AraBench: Benchmarking Dialectal Arabic-English Machine Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-resource machine translation suffers from the scarcity of training data and the unavailability of standard evaluation sets. While a number of research efforts target the former, the unavailability of evaluation benchmarks remain a major hindrance in tracking the progress in low-resource machine translation. In this paper, we introduce AraBench, an evaluation suite for dialectal Arabic to English machine translation. Compared to Modern Standard Arabic, Arabic dialects are challenging due to their spoken nature, non-standard orthography, and a large variation in dialectness. To this end, we pool together already available Dialectal Arabic-English resources and additionally build novel test sets. AraBench offers 4 coarse, 15 fine-grained and 25 city-level dialect categories, belonging to diverse genres, such as media, chat, religion and travel with varying level of dialectness. We report strong baselines using several training settings: fine-tuning, back-translation and data augmentation. The evaluation suite opens a wide range of research frontiers to push efforts in low-resource machine translation, particularly Arabic dialect translation. The evaluation suite1 and the dialectal system2 are publicly available for research purposes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".