Flesch-Kincaid Readability Depends Only on the Topic Distribution in Long Texts under Topic Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) are widely used readability scores for English computed from the same two document statistics, yet their stability on long documents need not imply invariance to lexical composition. Surprisingly, under a topic model with an explicit sentence-boundary token, both scores converge almost surely to deterministic functions of the document topic distribution through just two scalar rates: in the long-text limit, all score variation is mediated by topical composition rather than any residual readability signal. The theory covers both formulae, while the experiments evaluate FKGL. In a fixed admixture with rank[1, q, s] = 3, fibres through interior topic vectors are locally (K-3)-dimensional, whereas regular iso-score level sets are locally (K-2)-dimensional and curved. In out-of-fold evaluation on two balanced corpora, Brown and the written BNC, a topic vector inferred from one document half's content words predicts the other half's FKGL at r = 0.779 and 0.884, respectively. On Brown, adding the topic prediction to genre and mean content-word syllable count yields Delta R2 = 0.002, with a confidence interval spanning zero; on the BNC, the corresponding split-half increment is 0.024, positive in four of five K = 100 fits (median 0.021). Because inferred topics may also absorb genre, register, and style, we do not interpret these results as evidence about human readability or causal effects.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
12 of 47 references.
References · 12
- 2013Auto-Encoding Variational Bayescited by 4,053
- 2019Topic Modeling in Embedding Spacescited by 224
- 2017Autoencoding Variational Inference For Topic Modelscited by 169
- 2015Neural Variational Inference for Text Processingcited by 111
- 2019Text Readability Assessment for Second Language Learnerscited by 54
- 2019Supervised and Unsupervised Neural Approaches to Text Readabilitycited by 46
- 2021Pushing on Text Readability Assessment: A Transformer Meets Handcrafted Linguistic Featurescited by 36
- 2023BLESS: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Sentence Simplificationcited by 35
- 2021Trends, Limitations and Open Challenges in Automatic Readability Assessment Researchcited by 28
- 2023Flesch or Fumble? Evaluating Readability Standard Alignment of Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 17
- 2025Evaluating the Evaluators: Are readability metrics good measures of readability?cited by 6
- 2025Readability Reconsidered: A Cross-Dataset Analysis of Reference-Free Metricscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.