← Back to all news
arXiv Computation and Language By Clara Meister, Ahmetcan Yavuz, Pietro Lesci, Tiago Pimentel

What Language is This? Ask Your Tokenizer

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces UniLID, a lightweight language identification method that uses the UnigramLM tokenization algorithm to predict a string’s language by evaluating which language’s unigram distribution best explains the text. UniLID is data‑ and compute‑efficient, allows incremental addition of new languages without retraining, and can be integrated into existing tokenization pipelines. Experiments show competitive performance against baselines such as fasttext, GlotLID‑M, and CLD3, achieving 69% accuracy with five labeled samples per language and 89% with 25, and delivering significant gains on fine‑grained dialect identification.

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 Computation and Language.

Related stories

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

IndicTriMix: Developing Language Identification Datasets and Models for Tri-Language Code-Mixing

IndicTriMix presents a new benchmark and models for token‑level language identification in tri‑language code‑mixed text involving Hindi, Gujarati, and Bengali. The authors reformulate the task as sequence labeling and fine‑tune transformer models MuRIL and XLM‑RoBERTa, evaluating them on manually annotated test sets. They also introduce two code‑mixing generation methods using parallel sentences and release the datasets and fine‑tuned models for public use.

By Pruthwik Mishra, Rudra Trivedi, Avi Patel, Ashok Urlana, Shrikant Malviya
llmsragfine-tuningbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

Latent Core Tokenizer: Compress, but Meaningfully

The paper introduces the Latent Core Tokenizer (LCT), a language‑agnostic method that first discovers reusable linguistic units using Minimum Description Length, entropy‑based boundary signals, and morphotactic constraints before building a shared vocabulary. With a 200K‑token vocabulary across 104 languages, LCT shows lower fertility and higher MorphScore than BPE, Unigram, and parity‑aware BPE, while keeping tokenization cost comparable across languages. On four multilingual downstream benchmarks, LCT outperforms the baselines by 1.48, 1.83, and 2.00 aggregate points, demonstrating that compression alone does not guarantee representation quality and underscoring the role of morphology‑driven structural discovery.

By Felermino D. M. A. Ali, Millicent Ochieng, Ogbemi Ekwejunor-Etchie, Ade Famoti, Jacki O'Neill, Debjit Paul
nlpbenchmarks
More like this →