Sakura at BEA 2026 Shared Task 1: What Makes Vocabulary Difficult?

This paper describes UOL@IDEM's closed-track submission to the BEA 2026 shared task on L1-aware vocabulary difficulty prediction. We model the task as regression and train separate systems for Spanish, German, and Mandarin Chinese\footnote{Below we use \emph{Chinese} for brevity.}. Our system combines multilingual contextual representations with engineered features capturing frequency, surface form, retrieval evidence, semantic alignment, cognate similarity, and masked-language-model predictability. Development results show consistent gains over the official closed-track baselines, with sentence-embedding encoders such as BGE-M3, multilingual E5, and LaBSE performing best. Official submissions achieve RMSE scores of 1.132, 1.037, and 0.891 for Spanish, German, and Chinese, respectively. Feature analysis identifies frequency as the most stable predictor, while contextual predictability, form similarity, retrieval, and semantic features provide complementary L1-sensitive signals. Error analysis shows strong ranking performance but weaker calibration for the easiest items, which are often overpredicted. See https://github.com/Nouran-Khallaf/UoL-IDEM-BEA2026-Vocabulary-Difficulty-Prediction

What makes a word difficult to learn, and how does the difficulty depend on the learner's native language? We computationally model vocabulary difficulty for English learners whose first language is Spanish, German, or Chinese with gradient-boosted models trained on features related to a word's familiarity (e.g., frequency), meaning, surface form, and cross-linguistic transfer. Using Shapley values, we determine the importance of each feature group. Word familiarity is the dominant feature group shared by all three languages. However, predictions for Spanish- and German-speaking learners rely additionally on orthographic transfer. This transfer mechanism is unavailable to Chinese learners, whose difficulty is shaped by a combination of familiarity and surface features alone. Our models provide interpretable, L1-tailored difficulty estimates that can be used to design vocabulary curricula.

Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the cognitive processes that make items difficult. We argue that difficulty should be viewed not only as a property of item text, but also as an observable consequence of the problem-solving burden an item induces. Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) offer scalable process evidence through reasoning traces, but such evidence must be structured to support interpretable modeling. To this end, we introduce Epi2Diff (Episode to Difficulty), a framework that maps LRM reasoning traces into cognitively grounded episode sequences. These episodes group trace segments into functional problem-solving states, enabling difficulty to be modeled through reasoning scale, effort allocation, and state transitions. Epi2Diff extracts compact episode-dynamic features and combines them with semantic item representations for human difficulty prediction. Experiments on four real-world human difficulty datasets show that Epi2Diff consistently outperforms strong baselines, including fine-tuned small language models, LLM in-context learning, and supervised LLM adaptation. On SAT-derived classification benchmarks, Epi2Diff achieves an 8.1% average relative gain over supervised LLM fine-tuning baselines. Further analyses show that harder items induce more effortful, iterative, and implementation-centered episode dynamics, rather than merely longer responses. These results demonstrate that cognitive episodes in LRM reasoning traces provide a predictive and interpretable process representation for human item difficulty, offering a new lens for educational measurement with reasoning models.