Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

This study exposes a critical limitation in current text readability metrics by demonstrating that traditional formulas and even frontier LLMs fail to predict real-time reading ease compared to psycholinguistic word properties. By leveraging eye-tracking data, the research provides an objective behavioral benchmark that challenges existing NLP-based methods across various languages and user groups. The findings call for a shift toward cognitively driven evaluation frameworks in both academic research and commercial applications like education technology.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, Databricks
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Eye Tracking Based Cognitive Evaluation of Automatic Readability Assessment Methods

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2502.11150v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automatic methods for scoring text readability have been studied for over a century, and are widely used in research and in user-facing applications in many domains. Thus far, the development and evaluation of such methods have primarily relied on two types of offline human behavioral data, performance on reading comprehension tests and ratings of text readability levels. In this work, we instead focus on a fundamental and understudied aspect of readability, real-time reading ease, captured with online reading measures using eye tracking. We introduce a new cognitive evaluation framework for readability scoring methods that quantifies their ability to account for reading ease, while controlling for content variation across texts. Applying this evaluation to prominent traditional readability formulas, NLP-based methods, commercial systems used in education, and frontier LLMs suggests that they are all poor predictors of English reading ease in adults as compared to word properties commonly used in psycholinguistics for the prediction of reading times. This outcome holds across L1 and L2 speakers, different reading regimes, and textual units of different lengths. Our results reveal an important limitation of a wide range of methods for readability scoring, highlight the utility of real-time behavioral benchmarks for readability research, and call for new, cognitively driven readability scoring approaches that can better account for how humans experience texts in real time.

Abstract:Automatic methods for scoring text readability have been studied for over a century, and are widely used in research and in user-facing applications in many domains. Thus far, the development and evaluation of such methods have primarily relied on two types of offline human behavioral data, performance on reading comprehension tests and ratings of text readability levels. In this work, we instead focus on a fundamental and understudied aspect of readability, real-time reading ease, captured with online reading measures using eye tracking. We introduce a new cognitive evaluation framework for readability scoring methods that quantifies their ability to account for reading ease, while controlling for content variation across texts. Applying this evaluation to prominent traditional readability formulas, NLP-based methods, commercial systems used in education, and frontier LLMs suggests that they are all poor predictors of English reading ease in adults as compared to word properties commonly used in psycholinguistics for the prediction of reading times. This outcome holds across L1 and L2 speakers, different reading regimes, and textual units of different lengths. Our results reveal an important limitation of a wide range of methods for readability scoring, highlight the utility of real-time behavioral benchmarks for readability research, and call for new, cognitively driven readability scoring approaches that can better account for how humans experience texts in real time.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2502.11150 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2502.11150v5 [cs.CL] for this version)

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 230 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe