arXiv AI October 1, 2026 By Ali Almutairi, Gelareh Mohammadi, Imran Razzak, Aditya Joshi

BARRAC: Adaptation of an English Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis Approach for Classification Tasks in Arabic Dialects

The paper introduces BARRAC, a method that adapts an English aspect‑based sentiment analysis framework for Arabic dialect classification tasks. It replaces English consumer‑review attribute pools with Arabic linguistic markers for sentiment, sarcasm, and dialect identification, and swaps noisy self‑training for a two‑stage training process. Evaluated on five Arabic dialect datasets, BARRAC achieves a mean macro‑F1 of 63.93%, surpassing the best few‑label state‑of‑the‑art by 3% and outperforming GPT‑4o on four of the five tasks, while error analysis highlights remaining challenges.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI

Jul 23

Language-Specific versus Cross-Lingual Knowledge Graphs for Implicit Aspect Identification in Arabic: A Comparative Study of Reasoning and Adaptation Strategies

arXiv:2607. 20056v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) in Arabic must recover both explicitly stated aspects and implicit aspects that are never named in the text.

By Lujain A. Alawwad

llms rag nlp fine-tuning benchmarks

arXiv Computation and Language

Sep 1

Generative Models Enhanced by Sequence Labelling and Aspect-Code Switching Improve Cross-lingual Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis

arXiv:2608.30425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-lingual aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) transfers knowledge from a source language with annotated data to a target language, enabling fine...

By Jakub \v{S}m\'{i}d, Pavel P\v{r}ib\'{a}\v{n}, Pavel Kr\'{a}l

nlp benchmarks

arXiv Computation and Language

Aug 28

Why Current XAI Is Not Enough for Arabic NLP: A Critical Survey of the Explainability Gap

The paper surveys the state of Explainable AI (XAI) in Arabic NLP, highlighting three gaps: a method gap where Arabic XAI relies mainly on limited post‑hoc techniques; a task gap with most work focused on classification tasks and little on generation, retrieval, or dialogue; and a linguistic gap where explanations rarely address Arabic‑specific phenomena such as morphology, dialects, and diglossia. It proposes a taxonomy of tasks, methods, linguistic units, and evaluation practices, and outlines a research agenda for linguistically grounded Arabic XAI.

By Salima Lamsiyah, Ruslan Mitkov

nlp multimodal

arXiv Machine Learning

Jul 7

SalAngaBhava: A Sinhala Market Dataset for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis

arXiv:2607. 05259v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sentiment analysis has been a primary domain under Natural Language Processing (NLP) from its inception as it plays a vital role in both real-world and research applications.

By Lakshani Galwatta, Nisansa de Silva, Sarangi Aththanayake, Adithya Galwatta

nlp benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

Sep 25

TTLab at StanceEval-2026: A Cloze-Style Prompting Approach for Arabic-Language Stance Detection (CLASP-Ar)

The paper introduces CLASP‑Ar, a cloze‑style prompting method for Arabic stance detection that replaces complex multitask learning and ensembles with a single masked language modeling prompt. By combining the target, predicted sentiment, and text into one prompt and constraining the [MASK] prediction to a verbalizer‑defined label set, the approach aims to simplify the task while maintaining performance.

By Bhuvanesh Verma, Ali Abusaleh, Alexander Mehler

llms benchmarks

arXiv AI

3d ago

TTLab at Daleel 2026: STAR-Ar, Sequence Tagging for Argument Recognition in Arabic

The paper introduces STAR‑Ar, a BERT‑BiLSTM‑CRF model designed for the Daleel 2026 Arabic argument mining shared task. It treats argument discourse unit detection and classification as a token‑level sequence labeling problem, achieving an F1‑score of 72.69 on validation and 73.7 on test data. Analysis shows that models trained only on editorial texts perform worse than those trained on debates, mainly due to the smaller editorial dataset.