Curriculum Learning and Pseudo-Labeling Improve the Generalization of Multi-Label Arabic Dialect Identification Models

Ali Mekky, Mohamed El Zeftawy, Lara Hassan, Amr Keleg, Preslav Nakov · Feb 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Being modeled as a single-label classification task for a long time, recent work has argued that Arabic Dialect Identification (ADI) should be framed as a multi-label classification task. However, ADI remains constrained by the availability of single-label datasets, with no large-scale multi-label resources available for training. By analyzing models trained on single-label ADI data, we show that the main difficulty in repurposing such datasets for Multi-Label Arabic Dialect Identification (MLADI) lies in the selection of negative samples, as many sentences treated as negative could be acceptable in multiple dialects. To address these issues, we construct a multi-label dataset by generating automatic multi-label annotations using GPT-4o and binary dialect acceptability classifiers, with aggregation guided by the Arabic Level of Dialectness (ALDi). Afterward, we train a BERT-based multi-label classifier using curriculum learning strategies aligned with dialectal complexity and label cardinality. On the MLADI leaderboard, our best-performing LAHJATBERT model achieves a macro F1 of 0.69, compared to 0.55 for the strongest previously reported system. Code and data are available at https://mohamedalaa9.github.io/lahjatbert/.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.