PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

LAraBench: Benchmarking Arabic AI with Large Language Models

Abdelali, Ahmed, Mubarak, Hamdy, Chowdhury, Shammur Absar, Hasanain, Maram, Mousi, Basel, Boughorbel, Sabri, Kheir, Yassine El, Izham, Daniel, Dalvi, Fahim, Hawasly, Majd, Nazar, Nizi, Elshahawy, Yousseif, Ali, Ahmed, Durrani, Nadir, Milic-Frayling, Natasa, Alam, Firoj·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly influenced the landscape of language and speech research. Despite this progress, these models lack specific benchmarking against state-of-the-art (SOTA) models tailored to particular languages and tasks. LAraBench addresses this gap for Arabic Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Speech Processing tasks, including sequence tagging and content classification across different domains. We utilized models such as GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4, BLOOMZ, Jais-13b-chat, Whisper, and USM, employing zero and few-shot learning techniques to tackle 33 distinct tasks across 61 publicly available datasets. This involved 98 experimental setups, encompassing ~296K data points, ~46 hours of speech, and 30 sentences for Text-to-Speech (TTS). This effort resulted in 330+ sets of experiments. Our analysis focused on measuring the performance gap between SOTA models and LLMs. The overarching trend observed was that SOTA models generally outperformed LLMs in zero-shot learning, with a few exceptions. Notably, larger computational models with few-shot learning techniques managed to reduce these performance gaps. Our findings provide valuable insights into the applicability of LLMs for Arabic NLP and speech processing tasks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.14982

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ChatGPT exhibits lower performance compared to SOTA models in the zero-shot setting for most standard Arabic NLP tasks.

    “Abdelali et al. [1] evaluated the performance of ChatGPT in standard Arabic NLP tasks and observed that ChatGPT exhibits lower performance compared to SOTA models in the zero-shot setting for most tasks.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Abdelali, A., Mubarak, H., Chowdhury, S. A., Hasanain, M., Mousi, B., Boughorbel, S., Kheir, Y. E., Izham, D., Dalvi, F., Hawasly, M., Nazar, N., Elshahawy, Y., Ali, A., Durrani, N., Milic-Frayling, N., & Alam, F.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review