News Challenge Stage 1 (FNC-1) shared task addressed a stance classification task as a crucial first step towards detecting fake news. To date, there is no in-depth analysis paper to critically discuss FNC-1's experimental setup, reproduce the results, and draw conclusions for next-generation stance classification methods. In this paper, we provide such an in-depth analysis for the three top-performing systems. We first find that FNC-1's proposed evaluation metric favors the majority class, which can be easily classified, and thus overestimates the true discriminative power of the methods. Therefore, we propose a new F1-based metric yielding a changed system ranking. Next, we compare the features and architectures used, which leads to a novel feature-rich stacked LSTM model that performs on par with the best systems, but is superior in predicting minority classes. To understand the methods' ability to generalize, we derive a new dataset and perform both in-domain and cross-domain experiments. Our qualitative and quantitative study helps interpreting the original FNC-1 scores and understand which features help improving performance and why. Our new dataset and all source code used during the reproduction study are publicly available for future research

A posteriori agreement as a quality measure for readability prediction systems

All readability research is ultimately concerned with the research question whether it is possible for a prediction system to automatically determine the level of readability of an unseen text. A significant problem for such a system is that readability might depend in part on the reader. If different readers assess the readability of texts in fundamentally different ways, there is insufficient a priori agreement to justify the correctness of a readability prediction system based on the texts assessed by those readers. We built a data set of readability assessments by expert readers. We clustered the experts into groups with greater a priori agreement and then measured for each group whether classifiers trained only on data from this group exhibited a classification bias. As this was found to be the case, the classification mechanism cannot be unproblematically generalized to a different user group

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

Translationese and post-editese : how comparable is comparable quality?

Whereas post-edited texts have been shown to be either of comparable quality to human translations or better, one study shows that people still seem to prefer human-translated texts. The idea of texts being inherently different despite being of high quality is not new. Translated texts, for example,are also different from original texts, a phenomenon referred to as ‘Translationese’. Research into Translationese has shown that, whereas humans cannot distinguish between translated and original text,computers have been trained to detect Translationesesuccessfully. It remains to be seen whether the same can be done for what we call Post-editese. We first establish whether humans are capable of distinguishing post-edited texts from human translations, and then establish whether it is possible to build a supervised machine-learning model that can distinguish between translated and post-edited text

Closing the loop: assisting archival appraisal and information retrieval in one sweep

In this article, we examine the similarities between the concept of appraisal, a process that takes place within the archives, and the concept of relevance judgement, a process fundamental to the evaluation of information retrieval systems. More specifically, we revisit selection criteria proposed as result of archival research, and work within the digital curation communities, and, compare them to relevance criteria as discussed within information retrieval's literature based discovery. We illustrate how closely these criteria relate to each other and discuss how understanding the relationships between the these disciplines could form a basis for proposing automated selection for archival processes and initiating multi-objective learning with respect to information retrieval