arXiv Computation and Language

Machine Translation between English and Syriac (East Syriac Dialect) using Statistical Machine Learning

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 28

BHARATI: Morphology-Aware Tokenizers for Classical Indian Languages with Subword Fertility Analysis

arXiv:2607. 23319v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard subword tokenization algorithms such as Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) and SentencePiece are trained predominantly on modern language corpora and produce inefficient segmentations when applied to classical Indian languages.

By Poornima Kumaresan, Pavithra Muruganantham, Lakshmi Rajendran, Santhosh Sivasubramani
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 11

Embedding Initialization for Unseen Low-resource Languages in Multilingual NMT: A Case Study on Limbum-English Translation

arXiv:2608. 07629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual neural machine translation models such as NLLB-200 cover 200 languages but leave thousands unsupported, including most Grassfields Bantu languages of Cameroon.

By Samiratu Ntohsi, Neza David Tuyishimire, Anesu Kafesu, Marvin Ogore, Samuel Oluwajunwonlo Babalola, Oche Ankeli
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

E-CONAN (Entailment, CONtradition And Neutral) Benchmarks: Arabic Textual Entailment and Natural Inference Datasets

E-CONAN introduces Arabic textual entailment and natural inference benchmarks comprising two datasets: E-CONAN-2 (2-way RTE) and E-CONAN-3 (3-way NLI). The datasets are built from automatically-translated pairs, human-validated machine translations, hand-crafted pairs from Arabic teaching books, and rumor-containing news headlines. The authors evaluated nine multilingual pretrained models and five large language models on these benchmarks, demonstrating that E-CONAN offers a more diverse and robust assessment than existing datasets like XNLI and ArNLI.

By Khloud AL Jallad, Nada Ghneim, Ghaida Rebdawi
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

Vectorizing Classical Tamil: Representation Learning for Verse-Commentary Pairs

The paper presents a corpus of 1,262 Classical Tamil verse‑commentary pairs and evaluates several neural representation learning models—including recurrent, Transformer, Siamese, mBART‑style encoder‑decoder, and decoder‑only language models—against a TF‑IDF baseline. Experiments reveal limited gains: token‑F1 scores range from 0.02 to 0.20, the encoder‑decoder continues to lower training loss even after validation loss rises, and the decoder‑only model only reproduces authentic word order in 95.5% of minimal‑pair tests but fails to generate held‑out commentary content. The authors release the extraction and evaluation protocol while noting that redistribution of the source commentaries requires permission.

By Amrit Gopinath, Sangeetha Sivanesan