Papers for

multilingual ai service teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Languages impact accuracy in multilingual ai confidence checks

Disentangling Question, Response, and Verifier Languages in Multilingual P(True) Self-Evaluation

Abstract: When a language model is asked whether its own answer is correct, three languages are involved: that of the question, that requested for the answer, and that of the verifier instruction asking for the judgment. Multilingual confidence evaluations seldom separate the three. We vary them independently in a six-language factorial design with ten open-weight models (3B-14B) on LSQA, MMMLU and TriviaQA, holding each answer fixed across verifier languages and measuring confidence with a first-token P(True) probe. The three languages move different parts of the evaluation: which of them governs accuracy depends on the benchmark, matching the response language to the question or verifier language sharpens discrimination but not calibration, and the verifier language alone shifts calibration error by up to 0.04 without changing accuracy. The scorer matters as well: an unvalidated judge would have shrunk the MMMLU English-Hindi accuracy gap from 0.198 to 0.038. Multilingual confidence results, model rankings included, are therefore comparable only when all three languages are reported and the scorer is validated.

Fri 23 OctComputation and Language
The gist
When an AI model evaluates whether its answer is correct, three different languages are involved: the question's language, the answer's language, and the language of the instruction telling the AI to judge its answer. The authors studied how these three languages affect AI confidence scores by testing different combinations across six languages. They found that which language matters most depends on the type of test, and that changing the verifier language changes the AI's confidence but not accuracy. This means that to fairly compare AI models on multilingual confidence, all three languages and the evaluation method must be clearly reported.
Open → 2610.32144v1

Automated correction improves named entity recognition in low-resource languages

A Scalable Framework for Automated NER Annotation Correction in Low-Resource Languages

Abstract: Poor quality or noisy annotations in Named Entity Recognition (NER), as in any other NLP task, make it challenging to achieve state-of-the-art performance. In this paper, we present a multi-step framework to enhance the annotation quality of NER datasets by employing automated techniques. We propose a frequency-based iterative approach that leverages self-training and a dual-threshold mechanism to enhance inference confidence. Experimental evaluations on different NER datasets demonstrate significant improvements in NER performance with respect to the original datasets. This work further explores the potential of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform NER for low-resource languages.

Wed 16 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Named Entity Recognition (NER) systems often struggle when the data they learn from has mistakes. The authors created a step-by-step method that automatically fixes errors in these datasets, improving NER results. Their approach uses patterns in the data and confidence checks to clean up annotations. They also checked how well large language models can do NER in languages with limited data.
Open → 2609.18739v1