Deep Models for Arabic Dialect Identification on Benchmarked Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arabic Online Commentary (AOC) (Zaidan and Callison-Burch, 2011) is a large-scale repos-itory of Arabic dialects with manual labels for4varieties of the language. Existing dialect iden-tification models exploiting the dataset pre-date the recent boost deep learning brought to NLPand hence the data are not benchmarked for use with deep learning, nor is it clear how much neural networks can help tease the categories in the data apart. We treat these two limitations:We (1) benchmark the data, and (2) empirically test6different deep learning methods on thetask, comparing peformance to several classical machine learning models under different condi-tions (i.e., both binary and multi-way classification). Our experimental results show that variantsof (attention-based) bidirectional recurrent neural networks achieve best accuracy (acc) on thetask, significantly outperforming all competitive baselines. On blind test data, our models reach87.65%acc on the binary task (MSA vs. dialects),87.4%acc on the 3-way dialect task (Egyptianvs. Gulf vs. Levantine), and82.45%acc on the 4-way variants task (MSA vs. Egyptian vs. Gulfvs. Levantine). We release our benchmark for future work on the dataset
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".