Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question] Does "Disperse siblings" change the interval or the value of S? #439

Closed
3 tasks done
Expertium opened this issue Aug 21, 2023 · 15 comments
Closed
3 tasks done
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator

Research

Enter an [x] character to confirm the points below:

  • I have checked the FAQ and could not find an answer to my question
  • I have read the wiki and still felt confused
  • I have searched for similar existing questions here

Question
When a sibling gets dispersed, does it affect the interval without affecting S? If that's so, then I think it should be changed. I believe that seeing a sibling increases the stability of all related cards, hence the value of S must be changed, not just the interval length.

@Expertium Expertium added the question Further information is requested label Aug 21, 2023
@L-M-Sherlock
Copy link
Member

It's pretty hard to quantity the effect of seeing a sibling on other related cards.

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I know, but I still think that changing S makes more sense than only changing the interval.

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Now that I think about it, it would make rescheduling really complicated because the add-on would have to go not just through the card's own history but through the histories of all of its siblings too.

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

filipenanclarez commented Sep 15, 2023

My data have 6 cards for each word ... I've already share with @L-M-Sherlock

I think this decks is useful to help this. This improvement is much relevant for languages learners ...

Also this data have many post-due study history.

My cards, in the front side, have:

1 - Word in target language
2 - Audio in target language
3 - Word in native language
4 - Sentence with this word in target language
5 - Audio of sentence in target language
6 - Sentence in native language

This is the reason behind open-spaced-repetition/fsrs4anki-helper#232 to know retention by notes.

Maybe, the relationship between itens is the key for #352

The relationship between itens can affect D or make a new component of memory: The Quality of Item

The Quality of item can be 'how many connections this item have in the memory'. We know if the information have context, this is more easy to remember. This is why we need create a good flashcards with images, sounds etc.

Unlike SuperMemo, Anki have this amazing feature called 'sibling'. We make a note, and Anki create many cards related. This is a good way to say 'this item is related to this another one'. And maybe we can use this to bypass the 'improve D' challenge.

Just an "out of the box" idea to help

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The Quality of item can be 'how many connections this item have in the memory'.

How would we quantify it though? I can't think of any way to put a number on it.

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

The Quality of item can be 'how many connections this item have in the memory'.

How would we quantify it though? I can't think of any way to put a number on it.

Every time you answer a sibling, you is saying to system, the relationship between them. This is connections measure. The R or S or D between them maybe a new variable in this equation.

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Well, maybe in the future we'll try to take siblings into account when calculating S.

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Expertium commented Nov 22, 2023

@L-M-Sherlock if you don't plan to include a new variable and/or parameter to account for the effect of reviewing a sibling, you can close this issue. I assume taking that into account would require completely changing the optimizer, since it will have to go not only through the history of the card itself (like right now) but also through the history of all of its siblings in order to calculate DSR values.

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

@L-M-Sherlock if you don't plan to include a new variable and/or parameter to account for the effect of reviewing a sibling, you can close this issue. I assume taking that into account would require completely changing the optimizer, since it will have to go not only through the history of the card itself (liek right now) but also through the history of all of its siblings in order to calculate DSR values.

I think this is a important issue.

Now days, i'm in a like Easy Hell problem with my decks. More than 1000 reviews to do. This deck only use FSRS.

I don't know how can optimize this, but siblings is the most reasonable way to me.

@Expertium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Does every single one of your cards have multiple siblings? Because otherwise I doubt that it would be that much of an issue.

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

Does every single one of your cards have multiple siblings? Because otherwise I doubt that it would be that much of an issue.

Yes, every single card have 8 siblings 😣

@L-M-Sherlock
Copy link
Member

L-M-Sherlock commented Nov 23, 2023

Yes, every single card have 8 siblings 😣

Could you share some contents of them?

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

Yes, every single card have 8 siblings 😣

Could you share some contents of them?

Yes, off course ...

Here the all deck, with all the revision history:

HSK2021-issue-439.zip

@filipenanclarez
Copy link

@L-M-Sherlock you made any change about this? Or close because we have no solution at this point?

@L-M-Sherlock
Copy link
Member

I close this issue because I haven't any solution at this point. And the current architecture of FSRS doesn't support updating siblings' stability.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants