Don't Throw Those Morphological Analyzers Away Just Yet: Neural Morphological Disambiguation for Arabic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a model for Arabic morphological disambiguation based on Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). We train Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) cells in several configurations and embedding levels to model the various morphological features. Our experiments show that these models outperform state-of-theart systems without explicit use of feature engineering. However, adding learning features from a morphological analyzer to model the space of possible analyses provides additional improvement. We make use of the resulting morphological models for scoring and ranking the analyses of the morphological analyzer for morphological disambiguation. The results show significant gains in accuracy across several evaluation metrics. Our system results in 4.4% absolute increase over the state-of-the-art in full morphological analysis accuracy (30.6% relative error reduction), and 10.6% (31.5% relative error reduction) for out-of-vocabulary words.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it