Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Text Difficulty Study: Do machines behave the same as humans regarding text difficulty?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2208.14509 v1 pith:WVDNRFVS submitted 2022-08-14 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords difficultytexteasyharddatalearningmodelwhereas
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Given a task, human learns from easy to hard, whereas the model learns randomly. Undeniably, difficulty insensitive learning leads to great success in NLP, but little attention has been paid to the effect of text difficulty in NLP. In this research, we propose the Human Learning Matching Index (HLM Index) to investigate the effect of text difficulty. Experiment results show: (1) LSTM has more human-like learning behavior than BERT. (2) UID-SuperLinear gives the best evaluation of text difficulty among four text difficulty criteria. (3) Among nine tasks, some tasks' performance is related to text difficulty, whereas some are not. (4) Model trained on easy data performs best in easy and medium data, whereas trains on a hard level only perform well on hard data. (5) Training the model from easy to hard leads to fast convergence.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools