Quantifying memorization progress #22
Replies: 3 comments 5 replies
-
I'm not sure if showing the user a measure of "mastery" is a good idea to begin with. FSRS is already quite complex, stability and retrievability are confusing for a lot of people. I would say that stability itself is a good measure of mastery. Also, it's technically bounded: in FSRS, the upper limit is 36500 days aka 100 years; though I'd argue that 10 years is already mastery. I don't doubt that it's possible to come up with a clever metric that uses clever math, I doubt that most users' reaction would be anything other than "Oh, it's another mysterious FSRS number, whatever". Btw, while this isn't what you're looking for, there is a metric that can be compared across different people: knowledge acquisition rate. Install the Helper add-on and Shift + Left Mouse Click on Stats to find it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Late to this conversation, but I think that trying to find a reasonable-ish way to quantify memory progress in a way that learners feel that they understand is very important. I specifically work in the field of "immersion learning" and one of the biggest pain points of immersion learners is feeling like they're not making progress, so finding a way to show them that they actually are making progress is super duper important. It was actually a funny realization I had about a year ago, but it was that one of the primary functions of anki for an immersion learner is gamification. They get to see their numbers go up, they get to graduate cards and they can even get some pretty graphs. Without that, they feel like they're not making progress. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Here is a repo you may be interested in: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hey, what would be the best way to quantify the progress in order to tell the user something like "Your mastery of this card is x%"?
At first I thought the retrievability$R$ would be a good candidate because $0 \leq R \leq 1$ . But even though it's a good value to turn into a percentage due to its normalized nature, it doesn't accurately reflect the "mastery" of the card, since the recall will always be high shortly after a review session.
I then thought that$S$ could be a good value to use, but it's not bounded or normalized in any sensible way that would make it suitable for quantifying the learning progress.
For lack of a better option, I was calculating the "mastery" value as$M = \frac{\max(S, 365)}{365}$ and assuming that $S \geq 365 \implies R > 0.9$ is good enough to qualify as having mastered the card, even though it's not technically correct.
I've now switched to calculating mastery as
retrievability(for date: now + 1 year)
(pseudocode), since the numbers seem more sensible to me than the previousstability
method, but it still suffers from some of the same issues.Since it's quite important to show the user a sensible approximation of their progress for the sake of motivation, it would be great to know how to best approach this.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions