ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Cross-dialectal Arabic translation: comparative analysis on large language models.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exploring Arabic dialects in Natural Language Processing (NLP) is essential to understand linguistic variation and meet regional communication demands. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened up new vistas for multilingual communication and text generation. Methods: This paper investigates the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard (Gemini) on the QADI and MADAR datasets, while GPT-5 was evaluated exclusively on MADAR encompassing over 15 different countries. Several metrics have been used in the evaluation, such as cosine similarity, universal similarity encoder, sentence BERT, TER, ROUGE, and BLEU. In this study, different prompting techniques were used: zero-shot and few-shot. Zero-shot was employed for all dialects, and few-shot was employed only for the least translation performance dialect, Tunisian. Results: Analysis revealed that in the QADI dataset, GPT-4 significantly outperformed others in translating MSA to DA, with ANOVA tests showing strong significance ( Discussion: The few-shot approach did not show a significant improvement in translation performance, especially for GPT-4 and Bard (Gemini), while GPT-3.5 performed consistently. Zero-shot prompts were effective across dialects, while few-shot prompting, applied to the weakest-performing dialect (Tunisian), did not yield improvement. GPT-4 and Bard performed worse under this set-up, while GPT-3.5 remained consistent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.