NADI 2023: The Fourth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the findings of the fourth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task (NADI 2023). The objective of NADI is to help advance state-of-the-art Arabic NLP by creating opportunities for teams of researchers to collaboratively compete under standardized conditions. It does so with a focus on Arabic dialects, offering novel datasets and defining subtasks that allow for meaningful comparisons between different approaches. NADI 2023 targeted both dialect identification (Subtask1) and dialect-to-MSA machine translation (Subtask 2 and Subtask 3). A total of 58 unique teams registered for the shared task, of whom 18 teams have participated (with 76 valid submissions during test phase). Among these, 16 teams participated in Subtask 1, 5 participated in Subtask 2, and 3 participated in Subtask 3. The winning teams achieved 87.27 F1 on Subtask 1, 14.76 Bleu in Subtask 2, and 21.10 Bleu in Subtask 3, respectively. Results show that all three subtasks remain challenging, thereby motivating future work in this area. We describe the methods employed by the participating teams and briefly offer an outlook for NADI.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".