arXiv:2608. 05104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep neural networks have shown impressive success in NLP tasks owing to their complex structure and huge number of edges.
arXiv:2608.12018v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Neural Machine Translation (NMT) and Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at cross-lingual tasks but often fail to capture intra-lingual morphologica...
arXiv:2605. 18331v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have experienced significant growth and development in recent years.
arXiv:2507. 01900v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pruning is a highly effective approach for compressing large language models (LLMs), significantly reducing inference latency.
arXiv:2606. 31718v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Relation extraction (RE) for low-resource languages is typically constrained by the lack of annotated corpora.
arXiv:2504.04342v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scaling up model parameters and training data consistently improves the performance of large language models (LLMs), but at the cost of rapidly gro...
arXiv:2605. 16928v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Long-context inference in large language models is bottlenecked by the quadratic cost of full attention.
arXiv:2609.06557v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often considered fragile under aggressive sparsification, and maintaining reliable performance typically requires stic...
The paper compares generative and encoder-based neural models for multilingual Named Entity Recognition (NER) across the eleven languages of the Naamapadam benchmark. Five classic model families, four decoder-only large language models fine‑tuned with LoRA and 4‑bit NF4 quantisation, and nine generative models in zero‑to‑5‑shot inference were evaluated under strict CoNLL span‑level metrics. Encoder-based models (mBERT and XLM‑R) achieved substantially higher F1 scores—up to 0.675 on Hindi—than any generative architecture, with gaps of 7.5–40 percentage points; the best few‑shot result reached only 28% of the encoder baseline. The study identifies three language clusters (encoder‑dominant, partial‑coverage, and failure‑zone) and offers deployment guidelines based on transfer learning and low‑resource NLP principles.
arXiv:2604.13287v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Weight pruning is a common technique for compressing large neural networks. We focus on the challenging post-training one-shot setting, where a pre...
arXiv:2609.12475v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Comprehensive benchmark suites are essential for improving large language models (LLMs), but many widely used benchmarks are redundant, making evaluati...
arXiv:2602. 01997v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent work has shown that layer pruning can effectively compress large language models (LLMs) while retaining strong performance on classification benchmarks, often with little or no finetuning.
arXiv:2609.09691v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When training data are limited, increasing parameter count is not the only way to improve language-model performance. A small parameter set, when repea...