Fumbling in Babel: An Investigation into ChatGPT’s Language Identification Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ChatGPT has recently emerged as a powerful NLP tool that can carry out a variety of tasks. However, the range of languages ChatGPT can handle remains largely a mystery. To uncover which languages ChatGPT 'knows', we investigate its language identification (LID) abilities. For this purpose, we compile Babel-670, a benchmark comprising $670$ languages representing $23$ language families spoken in five continents. Languages in Babel-670 run the gamut from the very high-resource to the very low-resource. We then study ChatGPT's (both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) ability to (i) identify language names and language codes (ii) under zero- and few-shot conditions (iii) with and without provision of a label set. When compared to smaller finetuned LID tools, we find that ChatGPT lags behind. For example, it has poor performance on African languages. We conclude that current large language models would benefit from further development before they can sufficiently serve diverse communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".