The tasks of lexical complexity prediction (LCP) and complex word identification (CWI) commonly presuppose that difficult to understand words are shared by the target population. Meanwhile, personalization methods have also been proposed to adapt models to individual needs. We verify that a recent Japanese LCP dataset is representative of its target population by partially replicating the annotation. By another reannotation we show that native Chinese speakers perceive the complexity differently due to Sino-Japanese vocabulary. To explore the possibilities of personalization, we compare competitive baselines trained on the group mean ratings and individual ratings in terms of performance for an individual. We show that the model trained on a group mean performs similarly to an individual model in the CWI task, while achieving good LCP performance for an individual is difficult. We also experiment with adapting a finetuned BERT model, which results only in marginal improvements across all settings.

The overarching objective of this paper is two-fold. First, to explore model-based approaches to characterize the primary cause of the noise. in the RE dataset TACRED Second, to identify the potentially noisy instances. Towards the first objective, we analyze predictions and performance of state-of-the-art (SOTA) models to identify the root cause of noise in the dataset. Our analysis of TACRED shows that the majority of the noise in the dataset originates from the instances labeled as no-relation which are negative examples. For the second objective, we explore two nearest-neighbor-based strategies to automatically identify potentially noisy examples for elimination and reannotation. Our first strategy, referred to as Intrinsic Strategy (IS), is based on the assumption that positive examples are clean. Thus, we have used false-negative predictions to identify noisy negative examples. Whereas, our second approach, referred to as Extrinsic Strategy, is based on using a clean subset of the dataset to identify potentially noisy negative examples. Finally, we retrained the SOTA models on the eliminated and reannotated dataset. Our empirical results based on two SOTA models trained on TACRED-E following the IS show an average 4% F1-score improvement, whereas reannotation (TACRED-R) does not improve the original results. However, following ES, SOTA models show the average F1-score improvement of 3.8% and 4.4% when trained on respective eliminated (TACRED-EN) and reannotated (TACRED-RN) datasets respectively. We further extended the ES for cleaning positive examples as well, which resulted in an average performance improvement of 5.8% and 5.6% for the eliminated (TACRED-ENP) and reannotated (TACRED-RNP) datasets respectively.