Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Robsut Wrod Reocginiton via semi-Character Recurrent Neural Network

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 1608.02214 v2 pith:JYDEID6S submitted 2016-08-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords wordcmabrigdemodelnetworkneuralrecognitionrobustspelling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Language processing mechanism by humans is generally more robust than computers. The Cmabrigde Uinervtisy (Cambridge University) effect from the psycholinguistics literature has demonstrated such a robust word processing mechanism, where jumbled words (e.g. Cmabrigde / Cambridge) are recognized with little cost. On the other hand, computational models for word recognition (e.g. spelling checkers) perform poorly on data with such noise. Inspired by the findings from the Cmabrigde Uinervtisy effect, we propose a word recognition model based on a semi-character level recurrent neural network (scRNN). In our experiments, we demonstrate that scRNN has significantly more robust performance in word spelling correction (i.e. word recognition) compared to existing spelling checkers and character-based convolutional neural network. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the model is cognitively plausible by replicating a psycholinguistics experiment about human reading difficulty using our model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On-Device Text Representations Robust To Misspellings via Projections

    cs.CL 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LSH projection classifiers lose only 2.94% average accuracy under misspelling attacks, far less than BERT or BiLSTM baselines.

Pith tools