Analyzing Traditional and Neural Approaches to Multilingual Readability Assessment

Unsupervised automatic readability assessment (ARA) methods have important practical and research applications (e.g., ensuring medical or educational materials are suitable for their target audiences). In this paper, we propose a new zero-shot prompting methodology for ARA and present the first comprehensive evaluation of using large language models (LLMs) as an unsupervised ARA method by testing 10 diverse open-source LLMs (e.g., different sizes and developers) on 14 diverse datasets (e.g., different text lengths and languages). Our findings show that our proposed prompting methodology outperforms prior methods on 13 of the 14 datasets. Furthermore, we propose LAURAE, which combines LLM and readability formula scores to improve robustness by capturing both contextual and shallow (e.g., sentence length) features of readability. Our evaluation demonstrates that LAURAE robustly outperforms prior methods across languages, text lengths, and amounts of technical language.

Readability assessment is essential for tailoring texts to intended audiences across educational, healthcare, and information retrieval domains. However, traditional readability formulas struggle to generalize across genres and languages, while supervised machine learning models rely on scarce, domain-specific annotated corpora, limiting their applicability--particularly for less-resourced languages. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a highly scalable, multilingual alternative that requires no task-specific training, yet the impact of advanced prompting strategies on their performance remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic benchmark of diverse open-source LLMs for multilingual readability assessment, focusing on the prediction of discrete readability levels required by educational frameworks. In addition to English, we evaluate our approach on a less-resourced language, Slovenian, to establish whether LLMs remain effective in low-resource settings. Specifically, we investigate the influence of explicit reasoning, demonstrating that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and reasoning-oriented models yield significant improvements over direct answering. Furthermore, our exploration of few-shot in-context learning reveals that providing just one labelled example per category (1-shot) substantially enhances prediction quality compared to zero-shot settings, with additional examples offering diminishing returns. By comprehensively comparing these approaches against traditional unsupervised metrics and state-of-the-art supervised baselines, we establish the viability of out-of-the-box LLMs as robust, cross-lingual readability assessors.

Transformer language models have become established tools for modeling human sentence processing, with measures such as surprisal and attention entropy serving as effective predictors of reading difficulty that together capture complementary aspects of processing load. Here, we explore a related class of transformer models: energy-based transformers, which provide a principled formal link to associative memory models, bringing processing research into direct contact with the broader literature on Hopfield networks and dense associative memory. To our knowledge, this is the first exploration of an energy-based transformer measure in computational psycholinguistics. Across reading-time corpora (Natural Stories, UCL eye-tracking, UCL self-paced reading), the energy measure is a robust predictor of reading times, providing significant fit beyond surprisal and entropy in all three. In a controlled experiment on relative clause processing, energy at a single layer captures the well-known object/subject asymmetry. We find evidence that it subsumes effects attributable to both attention entropy and surprisal, suggesting that energy may serve as a single unified predictor where multiple complementary measures have previously been required.