Trends, Limitations and Open Challenges in Automatic Readability Assessment Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00973v1
• Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 16:18:42 GMT
• Title: Trends, Limitations and Open Challenges in Automatic Readability Assessment Research
• Authors: Sowmya Vajjala
• Abstract summary: This article is a survey of contemporary research on developing computational models for readability assessment. We identify the common approaches, discuss their shortcomings, and identify some challenges for the future.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Readability assessment is the task of evaluating the reading difficulty of a given piece of text. Although research on computational approaches to readability assessment is now two decades old, there is not much work on synthesizing this research. This article is a brief survey of contemporary research on developing computational models for readability assessment. We identify the common approaches, discuss their shortcomings, and identify some challenges for the future. Where possible, we also connect computational research with insights from related work in other disciplines such as education and psychology.

Related papers

• Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks [18.613353004764885]
  This study reveals novel insights into the limitations of existing methods.<n>We propose a refined set of evaluation standards, including inspection of reasoning paths, diversified assessment metrics, and comparative analyses with human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T15:17:34Z)
• Tinkering Against Scaling [15.060264126253212]
  We propose a "tinkering" approach that is inspired by existing works. This method involves engaging with smaller models or components that are manageable for ordinary researchers. We argue that tinkering is both a way of making and knowing for computational social science and a way of knowing for critical studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T09:21:39Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Systematic Literature Review on Vehicular Collaborative Perception -- A Computer Vision Perspective [2.7251914328668314]
  Collaborative Perception (CP) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate these issues. This study follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and includes 106 peer-reviewed articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T21:56:04Z)
• A Survey of Stance Detection on Social Media: New Directions and Perspectives [50.27382951812502]
  stance detection has emerged as a crucial subfield within affective computing. Recent years have seen a surge of research interest in developing effective stance detection methods. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of stance detection techniques on social media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T03:06:25Z)
• STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond [68.47402386668846]
  We introduce Structured Reasoning In Critical Text Assessment (STRICTA) to model text assessment as an explicit, step-wise reasoning process.<n>STRICTA breaks down the assessment into a graph of interconnected reasoning steps drawing on causality theory.<n>We apply STRICTA to a dataset of over 4000 reasoning steps from roughly 40 biomedical experts on more than 20 papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T06:55:37Z)
• Opening the Black-Box: A Systematic Review on Explainable AI in Remote Sensing [51.524108608250074]
  Black-box machine learning approaches have become a dominant modeling paradigm for knowledge extraction in remote sensing. We perform a systematic review to identify the key trends in the field and shed light on novel explainable AI approaches. We also give a detailed outlook on the challenges and promising research directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T13:19:58Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• The Compute Divide in Machine Learning: A Threat to Academic Contribution and Scrutiny? [1.0985060632689174]
  We show that a compute divide has coincided with a reduced representation of academic-only research teams in compute intensive research topics. To address the challenges arising from this trend, we recommend approaches aimed at thoughtfully expanding academic insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T01:26:11Z)
• Reviewer assignment problem: A scoping review [0.0]
  The quality of peer review depends on the ability to recruit adequate reviewers for submitted papers. Finding such reviewers is an increasingly difficult task due to several factors. Solutions for automated association of papers with "well matching" reviewers have been the subject of research for thirty years now.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-13T10:13:43Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Research Trends and Applications of Data Augmentation Algorithms [77.34726150561087]
  We identify the main areas of application of data augmentation algorithms, the types of algorithms used, significant research trends, their progression over time and research gaps in data augmentation literature. We expect readers to understand the potential of data augmentation, as well as identify future research directions and open questions within data augmentation research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T11:38:32Z)
• Automatic Related Work Generation: A Meta Study [5.025654873456755]
  In natural language processing, a literature review is usually conducted under the "Related Work" section. The task of automatic related work generation aims to automatically generate the "Related Work" section. We conduct a meta-study to compare the existing literature on related work generation from the perspectives of problem formulation, dataset collection, methodological approach, performance evaluation, and future prospects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-06T01:16:38Z)
• Evaluation of mathematical questioning strategies using data collected through weak supervision [1.794107419334178]
  This paper presents a high-fidelity, AI-based classroom simulator to help teachers rehearse research-based mathematical questioning skills. Using a human-in-the-loop approach, we collected a high-quality training dataset for a mathematical questioning scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T05:12:36Z)
• Deep Learning Schema-based Event Extraction: Literature Review and Current Trends [60.29289298349322]
  Event extraction technology based on deep learning has become a research hotspot. This paper fills the gap by reviewing the state-of-the-art approaches, focusing on deep learning-based models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T16:32:45Z)
• On how Cognitive Computing will plan your next Systematic Review [3.0816257225447763]
  We report on the insights from 24 SLR authors on planning practices, its challenges and feedback on support strategies. We frame our findings under the cognitive augmentation framework, and report on a prototype implementation and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T09:56:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.